Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
If FE hrs count for ATP, can Nav hrs count? >

If FE hrs count for ATP, can Nav hrs count?

Notices
Military Military Aviation

If FE hrs count for ATP, can Nav hrs count?

Old 09-20-2017, 08:06 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
155mm's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
S-3 NFO's have in the distant past logged some SIC and gotten away with it in the eyes of airline employers. But they had flight controls and even then it does not really standup to detailed regulatory scrutiny.

There's really nothing to challenge, the regs are written in a fairly clear manner. I think what you're talking about is a petition to change the regs, not challenge the existing ones. Call your congress-critter?

If you're airline bound, you'll probably get there quicker by building civilian flight time rather than titling at windmills in DC...
True Statement! I've flown with guys who used it as SIC time. However, they did hold an FAA license while logging it and the civilian operator only required a commercial, instrument multi so the flight time was basically a resume enhancer and not regulatory as are the requirements for the ATP.

If the FAA regs still accept 500 hours of flight engineer time towards the ATP, does military FE time count ie: time in KC10, C-130, etc?? And while we are it, we had a handful of enlisted Private pilot rated helicopter guys that logged SIC time in the Loach helicopter (OH-6) as an Aeroscout Observer. Does that count as total time?
155mm is offline  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:51 AM
  #12  
Get's Every Day Off
 
ExAF's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,858
Default

Originally Posted by navigatro View Post
Never trust a Nav that doesn't wear glasses.
A very wise WSO (that wore glasses) one told me....."Never fly with a WSO that doesn't wear glasses." Why? I asked. "Because then you don't know what's wrong with them!"
ExAF is offline  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:01 PM
  #13  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by 155mm View Post
True Statement! I've flown with guys who used it as SIC time. However, they did hold an FAA license while logging it and the civilian operator only required a commercial, instrument multi so the flight time was basically a resume enhancer and not regulatory as are the requirements for the ATP.
It never held regulatory water towards the ATP (due to lack of type rating or mil pilot rating, there's no regulatory basis for SIC time), although I think a few DPE's let it slide. Some employers would go for it as well, from a practical perspective it's not unreasonable. But that was then, this is now.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 06:49 AM
  #14  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 28
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
s-3 nfo's have in the distant past logged some sic and gotten away with it in the eyes of airline employers. but they had flight controls and even then it does not really standup to detailed regulatory scrutiny.

There's really nothing to challenge, the regs are written in a fairly clear manner. I think what you're talking about is a petition to change the regs, not challenge the existing ones. Call your congress-critter?

If you're airline bound, you'll probably get there quicker by building civilian flight time rather than titling at windmills in dc...
aka....... Cotac.
UPSet is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 06:52 AM
  #15  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 28
Default

Originally Posted by ExAF View Post
A very wise WSO (that wore glasses) one told me....."Never fly with a WSO that doesn't wear glasses." Why? I asked. "Because then you don't know what's wrong with them!"
+1!!!!!!!!
UPSet is offline  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:49 PM
  #16  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 9
Default

Originally Posted by Castle Bravo View Post
OK, Instrument "Qual'd." IRC taken annually and for each checkride. All the approach plate reviews, etc. I don't think FEs on AMC jets do that stuff; nice that FEs get the ATP waiver, but why did the WSO community not get the same good deal as the FEs?
I just want to know if someone has tried to slay this dragon or not before I start my letter writin' campaign to the FAA and my local Congressman (who is a retired Nav btw).
Castle,
I am all about getting the ball rolling. I am willing to roll up my sleeves. Makes no sense that an FE can apply hours and the NAV can't. The airlines don't have to accept it but if I show up with an ATP, what else will they say. With the hiring boom, I don't think they really have the luxury to be particular when there isn't any real justification.
Cavepilot is offline  
Old 09-26-2017, 03:35 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: Stretch DC-9 Gear Slinger
Posts: 615
Default

I think part of it comes from most of these planes need a FE as part of the crew every time you fly but the Nav only for tac flights. Take the C-130 for instance. It needs a Nav for airdrop missions, but if you are just going out to do touch and gos you don't need a Nav. You need a FE all the time. I could be wrong and I wish you luck accomplishing your goal.
Klondike Bear is offline  
Old 09-26-2017, 06:15 AM
  #18  
China Visa Applicant
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: IPZ to Mr.
Posts: 1,915
Default

Originally Posted by Cavepilot View Post
Castle,
I am all about getting the ball rolling. I am willing to roll up my sleeves. Makes no sense that an FE can apply hours and the NAV can't. The airlines don't have to accept it but if I show up with an ATP, what else will they say. With the hiring boom, I don't think they really have the luxury to be particular when there isn't any real justification.
Can you lay out the argument you'll make to the FAA for this?

