SIC type - please let your interviewers know

[igneousy2]

Recently completed an interview at Southwest and the interviewer was befuddled with the concept of an "SIC type"...I wrote this response to someone else that was questioning the "SIC type" so I thought i'd start another thread.

found this on-line.

The final rule requires pilots who
plan to fly outside U.S. airspace and
land in foreign countries to obtain the
SIC pilot type rating. We also
recommend having the SIC pilot type
rating when flying over or into airspace
controlled by a foreign civil aviation
authority that requires it. This would
include not only flights to foreign
destinations, but also flights where there
is the potential to land in a foreign
country (for example, a flight from
Newark, NJ to Anchorage, AK that
crosses Canadian airspace could result
in an emergency landing in Canada).

Here is the link to the entire document...

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/sic/F...630_05-113.pdf


Thanks

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

I thought having to pay for a type rating to sit in the right seat at Southwest was "SIC type"...

 

[scudrunner]

So, is it considered a type to SWA?

 

[XLR8]

He/She might not be talking about a 737 SIC type. The company I used to work for gave out CL-65 SIC type ratings...that could be what the interviewer was questioning.

 

[tico]

Recently completed an interview at Southwest and the interviewer was befuddled with the concept of an "SIC type"...I wrote this response to someone else that was questioning the "SIC type" so I thought i'd start another thread.

found this on-line.

The final rule requires pilots who
plan to fly outside U.S. airspace and
land in foreign countries to obtain the
SIC pilot type rating. We also
recommend having the SIC pilot type
rating when flying over or into airspace
controlled by a foreign civil aviation
authority that requires it. This would
include not only flights to foreign
destinations, but also flights where there
is the potential to land in a foreign
country (for example, a flight from
Newark, NJ to Anchorage, AK that
crosses Canadian airspace could result
in an emergency landing in Canada).

Here is the link to the entire document...

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/sic/F...630_05-113.pdf


Thanks

Probably as long as you dont list it as a type rating no one will be befuddled by it.....you would not want to to tell an interviewer that you ar typed in a 737 or typed in a crj if all you have is a rubber stamp sic type....It is not a type rating in the sense that type ratings are talked about......

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

SWA hasn't heard of SIC types? Maybe because its an international thing.

Still, too bad the interviewer was so out of touch with the aviation world outside of SWA.

 

[igneousy2]

Probably as long as you dont list it as a type rating no one will be befuddled by it.....you would not want to to tell an interviewer that you ar typed in a 737 or typed in a crj if all you have is a rubber stamp sic type....It is not a type rating in the sense that type ratings are talked about......

I have a DC-9 "SIC type" and when he looked at the copy of my certificate it said "type ratings DC-9" and he wanted to know why I didn't list it. You have to look further on the certificate to see that it is only an "SIC type". It wasn't a big deal but any snags at this stage of an interview can be a little disconcerting for the interviewee. Anyway not a huge deal - just trying to make people aware.

The way they have it on your certificate - technically it is a "DC-9" type rating with a "SIC only" limitation. If the person has several limitations on their certificates (as I do) then you have to look at it a little more carefully to ascertain that it is only a "SIC type" as opposed to a full type.

Later

 

[328dude]

Most of the guys that interview are retired, so yea, they are a little out of touch.

 

[klr1395]

I have a DC-9 "SIC type" and when he looked at the copy of my certificate it said "type ratings DC-9" and he wanted to know why I didn't list it. You have to look further on the certificate to see that it is only an "SIC type". It wasn't a big deal but any snags at this stage of an interview can be a little disconcerting for the interviewee. Anyway not a huge deal - just trying to make people aware.

The way they have it on your certificate - technically it is a "DC-9" type rating with a "SIC only" limitation. If the person has several limitations on their certificates (as I do) then you have to look at it a little more carefully to ascertain that it is only a "SIC type" as opposed to a full type.

Later

That makes good sense. It also explains why someone with a B737 type with a SIC only restriction would befuddle an interviewer. There is only 1 restriction/limitation on a B737 type that SWA will accept.... Straight from their website, "
1The only restriction or limitation SWA will accept is "B-737 CIRC. APCH. - VMC ONLY"

Cheers, klr

 

[rigger]

This is another FAA FUBR.

