New Minimums For All
03-08-2009, 09:43 PM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
[quote=welle036;575018]
The difference is of course the era.
Sixty years ago, an 18 year old was a man. He was expected to be hard working , responsible, and full of character. My grandfather who was part of that generation, held a full time job, while attending high school, and enlisted in the military after graduation. Today he would be considered an over achiever. Back then he was normal. Today, young people rarely have these 3 traits together, if they have them at all. To all you younger folks out there who don't think this applies to you, than maybe it doesn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe your that exception, or maybe your not. I'm inclined to think as a general rule, the later is true.
quote]
I took offense to "someone of this generation being hardworking, responsible, and full of character to be an overachiever and those three traits together being rare." Taking advice or criticism in this context is becoming a harder pill to swallow. This generation will have to learn or is learning those qualities quickly.
Your example(78) is still in the age range of many relevant figures anyway: mccain, fuld, madoff, many politicians. Saying the current group of leaders of this country wouldn't have been born in 1950 seems a little ridiculous; i can think of many prominent figures older than 59. Maybe you should take your own sage advice.
That's interesting since the three people you decided to cite were 14, 4 and 12 respectively in 1950, but I'll give you McCain. But if I recall, he lost the election to the junior senator from Illinois, who by the way wouldn't be born until 1961. Of the 15 cabinet positions in the executive department of the US Government, only 5 were born before 1950 and the earliest of those was 1942.
Regardless, I made it very clear in my previous post that if this doesn't apply to you, than it doesn't. I never said that generation were over achievers, I said some people would look back and say they were. As for those three traits being rare, I'll stand by my words, and hope that everyday I walk the streets, I'm proven wrong, but it has happened yet.
The difference is of course the era.
Sixty years ago, an 18 year old was a man. He was expected to be hard working , responsible, and full of character. My grandfather who was part of that generation, held a full time job, while attending high school, and enlisted in the military after graduation. Today he would be considered an over achiever. Back then he was normal. Today, young people rarely have these 3 traits together, if they have them at all. To all you younger folks out there who don't think this applies to you, than maybe it doesn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe your that exception, or maybe your not. I'm inclined to think as a general rule, the later is true.
quote]
I took offense to "someone of this generation being hardworking, responsible, and full of character to be an overachiever and those three traits together being rare." Taking advice or criticism in this context is becoming a harder pill to swallow. This generation will have to learn or is learning those qualities quickly.
Your example(78) is still in the age range of many relevant figures anyway: mccain, fuld, madoff, many politicians. Saying the current group of leaders of this country wouldn't have been born in 1950 seems a little ridiculous; i can think of many prominent figures older than 59. Maybe you should take your own sage advice.
That's interesting since the three people you decided to cite were 14, 4 and 12 respectively in 1950, but I'll give you McCain. But if I recall, he lost the election to the junior senator from Illinois, who by the way wouldn't be born until 1961. Of the 15 cabinet positions in the executive department of the US Government, only 5 were born before 1950 and the earliest of those was 1942.
Regardless, I made it very clear in my previous post that if this doesn't apply to you, than it doesn't. I never said that generation were over achievers, I said some people would look back and say they were. As for those three traits being rare, I'll stand by my words, and hope that everyday I walk the streets, I'm proven wrong, but it has happened yet.
03-08-2009, 09:47 PM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: I am the Stig
Posts: 281
OK, thanks for the clarifications. I'm just surprised the FAA is able to let an operator change the reg I quoted previously, as well as this one;
Sec. 135.109
Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.
(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a--
(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and
(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.
(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight.
Sec. 135.109
Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.
(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a--
(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and
(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.
(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight.
03-08-2009, 09:55 PM
#154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
OK, thanks for the clarifications. I'm just surprised the FAA is able to let an operator change the reg I quoted previously, as well as this one;
Sec. 135.109
Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.
(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a--
(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and
(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.
(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight.
Sec. 135.109
Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.
(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a--
(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and
(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.
(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight.
03-08-2009, 10:03 PM
#155
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: I am the Stig
Posts: 281
The roles as stated above remain the same throughout the flight. Nothing changes as far the regs go. What the FAA has said is that the SIC can "log" PIC when they are the sole manipulator, as long as the conditions are met per my previous post. (Training, Checkride, 8410, etc.)
I wonder how many guys have had to explain this whole thing when interviewing for another job.
