IFR Minimums

Which, if I read you right, means that the first 100 hours as a Captain in type are with higher minimums?

It seems to me that you'd end up with a new Captain not getting assigned to trips where the weather is bad, because you can't dispatch the Captain for that trip?

Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a good idea, but it does seem that it could have an effect on the operator's ability to make trips.
 
TMetzinger said:
Which, if I read you right, means that the first 100 hours as a Captain in type are with higher minimums?
Click to expand...
Correct.

TMetzinger said:
It seems to me that you'd end up with a new Captain not getting assigned to trips where the weather is bad, because you can't dispatch the Captain for that trip?
Click to expand...
That's also correct, a much as it is possible. There have been instances I can think of when a pilot had to go somewhere else or wait until the weather came up but that isn't that common. I'm trying to remember if I ever had an issue with it but I can't think of anything right off. That's not saying that it didn't come up, though. Lots of stuff is lost in the past. :redface:

TMetzinger said:
Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a good idea, but it does seem that it could have an effect on the operator's ability to make trips.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that it has a huge effect since, as you say, they try to not assign new captains to trips with weather close to minimums, but it does have some effect.
 
TMetzinger said:
Which, if I read you right, means that the first 100 hours as a Captain in type are with higher minimums?

It seems to me that you'd end up with a new Captain not getting assigned to trips where the weather is bad, because you can't dispatch the Captain for that trip?

Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a good idea, but it does seem that it could have an effect on the operator's ability to make trips.
Click to expand...

That was the discussion we had when questions came up on how that all worked out, that's when the "We put a high time senior FO with them." answer came out.
 
Henning said:
That was the discussion we had when questions came up on how that all worked out, that's when the "We put a high time senior FO with them." answer came out.
Click to expand...
The one scenario in which I could see the pilots switching roles for the trip is if two captains were crewed together. I don't know how much that happens in the airlines, though. It happens in 135 more often.
 
Everskyward said:
The one scenario in which I could see the pilots switching roles for the trip is if two captains were crewed together. I don't know how much that happens in the airlines, though. It happens in 135 more often.
Click to expand...

They operated the Jetsteam 135 and the SAAB 340 under 121, I don't know what the 121 side did, I went through the BAe 3100/3200 class.
 
TMetzinger said:
Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a good idea, but it does seem that it could have an effect on the operator's ability to make trips.
Click to expand...

It's pretty minimal. The higher minimums IIRC at my 135 were something like adding 1/2 mile and 200 ft to published mins. It might have been a bit more, but the point was it wasn't a whole lot. I'm sure it's different in other parts of the country, but for us, I can't think of a single flight we did that would've been delayed due to the lower captain mins.
 
For the part 91 pilot (like the OP), why try and be prescriptive?

Why not apply some critical thinking regarding the weather?

For example, even with weather 1000' above minimums, Aspen, Telluride, or Angel Fire might not be a good idea for a new or rusty pilot. Conversely, an ILS at a flatland airport with good runway lighting and good visibility under a 200' overcast might be a piece of cake.

Would you rather fly a VOR CTL at minimums +200' or LPV RNAV straight in at minimums?

All I'm suggesting is talking with an instructor and/or experienced pilots about good decision making to minimize risk vs. deciding a prescriptive set of limitations might be a safer choice for someone in the OP's situation.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Conversely, an ILS at a flatland airport with good runway lighting and good visibility under a 200' overcast might be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

At a well equipped airport what about indefinite ceiling 1/8 mile, RVR Runway 18 1800?

Or an RVR 2400 runway with the reported RVR being 2000, but there is a note authorizing "RVR 18 with Flight Director or Autopilot or HUD to DA?"
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Not entirely sure what you are saying here. At UAL, it is the Captain's experience that drove what minimums are used. But they try to pair a higher time FO with new Captains regardless.
Click to expand...

Similar at your new United/Continental friends. I know a senior FO who's "broken in" a lot of Captains. Heheh.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, if you wanted to get technical, the FO could log PIC for his legs after he got typed. But it is HIGHLY unlikely that an FO could fly as PIC out of seniority.
Click to expand...

The FO, even typed, can't log PIC unless he is designated PIC on the flight release.


