Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Right seat time building?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Here is the real scoop on logging time.

PIC can be logged one of two ways.

The captain in command of the flight - and only he - can log PIC under FAR 1. The FO can log SIC under FAR 1.

Reference FAR 1.1
The sole manipulator of the controls - either captain or FO - can log PIC under FAR 61.

Reference FAR 61.51


My suggestion is that if an FO chooses to log TPIC under FAR 61, that you also log the time under FAR 1 SIC. I keep a separate column labeled "FAR 61 TPIC." I have never had any problems or questions from an interviewer about this, but be aware that the requirements for some companies specifically list a certain amount of FAR 1 PIC time.

This is what the FARs and the FAA say. If anyone tells you anything different, ask them for a reference.

That's actually not what the FAR's say. FAR 1 contains definitions and abbreviations used by the FAA and is not applicible to logging flight time. The only FAA regulation pertaining to logging flight time is FAR 61.51. IMHO, the confusion arises because the FAA and many employers see things differently. The FAA's concern is that applicants for certificates and ratings have a certain amount of hands-on experience driving airplanes. Whether or not this experience was obtained while being in command of the aircraft is of no interest to them. The one exception to the rule is that private pilots must have some command experience (solo time) before certification. OTOH, many employers want applicants to have a track record making command decisions while flying. This could be a valuable measure of command experience but it could also be a poor way of comparing hands-on flying experience: The PIC is likely only controlling the aircraft for roughly half the amount of PIC time logged. OTOH, a rated SIC can legally log as PIC only that time that he/she is actually controlling the airplane. Also, the real PIC might be absent from the flight deck during a significant amount of the time logged as PIC during 3 pilot operations. The FAA muddies the water a lot by not separating pilot in control time from pilot in command time. In the Old Navy we had aircraft commander, first pilot, and second pilot categories. The AC time was command time and did not count toward total time or recency of experience. The first pilot and second pilot time was similar to the FAA's PIC/SIC time. The FAA would do well by adopting a similar system.
 
Just an onservation. My last 7 or 8 NJA flights have all been flown with the right seat "in command". Is this coincidence or is there an effort to build time for the right seat pilots in this tough economy?

Fly safe.

many have hijacked this thread to try and justify what they put in the logbook.

To anwser your question sir, and although retired, I thank you for your time spent with NJA.

Both pilots are rated and trained the same on the plane you fly on. Basicly, they are both "captains". The crews will trade flying every leg and sometimes that means the right seat pilot may fly your leg. This isnt a safety issue, it isnt an ego issue.

Remember, the right seat pilot at NJ today most likely has SEVERAL years and SEVERAL thousand more hours of experience than the PIC on your flight. Id trust my family with any of our First Officers any day of the week and twice on bad weather days.

You get what you pay for.
 
Glasspilot -- that is a tongue twister.

My question was not raised from a safety standpoint. I dod not have any concern that the right seat pilot did not have thousands of hours and training.

Fly safe.

Well then I'm confused as to what the question is. The guy in the right seat flying isn't in command of the aircraft, or possibly he is, depends.

Many of the true FOs I fly with, fly very, very well from either seat. However it is still my plane.
 
RNO, you hit it. I am a NJ SIC. I have over 23000 hours. That doesn't matter. If I am flying a leg, the PIC is still in command(it's his plane as you put it). But I fly half of the legs, usually from the right seat. That is what NJAOwner probably saw.
 
You mean you guys aren't building time so you can one day fly commercial?
 
I called the Feds over this years ago. I was told if you are typed in the aircraft and you are soul manipulator of the controls then you are the PIC in the feds eyes. I called FSDO's and DC and they all said the same thing.
 
I called the Feds over this years ago. I was told if you are typed in the aircraft and you are soul manipulator of the controls then you are the PIC in the feds eyes. I called FSDO's and DC and they all said the same thing.

For pilot time logging purposes the feds told you correctly. But, the actual PIC of the flight as (defined in FAR 1) does not shift to the flying pilot unless agreed to by all concerned including the legal operator of the aircraft. There's no serious argument that the regulations do not permit both a FAR 1 PIC and a rated sole manipulator to log PIC time. But, the concern of some is that while "sole manipulator" PIC time is legal, it isn't a true reflection of command experience.
 
Last edited:
Here comes my .02

All the FAA cares about is you have to log:

1. Recent experience for things like 3 take offs and landings during day / nite to carry pax unless your operator has a waiver

2. IFR stuff to be current unless your operator has a waiver

3. Your experiance to get a rating or certificate (TT, XC, Nite, ect)

After that you can log the time you drive a car and recipes for apple pie.

The only other two reasons to keep a log book is to show a potential employer and personal reasons (I simply like the idea that I know exactly how many hours I've flown and where I've been.) As far as the potential employer is concerned I can't imagine they would agree that a typed FO "manipulating the controls" is quality PIC time so for that reason I don't log it. When I'm an FO I log SIC. When I'm a Captain I log PIC. Seems simple enough.
 
How's the back? I like ibuprophen, but I'm sure just rest is good...
Hope it gets better.
 
Last edited:
Here is the real scoop on logging time.

PIC can be logged one of two ways.

The captain in command of the flight - and only he - can log PIC under FAR 1. The FO can log SIC under FAR 1.

Reference FAR 1.1
The sole manipulator of the controls - either captain or FO - can log PIC under FAR 61.

Reference FAR 61.51


My suggestion is that if an FO chooses to log TPIC under FAR 61, that you also log the time under FAR 1 SIC. I keep a separate column labeled "FAR 61 TPIC." I have never had any problems or questions from an interviewer about this, but be aware that the requirements for some companies specifically list a certain amount of FAR 1 PIC time.

This is what the FARs and the FAA say. If anyone tells you anything different, ask them for a reference.


61.51 applies to the purpose of logging flight time towards a higher certificate or rating. At this point, it's irrelevant because both pilots are type rated ATPs. The only purpose for "logging PIC" time at this point is resume building in which case most employers will be asking for your time according to FAR 1.
NETJETS will be tracking time according to FAR 1.
 
How's the back? I like ibuprophen, but I'm sure just rest is good...
Hope it gets better.


Wow, news travels fast. Back still hurts but I am hopeful to get home tomorrow.

Here's a tip for anyone seeking medical attention in Danville, VA.

...don't.

I went to the fricken hospital ER with a bum back. Not one doctor or RN or anyone even looked at it. They took my blood pressure and pulse for 4 hours, but not one examination. They did, however, give me a prescription for drugs so I guess it wasn't a complete waste.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom