abides

They will look for things that stand out. A pilot that logs more than 8 hours SIC on a single segment might be one of those things. Especially if it’s done repeatedly. If so, you had better be right, and even if you’re right, you better not be a know it all. This whole exchange makes me cringe.

My advice, be conservative, be humble.

pinseeker

Exactly this^^^!

You don't want to be that guy who looks like they are trying to outsmart the system to get more hours on their resumé, legal or not. IME, they are looking for time at the controls.

This reminds me of the discussions of when you can log PIC time. While the FAA has stated the PIC time can be logged by a qualified, type rated pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls, FedEx is looking for PIC time where the pilot was actually signing for the airplane. Try arguing about that in the interview, and you will most likely never get a job offer.

Birdsmash

I get so confused by the 8 hours in the seat limitation for augmented crews. Which CFR 121 are you referencing? The previous generation of wide bodies that required a Flight Engineer were operated by a basic crew of 2 pilots and an additional airman (FE) for up to 12 hours. Now you are telling us that if you put a 4th crewmember onboard that everyone is limited to only 8 hours? For example, the 777F has an endurance of 20+ hours with full tanks. 777Fs are rarely flown at such long stage lengths because the max payload would be reduced to a little over half. However, are you saying that an airline couldn’t fly it non-stop for more than 16 hours with a crew of 4 if they chose (not including CBA limits only CFRs)?

rickair7777

I'm re-posting my comments from another thread...


If you're at FDX it's 99.9% likely that your logbook is just a vanity exercise... do what floats your boat.

If you're someone might interview again some day, I'd only log non-seat time if you're the PIC you signed for the ship, otherwise just time in seat. That's my perspective as someone who used to hire pilots... not really happy to see people logging grey area time, that might speak to your operational philosophy or character. Prefer to see the conservative approach. There are plenty of good ways to demonstrate your initiative and can-do attitude to a potential employer, but P-51 time is not one of them.

sigler

According to Part 61.51 (f) (2), one is allowed to log SIC time if the regulations under which the flight is being conducted requires his/her presence. IMO that covers augmented crews. What am I missing? As I wrote in another thread:

I think we tend to over-complicate things sometimes. The way I look at it (and no one has ever questioned me during an interview, so I guess it must make some sense) is: Is your name on the release as the PIC? Log the entire flight as PIC. Were you a required crewmember in an augmented crew, but weren't the PIC on the release? Log the entire flight as SIC. Were you part of a 3+ crew in a flight that didn't require more than 2 pilots? Log the time you were on the seat.

What interviewers are looking for is an accurate description of your flight experience, and that pretty much does it in my opinion.

pinseeker

Since you brought it up, here is part of that section. It isn't quite as simple as you stated.(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate;

Is the aircraft bunk a crew station? Does the aircraft type require someone to be in that bunk with an augmented crew in order to operate that aircraft.

I'll state for a final time, check with the company that you are interviewing with if that is how they want you to report your flight time. It's far better to know up front what they are looking for than to give them the impression that you are trying to pad you flight time in order to get an interview. It may never come up, but if it does and it is where you really want to end your career, you may have just ended your chances with that company before you ever started.

sigler

Your arguing one needs to comply with (1) and (2). Looking at other regs, I believe if that were the case there would and an “and” after (1) and (2), and not an “or” like there is after (2). The way I read it, either one of the three items under 61.51 (f) satisfies the requirements for logging SIC time.

pinseeker

That is a list of requirements to log SIC time. Since there is an "or" between the second and third retirement, that means that you have to satisfy requirement 1, and 2 or 3. That is why there is a semicolon after requirement 1, it is part of the required list. If they only wanted you to comply with one of those requirements, then there would be an or after 1 and 2. They placed the or where they did for a reason.

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate;

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted; or

(3) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in accordance with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied.

sigler

Apply that same logic to 61.3 (a) (1), for example. There are semi-colons after every item, and there’s an “or” after the next-to-last one. So exact same setup as 61.51 (f). It’s clear the “or” is implied after every item. Why would 61.51 (f) be any different? Check it out:

a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:

(1) Has in the person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization—

(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with §61.19;

(ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under §61.77;

(iii) A temporary certificate issued under §61.17;

(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under §61.29(e);

(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;

(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or

(vii) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.

aupilot

I finally received the invitation to apply but am having an issue submitting the application with the link provided (Step 2 for anyone who has been through the process). When I click the link and login there is no way to submit the application. I have tried changing my email, using a different browser, and even switched to a windows computer. Nothing seems to work. I have been emailing HR and so far no solution to the problem.

Anyone have this issue and maybe a solution?