1212135

Well that the real problem at some airlines. This isn’t a court of law that you get to produce evidence to dispute there though process. ((( Keep in mind we are also talking about the same companies that won’t interview a pilot with 8,000 plus hours clean record and a 4 year degree, but will hire a 1501hr pilot with no college degree bc hes related to a pilot at that company))). They are the judge jury and executioner.

HERE GOE FOR EVERYONE!!
***Don't apply at Mainline carriers using PIC hours that weren’t left seat trip sheet authorized. Also don’t wear red underwear to a interview at a Mainline carrier bc if the HR personnel doesn’t like it that could ruin your chances of a career there too.****

Macjet

Few people aspire to be a 135 guy for life. It's usually a stepping stone to something that pays better, with better benefits, and with more time off. I know, I've been there.

And the FAA General Counsel doesn't hire line pilots. The airlines do. So, it really doesn't matter what the FAA GC says about logging anything when it comes to your logbook in an airline interview. Having no PIC time is not a hinderance anymore but falsifying your logbook and claiming PIC time as the FO would be.

There's a TOTD thread I think you should go check into as well.

USMCFLYR

You guys really need to realize the two different types of PIC logging being discussed here. What the FAA ALLOWS and what COMPANIES desire in their hiring criteria. Trying to cross the streams is just arguing with apparently neither side understanding the other.

Das Auto - I know you are very experience and are well respected on the forum, but saying “...but if they did it would then be legal for the person to log their time as PIC assuming they we're typed...” really makes it sound like you don’t know that IT IS LEGAL to log sole manipulator time. Some COMPANIES, due to their own hiring criteria (not talking LEGALITY), may decided not to count such time at their discretion.

The best advice so far given, at near the beginning of this whole thread, was you can log what is legal, but when applying to X, Y, or Z company - you had better know their specific requirements.

No Macjet....he shouldn’t.
He very clearly said what you just said early on.
YOU just can’t say ‘I understand what you saying, just people should be careful when applying’ no understanding or compromise - just your way or the highway. You’re also experienced enough in many sectors of aviation and this forum that you should more mature in your approach....IMO.

Das Auto

Its illegal to drink on the beach in Hawaii. Solution? Wade into the ocean before you crack open your beer. A good lawyer would probably get you off a ticket citing some legal technicality, but the intent of the law has been breeched.

Personally, I try to keep my logbook as transparent and unambiguous as possible. If I'm PIC on the trip sheet I log PIC in my logbook. If I'm SIC I log my time in the SIC column, even if I'm flying captain on captain. If I'm cleared for an ILS approach I fly the ILS profile and log an ILS approach. If I'm cleared for a visual approach I fly and log a visual approach. No games, no technicalities no gray areas. Just a factual record of every flight since my first flying lesson 15 years ago.

Each to their own. I doubt any recruiter, airline or otherwise would be impressed by someone's ability to manipulate the numbers in their favor though. That's just my perspective from someone who's been on both sides of the interviewing table.

1212135

So if the law allows you to do something legally you shouldn’t? Doesn’t “Airlines”use excuses like weather to avoid Maintence cancellations in order not to pay for passengers hotels? Because one is a controllable factor of the airlines and the other is not. Seems like “Airlines” uses the laws of the US to there advantage themselves. Many documented case of that. I understand as an interviewer your thought process can vary based on a Companies health and needs. If your short 30 pilots and only have 15 applicants due to pilot shortages and interviewer can easily change there opinion one day to the next. Infact their boss would insist on it as a plane sitting idle cost money. 2008 if you weren’t an Astronaut you weren’t getting a interview. 2015 we will pay you 57,000 and give you seniority credit for any company you’ve worked for just to come work for us. They didn’t say “ah I’m not changing my standards”
Let’s put this in to a time frame for you
2008-3000+ hrs or no interview
2010-2000+ we may interview you
2012-1500 as the ATP rules coming into play
2015-ATP license and 1000 hrs (SIC or PIC of part 121/135 we will make you a DEC
2017-ATP restricted 20,000 bonus
2019-ATP restricted or we will pay for part of your flight school 50,000 bonus and give you flow thru mainline.

I’m done arguing this point USMCFLYER said it perfectly. It’s legal but do your homework on where your interviewing you can very easily say something an HR rep doesn’t like or think it’s politically incorrect and lose your shot. Long before your log book hours come in to question.

Venkman

This. All the way.

PIC stands for Pilot In Command. If I'm not the Pilot In Command, I don't log it as PIC. Period. The only possible reason to split hairs about sole manipulator time is to be able to log it, so as to meet some hiring criteria somewhere. Let's not all pretend that isn't why we're having this discussion. You might trick their application screening criteria, but I promise you the interview won't go well when you start in with "well technically I logged it PIC because..."

Log what you want. It's your butt out there. Be smart.

USMCFLYR

That is the most conservative method and the one I use to (except for the logging of ILSs and visuals ), but again....if are you analyzing my logbook at an interview and you see that I have sole manipulator time logged, and not used to meet any of your minimum requirements for employment, and you try to tell me it isn’t right to log that - or worst yet that it is ILLEGAL; well I’m going to have to tell you in front of the entire board that you are mistaken and I’m going to be embarrassed for you in front of your peers and wonder myself if a company who uses to interview people has such a misunderstanding
Of the regulations is someplace I might be interested working (what else like duty times or rest periods or OpSpecs are they clueless on???)

Wow...another entrant who can seem to grasp what has been said time and time again

Dang the Internet is such a disappointment sometimes.
Not ALL jobs throughout one’s career have the same hiring criteria - let’s not pretend they do.

Das Auto

No-one is suggesting that logging sole manipulator time is wrong or illegal. In fact I think its the best way to get around this problem.

But, the logging of PIC time when you're not the PIC because technically, in theory, in the opinion of etc. you legally could is a slippery slope. If you want to stand up and tell the interviewers that you're right and you feel sorry for them for being so ignorant, go for it. I can guarantee you that they won't be asking "when can you start?"

USMCFLYR

But it isn’t IN THEORY Das....it is 100% legal per the FARs.

As you say.....NO ONE is suggesting that if you are applying to Delta and they say they want you to only list PIC of record on your application and you don’t do that then you are correct.

It isn’t wrong, illegal, bad form, cutting the rules to close, disingenuous, or a slippery slope to have logged sole manipulator PIC time in your logbook.

It is all of those things above should you list them on a resume/application for a company that specifically states to list PIC OF RECORD time only.

And that just might be the best thing

1212135

I will stop saying it’s “ technically legal”. It is legal.

Back in 1999 a FAA general Councel statement confirmed if you were appropriately type rated in an aircraft and you were the sole manipulator of the flight control ( Your flying leg) you could log it as PIC. ( That’s black and white) I understand it was beneficial at the time to allow this for part 135/ 91 operations to meet upgrade time and standards for insurability. As I pointed out an FO would never accumulate the PIC time needed with out large financial burden on a company of flying empty planes around. ( And yes a little lobbying money probably helped) However the rule didn’t change as time went on. The airlines (121) created there own system and terminology of what they implied was PIC. It wasn’t law but it was an accepted practice or standard they adopted. Fast forward to 2010ish the law of the land became all carriers need to ATP type rated FO. Once again the logging of PIC when you were sole manipulator of flight controls did not change nor was an updated general Councel put out with regards to it. (( At least I have not seen any from the FAA, however if there is an updated FAA document I’d love to see it)) So the airlines (121) have chosen to be more restrictive to there beliefs which is there right as a private company. They are not violating and laws by doing this. But it in no way is illegal to count that as PIC. I will grant you that a mainline part (121) or maybe NJA would not accept that. All I tired to do was help someone figure out if they met DEC minimums. I hope you understand I have no problem with you interpreting rule as you see fit. But like contracts in the real world it’s up to a judge ( FAA in aviation world) to rule on legalities. And I’m sure some big companies have been told by their lawyers one thing only to have a judge overrule it the next day. Apple/Google/Delta/Trump/Democrats/Facebook/Amazon/Boeing/NFL. Have been wrong and have had to pay the price for being wrong. It may cost me a job at Mainline or it may cost mainline millions in unfair hiring compensation. Also a bad credit check could cost you a job at mainline too.