What is ICUS

[aussiefan]

Hi,
Can some one tell me what ICUS is? I have seen it mentioned on a lot of threads but not sure what it means.

Honest inquiry.

[av8trflying]

In Command Under Supervision

[The Green Goblin]

ICUS = the holy grail for unscrupulous operators who hire inexperienced gullable Pilots who are willing to work for less to get into something 'shiney' instead of the traditional route with the promise of ICUS when it's time for a command upgrade. After 3 years of the right hand seat with no command time and no prospects of an upgrade the word ICUS aint so promising anymore.

[777WakeTurbz]

ICUS = the holy grail for unscrupulous operators who hire inexperienced gullable Pilots who are willing to work for less to get into something 'shiney'

Add "or pay to work for said unscrupulous operator"... Seeing there are so many companies with ICUS programs where pilots pay them to fly and log ICUS hours in the hope they may get a full time job in the future over experienced pilots with actual command time... :yuk:

[DeeJayEss]

Good idea, but unless implemented in some sort of military framework, I daresay completely flawed.

(Now for my attempt at humour, sic)
It's actually an Aussie b*stardisation of a kiwi term for "yes mate" - which they would say as "aye cuz"... ICUS....

I know, flame on. :\ And before anyone from NZ says anything, I have lived there, and did come back saying bro, cuz, mean, and I have a whopping huge Maori inspired tattoo.

[eocvictim]

Ok, the above comments are valid and you should be warry about forking out money for "ICUS" with certain dodgy companies but its still NOT what ICUS is for.

The purpose of ICUS is to build up the required hours on type to fly as a part of operating crew. A fairly standard figure for most types is 50 hours.

[frigatebird]

Used to be 100 hours for an Islander in the Solomons, until a proposal to halve that was approved reluctantly. Civil Aviation and Sol Airlines had such a poor opinion of a pilots learning ability.. Made making an Islander captain a long drawn out, expensive process..

[Lodown]

ICUS, you cuss, we all cuss for an Airbus!

[AerocatS2A]

It's when you act as the captain of the aircraft while under the supervision of another captain. You should be making all decisions regarding the conduct of the flight. It can be a way for an FO to gain command time to meet various requirements (company, CASA, insurance etc.)

[hongkongfooey]

It's the only way cadets ( QF, CX etc ) can ever get a command on a shiny jet, that or actually go out and get a GA job.

[Kopity]

How about the ICUS supervisor? (The PIC). Do they still log the hours as full PIC hours in Oz?

I know in NZ, the PIC supervising a pilot undergoing "command training" (NZ version of ICUS) can not log those hours towards a higher licence (ATPL)

[Oakape]

Most overseas airlines will only recognise it as P2 or co-pilot time.

[Old Fella]

As usual, a Flight Engineer has to point the way.

In Command Under Supervision (ICUS)
means the flight time a co-pilot may log when performing the duties and functions of a pilot in command under the supervision of a pilot in command authorised by the operator of the aircraft for that purpose.
Note: Conditions required for ICUS to be credited are listed in CAR 5.40.

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.
Note: Pilots must ensure their log book records allow for accurate calculation of separate ICUS and PIC flight time totals.

This seems pretty clear to me, at least in Australia.

[Kopity]

So to answer the question, the PIC still logs the hours commanding a pilot undergoing ICUS as full PIC hours?

Like if a pilot has a lot of time COMMANDING other ICUS pilots (e.g training them up), they can still log that time towards an ATPL under the Australian rules?

[Creampuff]

This is what happens when counter-intuitive terms are used in an attempt to create the condition of half pregnant.

It would make more sense if it were called Pilot Under Supervision Simulating Command.

The pilot being supervised logs PUSSC, and must differentiate that time from actual PIC time, and identify the supervising PIC, in the logbook.

The supervising pilot is the PIC so logs the time as PIC.

Whether the hours criterion for a qualification differentiates between time as PIC supervising PUSSCs and other PIC time: dunno and couldn't be bothered checking.

[Old Fella]

Folks, it does not seem to me to be ambiguous. Surely, if a pilot is under supervision he or she is being supervised by one in higher authority. It really should not take a Rhodes scholar to determine that when a pilot is acting as pilot "In Command Under Supervision" he is training or being assessed to be promoted to act as PIC subject to meeting a predetermined competency level.

The "Supervising" pilot is the actual "Pilot in Command" and is the one with responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. Seems fair enough to me and I fail to see why the supervisory pilot should not log his hours as PIC. Obviously, if Kopity has it correct, the NZ authorities have a different view and that is their business. How they justify their view is of interest all the same.

