PIC Under Supervision

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
flynfiddle
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:29 am
Location: YZF

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by flynfiddle »

250 hours PIC to meet the minimum does seem pretty low considering the license. Why not make it 500 hours PIC or even more? Then the debate would be the "quality" of the PIC time and that would open a whole new ugly can of worms. Let's start with (and folks please don't get your panties twisted, this is not meant to be trolling), is the guy in the right seat of the 1900/Dash/Saab/ATR/Boeing with 3000 hours co-pilot less qualified to act as PIC on an Airline Transport category aircraft than the instructor with 1500 hours in the right seat of the 172? The minimum requirements for the ATPL would seem to suggest that is the case. I think PIC US may have been created to address such a scenario. Right or wrong? Who knows? Thoughts?

PS .. I plan to use PIC US to get the ATPL, I just happen to agree with folks who think it is kinda bogus. Looking back, maybe "lucking out" and getting a 705 cojo gig early wasn't necessarily a good thing but that's just how it worked out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by trey kule »

Lets look at your question for a moment from both aspects. First of all, someone with no time on any of the types you mentioned, and with 1500 hours PIC as an instructor, is not very likely to get the left seat initially..at least not without training and.....100 hours PIC US. So the comparison begs the question.
Having said that, the question should not be an either/or. Because the above should not jump into the left seat, does not mean that someone with 100 hours or so of PIC should, when their total PIC then is about 200 hours be given command regardless of how many hours they have set in the left seat and how valuable they found the time..

A better question would be this.
Would a pilot with 1500 PIC as an instructor and 1000 hours of fo time on one of those types, be a better left seat canidate that someone with 100 hours PIC and 2000 hours of FO time.

Generally, I thnik the former would be better. But alas, as I posted before, the real world of small operators does not generally preselect for command qualitities which means it is more about the individual. Also, if companies went the former route, they might just have to pay a decent wage for FO's, and one of the primary reasons they are running FOs in some small scheds is because the aircraft dont have autopilots and an FO is cheaper than installing and maintaining one. The problem of course, is the FOs, being human want to do more than steer the aircraft.

One indicator I like to use is how an FO views their time with regard to upgrades. The answers in an interview are surprising. Some will detail their knowledge of the aircraft and admit they need training/practice/experience as a Captain. Others will go on about the welath of experience they have obtained as an FO and make the jump to conclude that will make them great command material.. The ones who put to much empahasis on the quality of their FO time are the ones to be concerned about.

Here is a thought. Years ago, when pilots were getting night ratings they did the instrument portion at night, and tried to log it as both instrument and night..Whcih they could do..BUT..TC would not allow them to use both for the rating..One or the other. All TC needs to do is put out a policy that PIC undersupervison will not be considered to be PIC (as it really is not, after all, a post solo student could be said to be logging PIC under supervision some of the time!), or that it can not be used for the upgrade of a license.. No big change required and I think you might just see it happen in the near future. After all, with an ATPL one we could see a Captain of a large aircraft in command with a totatl of 250 hours PIC...just a bit scary. Fortunately, the Canadian majors dont hire 250 hour pilots for the right seat (yet) so for the time being the risk will be restricted to the budjet cutting smaller operators and the FO's who will whore themselves out for less than minimum wages.....after all, as I have heard countless times...If they demanded more money there are 10 others behind them who will take the job....gotta love the reasoning.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by BTD »

trey kule wrote: The PIC US, was never, in my opinion intended to be a training platform for a license upgrade.
And my point is that is what some are suggesting it should be used as...and to meet just the minimums.
Actually, that is precisely what the program was created for. There is a difference between PIC U/S and Line-Indoc training, which is not to be used as credit towards min requirements. It is not a loop hole that people are using to exploit.

Here are the CARS. They spell it out that this program is used to allow an applicant to gain time towards the ATPL.
421.11 Airline Transport Licence Training (Pilot-in-command Under Supervision)
(amended 1998/12/01; previous version)

(1) All air operators using large aeroplanes may institute programs of supervision to allow co-pilots to credit flight time as pilot-in-command time.


(4) The conditions for crediting an applicant's flight time are as follows:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) An applicant for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Aeroplane shall be given credit for up to 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time under supervision, provided the applicant:

(i) holds a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane with a multi-engine rating and the aeroplane type rating in which the flight time is acquired;

(ii) has a Group I instrument rating; and

(iii) has accumulated a minimum of 150 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes.

When an application for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence is based in part on pilot-in-command under supervision flight time, the applicant shall:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) submit a personal log or other reliable record that contains a summary of the pilot-in-command under supervision flight time and the number of takeoffs and landings; and

(b) enter a notation on the application form showing the portion of pilot-in-command flight time that was done under supervision.
I am not arguing that this is right or wrong. Only that the program was specifically created to allow those without the PIC time to gain their ATPL.

I already have mine, and did not use the PIC US. Don't confuse line-indoc and PIC US. They have very separate goals, and separate methods.

BTD
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by trey kule »

I stand corrected. I guess TC has felt that it is perfectly safe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

my 02 cents

I got my SCPL (now I am dating myself :wink: ) and then ATPL in the minimum hours when I was working as an Instructor and doing a little bit of 703 flying in a piston twin. To say I was an "airline pilot" was simply silly. Frankly I think the prerequisite should be 1500 hrs total time, 500 hrs of PIC and 500 hrs in a two crew certified aircraft, and no the 1900 should not count. Then the "airline" in "Airline Transport License" would actually mean something.
---------- ADS -----------
 
skypirate88
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am

Re: PIC Under Supervision

Post by skypirate88 »

I sort of agree with BPF...at least the idea if not the exact details. I've been instructing for the last while and have 1000 hours PIC, but by no means do I feel that I would be more qualified then an FO with total time similar to mine. For me it is quality of time, not quantity. I am more than willing to put in my time as FO even though I almost meet the ATPL requirements.

There is no substitute for experience...and believe me I have a lot left to experience
---------- ADS -----------
 
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”