PIC vs. signing for aircraft

[Hugh Jorgan]

If you don't get the interview, it is a moot point. Keep two colums.

Worse yet...you do get the interview and they take a look at your logbook and start frowning.

Two columns...yes.

 

[Snoopy58]

As was explained by one who looks at logbooks when he does interviews:

If a logbook looks like this:
1.5 PIC
1.5 SIC
2.3 PIC
2.3 SIC
1.4 PIC
1.4 SIC
...
1.5 PIC
1.8 PIC
1.3 PIC
2.7 PIC

then as far as he is concerned, the time logged as PIC when every other leg is SIC, while perfectly legal by FAR 61, and arguably legal by FAR 1 and by SWA's web site for how they want time reported, is NOT "the guy in charge & responsible for the aircraft." Until you're logging EVERY leg PIC (even the ones you aren't sole manipulator), you are NOT in charge of the aircraft!

Now, for a guy who has 3000 hours TPIC & the first 700 of it is one leg PIC, one leg SIC, it's no big deal, because for 2300 hours the guy HAS been running the show & making the decisions when things get tough. HOWEVER, if somebody shows up at the interview with 1200 hours TPIC, and the first 700 of it looks like this, well, then things get sticky. The interviewer then has to wonder if this candidate REALLY has the experience it will take to be successful out on the line.

Everybody can read FAR 61 and FAR 1 and the various airlines' websites as far as what you put down on the app goes. But, when a place wants 1000 hours of "YOU DA MAN in charge of a turbine-powered aerospace machine," the time that you sat in the left seat manipulating the controls with the real boss in the right seat running the radios & making the decisions isn't really what they're looking for.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Snoopy,

Very well said. Why is this so dificult to understand???

 

[kingairip]

AIRinc has an intelligent article on their guestframe regarding this subject. It's called "Clearing the Air on Logging PIC Time." Here's a link:
http://www.jet-jobs.com/guestframe.html

From there, you'll find it under "Free Samples - Career Articles."

It may be hard to swallow, but it looks like Hugh, Sheriff, dogg, Snoopy et al are absolutely correct.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think the answer is this: they are not interested in who can "legally log" PIC time.

They ARE interested in WHO WAS PIC.

And that difference is clear, isn't it?

Its FAR 1.

 

[Hawker rider]

you can truly log whatever you want. No big deal.

Once you get through an interview and the experienced recruiters will immediatly see during a simulator ride if the hours that you state in your application are true hours and not made up.

If you happen to log a lot of PIC time but can't make a sound decision stick....... well you get my drift.

There is also such a thing as not telling the truth on an application/resume that you use to get a job. If the company finds out that you did not use truthfull information they have the right to terminate you at will.

Be carefull what you log though, it'll stay with you for the rest of your career.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

who gets the PIC credit in a flight instructing environment? The person logging dual given or the one logging dual recieved?
What about when the student is PIC because the instructor can't be PIC? (expired medical, ect.)

 

[enigma]

Here's the question boys and girls:

I recently completed and passed my 135 PIC checkride in the King Air. As a result I now fly (pilot flying) from the Left seat on every other leg.

This sentence would seem to indicate that your company is a 135 operator. If so, one of the two pilots is designated as PIC by the certificate holder. You shouldn't log PIC if the other guy is the designated PIC.

Now, I know I can legally log these legs as PIC. But I'm not a "company captain" yet and, as such, I don't sign for the flight, although I legally could.

Why did the company give you a 135PIC ride if they were not going to utilize you as a PIC? How could you be a 135 PIC, but not yet have been made a "company Captain"?

In the eyes of airlines and other future employers--is my left seat PIC time really not PIC time?

In the eyes of the airlines, and most employers, there can only be one PIC on a flight. If the other guy is the certificate designated PIC, that leaves you with NO airline acceptable PIC.

If my current employer blessed me with the title of "co-captain" would that make a difference?

NO, the airlines want to see the time in which you were the final authority for the operation of the aircraft, and in which you were the responsible party.

Some have said that you need two columns in your logbook, I agree. Except that I wouldn't bother to log any time as PIC in which there was a designated PIC aboard. To do so raises way too many questions in an interview. The quickest way to get turned down is to have an appearance of deception. Don't gamble your career on a few lousy KingAir hours. Have you tried to get the company to designate you PIC for Part 91 legs?

