Regionals receiving PIC Type Rating?
 

At American Eagle, every First Officer is not only receiving an ATP, but also receiving a PIC Type Rating. I have heard comments that American Eagle is the only regional airline giving their FO's a PIC type rating.

Is this true?

I can't figure out why. It doesn't seem (to me) that upgrades are imminent... your thoughts? Any upgrade, even with his/her PIC type rating, still will attend upgrade ground school and a sim session as normal. So why are they doing this? I think its GREAT, but can't figure it out.

Nope, ExpressJet does the same.

Sorry ASAnotASAP, but you said nope. Nope as in your response to "Is this true?", or response to "Eagle is the only airline?"

"Nope" to both. ExpressJet has been handing out PIC types since June.

Part of the ATP rule is that EVERYONE has to have a PIC type... We all know the SIC types are worthless anyways...

Where getting them at PSA as well

What's the "PIC type" worth?

SkyWest is doing it as well.

Well, with the PIC Type you will only go to ground and do couple of sims and a PC. Then you'll go straight to IOE. I guess it will just take around one week or so to get to the line.

Compass has been doing this for about 5 years. It's contractual there, and if you are able to upgrade within 13 months of your "PIC type" then you do not have to do any upgrade program, just OE and Fed Ride. YMMV.

OK, so I wonder if the OP's question is answered. This appears to be no big deal. Back to regular programming.....

Republic started doing this in July or August. There are a number of FOs who think they will log PIC time on their leg. They are wrong, they are not the PIC...:eek::eek:

Nothing. Soon everyone will have ATP's and types. All that matters is how much PIC time you have in that type.

Actually when I got hired here at RAH I already had my ATP and the company later put out a memo that stated that those that already have the ATP won't be getting the PIC Type when you go back for the recurrent/proficiency check. I don't think the PIC type is required in the new law, just the ATP but could be wrong.

They are not acting PIC, but they're able to log it. FDX, SWA etc. won't care about that PIC time anyway, so nothing will really change.

Exactly. I don't get why people are hung up over the "SIC only" limitation (or the lack thereof). I'm a First Officer. Whether or not I have the restriction, I'm still not in charge. Why do people think DAL is gonna start hiring a bunch of RJ FO's now that the SIC limitation is gone?

I imagine a LOT of hiring types (well beyond those requiring Part 1 PIC) won't be too impressed with a candidate who has turbine PIC in their logbook under the sole manipulator clause...in a 121 operation.

Part 91 operators generally don't care where you get the PIC time from, or under which regulation you logged it, so long as you have it and can be insured. If someone was looking to leave the airlines and fly corporate, it could be a windfall for them. An far as the value of an SIC type is concerned, it makes you employable at your current place of employment. That is valuable.

You obviously do not understand Title 14.

Because a lot of part 91 operators would.

Do you have a reference for this?

Many majors and legacies do not type their FOs, they just have an ATP. Some have no previous type ratings.

I've heard about $150,000 per year in China. If you're up for that kind of thing.

Yes, it's kind of weird. Delta types their FOs in everything except the MD88/90 & DC9. Even the B737 & A320.

I do not recall reading this anywhere. Since an ATP ride is the same as a type ride, they might as well just check that box on the 8710 as well. It will save the company money at upgrade time.

Also a PIC type without actual PIC experience isn't worth much on the job market anyway.

The requirement to have a PIC type to act as SIC is part of a propsed rule, but the final rule hasn't been issued yet. At the same time, the requirement to have an ATP has been issued in a final rule, and as far as I know, if an ATP is being issued based on a ride in an airplane that requires a type, it also has to be a type-ride.


http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ67NPRM.pdf

Well stated, enough said!

Nope. PIC time is worth that money. China wants people with PIC time in type.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of this. I know there are a handful of Embraer corporate operators out there. How far does the CRJ rating go when you're looking to get typed in a Global or Challenger? Is it a quick differences course, or a whole new event?

This former AWAC FO/current Part 91 chief pilot would not look favoribly upon a candidate who, as a 121 first officer, had logged TPIC with the sole manipulator clause as their justification.

But its yer logbook, do whatever ya want...

Also, "Getting insured" is not a problem and anyone who says otherwise hasn't tried.

Absolutely nowhere for the GLEX, and while you stil have a full initial required the CL65 is very similar to a CL604.

AA types their FOs' too. I don't know if it's limited to any type of aircraft, but theydo type.

Out of curiosity, why not? What if they made it clear that they had not signed for the aircraft?

