PIC time before the airlines

[NZ744]

Hi All,

How necessary/ beneficial is it to have a lot of PIC time when applying to the major airlines in Australia or New Zealand? How much is considered acceptable? Where an ATPL issue requires a certain amount of PIC time, how do first officers already within an airline obtain their ATPL if they don't hold any PIC time other than the 100 or so hours they obtained during CPL training? Does this vary much between Oz and NZ?

Cheers

[NIK320]

That's only really an issue if your a cadet.

Traditionally you have spent several hundred hours in command flying GA aircraft before airlines.

I'm under the impression that the airlines plan to give you ICUS time eventually when (if) they upgrade you.

[Sqwark2000]

you can credit 50% of your copilot time towards the requirements of the next licence, though I'm not sure if that works for the PIC (250?)requirement or it's just for the total time (1500) requirement

[The Green Goblin]

We are not talking several hundred hours fellas. We are talking several thousand hours.

Most guys getting into major airlines have over 3000 hours TT and are regional airline captains. This means they will generally have over 2000 hours command time.

To become a regional airline Captain you need at least 500 hours multi engine command.

To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.

The other option is a cadetship, however many are traps and well documented on here.

[NZ744]

Some interesting responses...

What about this hypothetical situation:

Pilot Bloggs finishes his CPL at the local flying school and gets a job flying light multi engine turbo props as a first officer. Without getting command he gets a job flying a larger turbo prop or 737 etc, again as a first officer. Say he has 2000 to 3000 hours as a FO with only 100 hours PIC from flight school. How would he meet PIC requirements to be issued an ATPL for a command upgrade? Can all ICUS be credited or do you need real PIC time? Again, does this vary between OZ and NZ?

Cheers

[NIK320]

Oz you can have up to 150 icus in your 250 cmd. No idea for NZ.
As long as you have have more than 100cmd from your flying school, that airline can give you icus before the upgrade.
From a practical standpoint, I would imagine that will only happen when they run out of pilots that fit GG's description with their thousands of hours.
Taking a guess on that last sentence so happy to be proven wrong.

[RENURPP]

I don't remember Bloggs completing his CPL at the AeroClub?

He would struggle with a turbo prop, he may with some excellent training make the grade as F/O, and to the best of my knowledge has never flown a 737.

[The Green Goblin]

When they run out of guys fitting my description they will hire contract pilots on 457 visas to fill the gaps.

Already has happened and will happen again.

The only way they will take a pilot without the required experience is if they stand to make money out of it, have no risk and can get a fairly one sided return from your employment.

[smiling monkey]

What about this hypothetical situation:

Not a hypothetical situation mate. There are a number of Aussie and possibly New Zealand (they look the same) pilots in Asia flying for local airlines starting with the bare CPL/IR and around 100 hours PIC time. As there are no recognized ICUS in these parts of the world, it would be interesting to see how they get the extra 150 hours PIC to qualify for the ATPL on their Aussie license.

[bagchucka]

To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.

not completely true - more than one way to skin a cat. nothing stopping you getting a twin job very early on in your career. don't let people fool you into thinking you need to do some magical single-engine 'apprenticeship' before you can touch a twin.

[Captain Nomad]

Bagchuka, I note your location as 'Perth' and your join date being as recent as 2009. What you might think is possible and the 'norm' right now is nothing like what it used to be. GG was stating the bare minimum of what used to be required for the normal progression through the ranks. There would be plenty of guys on here who could think of people who have even done way more hours than this before getting multi time.

People do have the opportunity to advance faster these days but this can sometimes lead to gaps in knowlege and skills. I have witnessed this in turbo prop operations where because companies are desperate and short on options will try guys with less than the usual experience requirements. Some of these people might make it on a steep learning curve with very good training. Others don't make the cut when if they had only been a few years further into their career would have made the step up quite okay. Be careful what you wish for...

[RENURPP]

What you might think is possible and the 'norm' right now is nothing like what it used to beYou got that right, 3000 hrs would not have got you close to a regional back in the 70's 80's or 90's.

[Anthill]

You got that right, 3000 hrs would not have got you close to a regional back in the 70's 80's or 90's.


..and that was as a FO :cool:

[Slasher]

I'm bloody sure yonks ago some mob operated a scheduled
parcel service in a C150 between Essendon and Moorabbin.
It was quicker to fly VFR than IFR (when the wx permitted).

The driver had to have a full ATPL.