I would advise you to work hard, and convince your boss that you deserve to be given the official Captain designation. If the boss is a good guy, he should be willing to give you the designation every once in a while. If he doesn't give you the time, it should tell you something. To bolster this point let me give you the example of an airline flight in which a management pilot, say the CP, has to cover for an ill FO. The originally scheduled Captain stays Captain, the CP logs SIC. I.E., the highest qualified (assuming that the CP is in fact the highest qualified) need not be the PIC and it is perfectly acceptable for the original Captain to log PIC even when flying with his CP.

BTW, this is all coming from a pilot who screwed up his first best chance at SWA because of almost the same problem. In my case, it was all part 91 with no designated Captain. I was a true co-Captain. Meaning that everyone was typed and the owner held both pilots equally responsible. But the airlines just don't like that kind of time.

good luck,
enigma

 

[captb]

Far part 1 defines pic as person signing for the aircraft.
Far part 61 defines pic as person who is typed flying. Some airlines want part 1 while others don't care. I keep a record of both and depending what that specific airline wants, that's what they get.

Like everything else, you have to play their game.

 

[enigma]

Like everything else, you have to play their game.

Exactly. I wish that I had just kept two seperate log books. One for the Feds and airlines who accept part 61 definitions, and another for the airlines who want part 1 time.

Just remember, whatever you do, don't do anything that a potential aviation employer might possibly be able to construe as dishonest or deceptive, with the realization that flight logs are the first place they look for deception and dishonesty.

good luck to all,
enigma

 

[Brett Hull]

Re: Re: PIC vs. signing for aircraft

BTW, this is all coming from a pilot who screwed up his first best chance at SWA because of almost the same problem. In my case, it was all part 91 with no designated Captain. I was a true co-Captain. Meaning that everyone was typed and the owner held both pilots equally responsible. But the airlines just don't like that kind of time.

good luck,
enigma

Enigma,

Would you care to elaborate on what Southwest had to say about your time, and what you did differently for your Spirit interview? I'm in the same position - part 91, one airplane, 3 pilots. Whoever's buttcheeks are in the left seat on that particular leg is PIC, part 1 and 61.

Thanks, and check your PM's!

 

[Dep676]

Re: Big difference

Call a FSDO anonymously if you have specific questions. They can actually be helpful with stuff like that and they don't make you give your name.

Good luck!

I tried this once and got the response "That is a legal question and I am not a lawyer. You would have to call a lawyer about that." That was right from the mouth of the FAA pinhead. I believe it was our POI. I did not give a name or anything about our company either.

I called and asked a question about logging time in a Conquest and a King Air. So I guess you could call but you might not get an answer.

 

[AA717driver]

What a bunch of anal retentive bulls**t!

While flyboy is trying to decipher all this, some guy who logged all his left seat time as PIC just got the job!

Were you all members of the Riddle Flight Team? Talk about splitting hairs.

Enigma has it right. If you are concerned, keep two sets of books.

flyboy--You passed a 135 ride with your company. You can AND should log PIC time in the left seat. If they trust you to fly the plane with pax on board, LOG IT!

Life is short. Get a seniority number!TC

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Re: PIC vs. signing for aircraft

Enigma,

Would you care to elaborate on what Southwest had to say about your time, and what you did differently for your Spirit interview? I'm in the same position - part 91, one airplane, 3 pilots. Whoever's buttcheeks are in the left seat on that particular leg is PIC, part 1 and 61.

Thanks, and check your PM's!

I've detailed it numerous times on this and the old format flightinfo bbs. They will never tell you why they didn't select you. However, my rejection letter was highly irregular, and came after I took the drug test....at a time when they didn't give the drug test until after they had made the hiring decision. Basically, I called the PD to make sure that the letter was correct and was offered a post interview interview (with Stephanie Scaggs)with no chance of hire. They said that they occasionally gave them in an effort to check up on their process. I accepted because I thought that it might enable me to succeed the next time around.

All she would say about my specific case was "get some real PIC" and try again in two years.

