Low Time FO's

[avbug]

I bow down to your clearly superior intellect.

For someone who finds the regulation difficult to understand, in clear, concise, plain English, this is little wonder. It should also be an embarassment to you, as we're not talking rocket science. Have you considered taking some community ed classes in remedial reading and comnprehension? This may alleviate your need to bow, and who knows but that it might actually prevent you from getting yourself violated. Understanding the regulation is important in this business.

Then again, so is being able to read and understand the English language...it's even printed on your pilot certificate. Have you looked?

 

[deadstick]

The OP was asking about 61.159(a)(4) and the 250 PIC. The answer is not in the "SIC performing the duties of...", but in 6.159(c) and (d)

61.159 (c) A commercial pilot may credit the following second-in-command flight time or flight-engineer flight time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) Second-in-command time, provided the time is acquired in an airplane—

(i) Required to have more than one pilot flight crewmember by the airplane's flight manual, type certificate, or the regulations under
which the flight is being conducted;
(ii) Engaged in operations under subpart K of part 91, part 121, or part 135 of this chapter for which a second in command is required; or
(iii) That is required by the operating rules of this chapter to have more than one pilot flight crewmember.
​

(d) An applicant may be issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the endorsement, “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” as prescribed by Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, if the applicant:

(1) Credits second-in-command or flight-engineer time under paragraph (c) of this section toward the 1,500 hours total flight time requirement of paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Does not have at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command time and none of his or her flight-engineer time; and (PIC+0.5*SIC < 1200)
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.​

 

[avbug]

The answer is both, actually.

SIC time may be used in lieu of PIC time, but with the caveats applied by 61.159(a)(4), and 61.159(c)(1), and is subject to the limitations of 61.159(d), and must meet the requirements of 61.159(e) to seek relief from those limitations.

In a nutshell, SIC time used to meet the requirement of 61.159(a)(4) must:
A. Be under supervision
B. Performing the duties of PIC
C. In an airplane that requires more than one crewmember by either the regulation or type certificate


Whereas the original poster was specifically asking about 61.159(a)(4), then 61.159(c) is only germane with respect to qualifying the time, which applies specifically not to the entire 1,500 hours, but to the 250 hours in airplanes.

 

[ultrarunner]

Hopefully when the dust settles, the ability to use SIC time to fulfill a PIC hourly requirement for a rating will be GONE!

 

[avbug]

There's no reason for that to be the case. The regulation makes sense and is reasonable.

 

[ultrarunner]

I disagree....the sooner we get more qualified pilots sitting up front, the sooner we'll rid ourselves of accidents like BUF. IMHO, there is NO reason NOT to have both persons up front with actual command experience. Had either of the pilots that night been sitting next to someone competent, we wouldn't be discussing this.

ATP and command experience to even apply. I'm ok with that. And the sooner that happens, the sooner I can stop booking myself and my family around the regional carriers.

 

[Metro752]

I disagree....the sooner we get more qualified pilots sitting up front, the sooner we'll rid ourselves of accidents like BUF. IMHO, there is NO reason NOT to have both persons up front with actual command experience. Had either of the pilots that night been sitting next to someone competent, we wouldn't be discussing this.

ATP and command experience to even apply. I'm ok with that. And the sooner that happens, the sooner I can stop booking myself and my family around the regional carriers.

So for example a guy with 1500 hours in C-130s/C5s/whatever, including dozens of combat missions, but maybe 150 hours PIC, shouldn't be an FO with an ATP on a turbo-prop like a Beech 1900, or Saab 340?

This entire thread has nothing to do with either pilot on the Colgan flight in buffalo. Both had the "experience" you desire........ on paper.

 

[ultrarunner]

I see your point in the above example, but on the military side, you'll have those issues. On the civi side, most folks with 1500 plus hours that DID NOT get hired directly out of a pilot-factory, would typically have some command experience.

But you're right, the thread was about a reg, and that's been answered...

I'll move along...

 

[papanovember]

There's no reason for that to be the case. The regulation makes sense and is reasonable.

Tell that to the people (me) who knew someone on 3407. Marvin Renslow had no business in the left seat of any airplane yet alone a airliner. He had a few thousand hours total time but never had real PIC time before upgrading at the airlines.

 

[avbug]

That would be a failure on the part of the personnel administering PRIA, and of the training department, to say nothing of Mr. Renslow. Not the regulation.

PIC or otherwise, the regulation does require performance of the duties of PIC under supervision. Further, even if one were to have the 250 hours of PIC in airplanes, the rest could be helicopters or another category...and still be legitimate and legal.

The airline environment that upgrades on seniority and not upon merit of ability or talent is largely to blame for funneling people into positions where they can hurt others. Don't blame the regulation.

An ongoing, active investigation, and you've got all the answers, do you? Speculation is improper. Particularly irrelevant and wild accusations such as yours.

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

If I were king for a day.......

I still say that anyone operating in the Part 121 world needs an ATP.

Don't see it changing, but it should be this way. If it does change then it would effect all personal that would be hired after the effective date. So, the current FOs working within the 121 community would not need to have one. But if someone had the requirements met then they could test for an ATP. Of course, I would want to see the requirements stay as is and not see a decrease in the hour requirement just to have more ATPs running around.

Airline pilots (regardless of seat) should have an ATP, period!! To practice law a lawyer must have taken and passed the bar. A doctor must have a license to treat. We all know that other professions require a license reflecting a high standard and completion of said standard. So why not our profession since we claim to be professionals and waited to be treated as such? We should be fighting to make high standards for ourselves and presenting a positive image of our profession. If we don't expect set the bar higher then who will?

 

[Smarta$$]

Me too. But the "silver lining" is that after the Colgan crash, the days of hiring "unqualified" pilots for 121 ops is long gone. No more applicants getting hired with 188 total time, 14 hours multi, and a heart beat. Thank God that the changes are being made as we speak. The ONLY place for a pilot with 188 hours is flight instructing, banner towing, traffic watch, or gaining experience in the right seat of an aircraft that DOES NOT require 2 pilots. (except for insurance req.)

You mean the guy with anti Obama propoganda is calling for government regulation? I thought the free market would decide everything.

Your STILL an idiot.

 

[Paradoxus]

Your STILL an idiot.

Ah, yes.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

I still say that anyone operating in the Part 121 world needs an ATP.

Don't see it changing, but it should be this way. If it does change then it would effect all personal that would be hired after the effective date. So, the current FOs working within the 121 community would not need to have one. But if someone had the requirements met then they could test for an ATP. Of course, I would want to see the requirements stay as is and not see a decrease in the hour requirement just to have more ATPs running around.

Airline pilots (regardless of seat) should have an ATP, period!! To practice law a lawyer must have taken and passed the bar. A doctor must have a license to treat. We all know that other professions require a license reflecting a high standard and completion of said standard. So why not our profession since we claim to be professionals and waited to be treated as such? We should be fighting to make high standards for ourselves and presenting a positive image of our profession. If we don't expect set the bar higher then who will?

If that passes, it will put airlines out of business when the next hiring boom comes along. When mainline starts hiring, people are going to leave. If we can't replace them fast enough, we have to drop flying/cancel flights, and before long, mainline gets pissed.

If is passes, there will be amendments and exceptions made 2 months after the next hiring boom gets rolling, and airlines start feeling a squeeze.

We are in for a big surprise, even without this law. There will be a shortage. The enrollments are way way down at flight schools, and things will turn around eventually.

 

[Tarzan]

Ah, yes.

It is quite amusing though.