There are experience requirements in 61.55, but no standard to which they have to be accomplished.
There is no requirement that the SIC doesn’t have the PIC guiding him verbally and/or with his hands and feet on he controls. And there’s nothing that says some or all of the takeoffs even stayed on the runway prior to liftoff. Same for landings.
No, simply maneuver with an engine out.
Where does it say that?
Again, where does it say that?
The word “safe” is nowhere in the reg.
Again, not in Part 61.
Still nowhere in the reg.
There is no regulatory requirement for an endorsement, either. The only thing in the reg that requires more than the SIC logging it himself is training in CRM, which could very easily be done by his buddy who’s has no knowledge of how poorly the flight went.
Ridiculous….Of course there is a standard… the training pilot has to make specific log book training records, sign required endorsement specifically stating the words “ safe operation” per para d2, as well as sign the 8130. As I clearly mentioned the endorsing pilot would not make such endorsements if they did not meet a safe standard as determined by training pilot…. If applicant veered off runway, hit the glide slope shack, ran over a fuel truck and finally came to rest in over priced economy parking lot a mile from the terminal, that said applicant would still be eligible for the required endorsement per 61.55 d2 under your commitment as long as he has CRM training signed off. You Think any ATP would sign off on all this liability without ever flying with a the applicant just because he is a buddy? Thats ridiculous….do the unicorns talk in your world?
The min per the 61.55 clearly states EO maneuvering as PIC with min 3 landings as sole manipulator of controls……. Your suggestion there is nothing preventing applicant to be ‘verbally guided” by the PIC during the flight and simply playing that of a voice activated auto pilot…again, that’s ridiculous as the requirement is that the applicant performs as the PIC….so your estranged relationship with what the PIC responsibilities are concerning as one PIC can tell the other (?) PIC “verbally guiding him” with when and what to do during a demonstration of flight proficiency clearly demonstrates a need for you to seek additional training from a qualified CFI, or even perhaps a recreational pilot with basic med, or perhaps nearby hand glider that can review the basics of PIC duties and responsibilities with you.
As you state the word “safe” is not in the reg, please read it again…. It is important as that very word is required criteria in the endorsement. You say there is no training pilot endorsement…again read the reg slowly and you will see there are indeed. Likewise, “PIC” is specifically there. . Under your ill understanding and seemingly compulsion to interpret a rather short reg said applicant needs more than just the CRM sign off, and indeed needs endorsement for both ground and flight requirements. Believing that an applicant for a sic rating in a large jet can walk in to a FSDO with just a CRM training endorsement and with his own log book entry proclaiming himself safely completed the required 3 flight requirement and walking out with a type rating is absurd.
Of course the applicant must use a checklist as the reg requires sign off for training in procedures and operating manual …. When is this ever not required, especially in types with significant checklist procedures…. So in your world the applicant can simply wing it and make stuff up? Again, ridiculous , as this would conflict with every training concept from recreational pilot on….. what trainer would sign off on this? At Minimum, as with a private pilot endorsement said applicant needs to know what checklist to use and basic op procedures in AFM as this is required material for the ground endorsement.
I question if you even have a pilots license at this point, and not merely sitting at a public library computer that someone forgot to sign out and enjoying the air conditioning before returning to a homeless encampment.
I stand by my post and have Part 91 experience in training large aircraft and this was the norm. The overall standard most training pilots respective to part 91 sic rating is can the applicant act as pic and sole manipulator of controls and safely get the aircraft back on the ground… normal procedures get fined tuned later. We almost always used the basic criteria of if pic become incapacitated could sic land the thing, …. It’s not a type ride or ATP standards, in fact the sic could be just a VFR private pilot.
Please reread the reg….i think there was an AC or FAA order guidance at one time, as well. But this all is really moot point as all I said to OP was a sic rating will help resumes stand out and maybe cheaper and quicker than CFI ratings, which I stated my experience in expressing such an opinion as well as basis for making said point…. if there is contemporary reasons why this may not be right, it’s just an opinion and happy to hear anyone’s experience or opinion on topic in spirit of OP.