The problem turned out be that my then supervisor, a Part91 business card CP, had called the PD and badgered them about the amount of time it was taking to give me an answer. (BTW, he admitted this to me the very day he called them, two days before I received the letter) He apparently cast some doubt on my PIC in that conversation. I was in the same situation as the person who started this string, only worse being part 91, in that I had been typed by the company three years before my interview, but hadn't been given a business card that read "Captain" until two years after the type rating. The boss had actually written me down in company logs as PIC, BEFORE I was even typed because I was the one in the left seat. BTW, this operation was a division of a corporation that everone here is aware of. I add that to explain that his prior practice indicated that he considered me PIC in ever respect.

But, he said something that SWA took wrong. I was able to get the PIC "problem" verified about a year later by some of my SWA friends.

Here's the bottom line. I passed the interview (March 1998) and all of the background checks and made it far enough to take a piss test. In other words, I had gone face to face with the SWA hiring people and they were ready to bring me on, until a Part91 Chief Pilot made an essentially anonymous phone call. If my previous job had been with a 135 operator where my PIC was without question, I'd be about number 2100 at SWA today.

But, no problem. Everything happens for a reason (I just wish I knew the reason ) and I will try once again later this year. In the mean time, I've got a decent job with a company that succeeds in spite of itself, therefore we might have a chance at longterm success. It's a good place to be , considering the rest of the industry.

I'm tired of typing, sorry.

regards,
enigma

PS, the rejection letter was irregular because the first paragraph said (paraphrased) "thanks for applying, but you currently do not meet our qualifications. When you reach our mins, please apply" and the second paragraph said, "Thanks for interviewing, you have obviously worked hard to get where you are and we honor that, but, unfortunately, you didn't pass".

 

[ultrarunner]

Here's the question boys and girls:

I recently completed and passed my 135 PIC checkride in the King Air. As a result I now fly (pilot flying) from the Left seat on every other leg.

Now, I know I can legally log these legs as PIC. But I'm not a "company captain" yet and, as such, I don't sign for the flight, although I legally could. In the eyes of airlines and other future employers--is my left seat PIC time really not PIC time? If my current employer blessed me with the title of "co-captain" would that make a difference?

OK, excuse me if I'm off-base here, but why did the company administer, or have administered a 135.293 PIC proficiency check if you are a company-designated (by your ops-manual) SIC?

A 135.293 means nothing for a designated SIC. It's meant as a PIC proficiency check for designated captains, and also must be accompanined by a 135.299.

I don't see where the 135.293 does anything for you as far as 'logging time' that the 135.297 doesn't already do.

I am just not following along here very well?

 

[Snoopy58]

Even if you can legally log the time as PIC, here's the deal:

if your logbook looks like

PIC (one leg)
SIC (next leg)
PIC
SIC
PIC
SIC
PIC
SIC

and then one day suddenly starts looking like
PIC
PIC
PIC
PIC
PIC
PIC

then it's pretty clear at what point you REALLY became the guy IN CHARGE of the operation... the point at which you log even your non-manipulating legs as PIC. It is 1000 hours of THAT sort of "I'm in charge of the plane, I make the final decisions, the buck stops with me, whether it's my leg to sit in the left seat or not" Pilot IN COMMAND time that SWA wants to see. If it looks like that transition from PIC/SIC/PIC/SIC to PIC/PIC/PIC/PIC happened less than 1000 hours ago, then don't expect them to look favorably on your application.

It's not about what you can legally put in your logbook, it's about who is no kidding IN CHARGE of the flight. Sure, there are some operations where both guys are equally qualified and it really is "whoever is in the left seat this leg," but plenty of times there is one guy IN CHARGE & making the decisions, even though the two pilots swap seats each leg so that the left seater is the one manipulating the controls.

And somehow I have to think that a -135 operation is rather clear about that concept.

 

[Turbo]

I really don't know the short answer to that either. My company types us in the Hawker, also, long before we are ever released as designated captains. Sure, you could log your sole-manipulator time legally under Part 61 as PIC, but the consensus seems to be that you dare not claim that PIC time on any airline resume/application. Perhaps understandably so, but it sure makes it d@mn confusing.