But by that logic, a downgraded/displaced CA in 121 operations could log his SIC as PIC time since he's appropriately rated in the aircraft, just not signing for it. OR, ANY ATP/type rated FO could log PIC while acting as FO, an IRO/RO could do the same. And YES, I KNOW that's not what happens.
But good luck with that since most employers don't consider it PIC time unless it's your name on the paperwork.
03-08-2009, 10:18 PM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
If there is a designated PIC, and a designated SIC per the regs, it's just interesting that the designated SIC can log PIC time.
I wonder how many guys have had to explain this whole thing when interviewing for another job.
But by that logic, a downgraded/displaced CA in 121 operations could log his SIC as PIC time since he's appropriately rated in the aircraft, just not signing for it. OR, ANY ATP/type rated FO could log PIC while acting as FO, an IRO/RO could do the same. And YES, I KNOW that's not what happens.
But good luck with that since most employers don't consider it PIC time unless it's your name on the paperwork.
I wonder how many guys have had to explain this whole thing when interviewing for another job.
But by that logic, a downgraded/displaced CA in 121 operations could log his SIC as PIC time since he's appropriately rated in the aircraft, just not signing for it. OR, ANY ATP/type rated FO could log PIC while acting as FO, an IRO/RO could do the same. And YES, I KNOW that's not what happens.
But good luck with that since most employers don't consider it PIC time unless it's your name on the paperwork.
03-08-2009, 10:45 PM
#157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: I am the Stig
Posts: 281
I see what you're saying about seat specific roles. But an IRO who is also an FO does sit in the CA's seat when the CA's in the back. Also, the 135 reg has a specific role for the PIC operating IFR, a 1200 hour (and other various times) minimum, but yet somebody that cannot per the regs fulfill that role as PIC per 135 is logging the PIC time.
That being said I don't necessarily disagree with your last sentence, which is why I have no PIC that falls into this category. Personally, I never bought multi time, and never considered it. If there's a will there's a way in my opinion. But like I told BOILER, If the FAA says these guys can do it, who am I to argue.
But stepping back and looking at it objectively, which will probably send this thread down the direction of another horse that is beaten well past dead. This question is more rhetorical than anything and subject to opinion and I'm sure will spawn a plethora of answers.
You are interviewing 3 pilots. All of them meet the mins, as well as have similar total flight times, but the Airnet guy probably has more multi time. All of them passed whatever standardized wriiten test you gave them when they showed up, all of them are able to answer the FAR, IFR, systems, weather questions, whatever, all of them are able to answer the standard HR quesions, all of them flew a thumbs up sim ride, none of them have anything on their records, etc. In other words, all that stuff is on a level plyaing field.
Pilot A is a CFII/MEI. His IFR skills may suck if he's been doing lot's of primary and mutli teaching lately, or be top notch if he's done lots of dual for instrument ratings. But ALL his PIC can be easliy justified without any explanation.
Pilot B is a banner tower or scenic tour pilot. His IFR skills probably suck becuase of the flying he's been doing lately. But if he's banner tow, he's has been operating in an evironment that can be challenging. All his PIC time can be easily justified without any explanation.
Pilot C is a guy who has been through the training checkride process you explained above. He's has been logging PIC time in a single pilot plane, didn't have the total time to do it per the 135 reg, hasn't signed a single release, etc. He's been in the 135/crew environment which is a plus. ALL THREE pilots could be flubbing their time, so it's not unique to him. But if he was really low time, the ACTUAL PIC may not have even let him touch the controls if they were in IMC/icing, but the guy logged it as PIC anyway. But his PIC time DOES need to be justified as the practice is not that common, and may be specific to this one operator. The HR person/pilots interviewing him have probably never heard of this before.
Who would you consider hiring? Especially if pilot C is not able to produce the LOA/waiver that allows his company to allow him to do this.
03-08-2009, 10:59 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
And that right there makes it EVEN more peculiar, it's a single pilot airplane, but with two pilots. One who is the designated PIC, the other logging PIC time.
I see what you're saying about seat specific roles. But an IRO who is also an FO does sit in the CA's seat when the CA's in the back. Also, the 135 reg has a specific role for the PIC operating IFR, a 1200 hour (and other various times) minimum, but yet somebody that cannot per the regs fulfill that role as PIC per 135 is logging the PIC time.
If the FAA buys off on it, then more power to them.
But stepping back and looking at it objectively, which will probably send this thread down the direction of another horse that is beaten well past dead. This question is more rhetorical than anything and subject to opinion and I'm sure will spawn a plethora of answers.
