Logging

[coloradobluesky]

I just want to be SURE these guys are doing this right. They've been talking to me and some others about it and there is still some confusion.

Bob and John are both private pilots. They want to build hours and have access to a 152 with instruments (six pack and two Nav/Coms). They are going to split the cost of the 152 rental 50/50.

This is what they plan on doing:
Before each flight they will agree on who can log PIC by virtue of being "Captain" ie the one in charge of the flight, and the Captain will also be the safety pilot. The other pilot will be under the hood and log PIC by virtue of operating the controls of the airplane. They will take turns from flight to flight, switching positions.

So it's ok with the FAA if they both log PIC for the time the guy is under the hood (not the whole flight, but almost all of it)?

 

[bqmassey]

Yep, that's how it works.

 

[coloradobluesky]

These guys are both headed for hopefully, airline careers. Will the airlines accept these hours also?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

These guys are both headed for hopefully, airline careers. Will the airlines accept these hours also?

Don't see why not, unless a substantial portion of their total time is done under those circumstances.

 

[James331]

Yes and yes.

By the time they are done with job number 2 or 3 (if they are lucky) after their CPLs no one is going to really care about those first 250hrs anyway, unless they are looking for a reason to not hire the guy.


It legal, that the right way to do it and they are by no means the first people or only people doing this, 100% legit.

Blue skies

 

[midlifeflyer]

These guys are both headed for hopefully, airline careers. Will the airlines accept these hours also?

Well, let's see...

The very first pre-qualification to be a Part 135 or 121 pilot is to meet the FAA minimum requirements for the job. That included a certain number of hours logged in accordance with 61.51. So it's a definite yes. Even airlines with their own requirements need to meet the FAA minimum ones.

If a job provider has some extra requirements, that's fine. It's their jobs and they are entitled to require that applicants have a certain types of flight time in addition to meeting those minimums. Heck, they are entitled to required applicants to have had experience working at a fast food restaurant in their teens if they want to.

 

[Palmpilot]

Based on what some airline pilots have posted, some airlines might not count the PIC time of the guy under the hood if he is not the one who is in charge of the flight.

 

[Jaybird180]

Based on what some airline pilots have posted, some airlines might not count the PIC time of the guy under the hood if he is not the one who is in charge of the flight.

Most logbooks do not have a column that asks, "Were you Captain of the flight?"

 

[Palmpilot]

Most logbooks do not have a column that asks, "Were you Captain of the flight?"

Yeah, I wondered about that myself when the claim was made.

 

[coloradobluesky]

If they were both instructors, could they both log PIC? One because he is receiving instruction and manipulating the controls and has his private. The other because he is instructing? Would it matter who was "captain" (acting as PIC, in charge of the flight).

 

[jordane93]

Yes that is correct. I did exactly what you desribed to build time towards my commercial cert.

 

[dtuuri]

Well, let's see...

The very first pre-qualification to be a Part 135 or 121 pilot is to meet the FAA minimum requirements for the job. That included a certain number of hours logged in accordance with 61.51. So it's a definite yes.

Not so definite, IMO. This is an obvious attempt to game the system. Even the Chief Counsel ought to be able to see that. What they've said recently in a letter to Danny Creech gives me hope they wouldn't tolerate these shenanigans. In that letter they refer to their Gebhart letter's interpretation and say that the right seat pilot (not flying) can be PIC under 91.109(c). Thats the rule pertaining to ATP flight tests, where a pilot "seated" at the controls must be fully qualified to be a PIC. In the Gebhart letter they only said the right seat pilot could log "safety pilot" time, since he was a required crewmember. They did not say "PIC time". So, I'm left with the impression the "right seater" (not flying) can only log PIC time during an ATP flight test during that portion of the test the "left seater" (pilot flying) is under the hood. I guess during the rest of the flight test the right seat pilot is firmly SIC and the applicant is PIC under 61.47.
EDIT: Nope. I referred to an old version of 91.109, so I guess there's no hope after all. Paragraph (d) is now the old (c). Oh well.

dtuuri

 

[Jaybird180]

If they were both instructors, could they both log PIC? One because he is receiving instruction and manipulating the controls and has his private. The other because he is instructing? Would it matter who was "captain" (acting as PIC, in charge of the flight).

I did not know one could instruct with a Private. Which FAR is that?

 

[Sluggo63]

These guys are both headed for hopefully, airline careers. Will the airlines accept these hours also?