The majors specify that they want a record of time you've signed for the aircraft, and that's fine. But if your flight department doesn't specify an alternative definition of PIC time in that manner, why would you look down on a candidate who logs time in the manner the FAR's allow?

It's the same idea as safety pilot time- it's arguably not as valuable as "real" PIC time, but does it really reflect poorly on a pilot who has some safety pilot time logged in his logbook? When I flew as a safety pilot (albeit rarely), I certainly logged it as PIC.


If I were sending a resume to Fedex, I wouldn't count 121 PIC time where I didn't sign for the aircraft, as they specifically discount that. If I were sending a resume to you- I would count whatever was FAR legal, unless you specified otherwise during the application process.

Because a person who does that is trying to make themselves look better on paper...and that's not the kind of person I want to work with.

Let me expand.

In my opinion (and the opinion of many), the quality of the individual is far, FAR more important in a corporate operation than the type ratings on their certificate. As such, I'm interested in pilots who show integrity, honesty and humility much more than I am seeing a number beside "Turbine PIC" on a resume.

AGAIN, in my opinion, I do not believe a 121 FO who has logged PIC time under the sole manipulator clause and put as much on their resume to be showing honesty and integrity.

I know, I know, "its legal to do it that way" and "there's a difference between being PIC and acting PIC". Yes, I know its legal per the letter of the FARs, and yes I know its sometimes done in Part 91...but air carrier operations are NOT Part 91.

Now...if somebody put a line on their resume along the lines of "Turbine PIC logged under 61.51(e)(1)", they might not be automatically round-filed...but it would certainly be a point of discussion during a face-to-face interview.

Bottom line is this: everybody wants to make themselves as competitive as possible for a job opportunity - I did it too when I was trying to get my first non-CFI gig. But what is the point of showing TPIC on your resume when you weren't the PIC...especially in a 121 operation, flying a 121 airplane, when you weren't a 121 Captain?

In the end, just because its legal doesn't necessarily make it right (or make sense). Its your logbook and you can put anything in there you want...you just have to be prepared to answer for it from somebody that has the power to offer you employment.

I personally have always chosen the most conservative route with regards to logging time, because I'd rather be considered underqualified for a position than be viewed as inflating my qualifications at best, and an outright liar at worst. One of those situations can be rectified...the other cannot.

YMMV, caveat emptor, etc...

+1. I've had interviews with large 91 corporate flight departments that specifically stated unless you functioned as captain for the leg, don't count the PIC time.... I did not log the sole manipulator time when I was at Flexjet in the 604 - and that's probably a little easier to justify.

If I didn't sign for the ship or function as "captain who the FAA will be asking questions to" (in the case of a 91 "co-captain" situation), it's not PIC. In fact the term "captainship time" should be substituted for "PIC." We know you can fly the aircraft; along with the autopilot, advanced level primates, and perhaps Border Collies. Can you lead? Direct an operation? Apply CRM principles?

The same can be applied to some Captains too...

In the end, if you want the time where the job applicant acted as PIC, just ask for it. It really is that easy to weed out the silly FO's.

Why on earth would the F.O. log PIC time? You are not the pilot in command, you are the second in command, typed or not.
If I was interviewing someone and saw that kind of nonsense on their resume, it would go staright in the trash.
What next, wearing your foggles when you are deadheading and logging it as simulated instrument? :eek:

That's the thing...the person matters more than TPIC for many (good) corporate jobs...a LOT more. And putting sole-manipulator TPIC on one's resume while they are a 121 FO tells me a lot about that person.

I had no TPIC when hired at my current job, and wouldn't require it were I to hire another pilot.

But you're right, it would be easy way to weed out "silly" FOs...

It's good to see that some companies out there are willing to look at the quality of the candidate rather than some arbitrarily chosen metric (TPIC time).

I agree even more that the person matters more than the logbook. I wouldn't read too much into the person's character though. You are legally able to log the PIC time. I wouldn't, but I'm sure there are many who will. I wouldn't discredit a perfectly good candidate just because he''s exercising his right to log the time.

First of all, I've never done it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done legally. Second, you aren't the only game in town, so just because you wouldn't hire somebody for some preconcieved notion about what is right or wrong doesn't mean squat outside your flight department. Finally, I flew corporate and charter for years before flying part 121, and have managed both piston and turbine aircraft. I have a pretty good idea what it takes to get insured at a reasonable cost while flying under part 91 for a corporate operator.