I hate to ask ... Logging KA90/200 right-seat Pt 91 ...

[apcooper]

All right here's the scoop. You can LOG PIC if you have a ME rating and are the sole manipulator. Simple. To log PIC you don't need to be current, have a high altitude endorsement, or be the designated PIC by the company. You only need a high alt end, currency and all the other jazz to ACT as PIC.

 

[minitour]

and have a service ceiling above 25,000.

or maximum operating altitude...whichever is lower


apcooper...good call

-mini

 

[Workin'Stiff]

Way to be on top of the little details, CFI!

All in good fun...

 

[minitour]

All in good fun...

exactly

 

[Workin'Stiff]

All right here's the scoop. You can LOG PIC if you have a ME rating and are the sole manipulator. Simple. To log PIC you don't need to be current, have a high altitude endorsement, or be the designated PIC by the company. You only need a high alt end, currency and all the other jazz to ACT as PIC.

Good luck explaining your way out of that one in an interview. "How did you log PIC in a KA200 and we see that you didn't have a high alt endorsement???" It won't look good in the future. It's much better to have the proper endorsement for the equipment your flying.

I'm not sure what your eventual aviation aspirations are, Snakum, but if your loggin PIC in this aircraft, you better be able to talk about the aircraft from a "PIC" stance. This was fair game in several interviews that I've had, for any larger aircraft that I logged PIC in.

Food for thought...

 

[A Squared]

Good luck explaining your way out of that one in an interview. "How did you log PIC in a KA200 and we see that you didn't have a high alt endorsement???" It won't look good in the future. It's much better to have the proper endorsement for the equipment your flying.

It is probably better to be fully PIC qualified before logging PIC, but it is not a regulatory requirement. The only requirement is to be *rated* in the aircraft, ie: hold a MEL land rating in this case. Personally, I have some reservations about logging PIC when you are not the actual PIC, but that's just my *opinon*, the *fact* is that it is perfectly legal.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

I totally agree with you there. And like you, I take a very practical and, maybe, conservative stance on logging PIC. It makes things less hairy in the future.

 

[apcooper]

Just thought of this. Do any of you have two seperate logbooks that are slightly different. One for the PIC time you legally can log and stuff in the remarks section like "Mile high club Baron 58" among other stuff that is solely for a legal requirement and a second logbook for flights that only look good in the eyes of your future employer that are clean and only have PIC time in them as defined as the person responsible for the flight?

 

[Snakum]

Enjoy the ride, sniff the jetA, and quit trying to pad your book.

I write the totals in pencil so I can make changes if I screw up the math, moron. There's always gotta be one nutsack in the bunch, eh?

For everyone else ... thanks for the input. We squared it away last night. If it happens ... ME dual received until ME checkride, PIC on my legs after ME ride and company training, which means be ready for grilling on the aircraft in later interviews. The aircraft manager and left-seat honcho doesn't want it any other way, and I agree there's really no way to legally log anything else, unless I want 100 hours of ME dual, and I'm pretty sure I don't.

Minh

BTW ... the high alt endorsement goes without saying. It's part of the co. training.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Another thing to consider. As per 61.31(g), you better have a high-altitude endorsement to log PIC in either the KA90 or 200. Both are pressurized aircraft and have a service ceiling above 25,000.

So what?

Logging 101. The rules of acting as PIC and the rules of logging PIC are different.

61.31 doesn't have =anything= to do with writing numbers in the PIC column of your logbook while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand. 61.31 has to do with being ultimately responsible for a flight,

Unless 61.51 sends you there, pointing to =any= FAR other than 61.51 is irrelevant to a logging discussion.