deadstick35

You better make sure you’re operating in compliance with InFO 15012, specifically the NOTE in #4. I’ve been cleared for an ILS and seen the runway from 10 miles out. Just sayin’...

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia.../InFO15012.pdf

USMCFLYR is right. The standard is what the FAA says is legal. Log that. When you fill out applications and submit resumes, adjust from there because XYZ Airlines has a different standard than ABC Airlines.

Das Auto

If you're cleared for an ILS approach you must comply with the restrictions whether you have the field in sight or not. Think TEB or BUR.

There's a difference between instrument flight rules (IFR) and instrument meteorological conditions. (IMC) A SID or a STAR is in IFR procedure whether you're IMC or VMC. You don't get to disregard the mandatory restrictions just because you're in visual conditions. Same with in ILS. You comply with your clearance.

If you want to call "field in sight" and then receive a clearance for a visual approach then that's your prerogative. If you wish to do as you please just because you have the field in sight after being cleared for the ILS go for it. Let me know how that works out for you. Just get ready to write down a phone number.

Das Auto

Just to add, an ILS in VMC won't count towards currency requirements. Must be "sole reference to instruments" ie. IMC. Its a mute point since most operators have recurrent sim every 6 months anyway, but an ILS approach is an IFR clearance that must be complied with whether IMC or not.

Das Auto

Then when you get invited to the face to face interview you can explain why your logbook doesn't match the numbers on your app!

At least you'll get some valuable interview experience.

1212135

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1999/carpenter%20-%20(1999)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

Das Auto

Botox, spray tans and breast augmentation are also legal, but they’re still fake.

Carry on.

1212135

So documents from FAA website are fake now?

USMCFLYR

Now Das - are you just trying to be obtuse or has someone hacked your account? This is not your usual self it seems.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID!

Your logbook doesn’t have to exactly match your resume/application.
You have to explain what part of your logbook SUPPORTS the numbers on your resume/application.

If an applicant is applying to a company that requires 1,000 hrs of PIC of record and his logbook supports that he actually has more than that then great! If his logbook shows 1,500 of PIC and some of that is either logged under a separate column (and legal under the regulations) or not and if questioned were to say ‘well some of that is logged IAW sole manipulator regs but I didn’t include it in the numbers you asked for...’ then it should be a moot point. You didn’t do anything illegal and you didn’t falsify your resume/application IAW with prospective employer’s hiring guidelines.

I could have logged MANY more X/C hours than I did during my mil time, but I only logged stuff more than 50 miles away AND with a landing (a combo of both set of rules) and is more conservative than either rule by itself.

deadstick35

Lighten up, Francis.

I was commenting on your statement about always logging the approach if you fly it and are cleared for it. You are also saying your way is the only way to log time, even though different airlines have different requirements. Both are contrary to the standards set forth by the FAA.

FWIW Logbook Pro or other e-logs can help customize your data. Really though, if ABC airlines (mins are 1000 PIC per 1.1) looks at the 2000 hrs PIC hours a pilot enters into his/her online application/resumé, and they bring the pilot in for an interview, and the pilot’s log reflects 3000 PIC hrs of Part 1.1 (2000) and 61.51 (1000), they’re not going to give a darn because 1) the pilot meets the requirements, and 2) wasn’t fudging the times to meet the mins.

This would be a different conversation in the 1.1 and 61.51 numbers were reversed. I agree that would make for some good interview experience.

Das Auto

I'm actually a very sarcastic cocky individual that tries to show some restraint while typing on the forum. I have some time on my hands today so I felt like having some fun.

When a company looks at individuals PIC time on their resume they think of the time that person has been the one ultimately responsible for the multi million dollar assets they have been handed the metaphorical keys to. The one that has the ultimate authority for the operation of the aircraft. The one that signs the AML etc. Not the guy sitting in the right seat watching him whilst logging pseudo PIC time, just because legally he can.
It's misleading and it will lead to a TBNT letter from any reputable airline.

If guys want to create a new column in logbook pro called "sole manipulator of the controls, legally logged as PIC in order to meet the upgrade requirements set forth by Argus and Gieco insurance etc." Then go for it.
Logging it as real, genuine, "I signed for the aircraft and I was the company designated Captain" PIC column is false advertising.
It's like the people who know are average at best when it comes to physical appearance but look like Brad and Angelina on their social media profile. That's legal too.

Legal or not, logging PIC time when you're not really the Captain is B.S.