Pilot-in-Command under Supervision

[Panama Jack]

Question:

A First Officer upgrades to Captain but per the requirements of the Company's Operations Manual, after completing his PIC Proficiency Check in a CAR Part 705 type of operation, he is required to operate a minimum of 30 sectors in the left seat with a Company Training Captain. During that time the candidate is filling the usual role of the Captain, however, the Training Captain (in the right seat) is designated by the Company as the Pilot-in-Command and is the final authority of the flight.

I am wondering whether, for the purpose of logging these flights, it would be considered as:

1) PIC time under TC's supervised PIC scheme; or,
2) Dual Time; or
3) SIC time?

[BTD]

Judging by your description, it would be SIC.

Your scenerio just outlines Line Indoctrination training. For PIC under supervision there are a number of requirements that need to be met, and it will usually only be used so that an applicant can get the required PIC time to hold an ATPL so they are then qualified for the left seat of a two-crew aircraft.

If you have an ATPL already the PIC US program is not necessary and the new Capt then just requires Line Indoc as per the Cars/COM.

Requirements for PIC US are here:
421.11 Airline Transport Licence Training (Pilot-in-command Under Supervision)
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#421_11

Requirements for Line Indoc in Canada are here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... tm#725_124
725.124 Training Program

33) Line Indoctrination for Flight Crew Members other than Cruise Relief Pilots - Sectors/Hours Requirements

(d) Initial Line Indoctrination - Requirements

(i) initial line indoctrination shall be conducted under the supervision of a training pilot;

(ii) during initial line indoctrination, the pilot-in-command and second-in-command shall perform their duties in their respective position, with the training pilot occupying the opposite pilot operating position;

Lots more info in there then I posted.

BTD

[Plim Sole]

Who cares? Log it as PIC!
Seriously, when did someone last go through your log book checking for hours in the wrong column?

[Panama Jack]

Thanks for the link, BTD.

[High and Behind]

Who cares? Log it as PIC!
Seriously, when did someone last go through your log book checking for hours in the wrong column?

I would tend to lean towards making sure that my personal log matches up with the journey log. Meaning who's signature is on the dotted line.

Have you never submitted your log book for a job interview?
I had a interviewer go through mine and verify it with my previous employers. Wouldn't want to pooch my chances for a job on a few greedy strokes of a pen for pic time.
And if as you say who cares...why not move you hand over to the proper column when putting Parker to paper.

[modi13]

According to the CARs, the candidate is to carry out all of the responsibilities of the PIC, both in-flight and on the ground, and the candidate is to log the time as PIC. When applying for an ATPL the candidate is to specify what time is PIC-US and can only claim half of it as the PIC time being applied toward the licence.

[The Old Fogducker]

Worse still, have you ever had an insurance adjuster go through your logbook after a claim has been filed?

That's where lying about a lousy 30 hours or so of training really becomes an issue.

The Old Fogducker

[Gino Under]

PJ

When it comes to logging time, you can only have one sole manipulator of the controls (even if the controls are manipulated by the knobs on an FCP) and that person would be the pilot in command (in most jurisdictions). Even though TC and the FAA will only acknowledge what is required for licencing up to ATPL. Who signs the Tech log is immaterial. Either pilot (Captain or Supervisory Captain) can sign the tech log. I haven't flown in Canada in years, in fact CARS didn't exist when I left.

As pilot in command under supervision, if it's your indoc then it's your aircraft and the 'other' captain is merely supervising so why not log the entire trip as PIC in your logbook? If he logs it as PIC, that's fine too. You can always annotate in your Remarks column that the trip was flown with supervision as required by your Ops Manual. You'll be long retired by the time some over zealous Aviation Inspector puts one and one together to ask the questions and in the end, who cares.

This is my orientation with regard to your example and simply what I would do. As for semantics, some would and some wouldn't. Which is fine. It's still what I would do and what I believe is easily defendable if someone wanted to debate my logbook. (I stopped logging time somewhere between 11,000 and 12,000 hours FWIW)

Good luck sorting out the different opinions on this one.

Gino

[Bushav8er]

Who cares? Log it as PIC!
Seriously, when did someone last go through your log book checking for hours in the wrong column?

Dumb ass comments like that piss me off. You present yourself as a liar and a person with NO personal ethics or pride. It also shows your overall personality and I wouldn't want you in command of any aircraft. People like you in the industry give all of us a bad name.

If anyone is ever caught 'cheating' in their books its a reason for dismissal, at the least - why risk it?

[KK7]

When it comes to logging time, you can only have one sole manipulator of the controls (even if the controls are manipulated by the knobs on an FCP) and that person would be the pilot in command (in most jurisdictions). Even though TC and the FAA will only acknowledge what is required for licencing up to ATPL.

I have never heard this before, and I don't think it's true... unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying here. There are many scenarios where the one manipulating the controls is not the PIC, such as:
- Instructors
- FOs acting as the pilot flying in a two crew aircraft.

I can't speak for the former, but in the latter case this is pretty much universal. In both cases the manipulator of the controls is not the PIC, while the PIC is just that, in command, and directs the flight. In many cases too, in an emergency situation it may be best for the FO to be manipulating the controls while the Captain/PIC is able to sit back, take it all in and solve the problem, rather than trying to solve the problem and handle the aircraft at the same time.

[BTD]

Please don't confuse line indoctrination training which is required as part of upgrade training and pic us, they are two different things meant for different reasons.

It is a requirement for pic us to make a notation to show it is under supervision when applying for a licence. There is no reason for pic us if you already hold an atpl.

Pic us is not upgrade line indoc.

As to logging it pic because who cares, sure do what you like. But once you've got your atpl 30 hours extra pic in your logbook means exactly squat. You are being upgraded anyway, that is why you are doing line indoc or pic us followed by line indoc.

If the buck didn't stop with you on the flight and you log pic nobody is going to hunt you down, but that line isn't a true representation of your flying and you might as well not write anything.

[Xander]

We upgraded 2 captains recently and I've been giving line indoc flights for the past 2 weeks.

I logged everything as PIC because in the manifest my name is in the Pilot In Command line.

Did I do the right thing?

Thanks.

[Prairie Chicken]

On a separate but similar topic, has anyone every heard of an "Acting Captain"?

I once saw a PIC (also a company training pilot) designate his 2IC as "Acting Captain". This was a 703 operation, not line-indoc, the Acting Captain held an ATPL, and had been captain-qualified on previous IR/PPCs . The real PIC let the Acting Captain make all the command decisions for the trip while playing the role of a semi-competent co-pilot. In this case, the purpose of the exercise was to upgrade the 2IC to captain on type. All documentation showed the PIC as PIC. At the end of the trip the PIC recommended to the CP that the Acting Captain be given captain status. I'd never heard the term used before & felt it was rather demeaning to the 2IC, especially since the pax, FSS, and FBO personnel were all advised that he was the "Acting Captain".

Your thoughts?

[Gino Under]

KK7

Japan Airlines F/Os only log PIC.
They do all of their checkrides in the LHS.
The JCAB tell us that this is based on "sole manipulator of the controls" (unlike North America) as one pilot is required to manipulate the controls, how can two pilots log hours when flying a sector. (nother day, nother discussion)
The Captain is Pilot-in-Command and therefore is both PIC when he's flying and PIC when he's not.
The F/O is Pilot-in-Command when he's flying and "justanotherfrikkenfirstofficer" when he's not.
When he's not 'manipulating' the controls, he logs zero hours.
Sounds kind of simplistic, and if you let your North American mentality unlock your mind for a minute, makes some degree of sense.
And pilots wonder how this issue gets muddled?

Gino Under

[Plim Sole]

Who cares? Log it as PIC!
Seriously, when did someone last go through your log book checking for hours in the wrong column?

Dumb ass comments like that piss me off. You present yourself as a liar and a person with NO personal ethics or pride. It also shows your overall personality and I wouldn't want you in command of any aircraft. People like you in the industry give all of us a bad name.

If anyone is ever caught 'cheating' in their books its a reason for dismissal, at the least - why risk it?

Chill out before you have a coronary!!! By the sound of it I wouldn't want you as a Captain either. Your panties are so bunched up you're probably a liability to everyone on board. It's a personal logbook, not the bloody original 10 commandments on a stone tablet.
If your qualified to be pic, are sitting in the left seat, signed the logbook and filed the flight plan with your name on it then don't be ashamed. Man up and put the time in the pic column. You don't need to ask permission or ask the CP for a note.
Good grief people, are we pilots or 4 year olds who need a special note from mummy and approval from all ours peers before logging pic time?

[KK7]

KK7

Japan Airlines F/Os only log PIC.
They do all of their checkrides in the LHS.
The JCAB tell us that this is based on "sole manipulator of the controls" (unlike North America) as one pilot is required to manipulate the controls, how can two pilots log hours when flying a sector. (nother day, nother discussion)
The Captain is Pilot-in-Command and therefore is both PIC when he's flying and PIC when he's not.
The F/O is Pilot-in-Command when he's flying and "justanotherfrikkenfirstofficer" when he's not.
When he's not 'manipulating' the controls, he logs zero hours.
Sounds kind of simplistic, and if you let your North American mentality unlock your mind for a minute, makes some degree of sense.
And pilots wonder how this issue gets muddled?

Gino Under

Fair enough, I honestly know nothing about how aviation operates in Japan.

I'm trying to unlock my N. American mentality here:
To me, the one who manipulates the controls of an aircraft is not necessarily in the on in final control of the aircraft, as this is done under the supervision of the Captain. I know this sounds rather degrading to FOs (and I have been one and surely will be one again), but what is the difference between a PIC manipulating controls on an autopilot/flight director, and instructing an FO what to do. Now before everyone gets their panties in a knot over this over-simplistic view, I admit that this is not generally exactly how it works.