There is no such thing as an SIC type rating. There is such a thing as a Type rating with SIC only privileges, this is what is being handed out. So based on this yes you do indeed have a type rating it is just limited to SIC only.

As such, list it on your apps I have, and have never been questioned about it, but I do list it as a type rating not as a SIC type. They look at my ticket and never question it.

All that said I do have an ATP. perhaps that make a diff. to the interviewer?

 

[Captain Overs]

SWA hasn't heard of SIC types? Maybe because its an international thing.

Still, too bad the interviewer was so out of touch
with the aviation world outside of SWA.

No, its because everyone at SWA is required to be typed. It's part of the training program.

 

[Helos2Galaxy]

Still, too bad the interviewer was so out of touch with the aviation world outside of SWA.[/quote]


Had a tift with the log book review interviewer when qustioning my USAF "other time". I realize that when not PIC, other time is worthless and didn't include it in my PIC (OR sic) total. But, on flights where I was the Aircraft Commander, I listed PIC for the enitre flight -- AS I WAS PIC. He couldn't fathom that I would consider myself PIC on the portion I included as "other". I explained that much like any in any long haul flight involving relief crews, the AC/Aircraft Commander/Captain is always the PIC and in command whether he is in the rest facility, head, etc. As we corrected my times, it took alot of convincing to allow him to count time included as "secondary" (in front seat but acting as non-flying pilot) to be included as PIC. The only way I won that arguement was by asking whether or not HE still considered himself the Captain/PIC on flights when it was the co-pilot's leg.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Helos2Galaxy:
That seems wacked. It would seem that with most airlines only letting you count PIC when you are responsible for the aircraft, that they wouldn't have any problem with the PIC time.

Maybe that airline didn't hire that many mil guys???

cliff
LRD

 

[igneousy2]

No, its because everyone at SWA is required to be typed. It's part of the training program.

I think a couple of you need to slow down when you read these threads.


Nobody is saying that an SIC type counts for SWA - but if you are doing interviews you should be in tune with the aviation world outside of your particular airline enough to know that there are some people that have "SIC types."

Later

 

[CHQ Pilot]

That is almost the perfect example of how they run the logbook interview. It was told to me before I interviewed that they will find "something" wrong with your times or flying history. It is a general HR tactic to see your reaction to a pointed question without trying to ask "What would you do in this situation?" The interviewers know pilots are very protective over their logbooks and times, so what is perceived as an attack on your record keeping is actually a form of a question. They want to see you reaction...are you hostile? Amicable? A pushover to what the interviewer says? Are you trying come to an agreement on the best way to handle it? For some people, maybe the interviewer does find a mistake....are you humble and confess that it was an honest mistake?

The logbook reviewers, I found out later, are very good at reading and understanding all the forms from all the branches of service as well as looking at civil logbooks. The PD knows all it takes is a few phone calls to verify your times, which is especially easy for 121 and military time.

If it was a retired pilot, then like it was said above, he probably had never heard of an SIC type. If it was a logbook interviewer, you probably kept some good records and the interviewer couldn't find any glaring problems or questions about your flying history. He/she probably knew what an SIC type is and by asking what it means could lead to a good discussion and explanation.

 

[brainhurts]

I would have stood up and slapped him and said "how dare you question my logbook". Then I would have broke down in tears and told him my hamster just died and that I was a little out of sorts. I would then dry my eyes and ask if he had any more questions.

 

[Captain Overs]

I think a couple of you need to slow down when you read these threads.


Nobody is saying that an SIC type counts for SWA - but if you are doing interviews you should be in tune with the aviation world outside of your particular airline enough to know that there are some people that have "SIC types."

Later

I read it right. My point confirmed what was said earlier. I found a guy who did my logbook review really wasn't up to speed on what was going on in the industry. He wasn't even aware that many guys, who were Captains at certain regionals, were bumped back to the right seat after 9-11. My questioning was "So why did you go from Captain back to FO?" It still didn't make sense to him when I explained it.

I felt they knew general trends in the industry, but not specifics. But it could be different and different places. In this case, I'm not talking about SWA.

 

[murano]

I would have stood up and slapped him and said "how dare you question my logbook". Then I would have broke down in tears and told him my hamster just died and that I was a little out of sorts. I would then dry my eyes and ask if he had any more questions.

Now that's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[brainhurts]

Now that's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Oh, theres more where that came from.