Does your proposal hinge on simply asserting equivalency with FEs (or rather, equivalency with pilots in the same way that FEs are in the CFR)? If that's the angle, then is your goal the 500-hours-credit-for ATP rule?

If not, then how do you justify the training, skills, and experience of such a widely variant career field as NFOs/CSOs as, by default, equivalent with pilot flight time? Some aircraft have access to flight controls for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Some aircraft and regulations have airborne decisionmaking authority for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Credit for all, or credit for some? Split it out by aircraft type or by crew position designation according to the flight control access and/or the decisionmaking authority?

Are you going to argue for straight military NFO/CSO hours to be considered for this, or that if an NFO/CSO holds appropriate ratings in Category/Class/Type they can log the Part-61 "sole manipulator of controls" definition flight time? If the latter, then does that time count straight time, or does it count 3-to-1 ratio like the FE military time? Is the credit only toward the ATP, or other ratings too?

By contrast, consider the training and experience that 18x (rated UAV operators) receive, and their lack of pilot-equivalent credit with the FAA. Consider that rated pilots don't even get to credit their UAV flight time toward flying time requirements, even though that job requires a very similar type of airmanship/decisionmaking to manned flight time (and is arguably more relevant than NFO/CSO time). How do you argue that their time is not valid, but NFO/CSO time should be?

Not trying to hate here...just curious what arguments you're going to bring and what logic you're planning on using to defend it.
Hacker15e is offline  
Old 09-26-2017, 05:13 PM
  #19  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 9
Default

Originally Posted by Klondike Bear View Post
I think part of it comes from most of these planes need a FE as part of the crew every time you fly but the Nav only for tac flights. Take the C-130 for instance. It needs a Nav for airdrop missions, but if you are just going out to do touch and gos you don't need a Nav. You need a FE all the time. I could be wrong and I wish you luck accomplishing your goal.
You need a NAV for crossing the pond. You need a NAV for MNPS airspace. I don't think needing an FE for all flights is an FAA criteria. I could be wrong but we need to look into this.
Cavepilot is offline  
Old 09-26-2017, 05:29 PM
  #20  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 9
Default

Originally Posted by Hacker15e View Post
Can you lay out the argument you'll make to the FAA for this?

Does your proposal hinge on simply asserting equivalency with FEs (or rather, equivalency with pilots in the same way that FEs are in the CFR)? If that's the angle, then is your goal the 500-hours-credit-for ATP rule?

If not, then how do you justify the training, skills, and experience of such a widely variant career field as NFOs/CSOs as, by default, equivalent with pilot flight time? Some aircraft have access to flight controls for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Some aircraft and regulations have airborne decisionmaking authority for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Credit for all, or credit for some? Split it out by aircraft type or by crew position designation according to the flight control access and/or the decisionmaking authority?

Are you going to argue for straight military NFO/CSO hours to be considered for this, or that if an NFO/CSO holds appropriate ratings in Category/Class/Type they can log the Part-61 "sole manipulator of controls" definition flight time? If the latter, then does that time count straight time, or does it count 3-to-1 ratio like the FE military time? Is the credit only toward the ATP, or other ratings too?

By contrast, consider the training and experience that 18x (rated UAV operators) receive, and their lack of pilot-equivalent credit with the FAA. Consider that rated pilots don't even get to credit their UAV flight time toward flying time requirements, even though that job requires a very similar type of airmanship/decisionmaking to manned flight time (and is arguably more relevant than NFO/CSO time). How do you argue that their time is not valid, but NFO/CSO time should be?

Not trying to hate here...just curious what arguments you're going to bring and what logic you're planning on using to defend it.
Hacker,
Your questions rightly fleshes out the intricacies of this issue. My strategy would be to get a written explanation from the FAA on how FE time is justified. That is; their thought process in granting FE's this exception. I believe that is essential to any effective argument in the case for NAV/CSO/NFO. Invariably, CSO's, ECMO's, EWO's and TACMO's may not get lumped under the same umbrella. I don't have the answer to that just yet.
I actually got this going a while back but got sidetracked by other things. Getting one or two more people will make the task more manageable.

Again, this is my idea on how to tackle this. Others may have a better approach. I am open and eager to join heads.
Cavepilot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1st Supersonic
Atlas/Polar
20384
03-20-2024 10:15 PM
Opteryx
Southwest
251
01-26-2017 10:30 AM
kingair130
Flight Schools and Training
8
10-08-2009 08:55 PM
paxhauler85
Corporate
29
07-08-2008 07:57 PM
DL 24
Flight Schools and Training
25
09-14-2006 03:32 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices