Ari Ben?
12-02-2006 | 06:28 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 0
From: UPS 757/767 Capt ONT
"You can still get away with saying that one person is PIC and the other is sole manipulator of the controls"
Really. Can you defend that with a FAR reference? I think that's a bit of a stretch. You're IMC and one guy is logging PIC as sole manipulator and the other as PIC? If the other guy is a CFI, then fine. You're saying two guys simultaneously log PIC if you simply declare the non-flying pilot as PIC in a light twin?
All I can say is I sure hope regional interviewers are putting pressure on guys that log a lot of this sort of time. This lowering the bar in experience standards has to stop.
Really. Can you defend that with a FAR reference? I think that's a bit of a stretch. You're IMC and one guy is logging PIC as sole manipulator and the other as PIC? If the other guy is a CFI, then fine. You're saying two guys simultaneously log PIC if you simply declare the non-flying pilot as PIC in a light twin?
All I can say is I sure hope regional interviewers are putting pressure on guys that log a lot of this sort of time. This lowering the bar in experience standards has to stop.
12-02-2006 | 08:02 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
I agree on that one. I know the FAR's have their share of "gray" areas, but that one might just push it too far. If I ever question logging something, I just ask myself...."Do I want to have to explain this in an interview?" If the answer is no, then I don't log it. You really don't want to put yourself in an awkward position someday over a little extra time in the logbook.
12-02-2006 | 08:23 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
From: DHC-6 / PC-12
"You can still get away with saying that one person is PIC and the other is sole manipulator of the controls"
Really. Can you defend that with a FAR reference? I think that's a bit of a stretch. You're IMC and one guy is logging PIC as sole manipulator and the other as PIC? If the other guy is a CFI, then fine. You're saying two guys simultaneously log PIC if you simply declare the non-flying pilot as PIC in a light twin?
All I can say is I sure hope regional interviewers are putting pressure on guys that log a lot of this sort of time. This lowering the bar in experience standards has to stop.
Really. Can you defend that with a FAR reference? I think that's a bit of a stretch. You're IMC and one guy is logging PIC as sole manipulator and the other as PIC? If the other guy is a CFI, then fine. You're saying two guys simultaneously log PIC if you simply declare the non-flying pilot as PIC in a light twin?
All I can say is I sure hope regional interviewers are putting pressure on guys that log a lot of this sort of time. This lowering the bar in experience standards has to stop.
12-03-2006 | 04:21 AM
#24
Piper Commander
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
12-03-2006 | 03:40 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
He's talking about the safety pilot time, not the time spent flying under the hood. In other words, if you are the one not flying and just looking for traffic they don't count that.
12-04-2006 | 01:44 AM
#30
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
From: CA
so basically when your a safety pilot and you pay for 100 hours, you only get 50, theoretically?
i'm looking at eagle and pinnacle as my two top regionals to apply to...does anyone know if pinnacle accepts this
i'm looking at eagle and pinnacle as my two top regionals to apply to...does anyone know if pinnacle accepts this
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
