Airline Pilot Central Forums - Restricted ATP for NFOs?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Military (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/)

- - Restricted ATP for NFOs? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/83544-restricted-atp-nfos.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1718732)

Are they wearing Pilot wings of NFO wings?

I don't think Flight Safety is an authorized presenter of Naval Pilot Wings. Yes, no?:confused:

Well, there is no bright line anywhere as these many post point out. I just remarked that is was curious that you could have a situation where the most experienced and accomplished pilot in the airplane was the NFO in the right seat. If you as, PIC, wanted to disregard his experience and knowledge and pretend the guy wasn't a pilot and didn't have an ATP and thousands of hours that says something about you, not the NFO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badflaps (Post 1718853)

I don't think Flight Safety is an authorized presenter of Naval Pilot Wings. Yes, no?:confused:

Exactly!
As JNB posted earlier:

Quote:

B. Restricted Privileges ATP Certificate. A holder of a restricted privileges ATP certificate may serve as a second in command (SIC) in part 121 operations with the exception of flag or supplemental operations in part 121 requiring three or more pilots. All applicants for a restricted privileges ATP certificate must be at least 21 years old and have a minimum of 200 hours of cross-country flight time. The following applicants are eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate:

1) Military-Trained. In accordance with § 61.160(a), a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot, who has not been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, may apply for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot, if the pilot presents:

a) Eligibility requirements listed in § 61.153;

b) Aeronautical knowledge requirements listed in § 61.155;

c) Aeronautical experience requirements listed in § 61.160;

d) An official Form DD-214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicating that the person was honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces or an official U.S. Armed Forces record that shows the pilot is currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces; and

e) An official U.S. Armed Forces record that shows the person graduated from a U.S. Armed Forces undergraduate pilot training school and received a rating qualification as a military pilot.

I am unfamiliar with MongoEP3's earlier example of NFO's getting some SIC type of checkout - but he is in a community from which a lot of C-12 came out of so I'll not dispute his claims. I personally never saw such a practice.

My first understanding of this thread was asking if an NFO (with no other aviation related experience or training) could log time as an NFO towards an ATP or other required experience for ratings or certificates. If this is correct then the thread has morphed into an NFO WITH FAA certificates and whether that person could log time while flying - especially if the person he is flying with is also an FAA certified CFI/I/MEI for example?

Might be along the lines of the sole manipulator debate. Even if it is strictly legal..........it had better not be on your airline application because I can't imagine that a interview board would look kindly on that situational logging.

F4E Mx - this thread it talking about logging time - not whether the pilot would listen to the NFO in your scenario.

Quote:

F4E Mx - this thread it talking about logging time - not whether the pilot would listen to the NFO in your scenario.

Exactly! I, we in the squadron, valued those guys especially to train the new engineers about flying planes. Their opinion was always valued, but they couldn't log time as C-5 pilots.

If there isn't a bright line, how come there is absolutely no credit given by the military to civilian pilots? I sent a B747 F/O to Undergraduate Pilot Training, he was trained just like the guy with not an hour of flying. I've seen very experienced civilian pilots washed out, too.

GF

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1718891)

Might be along the lines of the sole manipulator debate. Even if it is strictly legal..........it had better not be on your airline application because I can't imagine that a interview board would look kindly on that situational logging.

I don't think it would be strictly legal at all, definitely a grey area that the regs don't address directly...but it might be "legal enough" for FAA purposes, depending on who you talk to. I wouldn't use the time for airline applications though, too much uncertainty and perception of "gaming".

But the extreme example...an FAA-rated backseater flying right seat per NATOPS (or AF equivalent) in an airframe with an FAA type (ie C-12) can reasonably log SIC. The fact that he's in a military duty status does not in any way invalidate his authority to log time IAW the FARs. I think some people are getting hung up on NFO/WSO = bad = not pilot=can't log anything.

rickair7777,

However, your example, assuming "backseater" means NFO proves the point on bright lines. The C-12, he is logging time under the FAR, is a King Air and is a single pilot TCDS-- no way is that SIC time under the FARs. It could be SIC time, under military rules, but he's not qualified to log that time under those rules as he is not a pilot. As I said, you have to use one set of authorities, not mix and match them to suit your needs.

GF

And I have seen experienced military pilots bust civilian check rides, so what is your point? I had a close friend who was a T-38 instructor pilot at Moody. They got in a foreign exchange student from a formerly eastern block country. After the first ride they asked him what he had been doing. Seems he was a MIG-21 instructor pilot. He went directly to the T-38 for an abbreviated course, so the USAF used to have common sense.

The point is they are two different sets of rules--FAA and US Mil. They have different standards, different missions, different tolerances for risk and reward. We can't mix to suit individual needs or desires.

I knew we should never argue with maintainers! BTW, I did 29 years of AF aviation.

GF

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 1718945)

I'm not saying there's a clear-cut answer, and I think most or all of the folks doing this were pushing boundaries. But why can't you mix the rules? Especially the part about the regulations under which the operation is conducted? Nowhere does it say or imply that military regs don't qualify.

See FAR 61.73 where every reference is to "special rules" for military PILOTS.

GF