Depends what airline.

Don't see why not, unless a substantial portion of their total time is done under those circumstances.

Yes and yes.
...
It legal, that the right way to do it and they are by no means the first people or only people doing this, 100% legit.

100% legit in the FAAs eyes, perhaps, but most major airlines want your PIC time as defined by Aircraft Commander

Well, let's see...

The very first pre-qualification to be a Part 135 or 121 pilot is to meet the FAA minimum requirements for the job. That included a certain number of hours logged in accordance with 61.51. So it's a definite yes. Even airlines with their own requirements need to meet the FAA minimum ones.

Sure, but they can also require you to not use some of that time, also.

Most logbooks do not have a column that asks, "Were you Captain of the flight?"

Yeah, I wondered about that myself when the claim was made.

Most major airlines want your PIC time stated as "Aircraft Commander," not "Sole Manipulator of the Controls."

FedEx (https://fedex.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=qualifications)

1500 hours total fixed-wing time as pilot-in-command (PIC) or second-in-command in multi-engine turbo-prop A/C or jet A/C or combination thereof (GTOW 12,500), including a minimum of 1000 hours total fixed-wing pilot-in-command in multi-engine turbo prop A/C or jet A/C or combination thereof (GTOW 12,500). Note: PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. Note: FedEx considers only pilot time in fixed wing aircraft toward minimum qualifications. This does not include simulator, helicopter, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, RIO, EWO, WSO, NFO, or Special Crew.

Southwest (https://swa.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=qualifications)

Flight Experience: 2,500 hours total or 1,500 hours Turbine total. Additionally, a minimum of 1,000 hours in Turbine aircraft as the Pilot in Command** is required. Southwest considers only Pilot time in fixed-wing aircraft. This specifically excludes simulator, WSO, RIO, FE, NAV, EWO, etc. "Other Time" will not be considered.

**PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. For military personnel, Southwest Airlines will allow flight time logged as "Pilot in Command" (PIC) only if you are the Captain/Aircraft Commander, Evaluator, or Instructor Pilot. Primary time will only be considered PIC on a specific aircraft after an individual upgrades to Aircraft Commander in the appropriate aircraft. Time logged as "Other Time" will not be considered.

American Airlines (https://aa.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=questions)

Q: What are the differences between PIC, SIC and Instructor Time when logged into the Flight Hours?
A: Here are the guidelines:

• PIC (Pilot In Command) = Any time you signed for the plane as aircraft commander or solo including all instructor time.
• SIC (Second In Command) = Any time you acted as second in command and/or didn't sign for the plane. This DOES include dual/student time.
• Instructor = Only the time you logged as an instructor, regardless of the time being reported in PIC. Instructor time is PIC time. It belongs in both columns.

That's just three, but I'm sure the other majors (United, Delta, UPS) have the same stipulation. As far as the regionals go, they might accept Sole Manipulator time, just due to the fact that they're scrambling to hire pilots.


Having said that, the likelihood of getting caught... probably small. If they do catch you, goodbye airline job. A very good friend of mine is an interviewer at SWA, and when he's doing logbook checks, I'd say he finds one every couple of months that what's in the logbook doesn't match what's on the application or just doesn't pass the common sense test. Those people don't get hired.

 

[Larry in TN]

As far as the regionals go, they might accept Sole Manipulator time, just due to the fact that they're scrambling to hire pilots.

I'm not aware of any Regionals with PIC time minimum requirements other than those required to qualify for an ATP.

 

[Palmpilot]

Depends what airline.



100% legit in the FAAs eyes, perhaps, but most major airlines want your PIC time as defined by Aircraft Commander

Sure, but they can also require you to not use some of that time, also.




Most major airlines want your PIC time stated as "Aircraft Commander," not "Sole Manipulator of the Controls."

FedEx (https://fedex.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=qualifications)


Southwest (https://swa.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=qualifications)


American Airlines (https://aa.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=questions)
That's just three, but I'm sure the other majors (United, Delta, UPS) have the same stipulation. As far as the regionals go, they might accept Sole Manipulator time, just due to the fact that they're scrambling to hire pilots.


Having said that, the likelihood of getting caught... probably small. If they do catch you, goodbye airline job. A very good friend of mine is an interviewer at SWA, and when he's doing logbook checks, I'd say he finds one every couple of months that what's in the logbook doesn't match what's on the application or just doesn't pass the common sense test. Those people don't get hired.