121 has two thing to protect the public from low time pilots. High mins and Green on Green rules. High mins adds 100' and 1/2 mile to approaches until a pilot serves 100 hours in type and green on green requires at least one pilot to have 100 hours in type to be paired together.

The high mins apply to the whole flight, meaning you can't just have the high time FO shoot the approach to get out of it.
 
Captain said:
The FO, even typed, can't log PIC unless he is designated PIC on the flight release.
Click to expand...

Sure he can, if he's sole manipulator of the controls. 61.51(e)(1)(i) still applies.

Now, the company may not accept it for their own reasons, but it's PIC in the eyes of the FAA if the sole manipulator of the controls is rated in category, class, and type.
 
Captain said:
The FO, even typed, can't log PIC unless he is designated PIC on the flight release.


121 has two thing to protect the public from low time pilots. High mins and Green on Green rules. High mins adds 100' and 1/2 mile to approaches until a pilot serves 100 hours in type and green on green requires at least one pilot to have 100 hours in type to be paired together.

The high mins apply to the whole flight, meaning you can't just have the high time FO shoot the approach to get out of it.
Click to expand...

How do they do this for a new aircraft to the fleet? Must be an operational hindrance if it were as strict as implied here?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sure he can, if he's sole manipulator of the controls. 61.51(e)(1)(i) still applies.

Now, the company may not accept it for their own reasons, but it's PIC in the eyes of the FAA if the sole manipulator of the controls is rated in category, class, and type.
Click to expand...

Part 61 does not superceed part 121. In fact, it's the other way around. An FO can not lot PIC on a 121 flight if his name is not on the release...typed or not.
 
Captain said:
Part 61 does not superceed part 121. In fact, it's the other way around. An FO can not lot PIC on a 121 flight if his name is not on the release...typed or not.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with Part 121. Could you quote the reg for that?
 
Who is PIC is clearly spelled out in part 121 and "sole manipulator of the controls" has nothing to do with it. SWA requires FOs to be typed in B-737's. Do any of you think the FOs log PIC on their legs? Here's a hint...they don't.
 
Captain said:
Who is PIC is clearly spelled out in part 121 and "sole manipulator of the controls" has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Who is ACTING PIC is spelled out. I would like to see some documentation stating that type-rated pilots who are manipulating the controls are prohibited from LOGGING PIC.
 
Look, we've been over ad nauseum how the airlines devine PIC time for their own internal purposes. I get that the PIC is the guy who signs for the airplane.

Doesn't mean that if the Type-Rated FO wants to put the time he flies the airplane as PIC in his own logbook that he's broken any FAA rules. And if he keeps his own log separate than his airline flight time record, who cares?
 
Well I'm on record that what you log in your logbook matters to nobody if your not going to use that time for another certificate. You can log your moms recipe for apple pie if you want.

But hear me clear...the FO is NEVER pic in a 121 operation. PIC is final authority and it matters not if he is manipulating the controls or not. Think a typed FO could ever tell the guy in the left seat, "It's my leg and I'm PIC cause I'm typed and sole manipulator of the controls...we're doing it this way".

The required flight relase has one person listed as Captain and that's who logs it. The other guy logs it as SIC, another required position.
 
Captain said:
But hear me clear...the FO is NEVER pic in a 121 operation.
Click to expand...

Hear me clearly. ACTING AS PIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGGING PIC.

There is no mention of logging ANYTHING in 121 or 135. They address who may ACT as PIC only.

PIC is final authority and it matters not if he is manipulating the controls or not. Think a typed FO could ever tell the guy in the left seat, "It's my leg and I'm PIC cause I'm typed and sole manipulator of the controls...we're doing it this way".

The required flight relase has one person listed as Captain and that's who logs it. The other guy logs it as SIC, another required position.
Click to expand...

All this means that you don't TRULY understand the difference between logging and acting.
 
Greg, in your airline career, were you ever a typed FO who logged your time flying the airplane in the PIC column in your logbook? And did your major airline employer care one way or the other?

If you didn't, why not?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Hear me clearly. ACTING AS PIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGGING PIC.

There is no mention of logging ANYTHING in 121 or 135. They address who may ACT as PIC only.



All this means that you don't TRULY understand the difference between logging and acting.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand. I'm a rare breed that makes my logbook reflect my ACTUAL flight experiance. Leg by leg since I was a student pilot 9,000 hours ago. I'd guess I blow 90% of pilots away by that simple fact alone. Just guessing from my own observation of pilots I meet. Most log by the tour or even by the month. Me: leg by leg...all of 'em.

