Brooklyn99

Because the FAA has written numerous legal opinions and articles that directly contradict what you are saying. Simple as that. Even the 121/135 stuff. A quick google search would suffice.

MidnightHauler

You care to post any references to these articles? Google searches and legal "opinions" aren't good explanations of why someone logged PIC time when they weren't LEGAL to act as PIC.
Many have had the wind knock out of their sails at airline interviews for doing that. Why? Because many pilots spreading misinformation and bullsh** about something that should be fairly easy and straight forward to understand, yet many try to find loopholes to get around.
So instead of a stupid, meaningless comment about legal opinions and Google searches, explain to me where I'm wrong on this issue. That way, I can go tell our training department to contact our FAA POI to let him know that they're all wrong about doing .299 checkrides to sign pilots off as captains, which from that point on makes them QUALIFIED to act as PIC.
Until then, I'm pretty sure the first officer is NOT legal to log PIC time when performing duty as pilot flying.

followingdreams

7,000 hours and you are still looking at logging TPIC time? Seems unusual, well done, that is quite an accomplishment.

CaptainJay

My opinion is worth exactly what you paid, but.......

Through three 121 airlines and two 135's in 20 years I can tell you EVERY application I have filled out said and I quote "PIC is defined as the person directly responsible for and signing for the aircraft, not sole manipulator of the controls."

Seems pretty straight forward if you ask me.

MasTamales

I flew with a guy years ago who was a missionary pilot and he had 10,000hrs of Cessna 185 time when he got hired to fly Lear 35s. That's an accomplishment.

Not to beat the dead horse, but if you hold the appropriate certificates and ratings and are the sole manipulator of the controls, you can log PIC. The only time that would be useful is if you need the PIC time to add an additional rating or for insurance or company minimums or something along those lines. AFAIK, all airlines and probably most 135s consider PIC time to be the named PIC who signs for the a/c.

I'm not sure what OPs goals are, but for turbine PIC time, it would be hard to beat a Quest Diagnostics or Martinaire or Ameriflight. With 7K hours I would think you could find your way into a Beech 99 or 1900 pretty easily. Quest is flying PC-12s and Phenoms I believe.

ColossalBiscuit

See the Duncan (2012) legal interpretation.

The last paragraph states it directly: "We note that, if the SIC holds category, class, and type ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown, the pilot may log PIC time under § 61.5l(e)(l)(i) as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated."

If there were any remaining doubt that this is the FAA's up-to-date position on the issue, the same thing can be found in the FAA 8900.1 (which provides guidance for ASIs) sec 5-324(a)(3) (about removing the SOE limitation from a type rating). This document now lives in the DRS, so it's not very easy to link to, but you can find it on page 18 of https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...410202144.0001 until that link breaks. It just restates what's in Duncan (2012).

Everyone agrees that, when it comes to airline applications, they only care about time when you're actually serving as PIC.

Nevertheless legally, as far as the FAA are concerned, the SIC can log PIC time when acting as the pilot flying (so long as their certificate doesn't have the "SIC Privileges Only" limitation). According to the Duncan interpretation, this has been true since at least 1956. Maybe there's no point. Maybe it's best put in a separate column. Whatever. But the people who said it were correct.

IMaFracGOD

I think this horse has been beat to death

AirTractorPilot

I'm just under 12k ASEL with 11k TPIC and have never engaged an autopilot in an airplane.

MidnightHauler

Yes, for those of us who understand it, but apparently many still don't.