46 dash 8s to colgan
10-02-2009, 01:34 PM
#81
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 56
Since Stig wouldn't enlighten us with his vast knowledge. I looked it up.
QUESTION: I am hopeful you can provide assistance concerning a question that arose regarding first officers at Mesaba Airlines who are about to upgrade to Captain but who do not have the PIC requirements for the ATP Airplane Certificate [as per § 61.159(a)(4)]. As you know, this rule provides credit for time as SIC performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. However, this credit provision is not clearly described in the rule nor have I been able to find supporting documentation that can help clarify the application of the rule in Mesaba's case.
What is the definition of “SIC performing the duties of pilot in command” in an aircraft requiring a type rating and seat specific functions that can only be performed on the PIC's (captain's) side of the aircraft?
How would this definition apply to first officers in the SF-340 flying under FAR 121 who fly in the right seat of an aircraft with seat dependent tasks? The SF-340 requires seat dependent training and normally the airline would not provide left seat dependent training to a FO who sits in the right seat. The FO cannot perform all the duties of the captain (PIC) from the right seat of the SF-340 (one example, operating the tiller during taxi).
How does the SIC document this experience so that an examiner reviewing the log books of an applicant can determine the time which may be credited toward the PIC requirements of § 61.159(a)(4)?
Mesaba does not conduct any type of formal training of first officers to prepare them as captains during revenue operations. Also, they do not conduct any flight training in the SF-340 in preparation for upgrade to captain.
All formal training is accomplished in approved simulators under Appendix H.
In essence, the questions pertain to the phrase “. . . or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4).
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); In answering these questions below, I am going to preference my answers by saying that in all the FARs, there has to be an acceptance that most pilots are going to be honest.
QUESTION: What is the FAA’s policy on the intent of the phrase “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The intent of the phrase “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” means controlling the airplane (e.g., has his hands on the controls, controlling the autopilot system, being the flying pilot for that leg of the flight). Otherwise, he/she is the one who is actually controlling the airplane and the flight. When a pilot is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .”, I would expect that pilot to ACT like he/she is the final authority and is responsible for the operation and safety of the flight.
QUESTION: What would the FAA expect to see as proof to verify that the time was honest “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The SIC should have the real PIC endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record when “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
QUESTION: How is a pilot supposed to act when performing as “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); When an SIC is performing “. . . the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. . .” that SIC should be:
a. Controlling the aircraft by the use of controls or the autopilot system for a given leg of the flight (i.e., directs/monitors the flight route) from takeoff through landing, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
b. Acting like he/she is the final authority responsible for the operations and safety of the flight, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
c. Supervising the work of the flight crewmembers, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
d. Conduct and initiating the appropriate crewmember briefing throughout the flight, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
e. Reviewing all conditions and data necessary for the flight release (i.e., dispatch, weather, weight and balance, fuel requirements, destination requirements, alternate requirements, and routing, etc.), otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
In essence, we would expect the pilot who is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in
command . . .” to supervise and work within the crew concept in being responsible for obtaining, reviewing, and determining the flight’s dispatch, weather, weight and balance calculations, fuel requirements, destination and alternates, and routing. We would expect the pilot to brief his/her crew. We would expect the pilot to work within the crew concept in checking and monitoring the takeoff procedures and numbers. We would expect the pilot to be able to determine that the airplane is operating normally before takeoff and requires his/her crew to follow proper, standardized procedures. We would expect the pilot to work within the crew concept in getting the takeoff clearance and comply with air traffic control clearances. We would expect the pilot to be at the controls on takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and landing. We would expect the pilot to insure the aircraft follows the precise routing as provided in an assigned air traffic control clearance. We would expect the pilot to be the responsible pilot for monitoring/supervising the input of data into the flight management systems and/or autopilot systems throughout the flight. We would expect to see the pilot to be the responsible pilot for establishing the tempo of the flight by insuring that his or her flight deck remains standardized and professional throughout. We would expect the pilot to be the pilot at the controls for landings. We would expect to see the pilot to ACT like the senior pilot who supervises his/her crew, passengers, and cargo. Otherwise, We would expect the pilot who is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. . .” to ACT like the Captain.
