Is Other Time worthless?
05-06-2024, 07:10 PM
#11
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2023
Posts: 11
Here's a related scenario. The United Military Pilot Program stipulates that participants "must have flown at least 50 hours of flight time within the 12 months immediately prior to transitioning to United." I am in an active-duty non-flying position, so I'm trying to determine how I would obtain these 50 hours at the lowest cost and as quickly as possible. One idea I have considered is "other time" in civilian aircraft. Although the United application does allow for entry of "other time" (defined as "any time added to your total that is not considered PIC or SIC"), as far as I can tell, "other time" is not even a category for logging civilian time. Can anyone clarify or offer suggestions on this?
05-07-2024, 05:23 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,638
Here's a related scenario. The United Military Pilot Program stipulates that participants "must have flown at least 50 hours of flight time within the 12 months immediately prior to transitioning to United." I am in an active-duty non-flying position, so I'm trying to determine how I would obtain these 50 hours at the lowest cost and as quickly as possible. One idea I have considered is "other time" in civilian aircraft. Although the United application does allow for entry of "other time" (defined as "any time added to your total that is not considered PIC or SIC"), as far as I can tell, "other time" is not even a category for logging civilian time. Can anyone clarify or offer suggestions on this?
The cheapest way to get flight time usually involves someone paying you not enough to do a risky job in a single engine piston plane. I would probably seek these opportunities out. If you have a clean record, military contractors flying ISR may be an option as well. You may have to deploy at least once, though. Good luck.
Edit, just realized you are still on active duty. Go rent an airplane with a friend. Yeah, 50 hours will cost you a few thousand dollars, but you will make some really good memories, get fat on FBO food, and you will make up the money in no time at United.
05-07-2024, 06:53 AM
#13
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,118
not a united guy, but i think that "other" time is strictly a military thing. I would definitely not use other time in a civil aircraft as flight time. You need to be either sole manipulator or acting pic in a multi crew airplane.
The cheapest way to get flight time usually involves someone paying you not enough to do a risky job in a single engine piston plane. I would probably seek these opportunities out. If you have a clean record, military contractors flying isr may be an option as well. You may have to deploy at least once, though. Good luck.
Edit, just realized you are still on active duty. Go rent an airplane with a friend. Yeah, 50 hours will cost you a few thousand dollars, but you will make some really good memories, get fat on fbo food, and you will make up the money in no time at united.
The cheapest way to get flight time usually involves someone paying you not enough to do a risky job in a single engine piston plane. I would probably seek these opportunities out. If you have a clean record, military contractors flying isr may be an option as well. You may have to deploy at least once, though. Good luck.
Edit, just realized you are still on active duty. Go rent an airplane with a friend. Yeah, 50 hours will cost you a few thousand dollars, but you will make some really good memories, get fat on fbo food, and you will make up the money in no time at united.
‐‐----------------other time is useless-----------------------------
------------------------end of thread------------------------------------
05-07-2024, 07:05 AM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,992
Not a United guy, but I think that "other" time is strictly a military thing. I would definitely not use other time in a civil aircraft as flight time. You need to be either sole manipulator or acting PIC in a multi crew airplane.
The cheapest way to get flight time usually involves someone paying you not enough to do a risky job in a single engine piston plane. I would probably seek these opportunities out. If you have a clean record, military contractors flying ISR may be an option as well. You may have to deploy at least once, though. Good luck.
Edit, just realized you are still on active duty. Go rent an airplane with a friend. Yeah, 50 hours will cost you a few thousand dollars, but you will make some really good memories, get fat on FBO food, and you will make up the money in no time at United.
The cheapest way to get flight time usually involves someone paying you not enough to do a risky job in a single engine piston plane. I would probably seek these opportunities out. If you have a clean record, military contractors flying ISR may be an option as well. You may have to deploy at least once, though. Good luck.
Edit, just realized you are still on active duty. Go rent an airplane with a friend. Yeah, 50 hours will cost you a few thousand dollars, but you will make some really good memories, get fat on FBO food, and you will make up the money in no time at United.
For FAA purposes you can only use time which fits into narrow specifically defined categories. Other than a few special niches, this is the list...
1. PIC
2. SIC
3. FE
4. Instructor (Dual Given)
5. Student (Dual Recieved)
6. Safety Pilot
Sometimes you can log multiple categories at once, sometimes only one.
In this case student time or safety pilot might fit into the UAL "other time" category. For safety pilot, you typically share the expense and split the flying 50/50, but if you just needed the SP time you might find someone willing to pay for more than 50% since they get to log the hood time.
05-07-2024, 07:30 AM
#15
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
Safety pilot isn't a category of flight time, but one can log PIC or SIC as a safety pilot, depending on who is acting as pilot in command, and both pilots can log the time in a light single that's otherwise certificated as a single pilot airplane.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-91.109
One should be aware that some operators consider safety pilot time to be stretching the regulation, or view it as an end-run around actually serving as pilot-in-command. It's perfectly legal but how it's viewed varies among operators. Some may see it as padding one's logbook.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-91.109
§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown; or
(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412 of this chapter.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown; or
(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412 of this chapter.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
05-07-2024, 07:34 AM
#16
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,211
Safety pilot isn't a category of flight time, but one can log PIC or SIC as a safety pilot, depending on who is acting as pilot in command, and both pilots can log the time in a light single that's otherwise certificated as a single pilot airplane.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-91.109
One should be aware that some operators consider safety pilot time to be stretching the regulation, or view it as an end-run around actually serving as pilot-in-command. It's perfectly legal but how it's viewed varies among operators. Some may see it as padding one's logbook.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-91.109
One should be aware that some operators consider safety pilot time to be stretching the regulation, or view it as an end-run around actually serving as pilot-in-command. It's perfectly legal but how it's viewed varies among operators. Some may see it as padding one's logbook.
05-07-2024, 08:25 AM
#17
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
It's not a "loophole;" it's a regulation. It establishes the requirement for an additional crewmember, just as operating rules do under Parts 121 and 135, for a given type of operation. 14 CFR 61.51 establishes the specifics of logging flight time, and 61.51(e) for logging pilot in command. Certainly no "loophole," 61.51(e)(1)(iii) clearly states that one may log pilot in command time "When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted" (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.51).
Whether one acts as pilot in command, and as safety pilot, for one hour, or five hundred, the regulation remains the same. The intent of the regulation in 91.109 is to establish a safety pilot for...safety. A lookout for traffic, primarily, but a to put eyes outside the cockpit while one pilot wears a view limiting device. There can be more than one safety pilot. The intent of the 91.3 is that a pilot in command is required and must be responsible for the safe outcome of the flight (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.3). Adhering to the regulation is not a "loophole," and the FAA never cared how many hours one logged as safety pilot, or while acting as pilot in command while acting as safety pilot.
The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has issued numerous letters of interpretation directly addressing logging time during 91.109 simulated instrument flight, and not once has the FAA ever suggested, or insinuated that doing so is a "loophole." Neither does the Federal Register Preamble covering introduction or modification of 61.51, or 91.109, suggest in any way intent on logging time as safety pilot or in simulated instrument flight. The FAA doesn't concern itself with that intent; whether one is logging that time while training, remaining current, or flying to get a hundred-dollar-hamburger, is irrelevant, so long as the flight meets the requirements of the regulation.
Those who see it as a "loophole" or as somehow illegitimate are expressing ignorance of the regulation, and applying opinion (which the regulation does not express) or bias.
One who logs time as safety pilot, or PIC as safety pilot, or PIC as sole manipulator while "under the hood," does so in conformity with the regulation, as established by the language of the regulation, by the Federal Register preambles, and by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations (the three means of interpretting and understanding the regulation).
Whether one acts as pilot in command, and as safety pilot, for one hour, or five hundred, the regulation remains the same. The intent of the regulation in 91.109 is to establish a safety pilot for...safety. A lookout for traffic, primarily, but a to put eyes outside the cockpit while one pilot wears a view limiting device. There can be more than one safety pilot. The intent of the 91.3 is that a pilot in command is required and must be responsible for the safe outcome of the flight (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.3). Adhering to the regulation is not a "loophole," and the FAA never cared how many hours one logged as safety pilot, or while acting as pilot in command while acting as safety pilot.
The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has issued numerous letters of interpretation directly addressing logging time during 91.109 simulated instrument flight, and not once has the FAA ever suggested, or insinuated that doing so is a "loophole." Neither does the Federal Register Preamble covering introduction or modification of 61.51, or 91.109, suggest in any way intent on logging time as safety pilot or in simulated instrument flight. The FAA doesn't concern itself with that intent; whether one is logging that time while training, remaining current, or flying to get a hundred-dollar-hamburger, is irrelevant, so long as the flight meets the requirements of the regulation.
Those who see it as a "loophole" or as somehow illegitimate are expressing ignorance of the regulation, and applying opinion (which the regulation does not express) or bias.
One who logs time as safety pilot, or PIC as safety pilot, or PIC as sole manipulator while "under the hood," does so in conformity with the regulation, as established by the language of the regulation, by the Federal Register preambles, and by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations (the three means of interpretting and understanding the regulation).
05-08-2024, 02:28 AM
#18
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,211
It's not a "loophole;" it's a regulation. It establishes the requirement for an additional crewmember, just as operating rules do under Parts 121 and 135, for a given type of operation. 14 CFR 61.51 establishes the specifics of logging flight time, and 61.51(e) for logging pilot in command. Certainly no "loophole," 61.51(e)(1)(iii) clearly states that one may log pilot in command time "When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted" (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.51).
Whether one acts as pilot in command, and as safety pilot, for one hour, or five hundred, the regulation remains the same. The intent of the regulation in 91.109 is to establish a safety pilot for...safety. A lookout for traffic, primarily, but a to put eyes outside the cockpit while one pilot wears a view limiting device. There can be more than one safety pilot. The intent of the 91.3 is that a pilot in command is required and must be responsible for the safe outcome of the flight (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.3). Adhering to the regulation is not a "loophole," and the FAA never cared how many hours one logged as safety pilot, or while acting as pilot in command while acting as safety pilot.