For pilots who think they might want to apply for an airline job someday, what's the best way to document how much of their PIC time meets FAA requirements, and how much meets airline requirements?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Based on what some airline pilots have posted, some airlines might not count the PIC time of the guy under the hood if he is not the one who is in charge of the flight.

That's right. And some won't count "safety pilot" PIC time, even though you =are= in charge of the flight in that case.

So pilots looking toward airline careers crate a column in their logbook so that can answer the application's question using the application's definition (a "Part 1 PIC" column is not uncommon to see, although even that might no really meet supposed airline qualifications).

Just as some folks put a complex or HP column in their logbooks to easily answer those questions from insurers and FBOs that rent aircraft. Or an extra cross country column to easily tally the "point to point" cross countries that count for Part 135 minimum requirements in addition to their>50NM one. Or...

We sometime get to focused on what is loggable that we lose sight of the bookkeeping aspect of a logbook.

And, of course, by referring to a "column" I'm not at all discounting the use of electronic logbooks with the ability to query for all sorts of things like "number of hours of night cross country in a single engine complex aircraft that is not high performance."

Edit: I guess I also answered your "what's the best way to document" question.

 

[JimNtexas]

For pilots who think they might want to apply for an airline job someday, what's the best way to document how much of their PIC time meets FAA requirements, and how much meets airline requirements?

Add a column to your logbook that says 'FAR-1 PIC'. Read the definition of 'pilot in command' in that section and in that column only log this type of PIC. This is your 'real' PIC time. This is what a lot of aviation employers are interested in.

The 'sole manipulator PIC' does count for many FAA purposes, you might as well take advantage of this loophole, as silly as it is.

As long as your logbook shows both flavors of PIC you don't risk being accused of shenanigans.

 

[Palmpilot]

Add a column to your logbook that says 'FAR-1 PIC'. Read the definition of 'pilot in command' in that section and in that column only log this type of PIC. This is your 'real' PIC time. This is what a lot of aviation employers are interested in.

The 'sole manipulator PIC' does count for many FAA purposes, you might as well take advantage of this loophole, as silly as it is.

As long as your logbook shows both flavors of PIC you don't risk being accused of shenanigans.

Thanks. I'm surprised to see sole manipulator time described as a silly loophole, though. I can see why the airlines want what they want, because the pilot's ability to make command decisions is obviously important. I see why the FAA wants what they want too, because the ability to manipulate the controls of an aircraft is important too. It's too bad they chose the same name for the two types of time, though.

 

[dtuuri]

Add a column to your logbook that says 'FAR-1 PIC'. Read the definition of 'pilot in command' in that section and in that column only log this type of PIC. This is your 'real' PIC time. This is what a lot of aviation employers are interested in.

The 'sole manipulator PIC' does count for many FAA purposes, you might as well take advantage of this loophole, as silly as it is.

As long as your logbook shows both flavors of PIC you don't risk being accused of shenanigans.

I'd say you have that exactly backwards. Add the column "sole manipulator PIC", but use the regular PIC column for the real thing. Before the "sole manipulator" verbiage became popular I labeled my added column "DFPC" for "duties and functions of a pilot in command" for logging my legs as SIC before I earned the type rating.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

I see why the FAA wants what they want too, because the ability to manipulate the controls of an aircraft is important too.

Why does the FAA want the pilot not flying to log the time then?

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

Why does the FAA want the pilot not flying to log the time then?

Beats me.

I'm also not sure that's what the writers of the logging regulations intended.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Beats me.

I'm also not sure that's what the writers of the logging regulations intended.

The FAA has literally had decades to change it if it wasn't. The earliest Chief Counsel opinion I'm aware of that talks about "sole manipulator" time as loggable PIC without acting as PIC was in 1980 (although I am aware there was one at least a year earlier). The concept of the FAA counting sole manipulator time toward advanced certificates or ratings (although not using the term "PIC" for it) dates back to at least 1942.

(Yes, too much time on my hands - I was recuperating from surgery when I looked into this out of curiosity some years ago)

 

[Palmpilot]

The FAA has literally had decades to change it if it wasn't. The earliest Chief Counsel opinion I'm aware of that talks about "sole manipulator" time as loggable PIC without acting as PIC was in 1980 (although I am aware there was one at least a year earlier). The concept of the FAA counting sole manipulator time toward advanced certificates or ratings (although not using the term "PIC" for it) dates back to at least 1942.

