Two crew logging question

Kritchlow said:
Call it 91 vs 121, single crew vs two crew, ATP vs PP, or whatever. I may be using the wrong verbiage on that point.
Click to expand...
It's not 91 or 121. It's straight out of 14 CFR 61.51.

61.51 (e)(2) If rated to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, an airline transport pilot may log all flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

and

61.51 (f)(1) through (3) for SIC.
 
KaiGywer said:
That being said. If his/her goal is the airlines, most of them do not want "sole manipulator PIC" listed on their applications. They specifically use the definition of who signed for the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Which is ridiculous. They would rather have someone with 1250 PIC as a primary instructor that never went more than 75 miles from their home drome and never saw a lick of IMC vs someone who actually flew 1250 PIC and actually made decisions.
 
EdFred said:
Which is ridiculous. They would rather have someone with 1250 PIC as a primary instructor that never went more than 75 miles from their home drome and never saw a lick of IMC vs someone who actually flew 1250 PIC and actually made decisions.
Click to expand...
How do they “make actual decisions” if they’re not acting as PIC? That’s what “signed for the aircraft” seems to mean.
 
MauleSkinner said:
How do they “make actual decisions” if they’re not acting as PIC? That’s what “signed for the aircraft” seems to mean.
Click to expand...

In a two crew airplane part 135/91?


You should see how much command is delegated outside of the cockpit in many 121s, from getting weather, fuel, pax issues and so on, ever hear “we’ll have to ask company” when taking to center?

In a practical sense a SIC PF, pax wrangling and doing “the paperwork” might be working more operational issues on a leg compared to a larger 121 capt

I have had many conversations about my day to day with my airlines friends where they say “we don’t deal with that”
 
MauleSkinner said:
How do they “make actual decisions” if they’re not acting as PIC? That’s what “signed for the aircraft” seems to mean.
Click to expand...

When I did my instrument, my CFII said there on all the XCs. Everything was my call. And he stuck to his word.

But I guess that doesn't mean anything since I "didn't sign for the airplane."
 
FrankBravo said:
In a two crew airplane part 135/91?


You should see how much command is delegated outside of the cockpit in many 121s, from getting weather, fuel, pax issues and so on, ever hear “we’ll have to ask company” when taking to center?

In a practical sense a SIC PF, pax wrangling and doing “the paperwork” might be working more operational issues on a leg compared to a larger 121 capt

I have had many conversations about my day to day with my airlines friends where they say “we don’t deal with that”
Click to expand...
The presumption is that if they’re flying 121 and delegating all that stuff, they’ve been hired by a 121 operator, at which point it’s largely moot.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
When I did my instrument, my CFII said there on all the XCs. Everything was my call. And he stuck to his word.

But I guess that doesn't mean anything since I "didn't sign for the airplane."
Click to expand...
Yeah, 15-20 hours could make the difference for a major airline job, I guess.
 
MauleSkinner said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Some don’t really bother to keep track of their time, let their CFI lapse, and just settle in and keep their head down

Others still fly GA, are instructing, contract work and so on and log everything to the tenth

From my small group of friends, the larger 121 world appears very easy to fall into “that’s not part of my job” which I fully understand, 91 and 135 give you much more rope to hang your self with, if you want to keep your head down until retirement, are risk adverse, 121 makes a good deal of sense
 
FrankBravo said:
Some don’t really bother to keep track of their time, let their CFI lapse, and just settle in and keep their head down

Others still fly GA, are instructing, contract work and so on and log everything to the tenth

From my small group of friends, the larger 121 world appears very easy to fall into “that’s not part of my job” which I fully understand, 91 and 135 give you much more rope to hang your self with, if you want to keep your head down until retirement, are risk adverse, 121 makes a good deal of sense
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how that means some 121 guys are building time towards a 121 job.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re suggesting that he didn’t log the time?

(I thought this was about YOUR airline career. ;) )
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying I don't get why 1250 hours of CFI PIC, or hell, safety pilot is more highly regarded. AFAIC CFI PIC time is WORTHLESS as for as piloting skills and CRM goes, and I say that as a CFI.
 
EdFred said:
No, I'm saying I don't get why 1250 hours of CFI PIC, or hell, safety pilot is more highly regarded. AFAIC CFI PIC time is WORTHLESS as for as piloting skills and CRM goes, and I say that as a CFI.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s why the majors don’t generally hire 1250-hour CFIs.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I guess that’s why the majors don’t generally hire 1250-hour CFIs.
Click to expand...

Plus 250 for commercial gets you to 1500 for regional. And it was stating that signing for the plane was more important than actually flying.
 
EdFred said:
Plus 250 for commercial gets you to 1500 for regional. And it was stating that signing for the plane was more important than actually flying.
Click to expand...
And he majors will then ask, “when did you upgrade?” At which time they will start counting PIC for their qualifications.

Of course, there are exceptions. I recently gave an ATP/Type ride to a 1300-hour pilot who’s in a flow-through program. 6 or 7 hours of flying an airplane alone, 700TT when put in the right seat of a jet, and in another year she’ll move on to the right seat of Boeings.

Times, they are a-changing’.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And he majors will then ask, “when did you upgrade?” At which time they will start counting PIC for their qualifications.

Of course, there are exceptions. I recently gave an ATP/Type ride to a 1300-hour pilot who’s in a flow-through program. 6 or 7 hours of flying an airplane alone, 700TT when put in the right seat of a jet, and in another year she’ll move on to the right seat of Boeings.

Times, they are a-changing’.
Click to expand...