[Creampuff]

I see your point: The pilot is in command when s/he isn't. :ok:

[Old Fella]

Oh no Creampuff, not your semantics again? I know you like stirring the pot but it does become tedious. At my age I try to use what brain cells I have, still in working order, productively. I don't wish to try and justify every comment I make.

[Kopity]

ok thanks for your input. Yeah it's a bit of a funny rule I agree, If a pilot is ensuring the safe outcome of the flight and is technically and operationally the PIC then why shouldn't they be entitled to use that PIC time towards an ATPL!
the rule is here:
www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule.../Part_061_Consolidation.pdf
61.31 (j)

It does however only apply if the aeroplane is a single pilot required aircraft, so I suppose the reasoning is that the PIC sits back and watches while the trainee fights the leans and the turbulence and does all the work... in reality though the trainee needs constant help, hence "under supervision"...

Anyway, so no one knows of any rules of similar kind in Oz it seems..?
I couldn't find any in all the law texts.

[Kopity]

edit: https://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_061_Brief.htm

[International Trader]

The other side of the coin.

A friend was telling me that he recently attended a roadshow for a foreign carrier that is looking for captains.
I was told that there was a QF FO trying to get his ICUS time accepted as PIC, claiming that he had a Command Rating , 5000 ICUS hours (so he flew with a Check and /or Training pilot for 5000 hours?) and 11,000 hours total ( I thought that only 50 % of FO time went towards total time).

When he was told that he actually had to be a captain with the airline to be acceptable as a captain, he apparently replied; "so, all I have to do is be a captain somewhere on any aircraft for a week and I will be acceptable."


Some people will twist the facts ( or in some cases change their co pilot time to ICUS) to "leap frog" into positions they want.

[4dogs]

When first invented, it was called AICUS: "Acting in command under supervision". It was something that a co-pilot did in special circumstances. It was supervised by a pilot in command trained in the supervisory role and appointed by the operator for that purpose.

When first invented, it applied only to multi-crew aircraft and some single pilot aircraft that required the gaining of experience under a mentorship scheme that went beyond simple dual instruction. It formalise the roles of copilots undergoing command training in the left hand seat (aeroplanes - the reverse for helicopters) and the Training Captain supervising from the right hand seat.

It could never be logged by a co-pilot operating in his/her normal right seat.

It then was totally destroyed as a scheme by CASA to the current point where it is just co-pilot time doing co-pilot things...

Stay Alive,

[4dogs]

International Trader,

The calculation of aeronautical experience was only for the purpose of satisfying the required hours for the granting of a licence. The 50% rule was only about trying to ensure that the applicant for the licence had done a significant part of their flying in an active role, which for a co-pilot was presumed to be only half the time on a presumed 'leg for leg' basis.

Once a pilot had qualified for the ATPL, 'aeronautical experience' per se had no further relevance...

Stay Alive,

[Oktas8]

to the current point where it is just co-pilot time doing co-pilot things

In the RPT environment, correct! It is meaningless in any airmanship / competence sense. For my operator, captains don't even know which FOs are logging ICUS and which are not.

[Centaurus]

My recollection of the start of ICUS was in the days where you needed 500 hours pilot in command time (no cheating on that) to be issued a First Class ATPL. That was easy enough for GA pilots doing charter or flying instructors doing instructing. But the then Qantas cadet scheme meant a first officer joining as a cadet could log many thousands of hours F/O on Super Constellations and 707's when the seniority came up for a command. But they were stymied with the ATPL 500 command hours requirement. In those days it could be 15 years before your seniority number came up.
Qantas then used a DC3 and an HS 125 and after suitable training the highly experienced (by now) first officers would be authorised to fly in command on these types until reaching the magic 500 command hours.

Obviously this was a mighty expensive thing for Qantas. Horse trading commenced with DCA and the ICUS logging was born and now the command hours for an ATPL is very little compared to what it was originally. Later it came into the GA world (so I believe) when a pilot had to have ten hours in command on type before being authorised for charter work. I think it was then that somehow ten hours of ICUS was substituted.

Now ICUS seems to be the new "command". I believe in UK, where ICUS is authorised, the proviso is that if the real captain supervising the ICUS "captain" has reason to disagree with any operational decision of the ICUS chappie, then the ICUS is cancelled for the whole flight and co-pilot time logged. Needless to say this doesn't bode well for cockpit harmony and for that reason probably rarely happens. After all, the only witness to a disagreement is the CVR.

