Will having my ATP help or hurt me?
05-14-2024, 03:01 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 324
Ok, I will ask my career consultant about the PIC time logging. They work in 121 world and do hiring for a major. This is the first I have heard of this possible discrepency and I'm seeing lots of conflicting information.
Until then, can anyone provide an authorative link, in writing, showing that I am logging the PIC time incorrectly? The regs say I am correct according to 61, but I am seeing anecdotally that it may not be correct. Is there a link or source that shows this?
Until then, can anyone provide an authorative link, in writing, showing that I am logging the PIC time incorrectly? The regs say I am correct according to 61, but I am seeing anecdotally that it may not be correct. Is there a link or source that shows this?
For 135, you can operate as SIC (manipulating controls doesn't make you PIC or I should say "pilot in charge") until you meet the requirements to pass the ATP checkride, pass upgrade OE, and get "signed off" (approved) to be PIC with companies operating under 121 or 135 operations.
Part 91 is different and covers those that own their own aircraft (private or corporate) and not flying it under commercial regulations and oversight. In other words, if you're logging PIC time in your logbook while flying 135 operations, then submitting that very same logbook on applications, you are commiting FRAUD to a serious level. It's like telling someone you were a manager or supervisor when you were never promoted to those positions.
05-14-2024, 03:45 PM
#82
Reserve Without End
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 147
Ok, I will ask my career consultant about the PIC time logging. They work in 121 world and do hiring for a major. This is the first I have heard of this possible discrepency and I'm seeing lots of conflicting information.
Until then, can anyone provide an authorative link, in writing, showing that I am logging the PIC time incorrectly? The regs say I am correct according to 61, but I am seeing anecdotally that it may not be correct. Is there a link or source that shows this?
Until then, can anyone provide an authorative link, in writing, showing that I am logging the PIC time incorrectly? The regs say I am correct according to 61, but I am seeing anecdotally that it may not be correct. Is there a link or source that shows this?
05-14-2024, 04:25 PM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2021
Position: We Need To Talk About Your Flare
Posts: 618
I understand the OP is flying a jet, however this statement is not accurate with regard to part 135 ops. ATP only required for turbojet aircraft, 10+ passenger seats, or commuter ops using multi-engine plane (135.243). Two crew turbo-props flying cargo under part 135 do not need an ATP rated PIC.
05-14-2024, 05:02 PM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 324
I understand the OP is flying a jet, however this statement is not accurate with regard to part 135 ops. ATP only required for turbojet aircraft, 10+ passenger seats, or commuter ops using multi-engine plane (135.243). Two crew turbo-props flying cargo under part 135 do not need an ATP rated PIC.
05-14-2024, 06:20 PM
#86
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,260
What the original poster wants is irrelevant; his question is whether he can log the time. The answer is yes, he can legally log the time. Every reply suggesting or inferring that he cannot legally log the time, is incorrect.
As sole manuipulator of the controls, 121noob is legally entitled to log the time, regardless of whether he is operating under 121, 135, or simplky under 91, without an operating certifcate. The issue of logging time, and the legalitky thereof, is entirely separate from 121 or 135, and neither addresses logging time or sets a requirement to act as pilot in command to log pilot in command. Legallky, 121noob may log as pilot in command all time spent as sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has been very clear about this on numerous occasions, and makes very clear that "rated" means holding category and class for the aircraft in question, and where appropriate, a type rating. 121noob is entitled to log pilot in command when acting as sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which he is rated, in accordance with 14 CFR 61.51(e). This is not in doubt, nor arguable.
There is a difference between acting as pilot in command, and logging pilot in command. These are two separate issues. One does not need to be a pilot in command in order to log PIC. One does not need to have "signed for the jet" to log the time as PIC; logging the time as PIC does NOT mean that one was the acting pilot in command. Again, this inot debateable and does not leave room for argument. Any arguments to the contrary are wrong.
This is not a question of whether 121noob can log PIC. He can. It is a question of whether he should.
Should is subjective, but here we will find the overwhelming majority of posters who work in this industry respond in the negative: 121noob should not log the time as PIC that he spent as sole manipulator of the controls, if he was not the PIC of record, the man who "signed for the jet;" the pilot assigned on the flight release as pilot in command (doesn't matter who actually signed the paperwork, but it does mattter who was assigned as the pilot in command by the certificate holder). To do otherwise and to represent himself as pilot in command, even to represent his experience as PIC time, will come off poorly. It wil make him look bad. It smacks of ignorance, naivety, and carries the appearance of attempting to pad his logbook. Some 135 operators, and nearly all 121 operators, only consider as PIC experience that time when one was the PIC of record: the acting PIC assigned by the employer, who held full responsbility for the safe outcome of the flight, end of story.