(Yes, too much time on my hands - I was recuperating from surgery when I looked into this out of curiosity some years ago)

When I said "I'm also not sure that's what the writers of the logging regulations intended," I was talking the practice of allowing safety pilots to log PIC time. I think allowing sole manipulator time to be logged as PIC time was completely intentional.

 

[James331]

For chit sakes, log safety pilot time as PIC, don't go making up funny columns in your log or any other stupid stuff like that

Honestly any airline that kicks you out based on some saftey pilot time back before your CPL, is just looking for a reason not to hire you anyways.

All else fails, were only talking a about max of 180hrs for your CPL 250, lets keep in mind these are the hours you are paying for (vs getting paid for post CPL).

Get your CPL shotguning hours with a saftey pilot to save money is a smart idea. As a working pilot getting a extra 180hrs of flight time might be a extra 2-3 months of flying, and that's flying you're getting paid for too


So go shotgun you some hours, save some money, get your CPL (also do as much as you can IFR and at night), get you that first job and go forth and do great things.

 

[poadeleted20]

If they were both instructors, could they both log PIC? One because he is receiving instruction and manipulating the controls and has his private..

Other than Sport Pilot Instructors, you need at least a Commercial to have instructor privileges. That said...

The other because he is instructing? Would it matter who was "captain" (acting as PIC, in charge of the flight)

...if they were both CFI's, then yes, one could give the other flight training and both could log it as PIC time regardless of which was acting as PIC. Just be careful with your documentation while doing that lest you end up like these poor schlubs.

 

[poadeleted20]

I did not know one could instruct with a Private. Which FAR is that?

14 CFR 61.403(c).

Sec. 61.403

What are the age, language, and pilot certificate requirements for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?


To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating you must:
(c) Hold at least a sport pilot certificate with category and class ratings or privileges, as applicable, that are appropriate to the flight instructor privileges sought.

So, two PP's holding CFI-SP tickets could go do this in an LSA -- the case above notwithstanding.

 

[midlifeflyer]

When I said "I'm also not sure that's what the writers of the logging regulations intended," I was talking the practice of allowing safety pilots to log PIC time. I think allowing sole manipulator time to be logged as PIC time was completely intentional.

Ah. That one's only 20 years.

Intended? Maybe yes, maybe no. The rationale they actually used for the PIC safety pilot in 1992 was not based on 61.51 but on the definition of acting as PIC in FAR 1 - which we know is not a sufficient basis for logging PIC. The "more than one pilot required" rationale came later and took some mental gymnastics (sorry, a hooded pilot flying with a non-hooded PIC is not "an operation that requires more than one pilot").

You can argue either way on "intended." It could have been a policy decision that the Chief Counsel molded to fit the regs (intended; we want to give the safety who is responsible for the flight to get a logging benefit toward later ratings) or the Chief Counsel could have made the whole thing up (not intended)

Either way the FAA has had a long time to change it if it was an error. Instead, the FAA has reaffirmed it many times. Original intent or later ratification? Except as a historical curiosity it really doesn't matter much.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ah. That one's only 20 years.

Intended? Maybe yes, maybe no. The rationale they actually used for the PIC safety pilot in 1992 was not based on 61.51 but on the definition of acting as PIC in FAR 1 - which we know is not a sufficient basis for logging PIC. The "more than one pilot required" rationale came later and took some mental gymnastics (sorry, a hooded pilot flying with a non-hooded PIC is not "an operation that requires more than one pilot").

You can argue either way on "intended." It could have been a policy decision that the Chief Counsel molded to fit the regs (intended; we want to give the safety who is responsible for the flight to get a logging benefit toward later ratings) or the Chief Counsel could have made the whole thing up (not intended)

Either way the FAA has had a long time to change it if it was an error. Instead, the FAA has reaffirmed it many times. Original intent or later ratification? Except as a historical curiosity it really doesn't matter much.

I expressed uncertainty as to the intent of the writers of the regulation. I take it for granted that the Chief Counsel's office doesn't write twenty years' worth of consistent interpretations by accident.

I have a feeling that it didn't even occur to the writers of that regulation (i.e., the one that is used to justify safety pilots' logging of PIC time) that it could be used in that way.

