No problem logging it provided that the operation was conducted under Part 91 AND there were no passengers onboard.

You are permitted to fly and log as SIC provided that you have the appropriate FAA certificate (at least a commercial AMEL) and the flight was a ferry flight, aircraft flight test, or evaluation flight, and was not carrying any person or property on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

That said, logging those flight might raise some questions that you may or may not want to answer in an interview.

 

"The FAA counts the time I am the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which I am rated as PIC time toward FAA certificates, ratings, authorizations and currency. So I logged it that way. It doesn't mean that I'm an expert or even know that much about that airplane. It just means that I understand the rules and follow them. Don't you?"

Yeah, I'd probably leave out the "don't you" part. That's just my personal reaction whenever this subject is brought up. "Gee, Mr. Airline interviewer, doesn't your company understand the FAA rules that apply to it and follow them? Maybe I don't want your $15,000 a year. Might not be safe"

 

Logbook questions aren't the only ones that might come up. But hey- do what you want to do. I can tell you from experience (on the interviewing side of the table) that shooting yourself in the foot doesn't do anything to hurt my feelings. There are literally THOUSANDS of folks lining up on the other side of the door that are happy to fill the slot you might have gotten in class.

Ok. So you acted as the PIC of the G150? Great! What can you tell me about the hydraulic system? What is the maximum gear operating speed? What is turbulence penetration speed for passenger comfort? Can you describe the gear extention sequence?

Any aircraft that you log PIC in you'd better be ready to answer questions that a PIC should be able to answer- particularly if you're logging PIC time in a turbine aircraft.

Remember- it's all about playing the game. Like it or not, you have to play by the potential employer's rules if you want to work there.

 

So I guess I should leave in the "don't you?" Apparently, the folks you interview for don't follow FAA rules they don't like since they object to applicants doing that.

Note: I have no objection to an employer only considering certain time as experience for the job. Nor on insisting that time be broken down on an application in any way that the employer wants. But that's very different than, "We insist that you pay even more than you have already for your pilot training* in order to get a job that won't pay you nearly enough."

(* the instrument rating requires 50 hours of PIC cross country time. Most pilot do about 10 of those with their CFI - which is obviously not "acting" PIC time, although it counts as PIC time for the rating. Since you object to logging that time at all, the pilot can't use it - you're insisting that they rent an airplane to an additional 10 hours - there's $1,000 right there so you can play your "game" of disregarding FAA rules.)

Never said that. Not even for one millisecond. Didn't even say I logged it since I'm not type-rated for it and the FAA says I can't unless I'm rated.

 

Well, there is a reason why I would be sitting in front of you now as opposed to those other thousands of people. Because, you chose to put me at that table! Job vacancy filling is a two way street. Yes, there are usually plenty of applicants for any pilot job but a much smaller number of them are safe, experienced, and competent enough make it through training, let alone meet the min requirements. Airlines want pilots that will do the job for the crap pay AND be experienced/competent and in my experience, those two aspects in an applicant's file are usually inversely proportional (meaning more experience = MUCH less likely to work for crap).

As for the log book question, I have logged PIC on every single occasion I have ever been present for in every single airplane I have ever had the legal grounds to do so, including the, "Hey! Wanna give it a try?" 0.8hrs here and there. Note the word LOGGED, meaning that I was sole manipulator of the flight controls for an airplane that I was rated in. No, I do not know the landing gear extension sequence in the PC-12 but I do know that if you pull back on the yoke, it goes upwards during cruise. I log time like that because I can say I have flown it before. When it comes time for an interview, I will do the research and learn as much as I reasonably can about said airplane however, unless I flew the airplane on a regular basis/have been trained in it/owned it, I see no reason to learn the gear extension sequence. I would think that my explanation of the time, including all of the proper 14 CFR references, would be something an interviewer would hold as a sought after characteristic in a pilot.

All this being said, I wouldn't be the one who says he used to fly the PC-12 and talk about how much better it is than other airplanes n such like that because I do not have nearly enough experience in the airplane to know such things. People who do proclaim a huge depth of knowledge about an airplane they only have 0.8 hrs in shouldn't get the job because that pilot is cocky and probably reckless unless of course they actually do know the airplane inside and out.

 

The FAA has made it abundantly clear that there is a distinction between LOGGING PILOT IN COMMAND time and ACTING AS THE PILOT IN COMMAND!

I do NOT really agree with this idea of logging without being PIC however, in this day and age of lawsuits, lawyers, and technicalities, since I am forced to play by those rules, I will play by EACH AND EVERY one of those rules, including the ones that work out to my advantage.

Can a POTENTIAL EMPLOYER not hire you because of that... of course they can. That is their right as an business... to hire whom ever they want. Will I let a potential employer dictate to me how I should manage my pilot logbook... No! The FAA takes care of that for them/me!

 

Yup. They have. And for the record, I have logged PIC time in a transport category aircraft where I wasn't the company assigned PIC, however had a type rating (I was flying part 91 from the left seat with a more senior pilot who was the assigned PIC). I'd even be happy to provide an interpretation that says you can to anybody that would like to see it.

But just because the FAA says you can doesn't mean that an airline will agree. I would say that one or two little flights here and there aren't a big deal, but according to the FAA, a 121 FO who has completed training (with or without a type) could log the legs they flew as PIC.

I tend to think that a 3 year FO at Mesaba who has never served as a captain yet has 900 hrs of CRJ PIC in their logbook might raise an eyebrow, even if the time is logged within the letter of the law.

 

Mesaba and every other airline in the country has a Company HR Interviewer AND A Tech Interviewer (usually a management pilot of some sort) and if the tech interviewer reads that guy's logbook and doesn't think it's ok after hearing the explanation of why it is legal (and therefore "ok") well then maybe you don't wanna work there because who knows what else that company thinks is "not quite ok." Maybe going missed on an ILS "isn't quite ok" either even though u had nothing in sight! Any airline should know the laws that pertain to their pilot applicants ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE INTERVIEWING PILOTS!!! 14 CFR 121 and 14 CFR 61.51 are not subject to an interviewer's "eyebrows."

If it's legal, it's legal! That's that! Again, an employer has the right to hire you or not for any reason(s) they see fit therefore, I see no reason to not log it simply because of the "they might not 'go for it'" idea.