Having worked outside of N. America for a good chunk of time, I think I know the answer to this, but I'll put it out there, how does the JAA work it? How about Australia and other parts of Asia?

[Gino Under]

I think it's safe to say, most of us, when operating as the designated F/O log the time as SIC time and when operating as Captain, log the time as PIC.

If someone from an ICAO country who only logs PIC time (as in the JCAB example) how do most compete for foreign jobs?
Say you have logged 4000 hours on a 737NG and 500 of that time is PIC, how do you compete with someone who has logged 1000 hours PIC on a 737NG and has 'in reality' 0 hours in the LHS, and not responsible for the entire operation??? Who's policing that?
Is there a level playing field? I don't think so.
Maybe we're only screwing ourselves?

Then you have the FAA, who doesn't type rate F/Os, but who makes the F/O complete the same skill test as the Captain?
It's fine to log your time legitimately and appropriately but there are far too many assumptions being made about how to and how not to account for your flight time.

Which is part of the point I'm trying to make.

Gino Under

[The Old Fogducker]

You folks are making an exceptionally simple thing infinitely more complicated than it is in reality.

The PIC is the one designated as such prior to the flight. End of conversation. There is only one PIC, not multiples ... only one person can log the time.

This isn't a game of paper, scissors, rock as to who makes the decisions that will be followed.

Think about it this way .... "If there was a major investigation because somebody screwed up, who would be standing in front of the judge or adjudicator?"

Its the person assigned to act as such by the person in operational control of the entity which owns or controls the aircraft who carries the can if something goes wrong, therefore he/she is the only one who can take credit for the responsibility.

Who is sitting in what seat has three fifths of sweet zip-all. Who is manipulating the controls has nothing to do with it..... the Canadian system doesn't depend on who manipulates the controls. It doesn't care who is designated as Pilot Flying for the leg.

Any way you want to slice it, there is only one Pilot In Command.

I have seen Canadian Air Force pilots log multiple PICs for the entire length of the flight from takeoff to landing ... the AC Commander, and everyone on board who is qualified on type who eventually sits in any seat and flys the aircraft .... should it be that way? No, but it happens.

The Old Fogducker

[ahramin]

PJ, don't know if you are still following this thread but if you are, PIC under supervision would definitely not apply. Logging PIC US is only through a specific program that must be documented by the airline and approved by TC. Does not apply to line indoc.

[Panama Jack]

OK. Sorry to be dense but now I am confused.

What does an upgrade candidate doing initial Line Indoc log his time as?

[ahramin]

The CARs are pretty mute on how to log time. All you are going to find here are various opinions and interpretations.

I disagree with BTD that the paragraph quoted indicates that you log it as SIC. If you are doing line indoc for the position of PIC, you log PIC. In this case the training pilot will be performing the duties of SIC, but as they would be qualified as PIC on the aircraft and feel their responsibility is greater than the PIC in line indoc, they will probably log it as PIC as well. When it comes to logging time, if we had columns for PIC, SIC, Dual, PIC US; PIC in line indoc; Training Captain giving PIC line indoc; Training Captain giving SIC line indoc; ect, we would log it as such. Most logbooks simply have columns for PIC, SIC, and dual, so you put it in the most appropriate column.

In this case I think the most appropriate column would be PIC, but I don't think the question is actually as all fired up important as some make it out to be. We're not talking about who is actually the final authority and responsibility for the flight, as addressed by old fd's comments. We're talking about little numbers in columns that don't reflect the actualities of the situation. What's more important, knowing who is in charge before the flight leaves, or getting the right number in the right column?

Hope that's confusing enough.

[BTD]

I disagree with BTD that the paragraph quoted indicates that you log it as SIC.

In the original post PJ made some pretty specific statements about the "company" he was refering to.

...however, the Training Captain (in the right seat) is designated by the Company as the Pilot-in-Command and is the final authority of the flight.

Given this statement I stand by that it should be logged as SIC. Now if another company designates things differently then thats fine, log it approprietly. If you designate a PIC before the flight, as required by the CARS, and both pilots are logging PIC then someone's record is inaccurate. Does it matter in the real world, not really. But when I look at my logbook now, or years from now, I'd like it to reflect what I actually flew. Others views may differ.

BTD

[ahramin]

But when I look at my logbook now, or years from now, I'd like it to reflect what I actually flew. Others views may differ.

BTD

My point exactly. I'm not sure that SIC is accurate either given

During that time the candidate is filling the usual role of the Captain

[Prairie Chicken]

From the A. Act:

“pilot-in-command” means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;

I'm with BTD & OFD. There is only one pilot with responsibility & authority for any flight. Or should be. That individual logs PIC; everyone else does not.

[Ref Plus 10]

Quick question regarding logging of PIC U/S towards your total time...I'm an FO working my way up, and just on the border of applying for the ATPL. Does the time logged as PIC under supevision count as PIC (1:1), or is it counted as regular co-pilot time (2:1), with 100 hours credited towards your PIC requirement?

Thanks