SIC time?

[midlifeflyer]

Im not looking from a legal standpoint. I could care less about 0.5 of king air time in my logbook. I just was told it has to be in there for the purpose of the endorsement. I don't want to have to answer King Air questions as a result of bad advice.

From a training/endorsement standpoint, all you really needed to log was dual for the flight and evidence of the training required for the endorsement. No body says that you =have to= log PIC even when you legally can.

I'll defer to others who have experience with explaining these things to potential employers, but I can't imagine a potential interview problem with logging what is =legally= permitted, so long as you don't claim it as something it isn't.

Interviewer: I see here that you have 0.5 hours of King Air time.

Interviewee 1: Ah yes. It was really cool. I was able to gain a lot of valuable experience.

Interviewee 2: Ah yes. I was working on my high altitude endorsement. The school used the King Air for the purpose. It's the only time I've flown one and the focus was more on the pressurization checklist procedures than on the rest of the airplane's systems.

 

[Timebuilder]

Keeping turboprop PIC time separate might be a good idea in this instance. While it is indeed legal to log the time as PIC under part 61, you can do yourself a favor now for when you have to add up part I PIC time later.

Emphasize the learning and the growth-as-a-pilot experience.

 

[labbats]

Re: Log It

Yeah definitely log it as sole manipulator PIC. As long as you are rated in the aircraft (multi rated, no type required), the FARs allow for logging it. In the future when filling out airline apps, you may notice that they breakdown the PIC column into FAR part 1 and FAR part 61 PIC. You may want to do the same in your logbook.

The FAR part 1 PIC is acting as PIC and being the one solely responsible for the operation of the aircraft. FAR part 61 PIC is logging PIC in an aircraft you are rated in.

Is the Metro a pressurized aircraft certified for flight over 25,000'? Do you have a high-altitude endorsement? It matters to act as PIC (FAR 1) but not to log PIC (FAR 61).

Get all the multi time you can! Have fun.

-pj

Could you expand on this a bit? I don't have a high-alt endorsement and haven't heard of part 1 and part 61 PIC. I'm assuming you mean part 1 and 61 of the FARs respectively, but I'm not following you on specifics and how that translates into different types of PIC logged.

The Metro is pressurized and we flew at @ 20-22000.

 

[puddlejumper]

Two Types of PIC

It's really pretty straight forward. There has been a difference made by the FAA between acting as PIC and logging PIC.

As acting as PIC, you are the PIC as defined in FAR part 1. You would be the one signing for the aircraft and ultimately responsible for and held accountable for the conduct and outcome of the flight.

If you are just logging PIC, as FAR part 61 allows, you are not the one responsible, you are just a rated pilot or student pilot manipulating the controls or being the sole occupant of a flight, respectively.

Only one PIC is supposed to be logging the time. Except for when there is instruction going on or there is more than one PIC required by regulation.

You should be able to conclude, that if you are not qualified to conduct the flight as PIC ie: Don't have a high alt., tailwheel, complex or whatever endorsement, you can not be the one responsible for the flight legally. You may however, log the flight if you are the sole manipulator of the controls and are rated in that category/class of aircraft or are a student pilot and are the sole occupant.

Your Metro is less than 12,500, so no type required. If you were cruising at FL220, it is probably rated for over FL250. If it is, the legal PIC would need a high altitude endorsement to act as PIC. So, you, as a multi-rated pilot, with no endorsement could not just hop in there and go fly it alone legally. You can log it since you're rated but can't be the one responsible since you're not qualified. Another PIC would have to be there and be the one responsible.

Airlines know the difference between the 2 kinds of PIC and simply have 2 separate columns for PIC time. Time as FAR part 1 PIC (aircraft commander, signed for aircraft, captain...) and time as FAR part 61 PIC (unqualified training time, flight time when someone else was responsible, student pilot solo time...)

I would be careful to not log PIC when you know the other guy is logging it. In that case, have him sign your logbook as dual and PIC.

Doc's Pro Pilot AFS-600 FAQ forum addresses this topic. I'll get back to you with a link. Try searching this forum, it's here somewhere.

P.S. I guess I was wrong, it really isn't all that stright forward...

-PJ

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Re: Log It

Could you expand on this a bit? I don't have a high-alt endorsement and haven't heard of part 1 and part 61 PIC. I'm assuming you mean part 1 and 61 of the FARs respectively, but I'm not following you on specifics and how that translates into different types of PIC logged.

FWIW, I'll add a bit to puddlejumper's explanation.

As you know, the FAR 61.51 rules of placing numbers in the PIC column of your logbook have absolutely nothing to do with authority and responsibility for a flight. Instead, they simply reflect the FAA's policy decisions about what time it will allow to be used to show that a pilot has met certificate, rating, and currency requirements.

Understandably, many aviation employers, while interested in these numbers to make sure that a pilot has met technical requirements, are more interested in real command experience.

So, for example, from a command standpoint, potential employers are more interested in the time you spent flying in actual instrument conditions when in charge of the flight than they are about the "PIC" time you accumulated during your instrument training when you had no clue what you were doing and every move was supervised and corrected by your CFII.

To take care of this difference, many pilots with career aspirations will maintain a separate column in their logbooks to record "real" PIC time - time spent when truly "acting" as pilot in command:

==============================
Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
==============================

Since that's the Part 1 definition, the shorthand typically used is "Part 1 PIC" in the column used to record this time.

 

[labbats]

Ah, thank you both. I understand and appreciete the advice.

 

[Crizz]

So from a professional standpoint, what is the value in logging sole manipulator (Part 61) PIC time? Wouldnt this just set off more red flags than it would quench?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So from a professional standpoint, what is the value in logging sole manipulator (Part 61) PIC time? Wouldn't this just set off more red flags than it would quench?

Unless we're dealing with Enron, I can't imagine why doing something properly and according to regulation would raise red flags. It's a question of presentation.

You need to look at the issue from =both= an FAA and employability perspective. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Let's take it out of PIC issues. Move to cross country. For Part 135 qualification purposes, the cross country time may be basic point-to-point cross country: any flight involving a landing at another airport that you didn't bump into by accident, no matter what the distance. So you've got all these hours of flying to the airport with the great restaurant that's 10 NM away. Do you bother to log them?

Obviously, no employer is going to be impressed with this cross country time. But consider this scenario: You are a young CFI working at an FBO that does some night cargo operations. The FBO operator knows you, likes you, and is confident in your piloting skills. One of the regular pilots is going on vacation and you're offered the job of subbing. If all you count is the 50+ NM type of cross country, you're just shy of meeting the overall Part 135 cross country requirements, and you're really far off on the night cross country requirement. If you count point-to-point cross country, you meet them. The employer in this situation doesn't care that the cross country time was to the airport 5 NM away; she only cares that the local FSDO won't come banging on the door with a 135 violation.

Now, I'm not in the aviation industry, so you can take this with a grain of salt, but I can't imagine that aviation is so different than any other form of business. My take is that there's a big difference between having data and presenting it. You log what it is legitimate to log, but you present it in a way that is appropriate for the situation.

Not talking about falsifying or hiding the information. When going for the FedEx interview, there's a big difference between "I've got 1500 hours of cross country time" and "I've logged all of my cross countries to meet Part 135 requirements, but a lot of them were real short trips. I've broken out the ones I think are significant and they total...."

The PIC issue is the same. If you try to present those 100 post private certificate hours that you were trying to learn how to fly various airplanes as "command time" that show your mettle as a pilot, =any= employer would be justified in giving you a sideways look. But just for logging them properly?

Ah! The advantages of electronic logbooks.