I was wondering what your opinions on the importance of pic time now that it's equal towards atpl, am I better to have a lower tt each year but be flying pic on say a cessna 182 and a piper aztec, or be better logging more tt and sitting right seat on say a Navajo or king air 200?

PIC is king.

Feck right seat time, or any other time.

Again, PIC, is king.

^ Correct.

Thank you, I was just curious because people I went to school with are whooping my
But in total time but I am the only one getting both single and multi pic time I was wondering how that will set me up later on in my career

So you are getting both PIC & MPIC?

Yes I am logging both single piston pic and multi piston pic, but only doing about 300 a year

I can assure you as stated above that PIC is King!! Don't forget, one still needs 250pic to obtain an ATPL even though the f/o time counts 1:1 now for TT.

300 a year? Ouch, timebuilding is also important, but it's about a balance in time- IF you can.
To paraphrase cdnpilot77, Get a few hundred pic, then get outta there.

Firebird67 wrote: people I went to school with are whooping myBut in total time

Don't bother comparing yourself to others just do what makes you happy. There shouldn't be a race to "get there" enjoy the journey and build that PIC time, everything else will fall into place.

Fly safe

Mike

Who is getting paid more?

The 'ATPL factories' where you get 1000+ hours a year of multi-turbine-IFR typically set the bar for poverty wages in this country.

ahramin wrote:Who is getting paid more?

Big old +1. My motto is minimal flying for maximum pay. I fly 300 hours a year on average.

Flying is work. We work for money, so that we don't have to work in the future. Unless flying more directly equates to more money ... then who cares if you fly less! Don't chase iron or hours. Chase a pay check.

60k ish, no idea how that is compared to what other atpl factory companies are paying, I have around 600tt.

You can't beat 60k at 600tt. It might suck to see your buddies progress quicker, but you'll be laughing when you're all at the same level and you own your house.

7ECA wrote:PIC is king.

Feck right seat time, or any other time.

Again, PIC, is king.

I disagree unless you are solely concerned with getting an ATPL and not a flying job - consider from an employer's point of view:

Pilot A: 2000 TT, most of it instructing in a C172 or similar
Pilot B: 800 TT, most of it (beyond the basic 200-250) as a SIC in a Navajo or King Air doing 703 ops

Pilot A may have a ton of PIC time, but as an instructor hardly ever even touches the controls, will have very little IMC time, not used to using SOPs and no turbine experience.
Pilot B may be low in PIC time but most likely will have flown (i.e. actual hands-on) every second leg, will probably have a lot of hard IMC, hopefully good CRM and SOP use experience and some exposure to turbines (depending on types flown, but at least it's multi)

By all means then, forego getting a PPL or CPL, and just get your multi-crew licence. And you can be secure as a permanent First Officer, because SIC is better than PIC?

I don't have any issue with time building as an instructor, many guys/gals who take this route are active pilots, who actually do a genuinely good job teaching their students, and help them learn to fly to the edges of the envelope, etc.

Of course, there are also people who become instructors, who sponge off of their Class 1, are provided with the lesson plans (aka they purchase them from the Class 1), and they then become seat warmers... These are the useless folks, who end up with a good amount of PIC time, but no real experience or value was gained from their time instructing. Not to worry, odds are they'll be weeded out as soon as the "real" flying starts at the next job.

You make a good point in terms of pic time gained from how a employer might take a look at instructing time but I am not a instructor I fly a corporate aircraft, but my question is to what point does pic time help you get a job over guys with higher total time and what kind of job will it set me up for?, moving on from the job I am in now how important is pic time will a employer take a guy who has 1000 total time and of that 500 multi pic not meeting tt for atpl over some guy who's got 2500 hours right seat meeting the total time both not meeting pic requirements for atpl?

If an instructor has 2000 and has not found job as an FO on something that would raise a question.

HiFlyChick wrote:

7ECA wrote:PIC is king.

Feck right seat time, or any other time.

Again, PIC, is king.

I disagree unless you are solely concerned with getting an ATPL and not a flying job - consider from an employer's point of view:

Pilot A: 2000 TT, most of it instructing in a C172 or similar
Pilot B: 800 TT, most of it (beyond the basic 200-250) as a SIC in a Navajo or King Air doing 703 ops

Pilot A may have a ton of PIC time, but as an instructor hardly ever even touches the controls, will have very little IMC time, not used to using SOPs and no turbine experience.
Pilot B may be low in PIC time but most likely will have flown (i.e. actual hands-on) every second leg, will probably have a lot of hard IMC, hopefully good CRM and SOP use experience and some exposure to turbines (depending on types flown, but at least it's multi)

7ECA wrote:By all means then, forego getting a PPL or CPL, and just get your multi-crew licence. And you can be secure as a permanent First Officer, because SIC is better than PIC?

I don't have any issue with time building as an instructor, many guys/gals who take this route are active pilots, who actually do a genuinely good job teaching their students, and help them learn to fly to the edges of the envelope, etc.

Of course, there are also people who become instructors, who sponge off of their Class 1, are provided with the lesson plans (aka they purchase them from the Class 1), and they then become seat warmers... These are the useless folks, who end up with a good amount of PIC time, but no real experience or value was gained from their time instructing. Not to worry, odds are they'll be weeded out as soon as the "real" flying starts at the next job.

I'm not saying not to build time instructing, but there comes a time when PIC is not king if all you have is instructing time in a single....

Oxi wrote:If an instructor has 2000 and has not found job as an FO on something that would raise a question.

I don't know - I think some guys end up getting too comfortable and don't know how to go about getting to the next stage other than sending out a few resumes (i.e. as opposed to really pounding the pavement). I've run into a few high time instructors who held too tightly to the "PIC is king" theory and weren't willing to move or take a chance at something else that would get them different time like multi-IFR or turbine

For the guy who already has corporate experience, then yes, PIC is king, but for someone who has all single engine PIC instructing, they need more variety, especially on more complex aircraft....

HiFlyChick wrote:for someone who has all single engine PIC instructing, they need more variety, especially on more complex aircraft....

That PIC should open the door for that next job. PIC opens doors.

Krimson wrote:That PIC should open the door for that next job. PIC opens doors.

Exactly.

Sort of like the thread elsewhere on this forum with the suggestion of going to Cathay as a Second Officer. Not a whole lot of employment opportunities for SOs these days. Sort of like being a rampie, doesn't exactly end up getting you anywhere chucking bags...

PIC is king, it affords you the opportunity for advancement.

HiFlyChick wrote:

7ECA wrote:PIC is king.

Feck right seat time, or any other time.

Again, PIC, is king.

I disagree unless you are solely concerned with getting an ATPL and not a flying job - consider from an employer's point of view:

Pilot A: 2000 TT, most of it instructing in a C172 or similar
Pilot B: 800 TT, most of it (beyond the basic 200-250) as a SIC in a Navajo or King Air doing 703 ops

Pilot A may have a ton of PIC time, but as an instructor hardly ever even touches the controls, will have very little IMC time, not used to using SOPs and no turbine experience.
Pilot B may be low in PIC time but most likely will have flown (i.e. actual hands-on) every second leg, will probably have a lot of hard IMC, hopefully good CRM and SOP use experience and some exposure to turbines (depending on types flown, but at least it's multi)

I see the point, but isn't the true value of PIC in decision making experience? Anyone can learn CRM and SOP, learning to make the right decision, even on a basic airplane, is not that easy.

Anyone can learn CRM and SOP,

Exactly, even a monkey can be taught to do things by rote.

mike123 wrote:I see the point, but isn't the true value of PIC in decision making experience? Anyone can learn CRM and SOP, learning to make the right decision, even on a basic airplane, is not that easy.

I guess I'm just thinking of guys I've known who do primarily ab initio training, so although they're making command decisions, they are missing a lot of the other stuff like IFR, multi, turbine, and experience with ice. I'm also looking at it from the perspective of a 703 operation and who will be bumped up to captain. There's a certain amount of TT req'd, but the experience in the other stuff plays a big role, too.