QUESTION: What crewmember seat is a pilot required to be seated in (i.e., left or right or does it make any difference) when performing as “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The seat the SIC sits in is irrelevant. The SIC may be seated in the right seat performing right seat dependant tasks, or the left seat performing left seat dependant tasks, and still this time “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” would be creditable. That is, provided the SIC ACTS like the Captain! No place in the FARs does it require the PIC to be located in the left seat. However, in a Part 121 or Part 135 operation, it would be the norm that the SIC who is only “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” would most likely be seated in the right seat. I doubt there are any air carrier operators who would allow their SIC to be in the left seat! And I doubt there are any PICs who would allow their SIC to be seated in the left seat!
QUESTION: Does the pilot need be type rated in that type of airplane in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The pilot need not be type rated in that type of airplane in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” No place in the FARs does it require the pilot be type rated for the time to be creditable under § 61.159(a)(4). It merely states “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .”
QUESTION: How would the pilot log the time when the pilot is the “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); As for how the time would or could be logged, that time would still only be able to be logged as SIC time.
As shown in the answer above, the SIC should have the real PIC would endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
However as a point of clarification, if this SIC happens to hold a type rating appropriate to the aircraft flown or the appropriate category and class rating for the aircraft flown (otherwise when no type rating is required), that SIC may log the time as PIC flight time when that pilot “. . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . .” [i.e., § 61.51(e)(1)(i)].
However, if the SIC doesn’t hold the appropriate ratings, then the pilot would have the real PIC make the above endorsement and then when the SIC computes his/her time for meeting the requirements of § 61.159(a)(4), that
“ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” time would count toward the 250 hours.
QUESTION: Does the pilot need to be in any kind of a structured, formalized Part 121 or Part 135 training program in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .”?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); No. The pilot need not be in any kind of a structured, formalized training program in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” No place in § 61.159(a)(4) does it require it nor was it ever intended.
Answered by: John D Lynch, Certification Branch, AFS‑840 and Jan Demuth, Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS‑210
{Q&A-391}
Thanks for the help Stig
QUESTION: I am hopeful you can provide assistance concerning a question that arose regarding first officers at Mesaba Airlines who are about to upgrade to Captain but who do not have the PIC requirements for the ATP Airplane Certificate [as per § 61.159(a)(4)]. As you know, this rule provides credit for time as SIC performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. However, this credit provision is not clearly described in the rule nor have I been able to find supporting documentation that can help clarify the application of the rule in Mesaba's case.
What is the definition of “SIC performing the duties of pilot in command” in an aircraft requiring a type rating and seat specific functions that can only be performed on the PIC's (captain's) side of the aircraft?
How would this definition apply to first officers in the SF-340 flying under FAR 121 who fly in the right seat of an aircraft with seat dependent tasks? The SF-340 requires seat dependent training and normally the airline would not provide left seat dependent training to a FO who sits in the right seat. The FO cannot perform all the duties of the captain (PIC) from the right seat of the SF-340 (one example, operating the tiller during taxi).
How does the SIC document this experience so that an examiner reviewing the log books of an applicant can determine the time which may be credited toward the PIC requirements of § 61.159(a)(4)?
Mesaba does not conduct any type of formal training of first officers to prepare them as captains during revenue operations. Also, they do not conduct any flight training in the SF-340 in preparation for upgrade to captain.
All formal training is accomplished in approved simulators under Appendix H.
In essence, the questions pertain to the phrase “. . . or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4).
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); In answering these questions below, I am going to preference my answers by saying that in all the FARs, there has to be an acceptance that most pilots are going to be honest.
QUESTION: What is the FAA’s policy on the intent of the phrase “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The intent of the phrase “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” means controlling the airplane (e.g., has his hands on the controls, controlling the autopilot system, being the flying pilot for that leg of the flight). Otherwise, he/she is the one who is actually controlling the airplane and the flight. When a pilot is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .”, I would expect that pilot to ACT like he/she is the final authority and is responsible for the operation and safety of the flight.
QUESTION: What would the FAA expect to see as proof to verify that the time was honest “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The SIC should have the real PIC endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record when “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
QUESTION: How is a pilot supposed to act when performing as “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); When an SIC is performing “. . . the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. . .” that SIC should be:
a. Controlling the aircraft by the use of controls or the autopilot system for a given leg of the flight (i.e., directs/monitors the flight route) from takeoff through landing, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
b. Acting like he/she is the final authority responsible for the operations and safety of the flight, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
c. Supervising the work of the flight crewmembers, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
d. Conduct and initiating the appropriate crewmember briefing throughout the flight, otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
e. Reviewing all conditions and data necessary for the flight release (i.e., dispatch, weather, weight and balance, fuel requirements, destination requirements, alternate requirements, and routing, etc.), otherwise ACTS like the Captain!
