Ewfflyer

SIC is SIC, SIC isn't PIC, PIC's can be SIC's if there's another PIC acting as PIC, can't have 2 PIC unless there's training going on, in which PIC#1 is CFI/PIC and PIC#2 is PIC.

Clear as mud. These questions all make my head hurt, and my responses are meant to make others feel the pain!

NightIP

And if you're an ATP the sole manipulator rule for logging PIC goes out the window anyway.

tflyer70

I am there Jake Brown...Did you end up finding another job??

BTW, maintenance found one of your "mens muscle magazines" and wanted to know if you wanted it mailed back

And didn't we already talk about this subject many moons ago?????

tflyer70

True, but then it does a 180, outside loop, and goes back to how the interviewer will interpret this. I believe this goes back to the old serving pic and acting pic. The way United and some of the other airlines look at is is: Who was the PIC on the release. You may have a situation where one pilot my have been downgraded, yet was typed in the aircraft before and serving as pic. But now since that pilot is flying as a first officer, does he/she get to log pic if they are still in the same aircraft??? Again, all depends on how one interprets it. I know United would NOT recognize this, but maybe other airlines would.

flyboyjake

thats a valid point, and some airlines (southwest and fedex) specifically state that their PIC requirements refer to the part 1 definition of PIC. There are, however, operators that dont care to even look at a logbook, so throw the interview out the window. I think its been long established that you cant have 2 PICs, but you can have to pilots logging PIC. An example is an atp type rated captain logging the entire flight in a charter flight requirning an ATP, and the SIC with a type rating logging PIC while manipulation the controlls. I don't think I have heard yet a law backed defense for not being able.


Yeah I found a painful little capt gig Saki...and just in time for the hammer to fall again on the industry. Tell the mx guys ill need that muscle mag back...I need it for character research if I ever plan to get on with messabbbaaa You still working strong there? Plans for another lay off?

tflyer70

still going like the energizer, sans everyday flying. Just got back from recurrent in Tucson. Good luck with getting on with XJ (Mesaba). I have heard from a friend that resumes are stacked to the gill. I know you said you never wanted to go to the regionals, but you may want to reconsider--if only to get "real" PIC turbine time. And by that I mean YOU signing for the release, and being the final authority... yadda yadda yadda...I know you have seen what it was like when the Captain gets the hammer, regardless of who's fault it is. But in the end, its part of the job. You got my number if you need anything.

flyboyjake

somehow I expected some animosity...I have no intention of trying to get on with "XJ". I have no doubt they foster terrific pilots, but I have had enough "real" turbine PIC to keep me in the market with a paycheck. By that I mean ME signing the release, and being the final authority n' such. God bless ya, and hope things stay well...

back to the post.

Qtip

FYI: Europe is JAA. ICAO is a UN organization. The US is an ICAO member. Most countries are ICAO members but each country can deviate from certain rules and regulations.

NoyGonnaDoIt

I don't know how logical this is, but, as already pointed out, the SIC rating was created by the FAA in order to allow US pilots to qualify for certain flights under ICAO rules. It really has no meaning for US pilots.

Yes, the SIC rating fits FAR 1.1's definition of a rating ("Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges, or limitations"). So that one can certainly argue that it meets the requirements of the "sole manipulator" rule.

But, my WAG is that it only does so as a result of the "law of unintended consequences." So I wouldn't be surprised if, since it is only a paper rating with no real meaning in the US, if asked, the FAA would interpret it in a way to avoid it being treated as an aircraft rating under 61.51.

tflyer70

Well, I dont know where you pick up on animosity, all posts were intended to be either informational answers to your original post, or advice from one who has been doing commercial flying since '95. I used to get the same rhetoric and advice from guys that I was flying with that had many more years and experience. Thats what this board is partially used for.