You are interviewing 3 pilots. All of them meet the mins, as well as have similar total flight times, but the Airnet guy probably has more multi time. All of them passed whatever standardized wriiten test you gave them when they showed up, all of them are able to answer the FAR, IFR, systems, weather questions, whatever, all of them are able to answer the standard HR quesions, all of them flew a thumbs up sim ride, none of them have anything on their records, etc. In other words, all that stuff is on a level plyaing field.
Pilot A is a CFII/MEI. His IFR skills may suck if he's been doing lot's of primary and mutli teaching lately, or be top notch if he's done lots of dual for instrument ratings. But ALL his PIC can be easliy justified without any explanation.
Pilot B is a banner tower or scenic tour pilot. His IFR skills probably suck becuase of the flying he's been doing lately. But if he's banner tow, he's has been operating in an evironment that can be challenging. All his PIC time can be easily justified without any explanation.
Pilot C is a guy who has been through the training checkride process you explained above. He's has been logging PIC time in a single pilot plane, didn't have the total time to do it per the 135 reg, hasn't signed a single release, etc. He's been in the 135/crew environment which is a plus. ALL THREE pilots could be flubbing their time, so it's not unique to him. But if he was really low time, the ACTUAL PIC may not have even let him touch the controls if they were in IMC/icing, but the guy logged it as PIC anyway. But his PIC time DOES need to be justified as the practice is not that common, and may be specific to this one operator. The HR person/pilots interviewing him have probably never heard of this before.
Who would you consider hiring? Especially if pilot C is not able to produce the LOA/waiver that allows his company to allow him to do this.
I see what you're saying about seat specific roles. But an IRO who is also an FO does sit in the CA's seat when the CA's in the back. Also, the 135 reg has a specific role for the PIC operating IFR, a 1200 hour (and other various times) minimum, but yet somebody that cannot per the regs fulfill that role as PIC per 135 is logging the PIC time.
If the FAA buys off on it, then more power to them.
But stepping back and looking at it objectively, which will probably send this thread down the direction of another horse that is beaten well past dead. This question is more rhetorical than anything and subject to opinion and I'm sure will spawn a plethora of answers.
You are interviewing 3 pilots. All of them meet the mins, as well as have similar total flight times, but the Airnet guy probably has more multi time. All of them passed whatever standardized wriiten test you gave them when they showed up, all of them are able to answer the FAR, IFR, systems, weather questions, whatever, all of them are able to answer the standard HR quesions, all of them flew a thumbs up sim ride, none of them have anything on their records, etc. In other words, all that stuff is on a level plyaing field.
Pilot A is a CFII/MEI. His IFR skills may suck if he's been doing lot's of primary and mutli teaching lately, or be top notch if he's done lots of dual for instrument ratings. But ALL his PIC can be easliy justified without any explanation.
Pilot B is a banner tower or scenic tour pilot. His IFR skills probably suck becuase of the flying he's been doing lately. But if he's banner tow, he's has been operating in an evironment that can be challenging. All his PIC time can be easily justified without any explanation.
Pilot C is a guy who has been through the training checkride process you explained above. He's has been logging PIC time in a single pilot plane, didn't have the total time to do it per the 135 reg, hasn't signed a single release, etc. He's been in the 135/crew environment which is a plus. ALL THREE pilots could be flubbing their time, so it's not unique to him. But if he was really low time, the ACTUAL PIC may not have even let him touch the controls if they were in IMC/icing, but the guy logged it as PIC anyway. But his PIC time DOES need to be justified as the practice is not that common, and may be specific to this one operator. The HR person/pilots interviewing him have probably never heard of this before.
Who would you consider hiring? Especially if pilot C is not able to produce the LOA/waiver that allows his company to allow him to do this.
Even with the LOA, I pick A everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
03-08-2009, 11:08 PM
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: I am the Stig
Posts: 281
And if I was the pilot interviewing him and there was a large pool of candidates, and the guy couldn't produce the documentation, AND it would tie up resources trying to verify it's legitimacy, well..................
And I'm sure there are PLENTY of guys that have gotten jobs and it wasn't an issue, just saying I wouldn't want to be the one trying to explain it.
03-09-2009, 04:00 AM
#160
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 61
The roles as stated above remain the same throughout the flight. Nothing changes as far the regs go. What the FAA has said is that the SIC can "log" PIC when they are the sole manipulator, as long as the conditions are met per my previous post. (Training, Checkride, 8410, etc.)
All PIC goes into the same collumn of the logbook
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
