Co Pilot PICUS time

[collipop]

Hi all,

I have a question regarding a Co Pilot claiming PICUS time.

Can a co-pilot claim PICUS time in the following scenario.

Commander does the take off, shortly after hands control to the co-pilot, who then flies the aircraft making all decisions under the supervision of the commander, without the commander having to intervene. Shortly before landing the co-pilot hands control back to the commander.

Although the co-pilot didn't do the take off and landing, he/she does act as PIC enroute under supervision of the commander.

Therefore can he/she claim PICUS time for the time he/she was flying the aircraft?

Thanks

[Abbey Road]

I would say, tentatively, yes! As long as the copilot is 1st pilot qualified on type. If not qualified, and the captain is an instructor on type, then the copilot may be able to claim the hours as dual (under instruction).

But this is only my best guess. :ok:

And this thread is in the wrong forum.

[clunckdriver]

I cant speak your neck of the woods, but over here if you claimed PIC time without doing landings or T/Os I think you would be charged with falsifying flight time, and rightly so.These days I fly a twin, the young lady in the right seat on revenue flights does most of the work and when flying the aircraft {including T/O and Ldg} logs it as PIC, under supervision, on Non Rev legs she is left seat and logs it as PIC.When I flew the heavy stuff we had a very formal system of when F/Os could log PIC under supervision, not used much as we hired most with 5000 hours or more, thus no need to log time for upgrades.

[ant1]

From pprune archive (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-327861.html):Ok, from CAA LASOR's (hope its ok to quote it)

5. PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):
Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable
to the Authority, a Co-pilot may log as PIC flight time
flown as PICUS, when all of the duties and functions
of PIC on that flight were carried out, such that the
intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was
not required. (For further details please refer to
Co- Pilot paragraph at the end of this Appendix).


My understanding is that you only meet the when all of the duties and functions
of PIC on that flight were carried out bit when your are sitting on the left seat with an instructor on the right seat during your upgrade course to Captain.

[MD80rookie]

You are allowed to do your PICUS training from the left seat, and the captain does not have to be a line training captain. You can log all the flight time as picus, who has the controls at t/o or landing does not matter.
But, it has to be agreed and approved before flight commences that you are flying as PICUS.

This "method of supervision" is acceptable to my country's authority (JAA-land).

Remember that you are only allowed to fly as many PICUS hours as you require to obtain 250 hours PIC/PICUS for your ATPL.

Have fun!

[Tee Emm]

on Non Rev legs she is left seat and logs it as PIC.

And of course you quite rightly log it as copilot since there can only be one pilot in command?

[clunckdriver]

Tee Emm, {Havnt seen that in a while} Yes if I kept a log book it would be logged as Co Joe, dont know if I should mention it to an ex DCA type but havnt kept a log in many years, just write in the crazy "current" requirments every so often, however on checking my logs you will be pleased to know that all my time Downunder is logged in old DCA approved log books. In Canada one gets writers cramp with just a few aircraft in the fleet, Journey Log, Flight sheets, Engine log, airframe log, Prop logs, Pilots log,Night landings logged to keep night currency, IFR Apchs for IFR currency, Im sure there are some Ive missed, Oh yeah, out of phase items and the master log in our AMO.

[Slasher]

Collipop just wondering why he/she/it couldnt do the TO and
landing if he/she/it was given the sector?

[FlightDetent]

For the purpose of ATPL issue, most guys log all PF sectors as PICUS. Clearly out of boundaries prescribed by JAR-FCL1. Once it becomes EASA ruling, watch this space....

Sincerely,
FD (the un-real)

[Checkboard]

For the purpose of ATPL issue, most guys log all PF sectors as PICUS.
Which is not according to the letter of the law for logging the time, and is quite a source of amusement outside of Europe.

Commanding a flight has nothing to do with flying the aircraft - you can be the commander without even occupying a control seat. The commander is the pilot designated by the operator to care for the aircraft and passenger's safety by making a variety of safety decisions. Being designated by the Commander as "Pilot Flying" for a sector has nothing to do with ICUS.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Oh dear me! To say this topic has been done to death a hundred times here would be an understatement. Try using the search function, and then spend the next week reading the misinformation, disinformation and misunderstandings that you'll find.

Bt succunctly, PICu/s has nothing, that is NOTHING to do with PF or PNF.
(How could it, if P1 depended on who was PF what would the Captain log when PNF?)

It requires the FO, as stated above, to perform all the functions of P1 for the entire flight without intervention...
That means it cannot be achieved without prior agreement and arragement with the Capt from the first moment of pre-flight planning as the FO clearly has to do ALL of this as P1, make ALL fuel, weather and operational decisions etc and continue to do so until the end of the flight, presumablt including post flight duties.

Logging PICu/s automatically as PF is not only incorrect but fraudulent as the basic requirements above have clearly not been met. Simply put, Parker Pen time.

That said, it seems to be what most people do, but that doesn't make it right. The UK CAA seem to turn a blind eye too, so that really renders it pointless as a valuable exercise in practicing command skills and turns it into a paperwork fudge to gain an ATPL from the RHS of an airliner.

The worry is if this fudge is employed in smaller craft to allow the pilot to gain his ATPL so as to act as Capt without having had the P1 training experience the regulators have decided is needed.

Pity.

[boofhead]

I met a guy flying for a major freight company in the US and he was bragging that he had 35,000 hours, almost all PIC. He was wearing F/O bars. He was 30 years old. A small discussion showed that he logged all his flying as PIC since he had an ATP (after you get 1500 hours you can get an ATP in 48 hours, ground and flight tests included). He logged all his time, off-duty sitting in the back, or in the bunk, and I would not be surprised if he logged his dead-head sectors as well.
Point is that the FAA would accept this as logged, nobody would question it. The Asian carriers are worse (maybe not SIA) because they simply don't understand the complexities of the rules.
Only the Brits and the other Euro-centred countries even worry about such a thing. When competing on the open market for jobs, you will always be pipped by those who don't care for the rules.

[FLEXPWR]

35000 hours at 30 years old! Did he count the time when his mom was flying on holidays with him still in the womb as well??

My, I have more than 15 years in the business, and about 6500 hours, maybe I don't know how to count... can the time watching airplanes take off and land at the airport fence added as well? :E If it is the case, I can probably claim twice as much!

Eventually, most Parker-pen pilots show their true colors when the sh!t hits the fan, and REAL experience is required to deal with the problems at hand...
Experience doesn't come from pen and paper...

Flex

[OFDM]

For the purpose of ATPL issue, most guys log all PF sectors as PICUS.

-Which is not according to the letter of the law for logging the time, and is quite a source of amusement outside of Europe.


well if LASORS is the law (in the UK), then it is ok.

The 1500 hours flying experience [for ATPL issue] may comprise flight
time in any of the following capacities:
• as Pilot-in-Command/Solo (PIC), counted in full;
• as Pilot-under-Instruction (Dual), counted in full;
• as Co-Pilot performing under the supervision of
the Pilot-in-Command the functions and duties of
a Pilot-in-Command (PIC U/S) counted in full. For
licence issue, confirmation of such flight time will be
required. This can either take the form of a letter from
the operating company or certification of each flight
within the pilot’s logbook by the Pilot-in-Command.
• as Co-Pilot (P2), counted in full;

so this paragraph (from LASORS) differentiates between PIC U/S and P2 time. the notes at the start of my logbook (also a CAA document) tell me to put PIC U/S time in the P1 column. what else is there to say? QED.

perhaps the pedants should write to the CAA, because all people are doing is reading the instructions and then following them.

would i ever claim P1 U/S as P1 time to get a job in the future? no, because it isnt P1 time.

as someone said, logbook hours (certainly for airline ops) are not a good measure of experience or competence anyway, just a rough guide to how long a guys been around...

[PantLoad]

Trying to remember the exact wording....but, essentially, if the F/O is 'appropriately rated' (in the case of an aircraft requiring a type rating, he is type rated in that aircraft)....and in the case of airline operations, where an ATP is required to be in command (The F/O has an ATP with the type rating.).......and, he is the 'sole manipulator of the controls'.....then, in the U.S. he can, in fact, log the time as "Pilot-in-Command" when he is the flying pilot.

I'm totally ignorant with regard to the regulations in other parts of the world, but in the U.S., this is the case.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

[PantLoad]

The freight guy you mention is full of XXXX. (To say it in a nice way, he is incorrect.)

Again, I don't know about the regulations in Europe....I confess ignorance....but, in the U.S.....well, please see my above post.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

[Checkboard]

well if LASORS is the law (in the UK), then it is ok.

LASORS, of course, isn't "the law" in the UK. I do hope you know that - and in any case:

as Co-Pilot performing under the supervision of
the Pilot-in-Command the functions and duties of
a Pilot-in-Command (PIC U/S) counted in full.

The functions & duties of a Pilot-in-Command have nothing to do with handling the controls. :rolleyes:

so this paragraph (from LASORS) differentiates between PIC U/S and P2 time.
That's because PIC U/S and P2 time are different. You seem to think that "P2" time is time as Pilot Not Flying. The Commander is still the Commander when they are not flying, and a Co-pilot is still a Co-pilot when they are handling - and as such they should be logging Co-pilot time.

[Checkboard]

.. and the rest of the crew (if you carry cabin crew) are briefed that you are to be treated on those sectors as commander (under supervision) (ie all contact about problems in the cabin will be directed to you) and the two pilots have included in their brief that you will be giving the orders for non-normal occurrences,\ and the company is aware, and has given permission (either specifically, or in the Operations Manual), that this is how the operation will be conducted and this formal agreement has occurred at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day has been certified by including the Commander's signature in your log book? :hmm:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Heavens! This is hard work.

OFDM


The 1500 hours flying experience [for ATPL issue] may comprise flight
time in any of the following capacities:
• as Pilot-in-Command/Solo (PIC), counted in full;
• as Pilot-under-Instruction (Dual), counted in full;
• as Co-Pilot performing under the supervision of
the Pilot-in-Command the functions and duties of
a Pilot-in-Command (PIC U/S) counted in full. For
licence issue, confirmation of such flight time will be
required. This can either take the form of a letter from
the operating company or certification of each flight
within the pilot’s logbook by the Pilot-in-Command.
• as Co-Pilot (P2), counted in full;


There it is in plain English. EXACTLY as I said.
"performing ... the functions and duties...of pilot in command"
Where does it say anything about manipulating the controls?
Why then does it differentiate that definition from P2?
It does so because just acting as Co-pilot (P2) has nothing to do with role-playing as Captain (P1us) which is an entirely differernt category. You've just proven youself incorrect.

I don't understand how or why you imagine it would be possible or desireable to act as P1 on cetain sectors only. If you briefed for P1us at the start of a multi sector day you'd be P1us all day, wouldn't you. Just as you would on a single sector day operated by the Captain.

I think you need to re-read this and sort out the logic. In your current state of mis-understanding you should not be making snide remarks about "pedants". This is nothing to do with pedantry, merely being right or wrong. And on this topic you just ain't right. Or, for that matter, pedantic.


Mr Smith.

What do you call logging that you are not entitled to if not fraudulent?
Inventive? Optional? Opportunistic?
If you haven't done it, you can't log it. If you do log it, then...

[Spendid Cruiser]

It says you have to have to have the controls for take off and lading in LASORS, therefore, by convention you would only be able to log PF sectors as PICUS.

[Agaricus bisporus]

SC, I don't know which planet you inhabit, but according to your "logic" how the HELL could you log P1us as FO on a single sector with Captain handling? Equally, how would the Capt log P1 if the other guy is PF? What kind of twisted logic is this?
Why/how do you suppose that the regulations have given you some sort of bizarre weasel to pretend to be P1 when you are clearly nothing of the sort? Is this the way the regs usually work?

Hey! You do the maths!

I see nothing, anywhere that connects with who is Pf with who is P1. This is a myth. Dreamland. Because IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Prove me wrong, or back down. Publically.

[Spendid Cruiser]

Just read page 45 LASORS 2008.

[EpsilonVaz]

LASORS Section A, Appendix B. Recording of Flight Time.

Co-Pilot
• The designated co-pilot of the aeroplane may log as
co-pilot all the time he acts as co-pilot whilst sitting
in a pilot’s seat.
• He may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.
• He may also log as pilot in command all the time
he is acting as pilot in command and substituting for
the designated commander of the aircraft when he
is taking rest.
• He may not log as flight time any periods during
which he does not occupy a pilot’s seat.

[Agaricus bisporus]

• He may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.


This clearly shows that he may log P1us ALL the time he occupies the seat AND acts as P1. Not some of the time, and who is at the controls does not, as I have said again and again, does NOT get mentioned. There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that even implies that PF is involved in this process. ANYWHERE. If you find any please, please post it here.

Look up the duties if P1, They begin at the start of pre-flight briefing and end when all post flight duties are completed. You can't cherry-pick which bits you do, you are either P1 or you are not. The same must therefore aply to a P2 acting as P1. If a P2 were to only act as P1us for "his" sectors then that would have to be discussed, organised and correctly briefed by the FO in the crew room preflight, but why bother when he can log it all?

Apart from that, what would be the point, what does it prove, if P2s log every sector as P1us without the Captain even knowing that the P2 considers himself in the Captain's seat that sector. It isnt logical, sensible or productive of anything. The PF system prvides the P2 with nothing but some Parker 51 time in his logbook, instead of the solid, essential hands-on coaching and Captaincy skills that he will needs in the future.

Also, the system used 20yrs ago under UK CAA rules was as I have stated. Please tell me when such a major shift in the concept, detail, purpose and execution of P1us was implemented?

We also know that many non eu nations laugh at the way our P2s think they are P1 when PF. Because it is simply laughable.

The last three paragraphs merely back up the logic of the facts in those above, but they must indicate to the logical mind that this change has not occurred by the advent of more recent regulatory systems.

It may also be a reflection of changes in attitude of FOs over the last couple of decades. Then every FO was gagging for knowledge, eagerly picking up every scrap of advice and suggestion from their Captains. P1us was very much a part of this process.
One sometimes wonders if the modern, integrated trained, £100,000 cadet FO isn't in the quite the same business because that eagerness for knowledge is very much less than it was. Often all but absent. Advice/suggestions are sometimes recieved as unwarrannted criticism, and sometimes treated with open scepticism. Maybe the integrated system teaches studes that they know the business so well from the start that they don't need the advice of some old curmudgeon who's been doing it for donkey's years. After all, they know the SOPs inside out and backwards. What else is required? The Command Course will come along in time and then they will be Captains too. Airmanship doesn't feature any more in some of the rigidly SOP driven companies, I suspect. It is a word neither heard nor uttered in mine.

It is easy to see how correctly applied P1us would not be popular or considered desireable under such conditions, which might explain its widespread dilution into the pointless modern parody accepted by many on this forum.
But that doesn't make it correct.

[Spendid Cruiser]

There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that even implies that PF is involved in this process.
I take it you haven't read page 45 yet then?

[Checkboard]

LASORS is an uncontrolled general advice document with no force in law. The (unknown) authors usually don't even bother to provide references for statements in the document.

[Capt Fathom]

If find it rather amusing people will come up with any means to log "command time", when they are not actually in command!

[ant1]

Capt Fathom,

I think it's called wishful thinking. Let me put my Cpt's :cool:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Gentlemen, (Ladies too), It appears that I have been somewhat hasty, not to say incorrect re no mention of PF for which I apologise.

I know that LASORS is not the law too, merely guidance, and have not changed my view on the incorrect and inappropriate way that P1us is commonly (mis)applied in the UK.

I would be interested to see how those with a better grasp of JAA law than me interpret this minefield, with published references to the legal documents involved. Please!

And for those who wish to justify that LASORS lets you claim P1us willy-nilly on handling sectors (it does not) it also states that the Capt has to certify this with a signature. You can't have it both ways. No signature, no logbook entry. Plus quite a few other conditions too.

And why, why, why, if you've done the preparation, couldn't you log it on all sectors? What on earth is there about t/o and landing that makes you capable of acting as P1 but cannot when the other guy is flying? This is so irrational and idiotic it makes a complete nonsense of the whole idea!

What really is happening here is that a shoddily written and poorly defined CAA advice pamphlet (containng no references) is being quoted as "legislation" and is then being widely misapplied against professional standards, logic and the spirit of the law, if not the law itself and to the unfair and unreasonable advantage of certain people in order to gain a Professonal qualification (ie ATPL); yet the UK CAA seems, bizarrely, to be complicit in it.

This travesty as suggested by LASORS is a sad mockery of the real intention of the rules. But just what are those rules? Anyone with the time and effort to clarify?


Even so, as Professionals I think we all know what P1us is; it's purpose, it's rationale, it's value, what it is for, and how it should to be implemented. What is being proposed above is so far from that as to be unrecognisable.


If find it rather amusing people will come up with any means to log "command time", when they are not actually in command!


Quite so!

It just ain't right!

[Wazzoo]

Ok, I'll bite.

First of all, LASORS. No, it isn't the law, but it does however 'bring together all the flight crew licensing information otherwise found in JAR-FCL, the UK ANO, AICs and the old CAPs 53/54' and is written and distributed by the CAA, the aviation authority in the UK, for the guidance of pilots. Thus, you could be forgiven for taking it as law or as close as you can get to it. If it is wrong then you should take that up with the CAA rather than berate the pilots who are guided by it - an intricate and detailed knowledge of JAR-FCL should not be required for the every day commercial pilot. For that matter, I don't believe that LASORS allows for an F/O to claim PICus or P1/S or whatever for every flight they are PF. There are specific requirements that LASORS say that should go along with that which 99% of flights as PF in the RHS don't' meet.

Secondly, it frustrates me no end when Agaricus bisporous implies that there has been some disasterous downtrend in the attitudes of F/Os in recent years and hark back to those golden years when every F/O had worked there way up ab intio and was always receptive, gagging for knowledge and took every captains word to heart. Granted the 18yr old P2F with dads mortgage is a relatively modern disease in the industry but that shouldn't be a reflection on those who've been fortunate to have been put through all their training by one way or other and moved straight into the RHS of a jet transport a/c because lets face it, thats been going on for decades under the likes of BA and other airlines who took a duty of care in helping people into the industry. And along the way every captain has bemoaned how standards have dropped and pilots just aren't the same any more, whether that was the RAF captain of the 40s who distrusted anyone who hadn't commanded a fast jet or the captain of today who has commendably worked his way through from instructing and towing to the LHS of a 744 and resents a new F/O who hasn't had to experience the same hardships.

I put to you that the majority of new F/Os these days are gagging for knowledge and feeding off the experience of their elders and betters at any opportunity, and just like years gone past there are a few who believe themselves above it all and know everything already. At the same time, I would say there is a fair number of Captains who are sitting in the lefthand seat who just don't have a clue, they don't know the systems or the SOPs. And nine times out of ten those very same captains don't have the airmanship to fly without the knowledge and SOPs. They are arrogant, ignorant and should have never made up to the position of commander and it pays for the F/O to sceptical, to treat the god given advice given by such line captains, and on occasion trainers, that contradicts most SOPs and received knowledge as BS. The command course will come along in time and they will have to show they know when to keep quiet and listen and when to speak up and question.

I'm sorry to diverge from the main topic here, but when those above feel the need to add extra barbs to their argument than the facts involved I feel the need to refute them. For every disinterested and arrogant F/O who's had a cushy intro into the industry theres a bitter and ignorant Captain who hasn't maintained his knowledge or skills.

With that said, I move on to the subject in hand.

Given that we have this situation of F/Os requiring a certain number of PIC hours in order to meet the requirements for an ATPL and for those who have moved straight from training to commercial multi-pilot flying - a reality of the industry here in the UK for many decades - without sending them back to blow holes in the clouds in a C152, how are they meant to gain the required PIC hours required?