 

[dtuuri]

After I realized my previous opinion on this matter was erroneously based on an older version of Part 91 and therefore hope is lost that the Chief Counsel can ever stop this blatant misuse of logging rules--I tried to think of a way to help them out.

I think PIC time as a "safety pilot" is worse than silly. It undermines the real value of the time being logged by the other pilot. That other pilot, the one who is supposedly benefitting from the self-directed simulated instrument time also gets a crutch--a non-certified instructor, actually. As for the safety pilot, back when I earned my ratings the FAA scoffed at the idea of a second pilot logging time in a Cessna 150 even as copilot. They'd have died laughing if someone were to propose that second pilot could log time as PIC. The concept of "safety pilot" goes back well into the 1940s. The concept of logging time as one is relatively new. Frankly, it shouldn't be allowed. The task is one of looking for traffic. To the degree that is all that is provided it is of very limited additional aviation value to the provider. To the degree more than that is provided, it devalues the experience of pilots receiving it. That PIC experience in hours is how we value pilots. Diluting the content of each hour by allowing additional assistance creates a less qualified pilot for a given amount of hours, even though the flight in question may be safer.

If the Chief Counsel's office should suddenly come to their senses and wish to stop the double-dipping PIC practice here's my idea: They should bust the OP's buddies under 61.113(a) "acting as PIC for compensation or hire." There is a quid pro quo relationship between the pilots where, for services rendered as PIC (as safety pilot), an expectation of compensation in like kind is to be received from the recipient. The FAA is good at liberally defining compensation, so hours of labor rendered for other hours of labor received should be right up their alley.

So, there ya go Chief Counsel, get right on it. :wink2:

dtuuri

 

[azure]

I think PIC time as a "safety pilot" is worse than silly. It undermines the real value of the time being logged by the other pilot. That other pilot, the one who is supposedly benefitting from the self-directed simulated instrument time also gets a crutch--a non-certified instructor, actually. As for the safety pilot, back when I earned my ratings the FAA scoffed at the idea of a second pilot logging time in a Cessna 150 even as copilot. They'd have died laughing if someone were to propose that second pilot could log time as PIC. The concept of "safety pilot" goes back well into the 1940s. The concept of logging time as one is relatively new. Frankly, it shouldn't be allowed. The task is one of looking for traffic. To the degree that is all that is provided it is of very limited additional aviation value to the provider. To the degree more than that is provided, it devalues the experience of pilots receiving it. That PIC experience in hours is how we value pilots. Diluting the content of each hour by allowing additional assistance creates a less qualified pilot for a given amount of hours, even though the flight in question may be safer.

I think even logging the time spent as safety pilot (as SIC or whatever) in a plane normally requiring only one pilot is silly and serves no purpose other than to pad one's hours. It's not flight time by any definition except that you become a "required crewmember" by virtue of having eyes outside when the PF doesn't. The first time I was a safety pilot for someone I logged it (as single engine and flight time, not as PIC), then a few months later crossed out the entry and recalculated all my totals. My hours don't need padding.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think even logging the time spent as safety pilot (as SIC or whatever) in a plane normally requiring only one pilot is silly and serves no purpose other than to pad one's hours. It's not flight time by any definition except that you become a "required crewmember" by virtue of having eyes outside when the PF doesn't. The first time I was a safety pilot for someone I logged it (as single engine and flight time, not as PIC), then a few months later crossed out the entry and recalculated all my totals. My hours don't need padding.

That is not even an minor issue for me. I don't see my logbook as anything more significant than entering the time the FAA wants me to record to show qualification and currency, and perhaps to look back on to recall good times. If I were heading for a possible airline career, I'd also want to know that, whatever a potential employer wants to know, i can provide documented answers.

The only thing I find "silly" is the constant whining about how terrible it is to record FAA flight time according to the FAA's rules.

 

[dtuuri]

The only thing I find "silly" is the constant whining about how terrible it is to record FAA flight time according to the FAA's rules.

Then you must find nothing to whine about in the new ATP rules, I take it. Ultimately, they're just a result of the erosion of flying skills due to pilots meeting the logging rules before attaining the skills the logged hours of experience were meant to assure.

Personally, I whine because I don't like having new twists to old rules foisted on us after we already had the debate about what the rules were proposed to accomplish. In fact, there was never any debate at all about logging time as a safety pilot. The very term betrays the idea that such time is SIC or "copilot" time as it was called in 1961. If it was a copilot function, then why did they bother to coin the term "safety pilot" in the first place?