I have experience in four-engine bombers, doing some very demanding, very exacting work. Few who know it would question it, or the value of that experience. However, some of it includes four-engine radial-powered aircraft. There are 121 operators who consider that time the same as a Cessna 172, because those four-engine large airplanes had piston powerplants, and all piston is lumped in the same category, with that employer. The employer isn't concerned that the FAA might call it a multi-engine land airplane. The employer doesn't count that experience as anything but reciprocating-powered. I can log the time however I want, but the employer will only consider it one way. I could log two or three pilot (crew) time, silver airplane time, dirty airplane time, low altittude time, lost-my-hearing time, or whatever I want, but the employer will see it as the same weight and value as any other piston-engine, reciprocating-powered airplane.
Some employers will not.
In the 121 world, employers will see experience in a turbojet airplane, logged as PIC, when one was not the pilot in command, as a false representation. The employer is not concerned with the way the FAA viewed the time, or whether it was legally logged (other than to say, if it wasn't legally logged, then you have an even bigger problem, but legally logging sole manipulator in an aircraft for which you were not assigned PIC, will impress no one in the 121 world, and may serve as a barrier to getting an interview. Taking the attitude "prove it to me," won't get one any closer to that interview, either).
Can 121noob log as PIC, that time spent as sole manipulator under Part 91? Yes, of course, legally, he can. This is not in question.
Should he?
It's clear that 121noob is not the pilot in command, and did not serve as pilot in command. It's obvious to everyone here, not only from his explicit statement that he was not pilot in command, and that his job is never going to upgrade him, but his level of ignorance, argumentativeness, inexperience, naivety, and lack of judgement all strongly indicate that he is NOT a captain or pilot in command. He's a copilot who holds a type rating, but is so out-of-touch and inexperienced that one would be an idiot to assign him as PIC at this stage, regardless of any technical ability or certification. Moreover, he lacks the discipline to listen, to learn, or to adapt, and sounds immature. These are not desirable characteristics for a captain or PIC, and it shows in his writing, responses, and reasoning. With this in mind, given that he says he wasn't the PIC (but only logged the time as such), and given that he doesn't come across as a PIC, attempting to sell himself as having PIC experience when clearly he isn't, wasn't, and can't be, makes him appear preumptive, and lends the appearance of padding his time, or speaking out of his depth. It lends the appearance that he attempts to misrepresent himself.
From the interviewer's position, it has the appearance of a child putting on daddy's boots and trying to pass himself off as dad. Grow into those boots, first.
You've got to earn them, kid, regardless of whether you can legallky slip them on.
As sole manuipulator of the controls, 121noob is legally entitled to log the time, regardless of whether he is operating under 121, 135, or simplky under 91, without an operating certifcate. The issue of logging time, and the legalitky thereof, is entirely separate from 121 or 135, and neither addresses logging time or sets a requirement to act as pilot in command to log pilot in command. Legallky, 121noob may log as pilot in command all time spent as sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel has been very clear about this on numerous occasions, and makes very clear that "rated" means holding category and class for the aircraft in question, and where appropriate, a type rating. 121noob is entitled to log pilot in command when acting as sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which he is rated, in accordance with 14 CFR 61.51(e). This is not in doubt, nor arguable.
There is a difference between acting as pilot in command, and logging pilot in command. These are two separate issues. One does not need to be a pilot in command in order to log PIC. One does not need to have "signed for the jet" to log the time as PIC; logging the time as PIC does NOT mean that one was the acting pilot in command. Again, this inot debateable and does not leave room for argument. Any arguments to the contrary are wrong.
This is not a question of whether 121noob can log PIC. He can. It is a question of whether he should.
Should is subjective, but here we will find the overwhelming majority of posters who work in this industry respond in the negative: 121noob should not log the time as PIC that he spent as sole manipulator of the controls, if he was not the PIC of record, the man who "signed for the jet;" the pilot assigned on the flight release as pilot in command (doesn't matter who actually signed the paperwork, but it does mattter who was assigned as the pilot in command by the certificate holder). To do otherwise and to represent himself as pilot in command, even to represent his experience as PIC time, will come off poorly. It wil make him look bad. It smacks of ignorance, naivety, and carries the appearance of attempting to pad his logbook. Some 135 operators, and nearly all 121 operators, only consider as PIC experience that time when one was the PIC of record: the acting PIC assigned by the employer, who held full responsbility for the safe outcome of the flight, end of story.