Thanks for all the replies and input. Granted, I need to look into this more outside of this message board. But what do we mean when we say designated captain? Suppose we use the example of a large corporate GV operation. Many of these places are composed entirely of guys/gals with thousands of hours of typed Gulfsteam time--all are typed, and all are certainly captains, or at least extremely capable of being captains. Does the company "designate" who the final authority (acting PIC) is for a given trip? Is the the guy with 27 years with the department always designated over the guy with 22 years with the department? Or, is the sole-manipulator for a given leg the final authority? Do these pilots always log PIC in their books? Or do the legs in their logbooks alternate: PIC-SIC-PIC-SIC.

Surely, I understand that graying GV pilots probably aren't trying to jump ship to the airlines. Nevertheless, the corporate arena seems raise some very gray (no pun intended) areas as to who was actually PIC. Whereas the airlines tend to make it very clear who is in command of the ship.

Good discussion--Keep the replies coming...

 

[ultrarunner]

But what do we mean when we say designated captain? Suppose we use the example of a large corporate GV operation. Many of these places are composed entirely of guys/gals with thousands of hours of typed Gulfsteam time--all are typed, and all are certainly captains, or at least extremely capable of being captains. Does the company "designate" who the final authority (acting PIC) is for a given trip?

Turbo, that is a completly different topic. I will try to simplify this as much as practical....

The FAA requires that a PIC and SIC (in the case of a two crew aircraft) be designated when the aircraft is being operated 135 and/or 121. This is on a leg by leg basis, typically and is noted on the release or whatever paperwork a 135 outfit is using.

There is NO such requirement when operating 91. As you are well aware, the FAA simply requires that a pilot and/or crew meet "currency and rating requirements to "act" as PIC/SIC. This in NO WAY consitutes a designation. And in most instances in which 'both' crewmembers of a 91 operation are 'PIC' qualified, the FAA in most instances will refer to the pilots as PF or PNF in an accident/incident synoposis.

I wont get into the political/pecking order/ego soothiing issues of how 91-only operators (like the GV crews you mention) decide who may or may not be PIC/SIC for a particular leg. (The FAA could care a less as long as currency and rating requirement are met). There are way too many ego's to be damaged in that topic, but suffice to say, in the 135 and 121 world, it is very simple. Absolutely, positively no question at all as to who IS the PIC and who IS the SIC. It's on the paperwork. Log accordingly.

hth

 

[Turbo]

Ok, I'm starting to realize why I've been so confused with respect to this PIC/SIC topic. My company has a 135 operating certificate and as such we operate under 135 approved training programs and requirements, duty times, weather mins, etc.--primarily for reasons of standardization, consistency and safety. BUT, 98% of our flying is Part 91 fractional ownership. (We have interchange agreements among airplanes of the same type; but in the manner we are currently set up, if a turboprop owner wants to use one of the jets then it is under Part 135. Also, a "demo" trip for a potential owner is also under 135.)

So here I am sitting in the left seat of a King Air 200 (not over 12,500#) and sole manipulator of the controls on a Part 91 fractional flight. Neither pilot can log SIC since Part 91 requires an SIC solely for aircraft over 12,500#. Furthermore, the company's 135 ops specs that DO require an SIC do NOT apply to this Part 91 flight. The company calls me a First Officer, and to the right of me is a more experienced pilot that the company calls a Captain. Should I log PIC, or nothing at all???

 

[ultrarunner]

OkSo here I am sitting in the left seat of a King Air 200 (not over 12,500#) and sole manipulator of the controls on a Part 91 fractional flight. Neither pilot can log SIC since Part 91 requires an SIC solely for aircraft over 12,500#. Furthermore, the company's 135 ops specs that DO require an SIC do NOT apply to this Part 91 flight. The company calls me a First Officer, and to the right of me is a more experienced pilot that the company calls a Captain. Should I log PIC, or nothing at all???

Turbo, logging of flight time is , in large part, a function of the 'rules under which the flight is conducted'. If the flight is being operated under FAR Part 91, don't event talk about Ops Secs, etc... that book on board the plane does not even apply to the flight.

You're flying the beast, you're current, and hold the appropriate ratings, you log PIC. Simple as that. No different that if you're up blasting around in a 172 with the same guy sitting next to you looking out the window. On the flip side, I'd have to say that on the same trip when you're just sitting there as the non flying pilot, you can't log it. It's just gets too sticky. SIC time can be logged by operating rule or aircraft requirement...neither of which apply (typically) to a 91 operation in a light (<12,500 lb) twin.

hope this helps turbo.