FAA First officer do not require TR ???

[galaxy flyer]

Marker Inbound:

Yes, I agree on the training record, but around FAR 91 ops, it is a little looser than you would guess. If you are a 91 bizjet operator with a decent rep, it is very easy to show up at the FSDO and get the SIC ticket with minimal records. But, it is a rare 91 operator that cuts it that close, they do exist though.

GF

[SNS3Guppy]

Insurance companies do more to uphold the higher standard than the FAA, especially with strictly 135 operations.

Insurance in most cases today requires recognized sim based training to a given standard.

[thepotato232]

That would defeat the purpose of the SIC type - namely, to keep your butt in the right seat for as long as possible.

[kwachon]

If you believe this you are sadly mistaken,

If you are a 91 bizjet operator with a decent rep, it is very easy to show up at the FSDO and get the SIC ticket with minimal records.

This may have been the case before 9/11 but I can assure you it is not now. Part of the SIC type rating reasoning was for security, it allows the feds to vet and see who is flying any aircraft (N-reg) that requires a type rating as well as increase crew safety following the Payne Stewart accident.

[SNS3Guppy]

Is it possible instead of 'just' doing the SIC type, say in a RJ, but request the full TR.........but still be employed as a SIC. ( So that on any deadhead 91 flights you could log PIC ). Just a thought................

If you're talking about doing this with an airline, no. The airline chooses what rating you get, not you. Further, the PIC is assigned the PIC and remains the PIC. It's generally frowned upon in a professional environment to log PIC when you're not the PIC...sole manipulator not withstanding. If you didn't sign for the airplane, you don't log it as PIC. The regulation allows you to do so if rated in the airplane and sole manipulator, but that's not something that's done at an airline, or recognized by most professional departments.

Part of the SIC type rating reasoning was for security, it allows the feds to vet and see who is flying any aircraft (N-reg) that requires a type rating as well as increase crew safety following the Payne Stewart accident.

I'm not certain that you have any clue what you're talking about. The SIC type has NOTHING to do with security, and everything to do with ICAO compliance. In fact, the SIC type rating isn't required in the US domestically; only when traveling outside the country.

The Payne Stewart mishap had nothing to do with security, nor did it have anything to do with type ratings, nor would a full or SIC type have had any bearing on crew safety, nor would the SIC type have made anyone aware of who was flying the airplane before or after the payne stewart mishap. Further, the SIC isn't listed on the flight plan, and doesn't enable the "feds" or anyone else to see who is flying the airplane other than the PIC listed in the flight plan. The payne stewart mishap involved a learjet with depleted oxygen and a manually closed oxygen shutoff valve (as best anyone can tell), and an unconscious crew and passenger. How exactly would a SIC rating have made any difference at all??

That would defeat the purpose of the SIC type - namely, to keep your butt in the right seat for as long as possible.

Perhaps said in gest, but the SIC type has nothing to do with holding anybody back. Airlines don't hire SIC's. They hire captains who start out as SIC's. The SIC type is strictly designed to meet international requirements when crews leave the domestic US. One assigned as a SIC doesn't need the full type rating for compliance. Operators who provide training fully understand that granting a type rating is enhancing the marketability and value of their employees pilot certificates, and pilots have a long and well established history of taking the money (and training) and running. Pilots engage in this disonest practice all too often, and employers who grant SIC only privileges do have the ability to curb this somewhat by not issuing the full type.

This doesn't mean anybody is being held back, in any way, shape, or form. An employee upgrades when the employee is ready to upgrade, type notwithstanding, and at that time, receives the full type.

If you believe this you are sadly mistaken,

Actually, Galaxy Flyer isn't sadly mistaken. For a Part 91 operator, obtaining a SIC type for an employee is very simple, and it's a paperwork issue that doesn't involve security or complication. Bring in a completed 8710 and a log endorsement to the local FSDO, walk away with a fresh temporary certificate and the SIC type. Even today...post 09/11.

[kwachon]

SNS3Guppy

You make some valid points, however as I understand it, the individual concerned is in the UK with an FAA CPL and looking for work in that part of the world due to having no right to work in the US, therefore 61.55 requires a SIC type rating to operate outside of the USA.

Regarding security, I suggest reading the TSA paper regarding flight training of foreign nationals in the US and type rating applications.

I will not go into the Payne Stewart accident for personal reasons.

[Wyle E Coyote]

Is it possible instead of 'just' doing the SIC type, say in a RJ, but request the full TR.........but still be employed as a SIC. ( So that on any deadhead 91 flights you could log PIC ). Just a thought................

There's more to being PIC than just logging it. You log PIC the day you sign the aircraft out, not before.

[SNS3Guppy]

Under the regulation in the United States, there's a legal difference between logging PIC, and acting as PIC. Two entirely different subjects which should not be confused.

[galaxy flyer]

SNS3Guppy

That has been my exact point and from personal experience it is solely about ICAO compliance. The FSDOs are not spending a lot of time reviewing training records, questioning applicants from recognized 91 operators. Applicant, signed 8710, new tikkie, period. Yes, that will change with new headlines, perhaps. Or if an operation has had difficulties with the FAA, or for 121 and 135 operations where the oversight is stricter.

GF

Yes, in the FAA world logging and acting are two different things. It is silly but "sole manipulator" and Captain are distinct.

[Wyle E Coyote]

but if you're 'acting' as PIC you not putting it in the PIC column are you?

[galaxy flyer]

Me? No, I'm rated and a captain, but FAR 61.51 (e) does allow someone who is not the Captain (designated PiC) to log PiC time when "acting" as the PiC. For example a type-rated pilot may not be the PiC, but can act as the PiC, sign the flight plan, and log the time. Cannot do that with a SiC type, though. Essentially, you are operating with 2 PiCs and they swap legs, for example. Yes, I don't agree with it, but it is the FAA counsel's opinion.

Yes, there is confusion between FAR Part 1 definition of PiC and FAR 61.51 with regards to logging time. Being the FAR Pt 1 PiC does not preclude a pilot, who is not the PiC from logging PiC time for purposes of meeting flight time requirements under FAR 61.

GF

[Raas767]

All pilots operating B747-400, B777, B767, B757, A330 receive full type ratings in aircraft as they have to operate in the left hand seat when the captain is on break on long flights. They monkeyed around with a "cruise only" rating a few years ago but that has since been shelved. To my knowledge no U.S. carrier provides a full type for narrow body first officers as they are not required.

[galaxy flyer]

Not so fast, to log PiC time, you must be rated to fly the class, category and TYPE! Read FAR 61.51 in its entirety. And just a SiC rating won't do it, either. Comm MEII just gets you SiC qual'd in US airspace assuming you have been trained IAW FAR 61.55 and, if you have, why not get the SiC rating? Just a form, signed training record of any kind and a visit to the local FSDO.

GF

[varigflier]

In the US, how do you log sim time when you are doing training in an airline? Is it just sim time or dual received also?

[SNS3Guppy]

The record is in the company training records. I keep a record in my log, but as my logs don't usually go to recurrent training with me, the log gets filled out at home. To be an official log entry of simulator time, the entry must have an instructor's endorsement with it. As mine don't, and I don't believe in logging sim time for any purpose other than record keeping, each sim session gets a line entry in the logbook, but is never reflected in any total.

Simulator time isn't flight time, and shouldn't show up in your logbook as anything but simulator time. It doesn't show up as total time, multi engine time, or anything else, and in my logs, doesn't show up in any total.

The FAA recognizes it separately. In cases where sim time can be used toward the experience requirements of a certificate or rating, the sim time is counted separately. When filling out the FAA Form 8710, for example (application for a certificate or rating), one puts down the actual flight time. If Fifteen hundred hours of flight time is required toward the ATP certificate, for example, and one has used 50 hours of time time credited toward this requirement, one shows only 1,450 hours of flight time on the application...and 50 hours of sim. The FAA will do the math, but sim time isn't flight time and shouldn't be reflected as anything but sim.

So far as showing it as dual, you can (because by it's very nature, in order to be logged it must be dual), but I don't put any totals pertaining to the sim time at the bottom of the page. Further, in my logs, PIC time plus Dual plus SIC equals total time.

[Mike Alpha]

Leaving aside the PIC time logging issues, and getting back to Type Ratings, a few questions in order to clarify things a bit, please correct me if I’m wrong, and forgive my ignorance.


Apparently in the U.S. most of the Type Ratings are actually carried out by the airlines/operators, or on behalf of them by independent training organizations.


This means that to a large extent, what is actually entered in the licence of the individual pilot is a function of what the airline/operator wants to include (PIC/SIC rating, or none at all if no international flying is involved) as they paid for that training, and they don’t want to give away anything more than what it is strictly necessary.


Apparently the FAA doesn’t have much to say in this process either, FAA just enters in the licence what it is requested to by the operator, not the pilot, as long as it complies with FARs, of course.


The questions are:


Can a pilot do a Type Rating on his own, without an airline/operator?


If he can, how would that be entered in his licence?, would he apply himself to the FAA, or would it be the training provider who would?


What would actually be entered in his licence, a PIC or SIC rating?


Is an FAA SIC Type Rating on a FAA CPL accepted to work as an FO outside the U.S. for a non U.S. airline/operator, namely in Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.?

[MarkerInbound]

MikeAlpha,

There are a few training centers in the US that will train "off the street" pilots for type ratings. One just south of DFW airport has been the first stop for pilots hoping to get on with Southwest as they used to require a 737 type before you could interview. (Now they will hire you on the condition you get the type before their training starts.) I've seen prices around $7000 for the 737 types. They do some other rating too, 727, DC-9, 757-767. And there is is a company in Miami that does lots of training.

