How does UPS prefer mil PIC to be calculated?

[tkr-toad]

In this career where much is black and white, I find it interesting how there is so much variation and interpretation in this arena. I've read all about Part 1 and 61 and conversion factors and student time, etc.

Still, I'd like some guidance and how to best present to UPS PIC time for a military applicant. I have only my Flying History Report.

I am thinking of this: Take my total time (primary, secondary, instructor, and other) following AC upgrade (no copilot time) and subtract the "other" time. Then, to be conservative, apply some kind of percentage to account for all that time that neither the AF nor I kept track of when someone else had the "A" code because we had more than one AC or IP aboard and we spread the wealth, so to speak. At an experienced guard/reserve unit that could be 50% but I don't know of anyone who uses that (more like 80-90%). And then, there's the question of whether to apply the .3/sortie factor in the end.

In other words, [(AC/IP Total Time - Other Time)*.8] *(number of sorties * 0.3)
Is that beyond reproach?
If this belongs in Military Transition, let me know. Thanks in advance

 

[Captain Morgan]

I can't believe that anyone would be picky about it. I mean really, you're military. I would think they wouldn't even ask questions... "You're hired!"


CM

 

[tkr-toad]

Not so fast...
There's two in my unit in the last year who have interviewed yet not get hired. So, pardon my reluctance to rest on my laurels and instead go about this the right way (and yes, I understand most don't pore over logbooks the way some used to).

 

[BiffF15]

• Pilot in Command, per FAR 1.1, means the person who:
  • Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
  • Has been designated as the pilot in command before or during the flight;
  • Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight

This is right off the UPS website. I would make a spreadsheet that has your numbers broke out to fit the above definition. I used a 30/60/90 day look back sheet with my totals attached. You will need to be able to answer how you arrived at your totals and they should be with in an hour or two of what's on your application (app rounds off, while you probably won't on your spreadsheet so they just need to be close). And yes, during the interview it is looked over very closely. As always be conservative if there is any doubt. Good luck!

 

[Fedora]

I find it hard to believe that you don't have the hours to qualify coming out of the military unless you were flying fighters with very short legs.
I wouldn't do anything that looks like "padding" the numbers. Why not just take in your computer printout of all your flight time and a few notes here and there about type aircraft totals?
I'm sure they've seen plenty of them. Multipliers give me the willies. They know that you have to taxi out and in, and I'm sure that they take that into consideration. Be honest and straightforward. They are looking for folks of good moral character. If you have to fuss with the numbers to get the minimum, you might not make it anyway. Just be able to stand by the numbers that you give them. Keep it simple.
Just my .02 worth, and I've got chief pilot experience under my belt.
Good luck to you!

 

[coho92]

For the resume - Total time = total time on flying history report, SIC = MC time - other time, PIC = IP time + EP time (when holding A code) + MP time (primary + secondary + (.85*other)[I used this as I had a lot of augmented crews as a basic MP]) = PIC. Add up MC & MP night, instrument, pri sim instrument. All told had 200 hours Part 121 carrier in a jepp log book and 4850 mil total, 3700 PIC. I think there is an additive per sortie (.2?) to add to total. After all that work, the combined time spent looking at my logbook and flying history report was somewhere in the regeion of 6.7 nanoseconds, and then on to the TMAAT and WWYD if x occurs. Good Luck.

 

[coho92]

Rereading Biffs (T**F) no offense biff - looks like they may be taking a harder look than when I went through