Pinnacle PIC Time

[blade230]

Guitar Guy,

Thank you, somebody who actually read the reg. before spouting off nonsense, and turning the wrong facts into yet another absolutely pointless PFT thread.

The FAR's, writtten by the FAA, state what both I and Guitar guy have said. You may hate the 9E PFters, but per the regs. they should be allowed to upgrade.

Good luck 9E. You guys should talk to OKC. I have already spoken to a FAA friend of mine, and he said that making up one's own interpretations of the FAA regs is wrong. He said the regs where NOT to be inter-preted/polated They are NOT guidelines, they are rules.

Safe flying,

 

[Jetjockey21]

I'm sorry but running out to build up that 250 PIC in a C152 or any single-engine does not make them ready to take command of any jet let alone one with 50 pax onboard. You would think that Pinnacle would have learned it's lesson after 3701 what can happen when you turn loose inexperienced crews. I only hope that the FAA does it's job and protect the public. I for one will not fly on them, nor will any of my family or friends.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

I still don't understand how you can log PIC time from the right seat if you are typed. No completition of IOE, no signoff, etc. Unless it is a 91 ferry, 121 regs apply, and since I am sure the GOM states the difference between PIC and SIC, you have to go with that. It is an FAA document and you take the more conservative of the two.

Thing is it's not the regulations that you are flying under that dictate what may be logged as PIC... it's part 61 that defines that, specifically 61.51. Under that reg, you don't have to sign for the jet to be able to log PIC in it. We can debate all day long the legitimacy of logging time where you didn't sign for the aircraft as PIC but the fact is it is legal. And as others have pointed out, the 250 PIC required for the ATP doesn't even have to be all PIC. Still, it is pretty amazing that this is going on. I'm not sure I could even spell "jet" when I had those kind of numbers!

cc

 

[jackbo]

I know you can log 61 PIC from the right seat if typed. Legal to log? Yes. Will majors honor that as PIC time when you apply? Nope.

I'm 99% sure though to take advantage of this reg you need to be typed. You can't log PIC for a plane you are not typed in. That is how the other airlines did it.

BTW, you are not PIC for decision making purposes or release signing purposes. For 121, there is one and only one PIC. However, even on a 121 flight the FO may log PIC when that person is sole manipulator of the controls if they are otherwised qualified (typed).

 

[xjcaptain]

I understand that there are legal ways for SIC's to log this MINIMUM amount of PIC time to become eligable for the ATP. Bottom line, it sure makes me uncomfortable to think of paying passengers in a CRJ sitting behind a PIC who has never really been a PIC. How about hiring more qualified SIC's and this entire discussion goes away.

 

[410dude]

I'll admit that I'm low on the PIC, but I try and absorb as much info from every captain that I fly with so when I do upgrade I will be a safe and competent captain.

 

[Napoleon TNT]

I for one will not fly on them, nor will any of my family or friends.

I second that!

 

[DoinTime]

All the talk about the FAAs interpretation of what constitutes "SIC acting as PIC" is pointless. PCL currently has a company requirement for 250 PIC. This is a company requirement and its not open for interpretation from the FAA. The memos back and forth from the chief pilot stating that they were "trying" to get the exemption from the FAA were B.S. The company could allow this type of equivalency experience just as they do with the reductions in total time for time spent in type. They just used the FAA as a political scape goat for the new time requirements they were imposing.

 

[PCL_128]

All the talk about the FAAs interpretation of what constitutes "SIC acting as PIC" is pointless. PCL currently has a company requirement for 250 PIC. This is a company requirement and its not open for interpretation from the FAA. The memos back and forth from the chief pilot stating that they were "trying" to get the exemption from the FAA were B.S. The company could allow this type of equivalency experience just as they do with the reductions in total time for time spent in type. They just used the FAA as a political scape goat for the new time requirements they were imposing.

I don't know where you got this "information," but it most certainly is not the truth. The company did send a request to the POI to be able to use the exact same rules that every other airline is able to use: count half of your SIC time towards the 250 PIC requirement for the ATP. The POI refused, so now one of our pilots has requested an official interpretation of the regs from the Council General. The DTW LEC has actively been researching this topic for the last few weeks, and there is absolutely zero doubt at this point that SIC time can be used for the PIC requirement. We have received numerous opinions from FSDOs all over the country that agree with the company's request. The NWA POI also agreed that SIC time can be used as PIC for this purpose. The POI in the MEM FSDO is the only person that thinks this is unacceptable. As soon as the Council General hands down an official interpretation, then the POI's opinion is meaningless. He will have to comply with what the official interpretation states.

 

[TinGoose1]

I'm not trying to throw any fire here, but why would 9E want to lower their time requirements when they already have a safety problem? I'd put money on the FAA not giving relief on this reg. I think it's absolutely insane that anyone would pilot a 121 jet with only 250 PIC. If this is the type of thing that your chief pilot is spending time on, he needs to get better priorities. If they let 250 hr PIC's make the decisions on what is safe, then it's just one more reason I won't let my family on board a 9E aircraft. The biggest question would be, what kind of real decisions have these pilots had to make?