135 Op SIC Logging in Piaggio Avanti
07-03-2018, 05:57 PM
#21
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,468
Originally Posted by Toddzilla
Dera has a pretty strong and educated opinion on this matter re: logging SIC vs. PIC and I'm not saying they are wrong, but I vehemently disagree with their reasoning for logging PIC because they are the sole manipulator of the controls as the SIC. I could be way off base but as other people in previous threads have said, most airlines assimilate PIC to mean a signature on the release- not being the PF. They don't care that a pilot can hand-fly an aircraft. Anybody can do that. They care that a PIC can take care of the flight planning, make safe decisions, please customers, work with dispatch, etc.
I understand what Dera is saying, but in an interview I just don't see how somebody would be able to explain how they worked for Surf Air, Boutique, Tradewind, etc. for a year as SIC and now have 1200 hours and 500 hours of it is PIC in a pc12. Call me lazy, but I'm not willing to break up my PIC time like that. Maybe that's just because I never had to, I don't know.
Hit 1200, upgrade to PIC and see what it actually means to act as a PIC, not just fly an airplane. I promise you will learn a lot.
If I had been in this situation during my time building experience, I think I would have logged it as total time and left both PIC and SIC blank. If you wanna get fancy, add a column for PF and PM. To me that seems like an easier thing to explain in an interview.
That all being said, log it however you want- it's your book. In my opinion, however, log it in the way that is the easiest to explain to a skeptic. In the current 121 market, It's not like a few extra hours of PIC time is going to help you out much in a regional interview anyway. You'll be in the same ground school as everybody else and upgrade when they pull your number.
I understand what Dera is saying, but in an interview I just don't see how somebody would be able to explain how they worked for Surf Air, Boutique, Tradewind, etc. for a year as SIC and now have 1200 hours and 500 hours of it is PIC in a pc12. Call me lazy, but I'm not willing to break up my PIC time like that. Maybe that's just because I never had to, I don't know.
Hit 1200, upgrade to PIC and see what it actually means to act as a PIC, not just fly an airplane. I promise you will learn a lot.
If I had been in this situation during my time building experience, I think I would have logged it as total time and left both PIC and SIC blank. If you wanna get fancy, add a column for PF and PM. To me that seems like an easier thing to explain in an interview.
That all being said, log it however you want- it's your book. In my opinion, however, log it in the way that is the easiest to explain to a skeptic. In the current 121 market, It's not like a few extra hours of PIC time is going to help you out much in a regional interview anyway. You'll be in the same ground school as everybody else and upgrade when they pull your number.
I have to strongly disagree with the "anyone can do that" statement. There is a big PC12 operator, and we've hired some people from there. They all have one thing in common - none work here any more. Either they failed in training, or got fired pretty soon after their checkride - simply could not fly the plane, even though they had 200-300 hours of "SIC time" in the plane. With no pilot flying time, you know nothing about it.
Based on my own experience - I would not hire a Caravan/PC12 SIC who can not show the hours they've been the pilot flying.
And since there's no "PF time" in 61.51, PIC time is the closest one and this is what FAA tells you to do as well. If you want to split PF and PM, that's just as well. Just don't condemn those hours as SIC time, leave it empty if you wish for now. There is a chance those hours will be rendered useless. This is how I have done my logbook (I started a new logbook when I moved to 135 turbine world).
I've been a PIC here for close to 200 hours now. You are 100% right, you learn a lot, and most of it is stuff you don't even think about when you are SIC.
07-09-2018, 08:31 AM
#22
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Originally Posted by ForthFlyer
Are you saying that all right seat pilots at the 135 Caravan and PC-12 operators out there can only log total time, not SIC time, when the autopilot is on?
This sounds a bit absurd to me. But I suppose what difference does it make, SIC time vs. just total time. Most folks at those operations are just there to build up to 1200/1500 hours of total time and move on.
This sounds a bit absurd to me. But I suppose what difference does it make, SIC time vs. just total time. Most folks at those operations are just there to build up to 1200/1500 hours of total time and move on.
What is absurd is the notion of logging total time without it being PIC, SIC, or instruction received. Because in a single-pilot aircraft, the SIC is not required when the autopilot is in use (under a certificate holder authorized autopilot in lieu of a SIC), the "SIC" is not entitled to log the time at all.
07-09-2018, 09:17 AM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by dera
I've said this same thing for a long time - log PIC time when you can (sole manipulator of controls in a single pilot plane), know the regs, and DO NOT ASK THE FAA ABOUT THIS because you might not like the answer you get.
For now, it's questionable, but widely accepted to log that time. That's probably the best status quo for now, until this new Opspec is more widely issued.
For now, it's questionable, but widely accepted to log that time. That's probably the best status quo for now, until this new Opspec is more widely issued.
07-09-2018, 09:27 AM
#24
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
The "SIC" is not required, and may not log the time at all.
What is absurd is the notion of logging total time without it being PIC, SIC, or instruction received. Because in a single-pilot aircraft, the SIC is not required when the autopilot is in use (under a certificate holder authorized autopilot in lieu of a SIC), the "SIC" is not entitled to log the time at all.
What is absurd is the notion of logging total time without it being PIC, SIC, or instruction received. Because in a single-pilot aircraft, the SIC is not required when the autopilot is in use (under a certificate holder authorized autopilot in lieu of a SIC), the "SIC" is not entitled to log the time at all.