It will look the same on the certificate no matter how you got it - B-737. If you go for the PIC program it will just say B-737. If you go for the SIC program it will have "B-737 SIC privilges only" in the limitations section.

Apply? Most training centers have FAA Designees on staff so you could end up doing the oral or the checkride in front of a Desiginee, in front of a Fed or in front of a Fed watching a Designee. The paperwork all goes to Oklahoma City.

I've been doing a bit of systems instruction for the above company and they have had some students recently getting the PIC rating because their CAA/DGCA/FAA wouild not validate an FAA SIC type to the local certificate.

[SNS3Guppy]

Apparently in the U.S. most of the Type Ratings are actually carried out by the airlines/operators, or on behalf of them by independent training organizations.

No, but why would you go spend six or seven thousand dollars here and there to get a type rating, without a job? Let the employer hire you and pay for the rating; if the employer wants you then the employer should be willing to invest the time, money, and effort to train you in their equipment.

Corporate and charter operators typically require a six month to one year commitment in exchange for a type rating. It's equitable.

This means that to a large extent, what is actually entered in the licence of the individual pilot is a function of what the airline/operator wants to include (PIC/SIC rating, or none at all if no international flying is involved) as they paid for that training, and they don’t want to give away anything more than what it is strictly necessary.

What's on the pilot certificate is a function of the training the applicant has accomplished and the practical test he or she has taken. If only a SIC practical test is given (not much, if any difference typically between a PIC or SIC checkride so far as maneuvers), then a SIC type is awarded.

Apparently the FAA doesn’t have much to say in this process either, FAA just enters in the licence what it is requested to by the operator, not the pilot, as long as it complies with FARs, of course.

Why would the FAA care? The FAA processes what paperwork is given them. So long as an applicant has met the requirements, then the FAA process the form 8710 for whatever privileges are requested. The Federal Aviation Administration isn't about to confront an employer and tell the employer they're making a mistake, give this guy a break, he really ought to have the full type. It doesn't work that way.

Can a pilot do a Type Rating on his own, without an airline/operator?

Sure. For anywhere from five to forty five thousand dollars a pop, you can go get type ratings all day long in anything from a B744 to a DC-3. It's your money. Of course, you come out of the type with a fresh temporary certificate, no experience in type, and no job...so you've just tossed away your money. But if it's worth it to you to dump your life savings for an endorsement to legally fly one specific make and model, then have a ball. In the US, buying a type rating is generally considered somewhat of a disgrace, with some exceptions. Let the employer pay for the type rating. The applicant comes to the table as a fully certificated professional pilot with years, often decades of experience and sacrifice. If the employer wants a quality applicant, let him invest the training cost to train that applicant in his specific equipment.

If he can, how would that be entered in his licence?, would he apply himself to the FAA, or would it be the training provider who would?

Such training is nearly always done through a designated examiner, rather than the FAA. The examiner signs off the certificate and issues the temporary, and the applicant never sees nor talks to the FAA during the entire process. Training facilities such as Simuflite, Flight Safety International, Pan Am, and others, provide training in the classroom and simulator and issue the type rating upon successful completion of a practical test at the end of the training...typically three to six weeks.

So far as what's entered on the pilot certificate...if you trained for a type rating, then the type rating is on your certificate. The particulars depend on what you desired when you started your training.

What would actually be entered in his licence, a PIC or SIC rating?

As nobody in their right mind would pay out of their own pocket for a SIC type rating, then the applicant is going to put in the effort, time, and expense to finish the training with a full type rating.

Is an FAA SIC Type Rating on a FAA CPL accepted to work as an FO outside the U.S. for a non U.S. airline/operator, namely in Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.?

It should go without saying, but save for some utility jobs, most operators are going to want to see the ATP...not just the commercial certificate.

With respect to who will hire you...that's entirely dependent upon your qualifications. That said, if you obtain a type rating in a B744 in the hopes of getting hired into a B744...the operator is going to expect you to be able to show some proficiency and understanding with the B744. Lacking that, you've merely added a few words to your certificate, with no experience to back it up. In some cases, the rating is enough, but most operators out there are going to want to see at least five hundred hours in type, along with the type rating.

The few places that accept just the type do so because they're too cheap to invest the money, or have such an inadequate training program themselves, that they can only take on board type rated applicants. In those cases, you're usually better off giving the place a miss.

[varigflier]

Thanks for the explanation about logging sim time SNS3Guppy. I understand it now.

[TangoUniform]

Since we are talking type ratings here. Anyone have an idea on how to go about getting a foreign endorsement, such as a JAA type rating (or other, like a GCAA) put on one's FAA license? With time on aircraft, PIC time, check ride paperwork-everything, can one get the endorsement?