[bagchucka]

point taken gents but it's not 1984 anymore. you have 28 year old captains on 737s.

i'm not advocating that getting into an airline asap is a good thing - i did my apprenticeship just like alot of other people did. sure it mightn't have taken me 10 years to get a sniff at the airlines but those days are long gone fellas. provided the guy is capable, has a good check and training system and meets the required standard then you can't chip him.

i think it's become alot more about balance and the individual these days. just because a guy does 5 years in ga busting his chops on single/twin pistons and perhaps a turbine twin shouldn't automatically grant him passage to the right seat of an airliner.

we could argue til the cows come home about that one, but i'll stick by my original comment - you don't need to do 1000hrs on a single before being given the keys to a twin.

[RENURPP]

No your partly correct, some people don't, and I believe they are in the serious minority.
I base my opinion (and it is only MY opinion) on 30+ years of flying 10 of which was instructing, another 12 check and training and I can tell you the current day standards do not make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Now we have university degreed, low houred pilots who believe they should have been jet Captains the day after they went solo. Along with their attitude is the perception that young guys have nothing to learn from the more experienced. Never was the case and shouldn't be now.

You would think with the resources available today that were not available all that long back, the internet, mobile phones, FAX machines, modern aircraft with all their modern equipment, (TCAS, EGPWS, wx radar, FMS,) the list goes on, aviation standards would be much higher than they ever were. Maybe they are, but I have this feeling that sooner rather than later one of these serious incidents we read about so regularly, are going to turn into a serious accident. I used to feel safe in the passenger seat, now I like to have that control column within easy reach. It some times worries me to the leave the flight deck to have a squirt.

[noclue]

As an FO that has heard plenty of stories re cadets without GA exp I have a hypothetical question;
If a captain and an FO were to only fly with each other whenever they flew for, say 2 years, gathering say, 1000hrs-1500hrs flying time together. Now they have both experienced exactly the same situations, and as a crew, have both worked through the same (pardon the pun) ups and downs together. How can one pilot have gained more experience than the other?..

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.
not completely true - more than one way to skin a cat. nothing stopping you getting a twin job very early on in your career. don't let people fool you into thinking you need to do some magical single-engine 'apprenticeship' before you can touch a twin.

This isn't "not completely true", it's 100% true.

This is what you need to aim for and if you're lucky enough to fly a multi engine aeroplane earlier than that then good for you. You are in the minority.

What this means is you will still need to fly over the 1500tt to get an ATPL, you'll still need over 2000 hours before most regional airlines will look at you, and you'll still need multi crew time before a serious airline will look at you. Multi crew command time is most favourable.

What does this mean if you fly a piston twin earlier? You'll be exposed to something that'll probably kill you if you have a serious failure for longer.

I felt much safer in a high performance single than the usual piston twin suspects. They are good for 500 hours then get out of there!

[bagchucka]

This isn't "not completely true", it's 100% true.

This is what you need to aim for and if you're lucky enough to fly a multi engine aeroplane earlier than that then good for you. You are in the minority.

how can in it be 100% true when you yourself acknowledge that some people are fortunate enough to fly a twin before this magic 1000hr milestone you speak of.

i'm all for gaining as much experience as possible before entry to the airlines, but to say you must have 1000hrs single before you can touch a twin is a blatant lie.

[RENURPP]

Noclue, that's a rather strange, maybe naive question.
Firstly, experience is not simply hours in a log book. Experience is learnt by "experiencing" different situations and learning from them. If you spend 5000hrs climbing to 10,000 feet overhead an airfield, dropping parachutes and nothing else, you are experienced at doing exactly that, not much else. In a general context I don't consider that person an experienced pilot, I do however consider them an experienced local parachute pilot. I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in crap weather doing an NDB approach with them.
Same could be said for an instructor who has done nothing but basic training for GFPT, or a charter pilot that has never ventured more than a couple of hundred miles outside there normal base.

As for your scenario, to become a Captain one would hope he had some previous experience? That would be the difference. That's not to say some F/O's are not more experienced than the captains they fly with, as a lot are, especially these dys.

Not that long back the company i work for employed two new pilots.
1 came straight off some sort of basic Cessna twin. The other had been a chief pilot for a turbo prop operator then an f/o on a similar jet. He had previous experience with FMS, weather radar, two crew , cabin crew, flight director, TCAS and the list goes on. As they started the same time, their seniority and time to command was very similar. Both were considered by the troops as ok pilots when it came to manipulative skills. They both did ok in the sim and on line checks, you have to achieve a minimum standard, not be the ace of the base.
Which one would you like you throw your family behind when things were tough?
Over time the first guy will catch up, but hey, that's what experience is all about


The captain in your situation would have a lot of spare capacity to Obsorb what's going on around him. The F/O is possibly just holding on for dear life.

Have you ever taught any one to drive or fly? A simple experiment is to talk to the student whilst they are working hard, during approach, or in heavy traffic see if they answer you and see if their response makes any sense. That's what Expwrince allows.