You log your SIC hours as PIC. I've already said you can log your moms apple pie recipe and it matters not if you don't use it or bogus SIC time logged as PiC if you don't use that time towards a certificate.

And the fact remains...no SWA fo's log PIC. Go figure. You'd think that proves my point...but I guess you're still not convinced. They're all typed. Why don't they log it? Ummmmm, I wonder. I know many and none do. Go ahead, admit it...
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Oh I understand. I'm a rare breed that makes my logbook reflect my ACTUAL flight experiance. Leg by leg since I was a student pilot 9,000 hours ago. I guess I blow 90% of pilots away by that simple fact alone.
Click to expand...

I am a believer in having the ability to log what is legally logable. And if I am type rated in the airplane, and otherwise current and qualified, I will log PIC as sole manipulator. 61.51 allows that. 121 and 135 do not address logging issues.

You log your SIC hours as PIC.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You log Sole Manipulator as defined by 61 as PIC. There is a difference.

I've already said you can log your moms apple pie recipe and it matters not if you don't use it or bogus SIC time logged as PiC if you don't use that time towards a certificate.
Click to expand...

You can use any legally logable PIC time for any certificate you want. And that includes that PIC time that was logged as sole manipulator of the controls IAW 61.51.

And the fact remains...no SWA fo's log PIC.
Click to expand...

Well I will take your word for that, but that doesn't mean they CAN'T log the time if they so desire.

Go figure. You'd think that proves my point...
Click to expand...

Really? You think that should prove your point, with NO FAR reference?

but I guess you're still not convinced. They're all typed. Why don't they log it? Ummmmm, I wonder. I know many and none do. Go ahead, admit it...
Click to expand...

What am I admitting? Just because they DON'T does not mean they CAN'T.

Cameron, regardless of what you say, you are wrong on this issue.
 
Using my name doesn't make you right. Why would you do that? Trying to dig deep and 'out me' in hope of making a point? Weak at best. Shows your true position...wrong.
 
Your name is common knowledge. And the burden of proof belongs to you. Show me the 121 or 135 regulation that backs your position. I have already provided you the one that backs mine.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Your name is common knowledge. And the burden of proof belongs to you. Show me the 121 or 135 regulation that backs your position. I have already provided you the one that backs mine.
Click to expand...

My name is not 'common knowledge'. You used it to make a point.

Log what you want. I couldnt care less. Nobody does what you suggest, but go ahead and do what you like. I'm not digging through FARs to figure out why copilots don't log PIC...I just know they don't. You can log your drive to the airport if you want. I've already said so.

Use my name again. Post my address too if it makes you feel superior. It's obvious who's on high ground here and who's slithering around in the gutter.
 
And why is 'Management' here so happy to out people's name? Seriously. This is twice now from the same management member. Is there nothing in the TOS that protects members identity or privacy?
 
You're MANAGEMENT!!!

You should hold yourself to a standard at least to the level of acceptable.
 
Captain said:
You can log your drive to the airport if you want. I've already said so.
Click to expand...
Logging your drive to the airport is not the same as logging the time manipulating the controls as PIC. I was sure there was no 135 reg that prohibited this and now Greg has confirmed that it's legal in Part 121 too.
 
Opinion all you like. Please stop dropping my name.
 
For the record, here's Greg Bockelman outing me for the first time back in April.

PoA management drops members name


If this isn't harassment I don't know what is. Repeated use of a members real name? Outing a member?
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
My name is not 'common knowledge'. You used it to make a point.

Log what you want. I couldnt care less. Nobody does what you suggest, but go ahead and do what you like. I'm not digging through FARs to figure out why copilots don't log PIC...I just know they don't. You can log your drive to the airport if you want. I've already said so.

Use my name again. Post my address too if it makes you feel superior. It's obvious who's on high ground here and who's slithering around in the gutter.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, for several months now. Going by Captain rather than your name is lame anyway IMO.
 
Henning said:
Yes it is, for several months now. Going by Captain rather than your name is lame anyway IMO.
Click to expand...


So I don't get the right to be lame like everybody else? You chose to not be lame. Don't I get a choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top