I have experience in four-engine bombers, doing some very demanding, very exacting work. Few who know it would question it, or the value of that experience. However, some of it includes four-engine radial-powered aircraft. There are 121 operators who consider that time the same as a Cessna 172, because those four-engine large airplanes had piston powerplants, and all piston is lumped in the same category, with that employer. The employer isn't concerned that the FAA might call it a multi-engine land airplane. The employer doesn't count that experience as anything but reciprocating-powered. I can log the time however I want, but the employer will only consider it one way. I could log two or three pilot (crew) time, silver airplane time, dirty airplane time, low altittude time, lost-my-hearing time, or whatever I want, but the employer will see it as the same weight and value as any other piston-engine, reciprocating-powered airplane.
Some employers will not.
In the 121 world, employers will see experience in a turbojet airplane, logged as PIC, when one was not the pilot in command, as a false representation. The employer is not concerned with the way the FAA viewed the time, or whether it was legally logged (other than to say, if it wasn't legally logged, then you have an even bigger problem, but legally logging sole manipulator in an aircraft for which you were not assigned PIC, will impress no one in the 121 world, and may serve as a barrier to getting an interview. Taking the attitude "prove it to me," won't get one any closer to that interview, either).
Can 121noob log as PIC, that time spent as sole manipulator under Part 91? Yes, of course, legally, he can. This is not in question.
Should he?
It's clear that 121noob is not the pilot in command, and did not serve as pilot in command. It's obvious to everyone here, not only from his explicit statement that he was not pilot in command, and that his job is never going to upgrade him, but his level of ignorance, argumentativeness, inexperience, naivety, and lack of judgement all strongly indicate that he is NOT a captain or pilot in command. He's a copilot who holds a type rating, but is so out-of-touch and inexperienced that one would be an idiot to assign him as PIC at this stage, regardless of any technical ability or certification. Moreover, he lacks the discipline to listen, to learn, or to adapt, and sounds immature. These are not desirable characteristics for a captain or PIC, and it shows in his writing, responses, and reasoning. With this in mind, given that he says he wasn't the PIC (but only logged the time as such), and given that he doesn't come across as a PIC, attempting to sell himself as having PIC experience when clearly he isn't, wasn't, and can't be, makes him appear preumptive, and lends the appearance of padding his time, or speaking out of his depth. It lends the appearance that he attempts to misrepresent himself.
From the interviewer's position, it has the appearance of a child putting on daddy's boots and trying to pass himself off as dad. Grow into those boots, first.
You've got to earn them, kid, regardless of whether you can legallky slip them on.
05-15-2024, 05:41 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,466
"I don't trust random replies on the internet" by guys that have shown they have professional experience and the ENTIRE replies are "you don't get it." Yeah, I don't trust those guys....Everyone's telling you the same thing, again and again...."Yeah, I don't trust random replies on the internet." If you don't trust ANY replies why even be on the this message board???
I have to think he has some sort of personality disorder, he's not even a pilot, he's a troll, or he's disabled to some degree.
If he's actually a real pilot I have to think that the 'something's off' light would be going flashing in the first 5 minutes of an interview.
I have to think he has some sort of personality disorder, he's not even a pilot, he's a troll, or he's disabled to some degree.
If he's actually a real pilot I have to think that the 'something's off' light would be going flashing in the first 5 minutes of an interview.
05-15-2024, 05:51 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,466
I keep a 'Copilot/PIC' column for when I'm SIC but it's my leg. It's SIC time for the airlines, PIC time for the FAA, and insurance requirements can vary.
Currently a Captain, flying with another Captain, and he's listed as the Captain and I'm the FO/SIC? I log SIC on his legs and Copilot/PIC on my legs.
Currently a Captain, flying with another Captain, and he's listed as the Captain and I'm the FO/SIC? I log SIC on his legs and Copilot/PIC on my legs.
05-15-2024, 08:26 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
A while ago I suggesting he was trolling us all. Top notch if that's the case🤣. Several threads have been going for months now over the same stuff with everyone, as you said, basically saying the same thing. If he's not trolling - again kudos Noob if you are - I'm starting to believe your last statement may be accurate.
05-15-2024, 09:20 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Position: 135 SIC
Posts: 200
Essentially it was no question on the 135 legs, on the 91 legs it was a grey area but they said I should probably default to SIC.
Yeah and now I have to go back and figure out my entire log book since 135 logging doesn't translate to 121 hiring. I have plenty of hours, that's not a problem, but I need to keep two sets of logs for my flights now grrrrr. Would have been nice if AirlineApps still had that notation on their page which would have helped prevent this.
I keep a 'Copilot/PIC' column for when I'm SIC but it's my leg. It's SIC time for the airlines, PIC time for the FAA, and insurance requirements can vary.
Currently a Captain, flying with another Captain, and he's listed as the Captain and I'm the FO/SIC? I log SIC on his legs and Copilot/PIC on my legs.
Currently a Captain, flying with another Captain, and he's listed as the Captain and I'm the FO/SIC? I log SIC on his legs and Copilot/PIC on my legs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