In essence, we would expect the pilot who is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in
command . . .” to supervise and work within the crew concept in being responsible for obtaining, reviewing, and determining the flight’s dispatch, weather, weight and balance calculations, fuel requirements, destination and alternates, and routing. We would expect the pilot to brief his/her crew. We would expect the pilot to work within the crew concept in checking and monitoring the takeoff procedures and numbers. We would expect the pilot to be able to determine that the airplane is operating normally before takeoff and requires his/her crew to follow proper, standardized procedures. We would expect the pilot to work within the crew concept in getting the takeoff clearance and comply with air traffic control clearances. We would expect the pilot to be at the controls on takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and landing. We would expect the pilot to insure the aircraft follows the precise routing as provided in an assigned air traffic control clearance. We would expect the pilot to be the responsible pilot for monitoring/supervising the input of data into the flight management systems and/or autopilot systems throughout the flight. We would expect to see the pilot to be the responsible pilot for establishing the tempo of the flight by insuring that his or her flight deck remains standardized and professional throughout. We would expect the pilot to be the pilot at the controls for landings. We would expect to see the pilot to ACT like the senior pilot who supervises his/her crew, passengers, and cargo. Otherwise, We would expect the pilot who is the “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command. . .” to ACT like the Captain.
QUESTION: What crewmember seat is a pilot required to be seated in (i.e., left or right or does it make any difference) when performing as “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The seat the SIC sits in is irrelevant. The SIC may be seated in the right seat performing right seat dependant tasks, or the left seat performing left seat dependant tasks, and still this time “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” would be creditable. That is, provided the SIC ACTS like the Captain! No place in the FARs does it require the PIC to be located in the left seat. However, in a Part 121 or Part 135 operation, it would be the norm that the SIC who is only “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” would most likely be seated in the right seat. I doubt there are any air carrier operators who would allow their SIC to be in the left seat! And I doubt there are any PICs who would allow their SIC to be seated in the left seat!
QUESTION: Does the pilot need be type rated in that type of airplane in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The pilot need not be type rated in that type of airplane in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” No place in the FARs does it require the pilot be type rated for the time to be creditable under § 61.159(a)(4). It merely states “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .”
QUESTION: How would the pilot log the time when the pilot is the “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); As for how the time would or could be logged, that time would still only be able to be logged as SIC time.
As shown in the answer above, the SIC should have the real PIC would endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
However as a point of clarification, if this SIC happens to hold a type rating appropriate to the aircraft flown or the appropriate category and class rating for the aircraft flown (otherwise when no type rating is required), that SIC may log the time as PIC flight time when that pilot “. . . Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated . . .” [i.e., § 61.51(e)(1)(i)].
However, if the SIC doesn’t hold the appropriate ratings, then the pilot would have the real PIC make the above endorsement and then when the SIC computes his/her time for meeting the requirements of § 61.159(a)(4), that
“ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” time would count toward the 250 hours.
QUESTION: Does the pilot need to be in any kind of a structured, formalized Part 121 or Part 135 training program in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .”?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); No. The pilot need not be in any kind of a structured, formalized training program in order for the time to be creditable as “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” No place in § 61.159(a)(4) does it require it nor was it ever intended.
Answered by: John D Lynch, Certification Branch, AFS‑840 and Jan Demuth, Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS‑210
{Q&A-391}
Thanks for the help Stig
10-02-2009, 03:41 PM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Neither 'The Stig' nor I am right?
Thus, under a 121 operation you can have both pilots
logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated
second in command is manipulating the controls.
logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated
second in command is manipulating the controls.
Yes, seriously - I'm shocked!
Legal Interpretation # 92-40
June 5, 1992
Dear Mr. Butler:
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1992, in which you ask
questions about logging pilot-in-command (PIC) and
second-in-command (SIC) time when operating under Part 121 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
Your letter presents the following scenario: under a Part 121
operation, the air carrier has designated a pilot and a co-pilot.
