Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Restricted ATP for NFOs? >

Restricted ATP for NFOs?

Notices
Military Military Aviation

Restricted ATP for NFOs?

Old 09-05-2014, 12:20 PM
  #91  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Line up
Posts: 63
Default

Originally Posted by Hacker15e View Post
Uh, what?

Where is there any regulatory guidance in the CFR or any of the military regs that governs when dual may be logged, and references a requirement for there to be an "intent" to teach on said flight?
FAR 61.51,


F4E MX I totally understand helping a mil buddy out, but the law is law, that's not like looking the other way when someone has a bad landing, or even a bad day, you can't just "help out" with a couple thousand hours, even a few 100,

The question in the beginning was can the NFO log other time towards the ATP, myself and others have shown why you can't in the FAR's sorry, nothing personal.

To be honest I've flown with guys who fly great, even nav's! Lol but don't have licenses, I can't just give them one because we're buds in the mil,

Good luck on the time building,
We're all in the same boat, some just a little further along.....
Jato is offline  
Old 09-05-2014, 01:31 PM
  #92  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Default

FAR 61.51 would seem to be open to a lot of interpretations to say the least. I was in the USAF at Eglin but a member of a Navy flying club in Pensacola. My aero club instructor was also a T-28 instructor at Whiting. What you seem to be saying is that my IP could give me instruction in a civilian T-28 that would be legal, but it would be illegal in a Navy model? Or after I had my Commercial, multi, and instrument we could have flown a civilian T-28 cross country to see our families and friends and split the time, but could not do the same in the eyes of the FAA if we used a Navy T-28. Is that what you are really saying?
F4E Mx is offline  
Old 09-05-2014, 02:17 PM
  #93  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Line up
Posts: 63
Default

Yes, but, the only way around that would be if the mil agency who has operational control authorizes it, good luck there... and your both under FAA rules, I.e. Civ flight instructor and civ student in training for a rating or cert, and your operating under part 91, but that's not the scenario in the question asked originally.
Jato is offline  
Old 09-05-2014, 11:31 PM
  #94  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
Well the guy at the other side of the table might be an ex-NFO or Navigator himself, or a civilian who could care less, or one of the 90 percent of the prior military pilots go out of their way to help their squadron mates.
Ok, you're the applicant... Defend logging SIC time in an F/A-18D to me as a non-pilot rated NFO/WSO.

Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
FAR 61.51 would seem to be open to a lot of interpretations to say the least. I was in the USAF at Eglin but a member of a Navy flying club in Pensacola. My aero club instructor was also a T-28 instructor at Whiting. What you seem to be saying is that my IP could give me instruction in a civilian T-28 that would be legal, but it would be illegal in a Navy model? Or after I had my Commercial, multi, and instrument we could have flown a civilian T-28 cross country to see our families and friends and split the time, but could not do the same in the eyes of the FAA if we used a Navy T-28. Is that what you are really saying?
Yup. If the airplane has an "N" on the tail, it's governed by FAA regs. If it has a BUNO on the tail and you're not an SNA or wearing gold wings, you're a passenger.
Grumble is offline  
Old 09-06-2014, 03:02 AM
  #95  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Default

Well, Grumble, USAF Navigators, Navy NFOs, even Maintenance Officers have managed to get hired as pilots by the airlines. You were probably one of the Navy pilots who referred to NFOs as having "No Future Outside". Not always.
F4E Mx is offline  
Old 09-06-2014, 06:48 AM
  #96  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Yup. If the airplane has an "N" on the tail, it's governed by FAA regs. If it has a BUNO on the tail and you're not an SNA or wearing gold wings, you're a passenger.
Not exactly. The FAR's don't preclude you from logging time in an airplane without an N-number (ie foreign registration). If the aircraft has an FAA type certificate, that would make the whole thing more plausible.


Military guys seem to think that if you're not operating under the FARs then you're precluded from "overlaying" FAR activities on top of what you're doing. Not the case at all, unless the FARs were to specifically forbid certain FAR activities in, on, or around military aircraft (they don't). You'd need to do your homework though...

