It's best if you stop trying altogether because you're getting nowhere.

This HAS to be the most rediculous thread I've seen in a long time. Self righteous and self serving - I almost get a whiff of entitlement - FO's logging PIC time on their leg because they are "rated". Or when the Capt steps out to take a whiz. What a crock!

I chuckle seeing the FAR's quoted here about general logging of flight time and type ratings and such. These have little bearing when discussing PIC time at a 121 carrier.

Since this is an AIRLINE forum, and we are discussing 121 AIRLINE operations - we are bound by our OPS SPECS. Remember those? Oh yeah. You know, the ones that authorize the airline and outline aircraft, equipment, airports, and training? There is not a US airline I know of which OPS SPECS do not explicitly outline PIC training and authorizations.

Remember upgrade training? PC, and IOE? Not to mention a Fed Ride? All these conditions and many more must be met to act as PIC.

So for all you FO's out there itching to log 121 PIC time because you are typed- go ahead. I would love to be a fly on the wall during that interview. This is a useless argument and needs no further explanation.

The next one does though.

What (non checkairman) wierdo would log PIC time from the right seat anyway? That's so stupid it boggles the mind. Yes if some Chinese airline says you can count it then fine. If they let you count the time you spent eating Captain Crunch as a kid as PIC time, then have at it. But actually putting it in your logbook that reputable airlines might end up seeing one day is flat out pathetic and in most cases will get you laughed out of the interview.

Indeed, for a multitude of reasons...the least of which is pilots not being able to wrap their head around the difference between BEING PIC and LOGGING PIC.

OpSpecs aren't controlling for what a pilot puts in their logbook. 61.51 is quite clear what can be logged how under what circumstances, and the ability to log PIC per 61.51(e) differs greatly from the FAR 1 definition of Pilot in Command, which differs greatly from what OpSpecs and FOM/GOM guidance say about assigned PICs and SICs.

That being said, just because somebody *can* do something doesn't mean they should, and as a Part 91 guy, I would look quite unfavorably upon a 121 FO having turbine PIC in their logbook "because 61.51e says I can".

I know a guy that was shown the door at an Emirates interview for this. It was for some hours in a corporate jet, but the interviewer (and I believe he said it was the chief pilot) immediately started asking if he was the captain on these flights after looking at his logbooks. Interview stopped when he said no.

Which Ops Spec covers logging time?

I think it's pretty ridiculous that you can't grasp the difference between OPSPECs, FARs, industry practices, and common sense.

But hey, that's just me.

So log it then! I could care less.

Clearly you haven't read at all what I've said about logging it (spoiler alert: I disagree with logging it on the previous page of this thread)... You also seem to be suffering from sky god syndrome; lack of knowledge and common sense coupled with a terrible attitude... Might wanna check your CRM skills as well.

I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. There. Is that better?

You're not really hurting anybody, just proving how much of a tool you are... Repeatedly.

Yo gloopy....

I guess what we are having here is a failure to communicate. You wrote that in response to this post.

But apparently you missed these multiple posts just prior to that one.

Is there really any question as to what my opinion on this subject is?

If you want to log PIC as an SIC sole manipulator after you get your dream airline job it is perfectly legal to do so. But you'd better be darn sure that was your last job interview.

What gets you laughed out of an interview is claiming 1200 hours of Captain Crunch.

I have 1200 hours of Cap'n Crunch on my resume, and interviewers are impressed that I spelt it the write way.

Having worked in 121 for over 3 years, the only time I've ever heard of FOs even considering logging PIC is on this forum. In other words, I think it rarely is even considered, and whenever it pops up here I think it's simply trolling. It always gets a rise out of the PIC "skygods", so at least it's amusing.

Either way though, you shouldn't do it and here's the proof:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...wm75rgujpg.jpg

You are confusing acting as PIC with logging PIC

Re-read your own link

This should mark the end of the thread. Good day to all.