Logging Icus

[Induced Turbulence]

I have always logged icus in the logbook by placing the PIC in the command column and myself in the other crew column. Then have been putting the flight time in the command column. However recently I was told this was incorrect and the flight time should be put in the co-pilot column. I tried to check this in the front of the logbook but it seems a bit vague. Could someone please advise which is the correct method.:confused:

[Tinpis2]

you should buy a new log book. most modern day log books have an ICUS section in them. i would be putting it in the co pilot section though. technically your under supervision therefore not in command. they should use the command section, and you, the co pilot section. like i siad though buy a new one with icus in it.

tp2

[Blown Seal]

What you were doing is the correct method, you need to indicate that it is ICUS in the icus/specialist column however.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Induced Turbulance,

Blown Seal in correct. I had this same situation a few years back when my first logbook was the old style. When I directed my question to a CASA FOI he said you should log it in the Command column but indicate in the Specialist column that it was ICUS. But however I do suggest getting new logbook aswell and go through your current one for ICUS times and place in the correct column.

SUC.:ok:

[swh]

Induced Turbulence,

If you have a CPL log it as co-pilot. CAO 40.1.0 para 10.5

If you have an ATPL log it as ICUS. CAO 40.1.0 para 10.7

In any case it is "co-pilot" time as your a crew memeber other than the PIC and it only counts 50% to your total aeronautical experience.

The capacity you flew the aeroplane should also be noted i.e. ICUS.

:ok:

[turbolager]

That's right. You'll need twice as much of that airline first officer crap to get your ATPL. C152 circuit commander time is of course infinitely more relevant to command in the multicrew environment. Go CASA... (but what would JAR know :hmm: )

[swh]

Your wrong mate!

If you have some reference which is law that I am unaware of, I am more than happy to be educated.

CPL and ATPL is no different, refer to the CASA web site re the method of logging ICUS time.

Please provide a reference to CAO 40.1.0 paragraph 10 which states to refer to the CASA web site, then again I will use the information from that page to further prove my point. Let me indulge you a little to explain how you may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

ICUS is logged by a pilot sitting in the L/H seat acting as aircraft commander under the supervision of another pilot approved to carry out ICUS time.

Incorrect, can be in the left or right hand seat, front seat or aft seat in the case of tandem operations. No reference is made as to where a person conducting ICUS must be seated or the type of operation, or the type of operator, or type of aircraft.

Co-pilot time can only be logged in any aircraft when either two crew members are required by regulation or company ops manuals, i.e.: two crew in Chieftain doing low capacity RPT.

Incorrect.

Refer to the definition of co-pilot in CAR 2 "co-pilot means a pilot serving in any piloting capacity other than the pilot in command." and CAR 5.105 "to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation"

If an operator assigns two pilots to an aerial sortie in a C152, and one carries out the role of PIC, then the other is “co-pilot” as they are “in any piloting capacity other than the pilot in command”.

REG 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR002160.htm) (1) (d) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision only if the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft

Para 10.5 has nothing to do with ICUS, the word is not even mentioned.

It has everything to do with how a CP(A)L is to legally log flight time in aeroplanes.

In Command Under Supervision
(ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following:
the pilot flying ICUS must hold either a CPL or an ATPL;
the pilot flying ICUS must make all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the aircraft;
the pilot must hold a command aircraft endorsement for that type;
the pilot must hold a command instrument rating if the flight is conducted under the IFR;
the operator must permit the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision;
the pilot in command of the aircraft must be appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft.

I agree, this is a summary of CAR 5.40, it states the roles and requirements of the operator, PIC, and the person receiving ICUS. It does not go into logging of flight time.

Going back to Pilot Log Books - General Guidance (http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/flight_time.htm)

Firstly, note the title, its general guidance, not specific legal requirements.

In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:
ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
b) if the log book does not have an ICUS column then ICUS may be logged in the Pilot in Command column as long as it is clearly identified as ICUS and the pilot in command is also identified;
c) alternatively, another unused column may be used to log ICUS.

Next, note that this is entirely consistent with my previous post, that being CAO 40.1.0 paragraph 10 only allows for an ATPL holder to log "ICUS" in an aeroplane.

Now from the same page look at Co-pilot

Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged.

Again this in entirely consistent with my previous post and CAO 40.1.0 paragraph 10.5, and CAR 5.40 (1)(d).

I think you may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion. The clear legal requirements are in CAO 40.1.0 para 10.

Regardless of the licence held, the capacity one flew the aeroplane should also be noted i.e. ICUS.

:ok:

[Induced Turbulence]

SWH
Thanks mate. Youve been a great help. Looking at the CASA website about logging time, it sounds like if you have the old style of logbook without the ICUS columns that you log it with in the command column. I guess it becomes a bit of work when you get the new logbook and have to go thru the previous logbooks to then break it up. Which I suppose would also make the logbooks look inconsistent when all of a sudden the hours in all the columns change.

[swh]

Induced Turbulence,

It seems some decided to remove their post....my second post was a rebuttle to a post made in between.

[SpottyFish]

In my experience the regs are very grey regarding icus, just talk to your local casa office.

Appartently if you log time from any other seat other than the "command seat" (generally considered the left hand seat but not legally specified) then you must be approved to do so. That is to say that must have recieved approval to handle emergency situation from the non command seat.

This info came direct from casa, however the regs are a little bit vague in this area, i bet there are plenty of people out there who have done icus with old mate in a 206 who has no right seat approval to gain 200 series time.

It seems this practice is not legal

[swh]

SpottyFish,

The regulations don’t require ICUS to be "approved" by CASA.

However in the case of non-private operations where the ICUS is conducted under an AOC, the operators operations manual should say how an operator conducts all their operations, including ICUS.

Operations manuals are not "approved" by CASA, they are accepted, I understand this legal two step is so CASA is not liable for their contents.

It is possible to conduct ICUS under any operation, including private operations, in any aircraft type, e.g. C150 to B747. In the case of Qantas, F/O's do ICUS in the RHS without a tiller in most aircraft.

In my experience with CASA, some of the interpretation of the rules comes from previous background, their strengths would lie in where they have achieved most of their experience from.

Few FOIs for example would come from a background of flying above 5700kg aircraft in private operations, so I believe their natural tendency would be to apply their previous knowledge to the new situation of people doing say ICUS on a Falcon 900 in a private operation, hence comments like "have received approval to handle emergency situation from the non command seat".

ICUS is not pseudo training, the person receiving ICUS should have all the required ratings and endorsements to fly that aircraft in command. In my view if the person undergoing ICUS is not competent to fly the aircraft in command, they should go through a course of training, i.e. instruction, not ICUS.

I have always seen ICUS as a method for someone to go from being “safe and competent” to being efficient, being a “good operator” with some line experience on type.

:ok:

[A37575]

ICUS means nothing more than the captain has given the copilot a leg. In UK, if the captain disagrees with an ICUS pilot on any single operational matter (for example choice of fuel amount, choice of flap setting, or choice of altitude etc, the ICUS leg is downgraded to copilot for the purpose of log book entry. There is no such restriction in Australia which means ICUS has no value.