The pilot is the authorized PIC and the co-pilot is the
authorized SIC. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the
sole manipulator of the controls for one or more legs.
You ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot
designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 121.385,
can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane.
The answer is yes.
FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command:
(1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the
operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command:
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the
operation of that aircraft.
There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is
important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only
regulates the recording of:
(a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet
the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent
flight experience requirements of this part.
Your second question asks if the SIC is flying the airplane, can
he log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he
is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator
of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency
checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. The
answer is yes.
FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time:
(2) Pilot-in-command flight time.
(i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may
log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during
which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated,
or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft,
or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as
pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one
pilot is required under the type certification or the
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is
conducted.
(ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in
command time all of the flight time during which he
acts as pilot in command.
(iii) Second-in-command flight time. A pilot may log
as second in command time all flight time during which
he acts as second in command of an aircraft on which
more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under
which the flight is conducted.
As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot-in-command flight
time that are pertinent to both your questions. The first is as
the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft
during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight
by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 121.385, that
person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who
is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because
that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the
aircraft.
The second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your
question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an
aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your
letter. Thus, under a 121 operation you can have both pilots
logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated
second in command is manipulating the controls.
We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight
time for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to
show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the
requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if
the second pilot in your example is fully qualified as a PIC, or
only as an SIC. This is important, because even though an SIC
can log PIC time, that pilot may not be qualified to serve as PIC
under Part 121.
An example of this difference is FAR 121.652(a), which raises IFR
landing minimums for pilots in command of airplanes flown under
Part 121 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that
type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this
context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not
served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check
rides necessary for certification as a Part 121 PIC.
We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
I'd love to see the face of the mainline interviewer when he looks @ a former '250 hour wonder pilot' logging PIC in that RJ on the second leg of IOE, with about 252 hours TT.
It's totally legal, as far as the FAA is concerned. Just don't put that PIC down on your application to any other companies.
10-02-2009, 05:24 PM
#83
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 56
Your letter presents the following scenario: under a Part 121
operation, the air carrier has designated a pilot and a co-pilot.
The pilot is the authorized PIC and the co-pilot is the
authorized SIC. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the
sole manipulator of the controls for one or more legs.
My concern is that this letter makes no reference to different type ratings, SIC or PIC. It talks about a company designation. Also, it refers to a SIC competency check:
Your second question asks if the SIC is flying the airplane, can
he log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he
is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator
of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency
checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. The
answer is yes.
This may or may not refer to an actual difference in type ratings. We didn't give SIC types at all until a few years ago to comply with ICAO.
I would be very careful logging something not made clear as a bell because once you put it in your logbook its there forever. Maybe someone could chime in with knowledge of how the carriers were typing people in 1992. The info on my last post was from Joe Lynch in 2004. It seems to be the most conservative and protects you against any consequences later. I don't know if you could get a CA to sign your logbook due to liability reasons but I guess you could try.
Before people like Stig talks anybody into doing this , I would at least recommend asking in the Majors forum or any friend you have at the majors/fractional/wherever you one day hope to fly, what their response will be when they audit your logbooks? I don't know what their response will be, I am merely saying that once it is in your logbook its there forever. Ask the check airman at your company if they will have a problem when they audit for the ATP etc......
It just doesn't pass the smell test. That doesnt mean its not legal. But just consider how many senior FO's could suddenly claim thousands of hours of PIC. Could be great for some. No more waiting for upgrade to get that "magical" 1000 hours PIC. 2 years as an FO at the regionals and you can claim to meet major minimums. Yeah right. Every other leg you can claim PIC. I just don't buy it.
QUESTION: What would the FAA expect to see as proof to verify that the time was honest “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The SIC should have the real PIC endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record when “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
QUESTION: How would the pilot log the time when the pilot is the “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); As for how the time would or could be logged, that time would still only be able to be logged as SIC time.
As shown in the answer above, the SIC should have the real PIC would endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS[/FONT]
REVISION #21, DATE: October 12, 2004
INCORPORATES NEW Q&A Nos: 201a, 290a, 377a, 529a, 539a, and 613 through 640
WITH THE PREVIOUS Q&As Nos. 1 through 612[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/FONT]
Lynch's answers seem to be at odds with the letter from 1992. Also consider the consequences if this logging PIC is incorrect. That might open someone up to falsifying logbooks. Not a good path in any career.
