Logging SIC in Pilatus?

[Lead Sled]

Hiring Interview Dialog...

I hate to say it, but if a pilot showed up at our place looking for work with a bunch of single-engine SIC time in his logbook the interview would probably go a little like this:

ME: What makes you qualified for our position?
HIM: I've got over 2000 hours, including (INSERT ANY AMOUNT) hours of second in command time in a (INSERT ANY SEL AIRCRAFT - PISTON OR TURBINE).
ME: Oh really, well thanks for dropping by. We'll give your resume all of the consideration that it deserves.

[Sound of candidate walking out of the room and the door closing.]

ME: ROTFLMAO as I feed the resume into the paper shredder.

Personally, I would value any single-engine turboprop PIC time - it's not as good as PIC ME turbine or piston time, but good none the less. But SIC time in ANY single-engine airplane? I'm sorry, but it's worthless - perhaps even damaging to your credibility - even if you could log it legally. But hey, that's just me.

'Sled

 

[FlyFlyFly]

It really is a shame that in the future there will be a lot of young pilots turned away for having perfectly legitimate time in their books, turned away by folks that don't understand the regs.

I stand corrected on the legality of logging the time.

However,

FWIW- I know the CP's at a couple of "dream job" PT.91 Dept's. None of them put much value on SIC time in a Pilatus, King Air, CJ or other "single pilot" aircraft, regardless of the regs.

I have to say that the above sentiment is my own as well.

 

[prpjt]

I was just replying to the legal aspect of never being able to log PC12 SIC.

I think we're all in agreement as far as the time being worthless.

But having the time in their logbook is far from shady or illegal. It is what it is. Warm body time.

And now that I read the full thread, I think the OP mentioned it being part 91, which may in fact put it in the shady catagory.

 

[Geronimo4497]

I fly for the Planesense program (operated by Alpha Flying). 91.1031 states that each program manager must designate, among other things, a second in command for each program flight requiring two pilots.

Now, our ops specs calls for a two pilot crew, so we are required to have one on all PROGRAM legs.

As for SIC SE turbine time being useless in an interview, I would tend to agree, but that reg allowed me to log enough SIC time so that I could upgrade to "Captain" and obtain my ATP (SE, of course :crying.

Great company, and really comfy "front office" seats!

EDIT: I could not find it earlier: 91.1049(d) specifies that "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when any program aircraft is flown in program operations with passengers onboard, the crew must consists of at least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the program manager or the fractional owner."

Whether or not this gives PC12 SIC anymore value is up for (heated?) debate is one story, but in the FAA's eyes, this is not "shady" time when operating under 91K.

-Rant over.

 

[j41driver]

.....

 

[BushwickBill]

I was told by an insurance company today that in order to fly as PIC of a 208B I would need to log 50 hours of SIC time in the airplane. I was thinking to myself what a crock. I wanted to tell the guy there is no such thing as SIC caravan time. The type cert is single pilot. Anyhow the insurance company wanted me to take the flight safety course and then log 50 hours of SIC time in a 208B before I could act as PIC. This whole issue is driven by insurance.