Is This PFT?

[Bruin-Flyer]

I was wondering if it was PFT if someone pays to sit right seat and log SIC time in a twin piston that only requires one crewmember?

I understand that this topic arises frequently and I don't ever wish to PFT.....but this is exactly why I am asking the question....so I don't do it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

It's not really PFT, because if it is only a single pilot airplane, you can bet the company would not pay a pilot who is not needed in that seat. Thus, the right seat does not represent a lost job opportunity.

That being said, you are not really getting any "bang for your buck". First of all, the only way you can log SIC time is if the company is a Part 135 operation who has the option of using an SIC, and the SIC has taken a checkride.

Second, no interviewer is going to give a whole lot of weight to 300 hours of SIC in a Navajo or similar aircraft. You would be better off giving multi-engine instruction until you can get PIC qualified to fly twins.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[350DRIVER]

I was wondering if it was PFT if someone pays to sit right seat and log SIC time in a twin piston that only requires one crewmember?

This is probably one of the best examples of PFT that there is. You would be "paying'' for X amount of hours to "rent" a right seat out in some aircraft that does not require a sic to be onboard. If you think that this is not PFT then maybee I can sell you my story on how I saw Elvis last week at the local 7/11 drinking a strawberry shake. Ameriflight & Eagle Jet Intl' are well known for taking part in these programs, my advice would be to stay as far away from this as you can.

I understand that this topic arises frequently and I don't ever wish to PFT.....but this is exactly why I am asking the question....so I don't do it.

The answer is very plain and simple, it it PFT in every way, shape, and form. It lowers the bar because the company is making money off of you versus them paying you to occupy a seat, not a very wise thing to do....


Instruct, fly banners, tow gliders, traffic watch, etc, etc, whatever it takes. If you do something along these lines it will possibly come back and bite you in the a$$ down the line during some interview..



3 5 0

 

[labbats]

If you're asking if it's PFT, it probably is.

 

[de727ups]

I don't think so...

In my view, it's not PFT cause you are not sitting in a seat that would normally be occupied by a paid crewmember. Gulfstream is the kind of PFT that is bad for the industry. SIC time in a plane that doesn't normally require an SIC is really more about putting time in the logbook that gaining valuable experience and there are those who look down on that sort of thing.

 

[bobbysamd]

Not exactly, but it may as well be . . .

I was wondering if it was PFT if someone pays to sit right seat and log SIC time in a twin piston that only requires one crewmember?

The generally-accepted test of P-F-T is twofold:

(1) An employee must remit payment to the employer to defray the cost of his/her training as a condition of employment; and

(2) The training is specific and esoteric to that company only and does not lead to a certificate, rating or operating privilege which can be marketed elsewhere.

Your situation fails the first test because you are not being being employed by the twin's operator (are you?). It fails the second test because you are just sitting in the right seat and have received no training. Therefore, in the strict sense, it is not P-F-T.

Although you're not remitting payment for training, you are renting a seat in the airplane and you are not a required crewmember. Therefore, although you're learning quite a bit, and that can be beneficial, and it is not strictly P-F-T, the time you log very well may be questionable.

Conclusion. It is not P-F-T. The scheme really amounts to you paying to be a passenger in that airplane.

I, for one, would have learned a lot by riding. But, I wouldn't use it as a scheme to build multi hours. It very well could be a beneficial scheme for making a contact that could lead to a legitimate job and legitimate multi hours. I don't think it's worth paying for, though.

Hope that helps.

 

[350DRIVER]

Conclusion. It is not P-F-T. The scheme really amounts to you paying to be a passenger in that airplane.

He is still paying for his training as well as being a passenger since without the training he would not be "qualified" to be in that seat. Many 135 operators will list in the ops specs that a sic is required to be onboard thus he would have to go through the inhouse company training program, checkride, etc, and that surely is part of the "costs'' so it surely would be PFT. Take a look at Eagle Jet Intl. and the companies that they are tied in with (most 135), you pay them X amount of dollars, go to training, rent the seat out for a predetermined amount of hours, then you are on the street. PFT

Only scenario that would validate your above statement would be if it was a 91 operator and the right seat guy solely paid just for the "flight hours" and nothing else. Take a look at Ameriflight and some of the others, "t r a i n i n g " is part of the program costs.

3 5 0

 

[Fly BI]

Two cents

If you're willing to pay for SIC in a twin, why not just find one in the area and rent it? Take it on some cross countrys and log PIC time? Seems logical to me.

 

[Fly BI]

...one more thing

I left out something....

Get a multi engine rating first. I didn't look at your profile before I spouted off. Best of luck to you.

 

[flynryan15]

Valuable!!!!!!!!!!!111

There is nothing more valuable to your resume then Sic time in a piston aircraft.