[Results may vary]

As usual, a Flight Engineer has to point the way.

In Command Under Supervision (ICUS)
means the flight time a co-pilot may log when performing the duties and functions of a pilot in command under the supervision of a pilot in command authorised by the operator of the aircraft for that purpose.
Note: Conditions required for ICUS to be credited are listed in CAR 5.40.

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.
Note: Pilots must ensure their log book records allow for accurate calculation of separate ICUS and PIC flight time totals.

This seems pretty clear to me, at least in Australia.

Thanks Old Fella, in regards to actually logging the time - I am logging S/E ozzy ICUS time in a NZ log book:

I have 1 spare column on the far side of the page that I have labelled "ICUS",
So, I write the ICUS time in that column and leave the S/E PIC and Dual columns blank???

Then I guess I count that column in my grand total???

Then with the crew name columns - who's name goes in the PIC column and who's goes in the Co-pilot column???

Cheers in advance!

[Creampuff]

The PIC’s name goes in the PIC column.

If you’re flying ICUS, you’re not PIC, so whatever name goes in the PIC column, it shouldn’t be yours.

If you’re flying ICUS and you’ve created a separate column for ICUS time in your logbook, there shouldn’t be anyone’s name in the Co-Pilot column. This is what happens when counter-intuitive terms are used in an attempt to create the condition of half pregnant.

[LeadSled]

Kopity,
Your starting point for ICUS ( by whatever name, it varies by country) is ICAO Annex 1.
Logging ICUS ( by whatever name is used where you are at the time) as ICUS is quite legitimate ---- but it is ICUS, NOT In Command time, a not so subtle difference that eludes many Australian pilots who post on the subject on pprune.
Needless to say, Australia has the most complex,restrictive and impenetrable rules on subject, outside Australia it is a well understood, simple and easily applied concept.
ICUS (by whatever name) counts 100% towards the "Total Aeronautical Experience" totals in your log book
Tootle pip!!

PS: Re. NZ rules, the PIC always remains and logs PIC, a pilot flying ICUS (by whatever name, command practice) always remains under the supervision of the PIC.

[Old Fella]

RMV

It seems to me that you would enter the name of the pilot in command in the PIC column, Your name in the Co-Pilot ( or Other Crew) column and the time in the ICUS or other spare column.

[Results may vary]

Great, thanks for the info guys!

So, seeing that we have established that the actual PIC still logs the flight as PIC (and as so, has current medical etc) Does the pilot under ICUS require a current medical and BFR??? (In a single pilot A/C of course)

Cheers

[Old Fella]

RMV, I can't answer your last, but I would think that the PIC would need to be a QFI. CASA may be your best line of enquiry despite what the cynics may say.

[blackburn]

The following is an extract from CAR 5.40 (which has been referred to several times in this thread) and has what appears to be most of the answers to the original question.

CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision

(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under
supervision only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot
licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were
a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot
licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; and
(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises
him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a
flight crew rating is required — the person holds a flight
crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that permits
him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in command of
the aircraft concerned; and
(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the
aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the
purpose by the operator of the aircraft.


One assumes that holding a valid medical certificate and a current BFR (AFR) is part of the deal. The pilot who is doing the ICUS is part of the operating crew and hence is required to hold all the qualifications needed to be the PiC, for surely that is the aim of the exercise! There could be a case where the pilot under supervision does not have the BFR (AFR) and the person who is the supervisory pilot is a check pilot observing the flight with the aim of carrying out the AFR.

[Creampuff]

In a single pilot A/C of courseI didn’t think there was such a thing as ICUS in a single pilot A/C. I thought they called that “Dual”…

If it's a BFR or AFR, the reviewer is the PIC and person being reviewed is not ICUS.

[Kopity]

Leadsled, the designated PIC in NZ cannot always use their PIC hours towards an ATPL:

from part 61 "A pilot who is designated as pilot-in-command for the purpose of rule 135.505(b)(3) to supervise a pilot undergoing consolidation of operating experience may not credit the pilot-in-command flight time towards the flight time experience requirements for an airline transport pilot licence if the supervision is carried out in a single-pilot aircraft under rule 135.505(c)(2)."


(135.505 deals with requirements for ICUS)

But also one paragraph above it also states this:
"A pilot may not credit flight time recorded as pilot-in-command under supervision (PIC/US) towards the flight time experience requirements for an airline transport pilot licence"

So together, two pilots, one as PIC and one as ICUS, neither benefit much! (only in terms of gaining a NZ ATPL) Although hands on skill and experience still is gained!