What ever you guys do, don't do it cuz you heard you could on some internet board or cuz a guy in ops said you could. Ask your POI and then get it in writing. If he won't put it in writing then he is not sure either. At least then you are covered. CYA cuz no one else is going to help you
operation, the air carrier has designated a pilot and a co-pilot.
The pilot is the authorized PIC and the co-pilot is the
authorized SIC. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the
sole manipulator of the controls for one or more legs.
My concern is that this letter makes no reference to different type ratings, SIC or PIC. It talks about a company designation. Also, it refers to a SIC competency check:
Your second question asks if the SIC is flying the airplane, can
he log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he
is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator
of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency
checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. The
answer is yes.
This may or may not refer to an actual difference in type ratings. We didn't give SIC types at all until a few years ago to comply with ICAO.
I would be very careful logging something not made clear as a bell because once you put it in your logbook its there forever. Maybe someone could chime in with knowledge of how the carriers were typing people in 1992. The info on my last post was from Joe Lynch in 2004. It seems to be the most conservative and protects you against any consequences later. I don't know if you could get a CA to sign your logbook due to liability reasons but I guess you could try.
Before people like Stig talks anybody into doing this , I would at least recommend asking in the Majors forum or any friend you have at the majors/fractional/wherever you one day hope to fly, what their response will be when they audit your logbooks? I don't know what their response will be, I am merely saying that once it is in your logbook its there forever. Ask the check airman at your company if they will have a problem when they audit for the ATP etc......
It just doesn't pass the smell test. That doesnt mean its not legal. But just consider how many senior FO's could suddenly claim thousands of hours of PIC. Could be great for some. No more waiting for upgrade to get that "magical" 1000 hours PIC. 2 years as an FO at the regionals and you can claim to meet major minimums.
Yeah right. Every other leg you can claim PIC. I just don't buy it.QUESTION: What would the FAA expect to see as proof to verify that the time was honest “. . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); The SIC should have the real PIC endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record when “. . . performing the duties of pilot in command . . .” as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
QUESTION: How would the pilot log the time when the pilot is the “ . . . second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command . . .” in § 61.159(a)(4)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.159(a)(4); As for how the time would or could be logged, that time would still only be able to be logged as SIC time.
As shown in the answer above, the SIC should have the real PIC would endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
John T. Realpic, ATP #123456789
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS[/FONT]
14 CFR, PART 61
ARRANGED BY SECTION
CHANGE NOTICE
General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800
John D. Lynch, E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: (202) 267-3844
REVISION #21, DATE: October 12, 2004
INCORPORATES NEW Q&A Nos: 201a, 290a, 377a, 529a, 539a, and 613 through 640
WITH THE PREVIOUS Q&As Nos. 1 through 612[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/FONT]
Lynch's answers seem to be at odds with the letter from 1992. Also consider the consequences if this logging PIC is incorrect. That might open someone up to falsifying logbooks. Not a good path in any career.
What ever you guys do, don't do it cuz you heard you could on some internet board or cuz a guy in ops said you could. Ask your POI and then get it in writing. If he won't put it in writing then he is not sure either. At least then you are covered. CYA cuz no one else is going to help you
10-02-2009, 06:54 PM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by skybob
It just doesn't pass the smell test. That doesnt mean its not legal. But just consider how many senior FO's could suddenly claim thousands of hours of PIC. Could be great for some. No more waiting for upgrade to get that "magical" 1000 hours PIC.
As shown in the answer above, the SIC should have the real PIC would endorse each entry in his/her logbook or training record as follows:
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
Recommended Endorsement: “Performed duties as a supervised PIC in accordance with § 61.159(a)(4)”
And if you have an electronic logbook (saw them while jumpseating, looked fancy), what do you do then?
What ever you guys do, don't do it cuz you heard you could on some internet board or cuz a guy in ops said you could. Ask your POI and then get it in writing. If he won't put it in writing then he is not sure either. At least then you are covered. CYA cuz no one else is going to help you
10-02-2009, 07:58 PM
#85
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 56
Yeah, thats why I pulled up Joe Lynch's FAA FAQ. He is a pretty reliable source for muddy areas of the FARs since that was his job with the FAA. Some people here seemed to be getting the idea that all they had to do was ride in the right seat and look at the release to claim PIC for the ATP and I just don't buy it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