If you can legally accomplish something in compliance with both NATOPS and the FARs, then you can take credit under both as well. The usual case in point is mil guys taking ATP checkrides in mil aircraft.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-06-2014, 06:55 AM
  #97  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Regarding "intent to do training"....


1) It's not spelled out in the regs.

2) But the concept has been clearly established FAA enforcement precedent in the context of if you're going to log dual, there had better be a REASONABLE intent and expectation that training is occurring...this is to prevent folks from sitting right seat in single-pilot airplanes and logging zillions of hours as "dual received". But there appears to be reasonable latitude as to what legit training could be, not just training for a cert/rating/FR/IPC but also club checkouts, insurance checkouts, aircraft fam, route/area fam, etc. Reasonable limits on the amount of hours logged would apply, based on what's realistic to accomplish the task at hand, ie you can't log 400 hours of dual XC in a seminole and justify that it as "aircraft fam" or training for an ME/MEI.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-06-2014, 07:04 AM
  #98  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
Well, Grumble, USAF Navigators, Navy NFOs, even Maintenance Officers have managed to get hired as pilots by the airlines. You were probably one of the Navy pilots who referred to NFOs as having "No Future Outside". Not always.
No ****. Unless you were an S-3 NFO, or in something with controls, everyone I know that did it got their tickets in their spare time, instructed and went the traditional route. Being a double anchor had zero to do with that.

I know Helo aircrewmen flying at the regionals right now, it wasn't because they lied and said they were actually SIC.

NFO still means no future outside... It's why the NFO bonus has been axed and pilot bonuses in the Navy are still running $50-$125k. Get over it, it's just the way it is.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

If you can legally accomplish something in compliance with both NATOPS and the FARs, then you can take credit under both as well. The usual case in point is mil guys taking ATP checkrides in mil aircraft.
Exactly, point being though they are winged aviators in an airplane they're already rated in.
Grumble is offline  
Old 09-06-2014, 09:47 AM
  #99  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

In AF multi-seat planes, IF the mission requires IP status, that us, doing t-gs, recurrent or upgrade training, it goes in the 781 as IP time. If I when out, in command, with current and qualified pilots, it was MP time or MC time, if I wasn't command. There has to be a reason to be acting as the IP, same with the FAA.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 07-17-2016, 06:21 PM
  #100  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 4
Default

Totally old thread that no one is paying attention to anymore but I found it interesting to read. I was an S-3 NFO many moons ago. 3710 says that copilot time can be logged by anyone with an aeronautical designation (1320 is one) so I kept track of my front seat time. Later, I transitioned to pilot and flew P-3's, T-34's and C-12's and now I instruct at FSI. We still get the occasional NFO but of course do not redesignate them. They simply fly as a copilot (which the 3710 allows). My kids are all off to college so I am currently considering applying for airlines (who isn't) but did not include my S-3 time as SIC. There is a block for "other time" on airline apps so I have like 2000 hours of that. As a 1500 hour S-3 NFO with nearly 800 hours in the front seat, hours and hours of stick time including formation and field T/O and Landings, I think it is a real shame that the time is not considered. Really doesn't make any sense to me when I weigh my S-3 copilot time against C-12 or P-3 SIC time. But that is the way it is. Fortunately I have enough time to not need it but the extra 800 hours of turbojet SIC time would have been nice. Just between you, me and the fence post, I felt like flight school was overkill. I had already received great instruction from some of the best pilots in the world for almost 5 years. And as I mentioned, S-3 COTAC time is valuable and the lack of official VT pilot training time is inconsequential.
flymoose65 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DaCat1989
Hiring News
15
09-03-2014 11:09 PM
Bumper
Flight Schools and Training
7
01-21-2014 10:06 AM
Zona Pilot 1830
Aviation Law
3
12-17-2013 04:21 PM
Crazy Canuck
Career Questions
2
10-08-2013 03:13 AM
Planespotta
Flight Schools and Training
9
06-20-2007 08:19 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices