Logging Co-Pilot Time in SP Operation

[PaulDamian]

To what extent can co-pilot time be logged when the aircraft (i.e. PA31-350) is a single pilot operation? Can you sit in the RHS and log co-pilot time?

Presumably not.

(Before you go and shoot me down for asking a question that has already been answered previously, I have done a search of the forums and CARs and could not find anything.)

I expect there is a simple answer for this and that it has been discussed.

Cheers,

PD

[KRUSTY 34]

Years ago the company I worked for had a fleet of Chieftains flying RPT. A requirement for single pilot RPT ops is that the aircraft be fitted with a serviceable autopilot. Every now and then the autopilot would become unserviceable, and the aircraft could be dispatched under the MEL. This required a second pilot, rated on type, with a command instrument rating, and holding a CPL or higher. The operation was somewhat "Micky mouse", with no formal training provided, other than a check ride, and left to the Captain's discretion as to how the ops were conducted. This included whether the "co-pilots" were to be given any actual flying, including Take-Offs and landings!

My understanding at the time was that these guys all logged co-pilot time as it was a "bonafide" op sanctioned by the regulator. Otherwise what would be the point? Just under what reg this was applied to, I must admit I haven't a clue, but I'm sure there'd be some single pilot ops out there somewhere that would have a similar proviso for U/S autopilots, or something equally applicable.

[Capt Claret]

Excerpt from CAO 40.1.0
Logging of flight time

10.5 The holder of a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence may log as time in command the total time elapsed during his or her command, in flight, of an aeroplane. He or she may log as co-pilot the total time during which he or she serves as co-pilot.

10.6 The holder of a multi-crew (aeroplane) pilot licence must log his or her flight time as follows:

(a) any flight time during which the holder acts as co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in:

(i) any operation under an AOC that authorises charter operations or regular public transport operations; or

(ii) a private operation;
must be entered in the holder’s log book as time as co-pilot;


10.7 The holder of an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence must log his or her flight time in accordance with whichever of the following is applicable:

(c) any flight time during which the licence holder acts as co-pilot must be entered in his or her log book as time as co-pilot.

I don't believe sitting in the RHS during single pilot ops allows one to log co-pilot time.

[mcgrath50]

Using the chieftan example to my understanding, normally you couldn't log time as it's a single pilot operation but the moment the autopilot fails it becomes a 2 pilot plane and you can.

*waits to be proven wrong*

[Aussie Bob]

In my book (can't be bothered reading the CASA book) a co-pilot serves a function. Are you assisting in any relevant way? Getting landings? Organising the approach plates? Making the captain coffee?

The title of your post says it all - single pilot ops, so what exactly is your function?

[anonymouspilot]

Single pilot ops are just that, one pilot with no copilot. A single pilot aeroplane may be operated two crew under certain conditions. For example if the auto pilot fails, or as per contract requirements. The details will be in the Ops Manual.

[mcgrath50]

I'd have thought if your CASA approved ops manual says u need 2 pilots it IS a regulatory requirment

[Xcel]

^^

Second that... What's your s.o.p's say? It is an approved document by casa. If it has scope to include duties and functions of a copilot position and you are fulfilling those duties and acting as a copilot. Then it don't matter if it's a single pilot approved plane. It only matters if under your company provisions as approved by casa, if it is a 2 crew operation and you have the right to be there and actually doing something.

I have operated on flights where the "contract" required 2 pilots (not 2 crew). Still single pilot ops as far as our sops went so guess what. I sat there logged nothing and twiddled my thumbs. 2 crew and 2 pilots are different things and unless your manuals approve it, then your just another passenger.

[VH-FTS]

Logging co-pilot time in a single-pilot aeroplane is more legit in most cases than Qlink's ICUS program. Unless most of the line captains at Qlink are training captains, and the 'FO' is sitting in the left hand seat, I can't understand how they get away with logging so much ICUS. I don't care what the ops manual says, it is a scam and I can't believe CASA tolerates it.

