HuggyU2

Galaxy Flyer,
The "SIC issue" is moot. FAA rated pilots log dual when with another IP.
Some NFO's / Navs have FAA ratings.
Some Navs / NFOs have worked themselves into commercial flying jobs using time they logged in the military.
It's a fact.
And BTW, I started UPT IN '85... I'm still active duty... 29 years for me too.

JamesNoBrakes

What was the purpose of the flight?

This is where I think you can draw the line. The intent of flight there is training towards certificating that pilot as a private, commercial, or ATP pilot.

So if you are going to log time as a NFO or other crewmember that's not required to fly the airplane, you better be getting training towards certificating you to do so. The end goal of that training that you are logging has to end with you being the PIC and in the pilot seat.

Since this is not the case, I think it clearly is not "instruction given/received" for FAA purposes. If you want to log some kind of tactical training time, great, but it's not the same thing due to the intent.

The problem is you aren't in a program for pilot training.

I don't think having an FAA certificate changes the idea that the intent is the training must be towards making a pilot.

Of course Flight Instructors do more things than just make pilots, they do flight reviews, specific topics and skills, etc, but again, all of those are happening with people that are already pilots.

HuggyU2

"Intent"? To get instruction?
1. Where in the CFR's is that written?
2. And most military flights ARE "training flights". I know more than one F-15E pilot that specially gave their their WSO instruction and stick time, for the sake of "pilot redundancy". Does that meet your personal standard of what qualifies for "intent"??

JamesNoBrakes

Is the intent of those flights to train the NFO to be the pilot in the front seat?

I did just show you where the intent is to be in a pilot training program of some type.

If this was some regular joe flying around in a 172 with an instructor maybe the discussion would be somewhat different, but the problem is the intent in the military is clear due to already being in the NFO position and the mission of these flights being defined.

HuggyU2

OK,... You win.

Hacker15e

Those guys weren't "exchange students," and their training syllabus had nothing whatsoever to do with the AF and "common sense." I flew with 'em, too...and so did one or two other guys on this forum that were in my squadron.

It was part of a State Department-brokered agreement. They were attending IFF as part of their lead-in to F-16 conversion training...training that they'd purchased along with their foreign military sales F-16s.

Their "abbreviated course" had nothing to do with some sudden realization that these "students" were all ready qualified fighter pilots in their own country. They had a different syllabus because that was part of the FMS purchase agreement.

Hacker15e

Uh, what?

Where is there any regulatory guidance in the CFR or any of the military regs that governs when dual may be logged, and references a requirement for there to be an "intent" to teach on said flight?

libertyrisk

I've flown with a couple WSOs who had their commercial license in F/A-18D's that had controls in the backseat... they logged the SIC time in their personal logbook but in M-SHARP it was logged as special crew time (SCT).

Guess at the end of the day, it's what the airlines are willing to accept.

S/F

Grumble

Good luck defending that flight time at an interview, especially if the guy on the other side of the table is prior mil. I'd personally toss that right out. In order to log SIC, the airplane in question has to require two crew members. They also aren't NATOPS rated as a pilot in said aircraft.

F4E Mx

Well the guy at the other side of the table might be an ex-NFO or Navigator himself, or a civilian who could care less, or one of the 90 percent of the prior military pilots go out of their way to help their squadron mates.