If you're not a PIC, SIC, instructor, dual recipient, or other required pilot crew member (ie safety pilot) then it's not Total Flight Time (aka Total Pilot Flight Time).
OK, there is a one grey area, really more a point of confusion since it's not grey at all: "Total Time" is not defined by the FAR's, so technically has no legal definition. It is not applicable to aeronautical experience. You could "technically" log anything you want as "total time", you just can't use it for FAR aeronautical experience unless it's meets those requirements. So you can log total time when going for an ASEL ride with your buddy who's the PIC if you really want to, just don't try to apply that time for any aeronautical experience or currency purposes.
Also... I would kindly suggest that you don't try to apply such "total time" towards employment applications
07-09-2018, 11:21 AM
#25
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Likewise, while 14 CFR 61.51 recognizes sole manipulator logging of PIC in an aircraft for which one is rated, once one is big enough to play with the rest of the class, one does not log PIC or "PF" in Part 121 or 135 operations UNLESS one is pilot in command, and designated such by the certificate holder.
Logging "pilot flying" time or PIC time as sole manipulator, when one is not the PIC, not only looks bad in an interview, but tends to mark one as less than aware, and appears foolish.
The employer will ask very simply if you were pilot in command. If you were not the designated pilot in command, and logged anything but SIC, then you're impressing no one, and making yourself look foolish in a place where you ought do anything but.
Logging "pilot flying" time or PIC time as sole manipulator, when one is not the PIC, not only looks bad in an interview, but tends to mark one as less than aware, and appears foolish.
The employer will ask very simply if you were pilot in command. If you were not the designated pilot in command, and logged anything but SIC, then you're impressing no one, and making yourself look foolish in a place where you ought do anything but.
07-09-2018, 04:15 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Likewise, while 14 CFR 61.51 recognizes sole manipulator logging of PIC in an aircraft for which one is rated, once one is big enough to play with the rest of the class, one does not log PIC or "PF" in Part 121 or 135 operations UNLESS one is pilot in command, and designated such by the certificate holder.
Logging "pilot flying" time or PIC time as sole manipulator, when one is not the PIC, not only looks bad in an interview, but tends to mark one as less than aware, and appears foolish.
The employer will ask very simply if you were pilot in command. If you were not the designated pilot in command, and logged anything but SIC, then you're impressing no one, and making yourself look foolish in a place where you ought do anything but.
Logging "pilot flying" time or PIC time as sole manipulator, when one is not the PIC, not only looks bad in an interview, but tends to mark one as less than aware, and appears foolish.
The employer will ask very simply if you were pilot in command. If you were not the designated pilot in command, and logged anything but SIC, then you're impressing no one, and making yourself look foolish in a place where you ought do anything but.
Also, most all companies that care about the distinction between acting PIC and loggable PIC will state as much explicitly in their application process. It would indeed be foolish to include sole manipulator time when it is expressly forbidden, but when it's not, it is legal time.
07-09-2018, 06:02 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by MaxMar
In that same vein, the company designated PIC cannot legally log time on those 91 legs when the company designated SIC is flying the aircraft, what would the airlines think of that PIC time if they chose to log it?
Who's on first?
Seriously, nobody should take the risk of having this debate at either a job interview or when the FAA asks to discuss the hours reported on an 8710.
07-10-2018, 03:22 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by deadstick35
So what you’re saying is that there’s an SIC logging 61.51 “PIC” but there’s no 1.1 PIC? Who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight?” You have an SIC as PF who bends metal. Who do you think the FAA is going to look at? The 500 hr PFSIC or the 2000 hr pilot sitting in the other seat?
Who's on first?
Seriously, nobody should take the risk of having this debate at either a job interview or when the FAA asks to discuss the hours reported on an 8710.
Who's on first?
Seriously, nobody should take the risk of having this debate at either a job interview or when the FAA asks to discuss the hours reported on an 8710.
On the contrary, an 8710 is an FAA form and should be filled out in accordance with the FARs. It’s most likely a company will want to see hours that will differ from an 8710 as it pertains to things like sole manipulator PIC, and ATD FTD FFS time since those should all be on an 8710 as well.
07-19-2018, 08:09 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by deadstick35
So what you’re saying is that there’s an SIC logging 61.51 “PIC” but there’s no 1.1 PIC? Who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight?” You have an SIC as PF who bends metal. Who do you think the FAA is going to look at? The 500 hr PFSIC or the 2000 hr pilot sitting in the other seat?
Who's on first?
Seriously, nobody should take the risk of having this debate at either a job interview or when the FAA asks to discuss the hours reported on an 8710.
Who's on first?
Seriously, nobody should take the risk of having this debate at either a job interview or when the FAA asks to discuss the hours reported on an 8710.
91 legs , again you are not required crew member. if not required can’t perform SIC duties and can’t log time.
//////Now, by this new reg it will be legal 91,135,VFR,IFR etc if the operator participate in PDP. In other words what ever was not legal before will be legal soon ////. Question.. if Max and a few others are right in their interpretation WHY would FAA make this new reg ?
07-19-2018, 07:54 PM
#30
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Originally Posted by PT6LOL
Question.. if Max and a few others are right in their interpretation WHY would FAA make this new reg ?
I do provide the regulation as interpreted by the Adminstrator, as given in the CFR itself, the Federal Register preambles, and the Chief and Assistant Legal Counsel legal interpretations.
That's what you've received.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