Back to co-pilot time, once came across a lady who had a GFPT and did a fair bit of private flying with friends in everything from drifters to Bonanzas to twins. She later did her PPL and the flying school starting checking her log book to total her hours. They were amazed to find she'd logged a few hundred hours of co-pilot time on all of these private flights, and she was dirty they now wouldn't contribute to her total time. Who cares that she wasn't endorsed on the twins, didn't know how to fly the other aeroplanes, or in many cases hadn't touched the controls. The fact she was allowed by the pilot to fly from the right hand seat (with a GFPT, many many miles from the flying school) was also dodgy.

[KRUSTY 34]

Absolute crack-up FTS. When I was studying towards my ppl, good mate of mine was starting on his Commercial. He had learned to fly at this particular Bankstown flying school, drove the refueling truck and went on all sorts of ferry and private flights. I came in one day to see the CFI drawing lines through great swaithes of his log book! Fortunately he had enough total time left to meet his CPL requirements, just! Very funny to see though, as prior to that he would tend to walk around with a bit of a swagger. I'll stress that the dodgy times were logged more by ignorance than any deliberate attempt to deceive.

As far as the Qlink ICUS is concerned, well you can thank ICAO annex 1 for that. Personally I think it's a crock', and so much for world's best practice! It should be noted that under ICAO Annex 1, ICUS can only be logged up to meeting the min command hours (500) for the ATPL. After that, the logging of ICUS under ICAO Annex 1 is not legal

Sorry 'bout the slight thread drift!

[Icarus2001]

Thread drift warning...
Unless most of the line captains at Qlink are training captains, and the 'FO' is sitting in the left hand seat, I can't understand how they get away with logging so much ICUS.

This is an old chestnut...

On a long haul flight when the PIC goes back to the bunk for a sleep and leaves FO and his offsider (FO or SO) to mind the shop who do you think is "in command"? That's right the sleeping Captain. Where you sit has little bearing on who is in command. Take an FO undergoing line training to become a captain. The trainee is in the left but the PIC is in the right. Then on his check to line sectors, assuming the check involves some sectors with a line FO in the right seat the pilot in command is in the jump seat.

Manipulating the controls is different to being PIC.

[Tankengine]

Autopilot U/S then 2 pilots required by CASA = co-pilot time.

Any other "single pilot" aircraft no co-pilot time loggable.:=

In the case of customer requirement for 2 pilots then only PIC logs time while both log duty time. [same if they answered phone or refueled airdraft etc.] :zzz:

If command pilot is an instructor then dual may be possible - but on a charter training MAY not be possible! :(

[propblast]

In the case of customer requirement for 2 pilots then only PIC logs time while both log duty time. [same if they answered phone or refueled airdraft etc

Thanks tanky, that answers a question i was about to ask. But can you imagine the conversation with CASA when answering why the is 2 crew but only one logging time. That would keep a couple of FOI's busy for 3 weeks argueing that one back and forth.

If command pilot is an instructor then dual may be possible - but on a charter training MAY not be possible

Should be possible. That should be ICUS. Assuming the other pilot is qualified to give it. If he isn't, then it isn't.

[Exascot]

Then on his check to line sectors, assuming the check involves some sectors with a line FO in the right seat the pilot in command is in the jump seat

We had an incident where the wing tip clipped a set of steps when taxing in. The wing tips are not visible from the jump seat where the aircraft commander was sitting. Guess who carried the can :(

[anonymouspilot]

Any other "single pilot" aircraft no co-pilot time loggable.:=


Tank,
I don't believe that's the case. There are plenty of ops manuals out there with approved multi crew procedures for single pilot aircraft, including checklists and standard calls etc. If its approved by CASA the copilot can indeed log it. Take the Kingair for example, a single pilot aeroplane regularly operated multi crew and you can even get a copilot endorsement!

[Tankengine]

OK, I concede that.!:ok:
Kingair and the like are both single and 2 pilot, so of course up to company [CASA approved] ops manual.
Questions like that could be referred to the companies FOI!:E

[43Inches]

Kingair and the like are both single and 2 pilot


The crew requirements in a flight manual are the minimum crew requirements, you can add more crew as you need/require for the operation. PA31 were equiped for two pilot operations with a co-pilot in mind for the air-taxi/commuter airline business in the USA.

The Metro requires two crew RPT but may be operated single pilot in other operations like freight.