As for "sole manipulator time", your spin on that is mistaken, IMO. Pilot logbooks, under CAR 20.16, needed to reflect "Type of piloting time" as either one of four options: PIC, Copilot, Dual, or Synthetic trainer. There's never been a debate about allowing Dual and PIC to occur simultaneously, btw. That was a creation of the Chief Counsel after 1972 after a rewrite of the paragraph typographically changed the meaning without any debate, setting the stage for a watering down of the skill level associated with being the true PIC. After 1972, the instructor's advice and skill can be logged as the student's own. The "sole manipulator" language in CAR 20.17 pertained, IMO, to the fact that licensed pilots could fly other classes of aircraft without a rating. Stay with me here. As long as he didn't carry passengers in, say, a multinegine airplane, it was perfectly legal for an ASEL private pilot to fly AMEL airplanes solo. In order to apply for a class rating to carry passengers under 20.121(b)(1), the pilot needed to have made 5 takeoffs and landings either solo or as "sole manipulator of the controls" when accompanied by a rated pilot. Although the latter would qualify the applicant to take the test, it was not worthy of loggable PIC experience unless it was "solo"-- because of the restriction in CAR 20.17 which limited loggable PIC time to solo or "sole manipulator of an aircraft for which he is rated". In other words, relying on another pilot to help fly the airplane was not loggable as PIC unless a copilot was also required for "normal" operations.

So, after all this watering down of PIC time over the years we're about to pay the piper for letting our standards slip. Not as much as some have paid, though. The captain and first officer of Colgan Flight 3407, I suspect, took every advantage of the logging rules as they climbed the career ladder, as did their flight schools and employer. I'm sure they also memorized the written test questions, like everybody here wants to do, and only trained to the minimum flight test standards before taking the practical tests. The result? Nobody ever noticed that the captain really never understood how to identify and recover from a stall.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I clearly don't see the "erosion of flight skills" as the result of something someone writes on a piece of paper with a beer in his other hand, Dave. Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

 

[Everskyward]

There have always been human factors airline accidents and they were more frequent in the past, which is something we tend to forget. Instead, our instinct is to criticize the younger, softer generation.

 

[dtuuri]

I clearly don't see the "erosion of flight skills" as the result of something someone writes on a piece of paper with a beer in his other hand, Dave. Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Totally lost me there, Mark. Who's writing what?

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

Totally lost me there, Mark. Who's writing what?

dtuuri

Entries in a logbook. That's usually how those PIC entries get there.

We've been talking about logging time, you know. You seem to think that is a major cause of flying into bad weather, flying too close to things, bad judgment in airline crews, and all sorts of aviation accidents caused by bad piloting skills. If only the pilots in Colgen logged differently, all would be well and we wouldn't have had the accident leading Congress to the new ATP rules!

I don't think so.

Actually, have you seen their logbooks? Maybe they only logged "for the airlines."

 

[dtuuri]

Entries in a logbook. That's usually how those PIC entries get there.

We've been talking about logging time, you know. You seem to think that is a major cause of flying into bad weather, flying too close to things, bad judgment in airline crews, and all sorts of aviation accidents caused by bad piloting skills. If only the pilots in Colgen logged differently, all would be well and we wouldn't have had the accident leading Congress to the new ATP rules!

Now there's a "straw man" argument!

Actually, have you seen their logbooks? Maybe they only logged "for the airlines."

If they were in the accident docket, I've seen them. I think I've studied about everything in that docket including the FDR tracings.

Since at least the 1960s the PIC requirement for an ATP candidate has been 250 hours (100 for a commercial) and will continue so under the new rules. But a pilot these days can log dual received in the PIC column after they get their private license. When you add up all the dual flights now being logged as PIC for aircraft checkouts, BFRs, learning the commercial maneuvers, hood time for an instrument rating and then padding in "safety pilot" time there too--there's not much true PIC time acquired compared to the 1960s. That difference in true PIC time should have been additional experience to be gained on one's own--time where the applicant should have practiced and perfected their airmanship. Things like stall recoveries, for instance. Interning as a CFI for a few hundred hours, this deficiency corrects itself. But Captain Renslow had a paltry 278 hours as PIC on the day he received his ATP. Deduct from that all the double-dipped PIC hours and you have a significantly less qualified ATP candidate than what the rules originally assumed.

dtuuri