The original solution envisaged was that the airline would implement a structured training program such that the F/O would be able to gain the required hours through acting as PIC under proper supervision, completing all the required duties of the PIC without intervention and being signed off as such by the actual commander at the end of the flight.

Show me an airline in the UK today that implements such a training program or could care less how their F/Os gained the required hours to meet the requirements for ATPL issue! I've been in the industry for the relatively short time span of two years, had three full time commercial airline jobs in that time and am facing moving on to my fourth and not one of those airlines has any program in place or any interest in how I meet the requirements for an ATPL.

I feel you do a large number of us an injustice implying that we will 'come up with any means to log command time,when they are not actually in command'. Trust me, I've met the bad eggs out there, those who fudge the numbers, log non-existant hours, heck, I've met a guy who logged all his observation/jump seat flights as P2 hours in order to get a job.

I have never done such thing, or ever will. When I apply for a job which asks for the number of PIC/command hours I wouldn't dream of putting down any of my time in the right seat, PF or PM - that all goes in the P2 column.

Yet I'm still faced with the requirement of license issue, with airlines that couldn't care less but with a CAA who does it seems, based on going reports and experience, be offering an alternative method even though it contradict their own documentation.

What am I meant to do? Sit forever with a blue book, pious in my knowledge that I am sticking the letter of the law and not take advantage of the way out provided. Or, be pragmatic about the situation take the route that pretty much every other F/O out there is taking and take advantage of an alternative reading of the rules which is tacitly approved by the CAA? Because lets face it, short of hiring out a SEP and throwing money out the DV I'm not going to gain the required hours otherwise.

[PantLoad]

A good captain can learn a lot from a first officer.....



Fly safe,



PantLoad

[Checkboard]

heck, I've met a guy who logged all his observation/jump seat flights as P2 hours in order to get a job.
If he was assigned by the company as a pilot on the flight, and he was licensed (ie endorsed) on the aircraft, then he has a good argument. If he was assigned duties on the flight, for instance as a safety FO on the jumpseat, observing a trainee, then he is one of the co-pilots on the flight, and required to log it as such!

Wazzoo, excellent post. :ok: I never was placed in your position as I (as most in Australia) had over 3000 hours on piston single and twins when I joined my first airline, and so never had to worry about it. On my command course here in the UK the training flights before my check (when I was still an FO) were briefed as ICUS, flown as ICUS, and each individual flight counter-signed by the training Captain each day.

Here's the thing. FOs, even very experienced FOs, are always surprised when they are made up to Captain in that the job isn't what you expect it to be. I had 5000 hours as an FO (on top of the 3000 piston) before I became a Captain (it's an Australian thing), and I was surprised. It's not about flying the aircraft, not about deciding the fuel, not even about knowing the SOPs. It's about looking to the left when there is a problem, and seeing nothing but your reflection looking back at you.

Seeing someone logging PF sectors as ICUS isn't annoying because "you didn't do it the hard way as I did". It's annoying because you know that they don't know what ICUS really entails. You know that they think it's about touching the controls and suggesting a fuel load.

Were I in your position, I would simply state to the Captain of the day "I still need XXX hours ICUS for my ATPL. May I fly my sectors as ICUS?" and then get the signature in the log book at the end of the day. Once I had the required hours, everything would simply go into the Co-pilot column. I understand that no-one else does this, I understand the CAA turn a blind eye.

Originally, in the days when the DC3 was the amazing big aeroplane to aspire to, Co-pilots began their handling in the cruise (no autopilots), and gradually progressed to climb/descent/approach and finally landing depending on the Captain they were lucky or not to fly with. The regs were written for that situation, and haven't progressed. If the CAA were a pro-active organisation we would have legislation by now along the lines of "an ATPL requires X hrs in Command, or X ICUS, or X hrs Co-pilot (in a two-crew aircraft under an approved Check & Training system). It would solve the discrepancy.

[nicolai]

It's about looking to the left when there is a problem, and seeing nothing but your reflection looking back at you.

The best one sentence summary I've seen yet. That goes for all command leadership, not only aircraft.