Pinnacle PIC Time

[CLECA]

You won't even look up the 121 reg you say governs this matter!

Actually, I did quote a reg 121.385 (c) in a previous post. If you re-read my previous post. It states: The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command.

The fact is acting as, serving as, and logging PIC are all different things. Now, since this is legal, how is it unethical?

How can anyone log time as a PIC when not serving as one.

It only becomes unethical if he tries to pass it off as something it is not.

reference previous statement

If asked why my logbook doesn't match my application I would tell the interviewers that my logbook contains times as defined by 61.51 and I broke them out to meet your definition of PIC when filling out the app.

This I can respect, but if it is found in a logbook review and was not pointed out any interviewer would have a field day.

All that said, you are entitled to your opinion

I absolutely respect your opinion and his. My initial post was just my opinion yet he didn't hestitate to call me a dumbass so I guess there's some hypocrisy here. I never wrote anything that should have been interpreted as aggressive, yet he took it that way. Sorry, downfall of a written forum.

P.S. re-read my posts, at no time did I ever say it is illegal to use this time. What I said was there is an ethics issue. Also 61.159 as someone said in a previous post, says you can use SIC time to meet the qualification requirement for the ATP. I don't remember seeing it written anywhere that if you're short on PIC that you as an FO can just log it as PIC because you were flying. It is still SIC time.

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

 

[Lear70]

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

Welcome to Flightinfo *snicker*.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Actually, I did quote a reg 121.385 (c) in a previous post. If you re-read my previous post. It states: The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command.

My apologies... you're absolutely correct. When I wrote that I was thinking of your first (?) post where you said you weren't looking it up because you didn't care that much.

The fact is acting as, serving as, and logging PIC are all different things.

How can anyone log time as a PIC when not serving as one.

I think we covered this... 61.51 allows for logging of PIC time at times when not serving as PIC. For example, as quoted from 61.51, a pilot may log as PIC flight time during which that person "is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges." It does not address in any way what capacity the person is serving. So an SIC could potentially log PIC if he is appropriately rated and this is what Towelie's legal interpretation concluded.

Now, if what you meant to ask was how someone can act as PIC when not serving as one, I'll admit I am splitting hairs because we use the two terms interchangeably all the time. I don't work for Webster's so bear with me but in the context that I'm using these words, "serve" implies the ability to fulfill the duties of a position whereas "act" implies the ability to function in place of someone in a particular capacity. So in order to serve as PIC and sign for the jet a pilot would have had to complete the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 121 PIC. But there are situations where a pilot could act as PIC and not meet those requirements. For example, international relief pilots (or RFOs or Cruise Captains or whatever name you prefer). They may or may not be able to serve as PIC (sign for the jet) but they can act as PIC. The reg covering this is 121.543 which says, in part:

(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station—

(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft;

(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs; or

(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided—

(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in command during the en route cruise portion of the flight, by a pilot who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and an appropriate type rating, is currently qualified as pilot in command or second in command, and is qualified as pilot in command of that aircraft during the en route cruise portion of the flight. A second in command qualified to act as a pilot in command en route need not have completed the following pilot in command requirements: The 6-month recurrent flight training required by §121.433(c)(1)(iii); the operating experience required by §121.434; the takeoffs and landings required by §121.439; the line check required by §121.440; and the 6-month proficiency check or simulator training required by §121.441(a)(1); and

(ii) In the case of the assigned second in command, by a pilot qualified to act as second in command of that aircraft during en route operations. However, the relief pilot need not meet the recent experience requirements of §121.439(b).

So here is a scenario where someone other than the pilot serving as PIC (the assigned PIC, the guy/gal who signed for the jet) is acting as PIC.

It only becomes unethical if he tries to pass it off as something it is not.

reference previous statement.

Again, I would state that the pilot has not done anything unethical to this point. He has logged what is legally able to log. If he applies for a position and uses the company's definition of PIC in calculating his times for the application, he still has not done anything unethical. However, if the company only considered FAR 1 PIC time and the pilot counted 61.51 SMOC time towards that requirement on his application then I would definitely say yes, that is unethical.

If asked why my logbook doesn't match my application I would tell the interviewers that my logbook contains times as defined by 61.51 and I broke them out to meet your definition of PIC when filling out the app.

This I can respect, but if it is found in a logbook review and was not pointed out any interviewer would have a field day.

Agreed, if the applicant tried to pass it off as something it wasn't. But I don't think the onus falls on the applicant. If the interviewer wants to know about the logbook, it is up to him to ask. Then it becomes the applicant's responsibility to explain how he has logged the time. I say this because the applicant has kept his logbook according to the law, the FARs. It is the company that is requiring something different than the FARs so, if they have a concern, it should fall to them to ask. Another reason for saying this is that the airlines all have different requirements... from defining PIC time to type of aircraft they will consider... sometimes even aircraft size. It goes on and on. Are you going to keep separate logbooks for each potential employer? Is it your responsibility to point out that the PIC time you have logged in a particular type doesn't count because that is the type designator for a recip twin under 20,000 lbs? I don't think it is. Again, if the interviewer is concerned or confused about it, he/she can ask. After all, that is why they are all there together.

P.S. re-read my posts, at no time did I ever say it is illegal to use this time. What I said was there is an ethics issue. Also 61.159 as someone said in a previous post, says you can use SIC time to meet the qualification requirement for the ATP. I don't remember seeing it written anywhere that if you're short on PIC that you as an FO can just log it as PIC because you were flying. It is still SIC time.

No, you didn't say it was illegal and I didn't mean to imply that you did. If you took it that way, I apologize. As far as 61.159 goes, you are correct. The time is not logged as PIC... it is SIC time that maybe used in lieu of the PIC time required. But, if the SIC had been appropriately rated, 61.51 would allow him/her to log the time as PIC.

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

This we can DEFINITELY agree on!

cc

 

[manitoba]

I'm also THRILLED to hear that they're only getting a trickle of people. If they can't fill classes with people they want and they want to keep their newly-raised criteria, they'll be forced to increase the compensation offered new-hires and it will no longer be as big of a bargaining point during negotiations.

Lear 70
They will be forced to bring up the rear in pay. They just will not have any choice. So hotel plus pay is something the company is already talking about


Manitoba

 

[CLECA]

This we can DEFINITELY agree on!

cc

I think the horse is dead. I think there was a lot of confusion b/c now that I re-read I see where everyone changed to 61.51 but I still had it in my head as 61.159. In any event I don't think I'll be visiting this thread anymore in an effort to reduce my QOL with my family. It has occupied way too much of my time. You make some excellent points and I can see in a sense where some of this is coming from. I still don't wholeheartedly agree because I believe 61.51 (e) (1) (iii) would superceded i and ii, but I'm with ya.