The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has issued numerous letters of interpretation directly addressing logging time during 91.109 simulated instrument flight, and not once has the FAA ever suggested, or insinuated that doing so is a "loophole." Neither does the Federal Register Preamble covering introduction or modification of 61.51, or 91.109, suggest in any way intent on logging time as safety pilot or in simulated instrument flight. The FAA doesn't concern itself with that intent; whether one is logging that time while training, remaining current, or flying to get a hundred-dollar-hamburger, is irrelevant, so long as the flight meets the requirements of the regulation.
Those who see it as a "loophole" or as somehow illegitimate are expressing ignorance of the regulation, and applying opinion (which the regulation does not express) or bias.
One who logs time as safety pilot, or PIC as safety pilot, or PIC as sole manipulator while "under the hood," does so in conformity with the regulation, as established by the language of the regulation, by the Federal Register preambles, and by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations (the three means of interpretting and understanding the regulation).
Whether one acts as pilot in command, and as safety pilot, for one hour, or five hundred, the regulation remains the same. The intent of the regulation in 91.109 is to establish a safety pilot for...safety. A lookout for traffic, primarily, but a to put eyes outside the cockpit while one pilot wears a view limiting device. There can be more than one safety pilot. The intent of the 91.3 is that a pilot in command is required and must be responsible for the safe outcome of the flight (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.3). Adhering to the regulation is not a "loophole," and the FAA never cared how many hours one logged as safety pilot, or while acting as pilot in command while acting as safety pilot.
The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has issued numerous letters of interpretation directly addressing logging time during 91.109 simulated instrument flight, and not once has the FAA ever suggested, or insinuated that doing so is a "loophole." Neither does the Federal Register Preamble covering introduction or modification of 61.51, or 91.109, suggest in any way intent on logging time as safety pilot or in simulated instrument flight. The FAA doesn't concern itself with that intent; whether one is logging that time while training, remaining current, or flying to get a hundred-dollar-hamburger, is irrelevant, so long as the flight meets the requirements of the regulation.
Those who see it as a "loophole" or as somehow illegitimate are expressing ignorance of the regulation, and applying opinion (which the regulation does not express) or bias.
One who logs time as safety pilot, or PIC as safety pilot, or PIC as sole manipulator while "under the hood," does so in conformity with the regulation, as established by the language of the regulation, by the Federal Register preambles, and by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations (the three means of interpretting and understanding the regulation).
Yep, all of the above.
Still never intended to ‘share cost’ and drone along straight and level on a time building scam.
You are no doubt familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences.
05-08-2024, 07:44 AM
#19
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,992
Safety pilot isn't a category of flight time, but one can log PIC or SIC as a safety pilot, depending on who is acting as pilot in command, and both pilots can log the time in a light single that's otherwise certificated as a single pilot airplane.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932/section-91.109
One should be aware that some operators consider safety pilot time to be stretching the regulation, or view it as an end-run around actually serving as pilot-in-command. It's perfectly legal but how it's viewed varies among operators. Some may see it as padding one's logbook.
Who is manipulating the controls, who is the acting pilot in command, and who is qualified for what, determines who can log what time, in a light single (or any aircraft). Consequently, there are times when both pilots may log PIC, the pilot not flying may log PIC, the pilot flying may log PIC, and even times when no one can log the flight time.
I have known active duty pilots that did a little flying on the side, dropping jumpers in a Cessna 206, to gain a little extra flight time.
If you're going to pay for the time, the least expensive way to knock it out is to go play safety pilot, and split the cost. One pilot flies "under the hood" with a view-limiting-device, and the other pilot acts as pilot in command, and also as the required safety pilot. The pilot flying, under the hood, logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls, and the pilot acting as PIC and safety pilot, logs PIC as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulations under which it is operating: 14 CFR 91.109(c).
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932/section-91.109
One should be aware that some operators consider safety pilot time to be stretching the regulation, or view it as an end-run around actually serving as pilot-in-command. It's perfectly legal but how it's viewed varies among operators. Some may see it as padding one's logbook.
It's more of a niche thing where you need a few specific hours (ex AMEL, XC) and it's not worth the time and money getting CFI ratings or a job. If you're going to buy the time anyway, SP makes sense.
05-13-2024, 01:48 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,624
I know Delta doesn’t accept Other time according to AirlineApps, but do other Legacy/Major/ULCC/Cargo carriers incorporate Other time in their TT calculations?
I was unfortunate to be assigned to an overmanned platform that was slowly diverting g without doing anything about manning…needless to say I have ~500hrs of other time.
I was unfortunate to be assigned to an overmanned platform that was slowly diverting g without doing anything about manning…needless to say I have ~500hrs of other time.
If the airline doesn't have any rules against Other time, use it for the PIC and TT calculations. If you were SIC, do not include Other time.
This forumula worked for me at DAL, NWA (doesn't exist), UAL and FDX. None of them questioned my numbers.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