Any other "single pilot" aircraft no co-pilot time loggable.:=


I was advised by CASA to log co-pilot time as safety pilot for a PPL with a medical condition in a single engine piper. I was monitoring the safety of the flight so therefore part of the operating crew.

The key is if you have a legit reason to act as co-pilot and are assigned for the duty you can log the hours as such. Examples; minimum aircraft crew requirement, company operational requirement, regulation compliance. These days as said before CASA would want the company to have specific procedures for multi crew operation to justify you had a specific role as co-pilot.

[tmpffisch]

I operated the PA31 as a co-pilot for about 300hrs last year. This role included either acting as the pilot flying, or when acting as the pilot not flying; all operations of the flight except actually having my hands on the controls.

The POH specifies the aircraft can be operated two crew, our company ops manual requires a co-pilot, CAR's say I can operate as a co-pilot, CAO48 etc requires me to log it as flight-time (though my company prohibits me from doing this).

Story from the Darwin FOI's is that it can't be logged, even though as a crew member, I'm still legally responsible for the conduct of the flight.

Frustrating, as I'd have another 300hrs multi otherwise!

[43Inches]

The POH specifies the aircraft can be operated two crew, our company ops manual requires a co-pilot, CAR's say I can operate as a co-pilot, CAO48 etc requires me to log it as flight-time (though my company prohibits me from doing this).

The POH does not specify that two pilots are required, it only states a minimum of one pilot, as with all other pipers. The Pocono or the T1050 may have been different if the design went through as they were slated to be 15+ seats.

There was at least one RPT operation under regular surveilance in southern australia who had two crew operations on PA31. The co-pilot would log co-pilot when PNF and ICUS when PF and competent to do so. This was all audited by CASA and seemed to be not an issue.

The co-pilot does not have to fly the aircraft, they are there to assist the PIC, which may involve control manipulation. Most multi-crew ops now swap sector for sector so the co-pilot can gain hands on experience and build skill, there is no requirement for this to happen.


Frustrating, as I'd have another 300hrs multi otherwise!


Co-pilot time in aircraft less than 10ton would not be regarded very highly by any prospective employer, I would not lose sleep over the loss.

[Xcel]

To the original poster.

Have you done a crm course? Do you have set procedures as pnf and pf?

This is going around in circles now...

[PaulDamian]

Thanks to all who contributed. I think the answer lies in whether there is a requirement to have a co-pilot, arising from the POH, CASA Approved Ops Manual or CASA regs, such as ICUS.

No, I'm not at that stage yet, so i won't be doing a CRM anythime soon. I'm considering completing my training for ME and CIR where there are multi-eng charters and was wondering what opportunity there would be to increase time with co-pilot time.

I'll have to establish a sound reason before I jump in the RHS with a rating and start logging the time. I know that co-pilot time in a PA31 is not going to be very impressive, but at least its some kind of aeronautical experience.

Yes, I'll check the Ops manual, CP and CASA if I ever get that far!

Cheers,

PD

[VH-FTS]

I know that co-pilot time in a PA31 is not going to be very impressive

Damn straight. Get a haircut, and get a real job.

[machadotaughtme]

Both log command.

My work here is done

[PaulDamian]

Damn straight? Yes, i have a decent haircut and a real day job earning more than I could earn in my dream job as a Dash 8 Cpt or B200 Air Ambulance. Just for the record, I'm not doing it for the money - its just a lifestyle change. I just like flying. Not interested in big shiny jets.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Nobody has quoted the appropriate Regs and CASA definition. (Onya Capt Claret (http://www.pprune.org/members/13009-capt-claret) for referencing CAO 40.1.0 which gives some insight but it is not really intended for this purpose.)

CAR 1988 5.51 Personal log books
...
(2)CASA may give directions in writing requiring the holder of a flight crew licence, a special pilot licence or a certificate of validation to record the matters set out in the direction in his or her personal log book.CASA.GOV.AU Home> (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:HOMEPAGE::pc=PC_90001)Operations (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90002)>Individuals (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90003)>Exams (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90043)>Pilot Log Books:

Definitions
...
Co-pilot means all flight time while serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in commandAirservices Australia as "sponsored by CASA" Airservices Australia - Flying Guides & Publications - Special Operational Information (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flying/specopinfo/)

...
7. Recording of Flight Time.
...
d. Co-Pilot - all flight time while assigned as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged.That's it. No more.

If you are serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in command you can log co-pilot, at least in Australia. Obviously IAW CAR 228 et al to serve in a piloting capacity you must be appropriately licensed, rated, endorsed, appointed or otherwise permitted.

Company SOPs do not matter, your AOC does not matter, your AFM does not matter.

You could have a small private operation taking photos of your own property in a C152 with two qualified pilots taking turns manipulating the controls whilst the other takes photos. One must be PIC and the other could log Co-Pilot. This is a bit laughable I know but somebody please feel free to prove me wrong... CITING ACTUAL AUSTRALIAN RULES.

Nighty night,

FRQ CB

PS I believe that CASA needs to get their interpretation into something with more weight than a flimsy definition on their website and an Airservices Australia document. Why can't they issue a CAO? Maybe because it's not a Safety matter; then again neither are a lot of those crazier CAOs. I think that they tried issuing an AIP/SUP or something once but that's not really appropriate.

[flyingfish7000]

I have had the question about logging copilot time when acting as a "safety pilot" for years. Let's use a SEL Cherokee as an example. The pilot is under the hood and practicing for his/her IFR flight test. He is acting as PIC but is not rated for IFR. As the safety pilot, am I the PIC or SEC? Oh yea, it's his airplane either owned or rented by him.

[Kelly Slater]

If you go on to make aviation your career, having three or four hours logged as Co-pilot in a Chieftan will only cause you embarrassment, regardless of whether or not it is legitimate. Unless you are looking at a significant amount of time, I highly recommend that you don't log it.

[Checkboard]

There is only ONE commander on any flight. If you are at all confused - the commander is the person who calls the shots/makes the final decision. If the engine stops, and one person wants to land in the field ahead, and one wants to turn back - the commander is the one who got their way ;)

They may not be sitting at the controls. If the person who is sitting in the back seat bashes you on the back of the head and says "Land in that field!" .. and you do - then that back seater is the commander. :)

So, if that person under the hood is the person who owns/hired the aircraft & is calling the shots - it doesn't matter if (s)he is under the hood. (S)he is the commander. (In the airlines, the commander may be off the flight deck, asleep in the bunk - but is still the commander and is still logging the time as commander.)

Everyone else who is performing a piloting function (which isn't necessarily wiggling the controls - perhaps working the radio or reading the map) and is licensed for that function - they are gaining experience without being responsible in court for the outcome. Those people gaining experience without being responsible in court for the outcome, must log that experience - and they thus log it as co-pilot time.

... unless they are students. :)

[43Inches]

I have had the question about logging copilot time when acting as a "safety
pilot" for years. Let's use a SEL Cherokee as an example. The pilot is under
the hood and practicing for his/her IFR flight test. He is acting as PIC but is
not rated for IFR. As the safety pilot, am I the PIC or SEC? Oh yea, it's his
airplane either owned or rented by him.


You can not log this time. All you are doing is providing a lookout for other traffic, you are not there to perform any function to navigate or monitor the flight path of the aircraft.

It is different if you are safety for a pilot with a medical condition as you are expected to monitor their performance and take-over if necessary.


If you go on to make aviation your career, having three or four hours logged as Co-pilot in a Chieftan will only cause you embarrassment, regardless of whether or not it is legitimate. Unless you are looking at a significant amount of time, I highly recommend that you don't log it.


Any operator that has a gripe with you logging legal flight time (which is a requirement that you log it if its the case), regardless of how amusing, should be avoided anyway. If you acted as co-pilot, you must log the time and count it within duty limits. If your company directs you to act as a member of the operating flight crew and then directs you to not count the time as flight and duty then something is very wrong.

If you get to an interveiw and the panel asks you to explain why you have PA31 co-pilot time its easy to just say I was legally required to log it.

[Checkboard]

All you are doing is providing a lookout for other traffic
How do you know what their duties were? I didn't see any description in the post?

[Defenestrator]

Slight thread drift.......

What about logging of ICUS in the RH Seat on sectors where the FO (dedicated multi-crew) is the PF. I've lost count of the number of interpretations I've had on this.

D

[training wheels]

A friend who has a family member flying for QF says that's how it's done there. And the same goes for many airlines outside of Australia. The big advantage I guess is that you're not logging co-pilot time, but ICUS which means not having to halve your flight time for total aeronautical experience. A quick path to getting your hours for the issue of the ATPL I guess.

[sheppey]

Not interested in big shiny jets.

Lack of ambition displayed here. Not a good look. Usually means you can't make the grade. if you want a real thrill try flying a big shiny jet between thunderstorm super-cells in the Pacific.

[717tech]

Not everyone wants to fly the big shiny jets...

[Checkboard]

What about logging of ICUS in the RH Seat
Nothing wrong with logging ICUS - provided that is what you are doing.

ICUS is command training. Was it agreed with the commander that this is what would be taking place on this sector? Were the crew briefed that it was a command training sector - and thus ALL decisions should be directed to the FO and not the commander? Is the FO filling out the tech log and other paperwork? If you encounter, say, weather - is the commander just looking at the FO and waiting for a decision on which method will be used to avoid it?

If the FO is just "pilot flying" - they are not ICUS. :hmm:

[Aimpoint]

Qlink seem to think it's ICUS :hmm:

[norwester33]

"Lack of ambition displayed here. Not a good look. Usually means you can't make the grade. if you want a real thrill try flying a big shiny jet between thunderstorm super-cells in the Pacific. "I'm GLAD you 'make the grade' nobhead :D

[Capt Fathom]

What is this obsession with logging flight time you ARE NOT entitled to!

You are only fooling yourself!

[Tankengine]

Training Wheels,
The QF pilots doing ICUS already all have their ATPL and Command Endorsement.
They are two of the requirements for QF ICUS flying.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

The QF pilots doing ICUS already all have their ATPL and Command Endorsement.
They are two of the requirements for QF ICUS flying.
as well as:

Appointed by the Operator and ACTING as if in Command.

FRQ CB

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I know this is a bit of a dredge of an older topic, but considering;
5.105 What does a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?
(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence: (a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.

5.166 What does an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do? (1) An air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.
How many of those logging co-pilot time here in somthing like a Chieftain or C400 series were sure their "Captain" held an ATPL?:hmm:

[BleedingAir]

MIHC,

Does "multi-pilot aircraft" not refer to mandatory multi-crew aircraft? Not simply a single-pilot aircraft that happens to have two crew on the day, such as a PA31?

This has always been pretty simple to me, if you're crewing an aircraft you have to log something, and co-pilot time is pretty much by definition time logged when the other categories don't apply (ie. PIC, ICUS, Dual). It's ridiculous to suggest you can't have two pilots crewing a PA31, required or not - and the second pilot must log something.

[morno]

Question - To legitimately log co-pilot hours on something like a PA31, does the operator not have to have CASA approved multi-crew procedures?

morno

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Does "multi-pilot aircraft" not refer to mandatory multi-crew aircraft?

By certification or legislation, I would say yes. If a 172 had a second pilot you would legitimatly (read as credibly) class that as co-pilot time?

IMO you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for hours if you do.

The law is clear however that for CHTR and RPT (not that you would do the latter in a 172) if you did, the PIC would have to hold an ATPL.
Again I ask how many of those logging co-pilot time for their PA-31 types are sure their PIC had an ATPL?:confused:

[BleedingAir]

I can think of multiple operators who operate >5700kg turbine aircraft on CHTR ops, multi-crew, on occasion with 2 x CPLs crewing the aircraft. One logging PIC, one logging co-pilot, or possibly ICUS from time to time. I can think of another handful of operators that crew single-pilot aircraft (B200, C441, C404, PA31 etc.) with 2 crew to meet contract requirements. Not always an ATPL up front.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Look at it this way. A Citation 1/SP (501) only requires single pilot, but certification for the Citation 1 (500) requires 2. Rules here say multi-crew PIC must hold an ATPL. Does not say anything about weight. Nothing about ATPL does (common misconception).

If operators are contractually requiring multi-crew (ie. not required by certification) then either the PIC must hold an ATPL and the operators and pilots are operating illegally, or the 2nd pilot shouldn't be logging co-pilot time. Can't have it both ways. As I said, would it seem right to log co-pilot with two people flying a C172? It's laughable! When there is a co-pilot rating for a PA-31 or B200, then the conditions change.

If the aircraft is only certified single pilot operation, you can't "create" your own hours. I've flown multi-crew in Caravans, but haven't logged a single hour as co-pilot. ICUS would be a legal way to do it, but the PIC would need to have been approved under the company ops manual as at least a supervisory or equivalent qualification. Both pilots could count full hours toward total aeronautical experience then, not just the half co-pilot time.:ok:

[BleedingAir]

Well I'm not one to argue hard about things I'm not an expert on, and this is one of those areas. Maybe I'll learn something here.

Here's a real-life example... How does a Metro 23 on CHTR ops flown by 2x CPLs fit into the picture?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Pax or Freight?
I heard many years ago (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) that freight only requires single pilot. Any Metro drivers out there clarify this one?

Either way, CAR 5.166 is clear. CHTR or RPT multi-crew, the PIC requires an ATPL. If they don't require two pilots, then CPL as PIC is fine. CAO 40.1.0 App 1A Pt 4 lists a Metro Co-pilot endorsement so if not required (ie. ATPL not required) and they are flying 2 pilots by choice, this is debatably loggable as co-pilot time.:confused:

I fail to see co-pilot PA-31 endorsements on the list, though.

WRT the 2xCPLs, there may be a possibility of a CAR 217 organisation being given some kind of dispensation, however I don't think this big of a reduction on the CAR priviledges would be likely.

[Defenestrator]

Not withstanding the references mentioned above, CAO 40.1.0 para 10.5 details when co-pilot time can be logged.

The relief for the ATPL requirement for a single pilot certified aircraft ie. Metro comes from CAR 5.105. Then comes down to who can log what.

Dare say CAR 5.105 will receive an amendment at some point to stop CPL's flying aircraft heavier than 5700kg's in commercial pax carrying ops. Apparently CASA hate it.

D

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Agreed on those points, but the argument centres around legally logging time for a position that has been made up to satisfy a company requirement.

If the aircraft (not the company) requires a co-pilot, then there will be a co-pilot rating associated with it and you are required to log it as per Para 10.5.

Para 8A already introduces a minimum time requirement for several types (including Metro 3) before they can be flown as PIC, regardless of license held, but can see CASA taking it further.

[BleedingAir]

MIHC, pax CHTR. Used that example as I can think of 2 operators I'm very familiar with that fly the Metro 23 on pax charter with CPL PICs. There are other operators doing the exact same with the B1900.

In all cases, they can check CPLs as "charter captains", and the requirement for an ATPL for RPT ops as PIC remains. They are obviously commuter class turboprops that are certified for SP operation, but are always operated multi-crew in commercial pax ops in Aust.

Thanks for the refs both of you, I'll have a read.

[LeadSled]

As far as the Qlink ICUS is concerned, well you can thank ICAO annex 1 for that. Personally I think it's a crock', and so much for world's best practice! It should be noted that under ICAO Annex 1, ICUS can only be logged up to meeting the min command hours (500) for the ATPL. After that, the logging of ICUS under ICAO Annex 1 is not legal

Krusty 34,
So you think it's a crock, but somehow most of the rest of the airline world logs per the rules in Annex 1.

Once again, Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step. I don't think so, I'll go with the democratic vote of most of the rest of the aviation world as to what Annex 1 means ---- and what Australia used to do, until one joker in DCA got a bee in his bonnet.

The one thing that it seems is impossible to get through the thick skulls of many Australian pilots is that ICUS is ICUS, it is NOT PIC. Is that so hard to understand. When you are logging ICUS, you are logging ICUS, period, full stop, end of story.

Just as a starter, look at what US/CA/NZ/SA/UK/SIN do, then tell me they are all wrong and Australia has it right.

By the way, how did you work out the that ICUS cuts out after you have reached the minimum requirements for an ATR/ALTP/ATPL/whatever. QANTAS ( not just QLink) doesn't think so. I will be fascinated with the answer.

As I have said many timed before, all the stupid Australian approach does is disadvantage young pilots looking for decent jobs in the international market. At least the QF group has got this one right.

Tootle pip!!

[Lynchpin]

The key term lies in the CAR's "multi pilot aeroplane" not "multi pilot operation". It's possible to have aircraft such as a Beech 1900 operated by 2 crew by virtue of its lack of autopilot, where neither pilot holds an ATPL, and the aircraft is conducting pax carrying charter. The aircraft is a single pilot certified aircraft but due to cao 20.18 requires a second pilot to be carried. This requirement does not automatically render the aircraft a "multi pilot aeroplane", however a "multi crew operation" is now under way. Most operators of the aircraft stipulate 2 crew in their operations manuals, and as the AC is >5700kgs a Casa approved CAR 217 check and training system is required. The crew including co pilots are trained under this system and checked under this system. If Legitimate 2 crew procedures are adhered to the co-pilot is performing a vital role in the operation, and is certainly entitled and required to log co pilot time. They are logging this regardless of whether they are poling or not as mentioned above. As for ICUS, the crew member logging it must be performing all functions of captain, under the supervision of a 217 approved training captain,(this is the case for this particular type of operation) again logged regardless of pole time. Other simpler operations may simply require a chief pilot approval for ICUS to be conducted.

Cheers

[Counter-rotation]

This all seems very confusing and open to interpretation... :confused:

Perhaps we should rewrite the CARs?


:}

[Roger Greendeck]

Flight time works both ways. It is not an option to log it or not. You are either performing the duty and hence are required to log it or not performing a duty and hence there is nothing to log.

Suggestions such as 'a few hours as co-pilot in... aren't worth logging' are unhelpful as there is nothing in the act or orders to allows you not to log time because it wont look good on a CV.

As far as how the hours stack up. If you are trying to get a licence you need to meet the hours requirements. ).1 hours short is close but still stops you getting the licence. If you do not log hours you are entitled to you are seeing yourself off. There are plenty of arguments about the quality of different types of hours sometimes it works for you and some times it works against you.

If you believe that the duty you are performing meets the definition of co-pilot time then log it but be prepared to defend your position if challenged.

[ga_trojan]

Question - To legitimately log co-pilot hours on something like a PA31, does the operator not have to have CASA approved multi-crew procedures?

Nope. We had single pilot ops but if the autopilot was u/s then you could carry a copilot and then fly IFR. That was in the DDG a CASA approved document. The copilot had to have a minimum of a current IR and a endo on the aircraft.

Some mining companies also stipulate two crew at all times. How are you going to log that?

[BleedingAir]

ga_trojan,

You have illustrated my point exactly. I was part of a couple of these operations (although for the record have not personally logged co-pilot time in anything <5700kg). Lots of PA31/C404 ops that are 2-crew operated, charter cat, under companies/ops manuals with no formal multi-crew procedures. The second pilot may do nothing more than hand fly in the cruise to give P1 a break, and radios at other times. What are they supposed to log? It cannot be argued that they're not allowed to fly the aircraft at times (assuming they're current and endorsed, of course), even if the aeroplane has no formal co-pilot rating.

It's not PIC, dual, or ICUS. So they don't log anything?

[MyNameIsIs]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.106

What kind of aeroplane may a commercial (aeroplane) pilot fly?
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, unless the holder also holds:
(a) a type endorsement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.01.html#type_endorsement) or class endorsement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.01.html#class_endorsement); and
(b) if the aeroplane has a special design (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.01.html#special_design_feature) feature (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.01.html#special_design_feature) -- a special design feature endorsement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.01.html#special_design_feature_endorsement);


There's why you can fly a PA31 etc as Co-Pilot without there being a seperate co-pilot rating in the CAOs, MIHC.


Lynchpin has it correct. "Multi-Pilot Aeroplane" is whether or not the plane requires 1, or more than 1 pilot, according to the certification in the flight manual.

If the aircraft says you need one pilot, then that's how the rule is applied. Further bits like client requirements, u/s a/p etc does not then change the flight manual certification to multi-pilot! You are still flying a single-pilot aeroplane because nothing has changed, just flying it with multiple pilots.

If needing an ATPL was the case, how come so many things like Metros and B1900s can get around with CPL drivers on pax chtr for all these years?