Not sure for the better unfortunately

I have had some issue with people who from
low time to right seat and end up making Pic, they know the plane well, but their command decisions on weather and other aspects is lacking, also they often have a ego like crazy for some reason

Maybe I’m getting old, but building your time up as a PIC in smaller stuff and working your way up, I think that was a good system
 
EdFred said:
No, I'm saying I don't get why 1250 hours of CFI PIC, or hell, safety pilot is more highly regarded. AFAIC CFI PIC time is WORTHLESS as for as piloting skills and CRM goes, and I say that as a CFI.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you get the idea that it IS more highly regarded. If two pilots showed up with 1200 hours, one with CFI time and one with VFR charter time, I would think the charter pilot would get the nod.
 
jordane93 said:
Not yet!
Click to expand...
I already look in the cockpit Before I get on an airliner to make sure one of a few pilots I know behind whom I’ll never fly are in the cockpit. If I see a couple of kids popping zits against the windshield…:rolleyes:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I’m not sure where you get the idea that it IS more highly regarded. If two pilots showed up with 1200 hours, one with CFI time and one with VFR charter time, I would think the charter pilot would get the nod.
Click to expand...
KaiGywer said:
That being said. If his/her goal is the airlines, most of them do not want "sole manipulator PIC" listed on their applications. They specifically use the definition of who signed for the aircraft.
Click to expand...

That's where.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you assumed that the airlines preferred the version of acting PIC that they probably don’t prefer.
Click to expand...

I didn't assume anything. I quoted what was stated. "...do not want sole manipulator PIC..."
 
EdFred said:
No, I'm saying I don't get why 1250 hours of CFI PIC, or hell, safety pilot is more highly regarded. AFAIC CFI PIC time is WORTHLESS as for as piloting skills and CRM goes, and I say that as a CFI.
Click to expand...
We'll have to disagree to disagree on that one. I have become a far better pilot in every important respect - skill, knowledge, judgement, anticipation - than I can even imagine having become if I did not go that route.
 
midlifeflyer said:
We'll have to disagree to disagree on that one. I have become a far better pilot in every important respect - skill, knowledge, judgement, anticipation - than I can even imagine having become if I did not go that route.
Click to expand...


Being able to explain something simply and passionately is a sign of mastery of the subject

Letting a student learn from their mistakes and having the skill to let them take the plane to somewhere they can’t recover but you confidently can, that’s being a good stick


Often those who don’t think instructing makes a good pilot, didn’t make a good instructor
 
FrankBravo said:
Being able to explain something simply and passionately is a sign of mastery of the subject

Letting a student learn from their mistakes and having the skill to let them take the plane to somewhere they can’t recover but you confidently can, that’s being a good stick


Often those who don’t think instructing makes a good pilot, didn’t make a good instructor
Click to expand...
Like most things, it really doesn’t matter what you logged or how you logged it, you get out of it what you put into it.

But also like most things, it’s difficult to impossible to tell from a logbook how much effort someone put into it, so numbers that are somewhat arbitrary become a gate to thin the herd.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Like most things, it really doesn’t matter what you logged or how you logged it, you get out of it what you put into it.
Click to expand...
I try to remember that the only regulatory purpose of logging is to demonstrate that you meet bare minimum requirements.

Of course it's also used to demonstrate experience beyond that but its relevance depends on who is looking, what they are looking for, and their experience in evaluating the information.
 
midlifeflyer said:
We'll have to disagree to disagree on that one. I have become a far better pilot in every important respect - skill, knowledge, judgement, anticipation - than I can even imagine having become if I did not go that route.
Click to expand...

Me teaching students to land in a 10kt crosswinds for 1000 hours doesn't translate to me having the skill set to land in a 45kt crosswind. There are things you will do but will not teach. Something about 1000 hours or the same hour 1000 times. I'd rather have the former in a candidate.
 
EdFred said:
Something about 1000 hours or the same hour 1000 times. I'd rather have the former in a candidate.
Click to expand...
Not me. Practicing bad habits over and over 1000 times and making new ones up on the fly is much worse, imo.
 
EdFred said:
Me teaching students to land in a 10kt crosswinds for 1000 hours doesn't translate to me having the skill set to land in a 45kt crosswind. There are things you will do but will not teach. Something about 1000 hours or the same hour 1000 times. I'd rather have the former in a candidate.
Click to expand...
Different strokes, I guess.
 
EdFred said:
Me teaching students to land in a 10kt crosswinds for 1000 hours doesn't translate to me having the skill set to land in a 45kt crosswind. There are things you will do but will not teach. Something about 1000 hours or the same hour 1000 times. I'd rather have the former in a candidate.
Click to expand...
So does flying the same hour 1000 times provide better qualification than teaching the same hour 1000 times?
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Me teaching students to land in a 10kt crosswinds for 1000 hours doesn't translate to me having the skill set to land in a 45kt crosswind.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that statement.

The skills necessary to land in a 10kt crosswind are the same skills used in a 45kt crosswind. The difference is the capabilities of the airplane you're flying and the necessity to deploy those skills correctly with a much smaller margin for error.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So does flying the same hour 1000 times provide better qualification than teaching the same hour 1000 times?
Click to expand...

That presumes every student is exactly the same

Teaching a round out to one student will be different and may require a different technique and approach compared to another student

There is a reason our training capts are not people new to the company and airframe
 
FrankBravo said:
That presumes every student is exactly the same

Teaching a round out to one student will be different and may require a different technique and approach compared to another student

There is a reason our training capts are not people new to the company and airframe
Click to expand...
No, it presumes @EdFred is making an apples-to-apples argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top