PIC or SIC

[Rick1128]

You really need to deal with the FAA on a regular basis. When they can't agree on what you can and can' t, why should we agree? In talking with an ex-FAA lawyer, who worked out of the Washington HQ, I was told that the FAA's lawyers spend a majority of their time writing what are called 'Letters of Intrepretation' In these letters they either define the regulation or the phrasology of the regulation. So you will find that the regulations are not as cut and dried as they first appeared.

As for an interview, NO ONE is going to ask what A2 said they will. I have been on interview boards. I have reviewed resumes and logbooks. If your resume said you were a KA90 co-pilot for XYZ Corporation and the company when called confirmed that fact. The only thing I am going to do, like almost all interviewers is to find out if you were a seat warmer or really did the job. In other words do you know the aircraft and the job. If so, no problem. If you're a seat warmer, your out of luck. And I have found seat warmers that had time in Lears, Metro's, etc, which require two pilots. Needless to say they didn't get the job.

The interview process is where they wed out those pilots who just showed up for work, talked on the radio and took care of the passengers. All they are is seat wamers.

Rjet, you're the one who has to live with your actions. With your talking with the FAA, you did what the lawyers call 'due diligence'. You were not sure, asked questions of the people who should know and went from there. I suggest you do what you are comfortable with.

On a professional note. I sugget that when ever to talk with the Feds, write what is called a "Memo for Record". Create a file and keep it. In it note the person's name, office, date, time, location and what was said. I also note my personal thoughts, observations and opinions. I also keep copies of every letter I write to the FAA and that I receive from them. I have written my personal memo, right in front of them. Be aware they do the same thing. Level the playing field a little.

As for the DC-6 question, YIP and MIA.

 

[A Squared]

Rick



>>>>I was told that the FAA's lawyers spend a majority of their time writing what are called 'Letters of Intrepretation'

Yes, I am aware of letters of interpretation, I've read more than a few. THey are very useful for clarifying unclear or ambiguous regulations. The thing is, 61.51(f) isn't unclear at all.It very clearly states that an SIC must be required by the aircraft's type certificate of by the regulations.

>>>>So you will find that the regulations are not as cut and dried as they first appeared.

I would be willing to wager that if you asked 100 FAA lawyers if "required by the regulations" means "required by company policy" or "required by my insurance policy", all 100 would respond with an emphatic "NO".

Your observations about due dilligence are alright, as far as that goes, but, If you will go back and read RJETs original post, you will see that he was told that he could not log SIC time in a single pilot airplane, just as I have been saying. Due dilligence isn't much of a defense if you have acted in direct contradiction of the information you were given.


>>>>>As for an interview, NO ONE is going to ask what A2 said they will.

Well, that's a pretty broad statement. I beleive that you are making the mistake of taking what *You* would or wouldn't do, and projecting it to the world in general. From the little I know of you, you're probably a pretty reasonable man. I wouldn't expect you to jerk someone around on this issue, but then, nor would I expect you to jerk someone around about a single minor traffic violation. The thing is, not all people are like you. For whatever reason, the guy I knew *DID* have some idiot at his United interview, very confrontationally demanding to know why he thought societies rules didn't apply to him, all over one minor traffic infraction. It's not a stretch at all to suggest that this same idiot would jack someone around over some SIC time that wasn't quite by the regulations. I don't know if this guy was just an A$$hole, or this is part of United's interview games, or what, but this type of behavior is real. I'm sure that you don't conduct interviews this way, but that doesn't mean that other companies don't.

Your advice about documenting conversations with memos is right on.

>>>>>As for the DC-6 question, YIP and MIA.


Zantop? Trans-Continental? Universal?

regards

 

[Timebuilder]

My information about part 1 PIC versus part 61 PIC comes from a captain who has regularly served on the hiring board for Continental. They believe that part 1 is a higher standard than the part 61 definition. He was very emphatic to me about the appropriatness of time logged. According to him, his comapny wants to see only proper, legally logged flight time for PIC and SIC. For example, he told me very specifically that in order to show him SIC time from a single pilot aircraft, he wanted to be certain that the ops specs showed that requirement for an SIC. A good example of this is the AirNet program.

If you stick with the regs a much as possible, you can rarely go astray. The ability to do something without gettin violated may speak volumes to an interviewer about your character. Some employers still care about that.