Think of this extreme.
How would the Chief Pilot of a VFR piston company (who is NOT required to hold an ATPL) ICUS any of their pilots on a charter run if all of a sudden the C210 became a "multi pilot aeroplane" with the two of them onboard??????

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

That's why??
Completely irrelevant, MNII.
Actually, CAR 5.106 explains that to fly an aircraft like a C421 (or C414), you not only need to hold a C402/421 endorsement, but a Pressurisation DFE as well. Works for Malibus too. It might fall under the SE<5700kg category, but you can't fly it unless you have Px in your logbook. (You CANNOT fly it if you don't use the pressurisation system either.:rolleyes: Would be like flying a C206 without a CSU and leaving the prop in fine!)

How would the Chief Pilot of a VFR piston company (who is NOT required to hold an ATPL) ICUS any of their pilots on a charter run if all of a sudden the C210 became a "multi pilot aeroplane" with the two of them onboard??????
Your ICUS quote has no relevance whatsoever to multi-crew operation. You are refering to a training & checking procedure.

Lynchpin seems to provide the best explanation so far, but if Metros and B-1900s are only single pilot certifiied for all ops, then why are there co-pilot endorsements for these types?

From another point of view, there are co-pilot endos for Kingairs and Twotters too. What are the categories of operation where 2 pilots are required?
Is the existance of this endorsement purely to satisfy the autopilot scenario?
I'm not inflexible. This would seem to support the case for co-pilot time if it is the sole purpose.

If not, then again I'm asking if there is some CAR217 dispensation, because CAR 5.105 seems to be pretty straight forward.
A CPL may fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as PIC in any operation other than CHTR or RPT.
If there is a reason the CAR's don't apply (defence of hours listed in your logbook notwithstanding), I do want to hear it!

I think everyone will agree the rules need to be amended to remove any confusion. Second Counter-Rotation's motion.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

I believe this was an AIC some time ago but for now all I can find is this info taken directly from the CASA website:

Co-pilot means all flight time while serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in command. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Pilot Log Books (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90100)


Seems pretty clear cut to me. It doesn't really matter how 'meaningful' you think sitting in the right hand seat of a SP aeroplane operating the radio or giving the PIC a break in the cruise is, I can't see how it would be anything other than legally logable co-pilot time (possibly illegal not to log it?).


It's just as correct logging co-pilot time in a C172 as it is in an A380 (despite the slight workload difference:E) if that's what you're doing as far as I can see.


Also lynchpin/MNII have it correct re: single/multi pilot aeroplane. That one is clearly defined.

[ga_trojan]

Lynchpin seems to provide the best explanation so far, but if Metros and B-1900s are only single pilot certifiied for all ops, then why are there co-pilot endorsements for these types?

From another point of view, there are co-pilot endos for Kingairs and Twotters too. What are the categories of operation where 2 pilots are required?
Is the existance of this endorsement purely to satisfy the autopilot scenario?
I'm not inflexible. This would seem to support the case for co-pilot time if it is the sole purpose.
I vaguely recall that there is a passenger limitation on single pilot operations. I think above a certain number of pax you need two crew + GPWS/TAWS B. 9 and 14 are two numbers that mean something but I can't remember which one is what.

That's why these aircraft have two crew qualifications. So you can fly the aircraft to the certified limits. I don't believe you can fly a DHC-6/B1900D/M23 etc Single pilot with 16/19 pax on board. The single pilot bit is for ferry and/or freight only operations. For the guys flying M23 with a CPL and pax I'll bet there is a passenger limit. He wouldn't be blasting off with 19 pax.

End of the day if you are legally required for whatever reason to be in the RHS and you are endorsed and have a IR (if required for the operation) it is copilot time. Otherwise it could be argued that you are forging flight time by not logging it.

[glekichi]

The existance, or lack thereof, of a copilot endorsement is completely irrelevant, I'd have thought.

[Lynchpin]

I vaguely recall that there is a passenger limitation on single pilot operations

This is a requirement for AOC's authorising single pilot RPT, single pilot RPT shall not be conducted in excess of 9 adult pax. Also some experience requirements for the PIC (something in the order of 700 total, with some ME and IF thrown if I recall).