[noclue]

"Not that long back the company i work for employed two new pilots.
1 came straight off some sort of basic Cessna twin. The other had been a chief pilot for a turbo prop operator then an f/o on a similar jet. He had previous experience with FMS, weather radar, two crew , cabin crew, flight director, TCAS and the list goes on. As they started the same time, their seniority and time to command was very similar. Both were considered by the troops as ok pilots when it came to manipulative skills. They both did ok in the sim and on line checks, you have to achieve a minimum standard, not be the ace of the base.
Which one would you like you throw your family behind when things were tough?
Over time the first guy will catch up, but hey, that's what experience is all about."


I agree with that, but surely the minimum exp would be met by both the following pilots,
1) an FO with 4-5yrs company FO exp ~2500hrs FO time and,
2) a former GA pilot, 1yr company exp ~700hrs FO time
(keeping in mind the following)

"Experience is learnt by "experiencing" different situations and learning from them. If you spend 5000hrs climbing to 10,000 feet overhead an airfield, dropping parachutes and nothing else, you are experienced at doing exactly that, not much else. In a general context I don't consider that person an experienced pilot, I do however consider them an experienced local parachute pilot. I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in crap weather doing an NDB approach with them."

[RENURPP]

It depends whether your talking minimum required experience or minimum desired experience.

An F/O isn't meant to be a student pilot, he is there to assist the captain, and possibly take over the role should something untoward happen. Good luck with that and 700 hrs and a couple of minor issues thrown in. Remember this could happen on day 1, it's not a "four years later issue" at least it shouldn't be.

[jkeg]

We are not talking several hundred hours fellas. We are talking several thousand hours.

Most guys getting into major airlines have over 3000 hours TT and are regional airline captains. This means they will generally have over 2000 hours command time.

To become a regional airline Captain you need at least 500 hours multi engine command.

To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.

The other option is a cadetship, however many are traps and well documented on here.

Totaly agree with The Green Goblin here this sum things up fairly nicely.

Alot of operates wont let you fly there twins with less than a decent
amount of hours otherwise there insurance premiums are through the roof.

We had a min of 1000hrs TT to be able to get a rating on our C208 because of the insurance. I am not saying all places are like that but it is a factor.

Jkeg

[noclue]

Just because someone has more "experience" than a companies minimum required, does not make them any safer than someone that just meets them. Of course, on both sides of the argument, there will be some exceptions.

I'm sure there are more than a few FO's that would agree, there are plenty of captains with 10's of 1000's of hrs "exp" and yes while they can fly day to day, pushing the aircraft to the very limit of acceptable operation, there performances in the sim/real life issues is/are far from polished.
I'll add to the above, (but reserve for another thread) the CRM/team work of said "experienced" captains

[Captain Nomad]

Noclue, you are producing ideas that sound an aweful lot like 'management speak.' With reference to the thread topic of 'PIC' time, you seem to be quite happily disregarding the value of 'command' time and all that it entails. It is not fair to put it on par with a copilot logging the same hours. Command experience involves carrying the responsibilty and accountability of all aspects of the flight. Making decisions and living with the results. It is a very different kettle of fish flying with another person beside you to 'lean' on as opposed to being on your own in that department. Of course you may feel that someone who has had experience making decisions and being in a 'leadership' responsibility role is no more safe than the next guy who has just finished his cadetship...

Why is it that almost everyone everywhere in all sorts of industries, sports, professions - you name it - understands the value of experience except for for those who live in aviation management world?!

Bagchucka, it may not be 1984 anymore - you're dead right, but the traps of flying an aeroplane didn't die out in the 90's either. That is why I made the comments I did about quick progression. I still stand by my statement that quick progression comes with traps.

[Checkboard]

Now they have both experienced exactly the same situations, and as a crew, have both worked through the same (pardon the pun) ups and downs together. How can one pilot have gained more experience than the other?..
... because their experience of exactly the same situation isn't exactly the same. :)

One pilot is startled/concerned with a situation, looks to the left and is reassured (and yes, sometimes frustrated) by not having the final decision.

The other looks to the left and sees nothing but their own reflection looking back at them.

[ScarabofRa]

PIC is ultimately responsible for all decisions throughout a flight; CP provides input and assistance.

Whether PIC of a C172 or a B777, being in command means the buck stops with you. :=

[DeltaT]

As long as the supply is high enough, the experience demanded will also be high.
Drop the supply and the experience level required comes down.
You don't need me to remind you about the lower experience levels of pilots doing the exact same level of job in other parts of the world, and in more trying conditions than auz/nz.

[neville_nobody]

You don't need me to remind you about the lower experience levels of pilots doing the exact same level of job in other parts of the world, and in more trying conditions than auz/nz.

But with with better facilities. How many FO's in Europe on a 737/A320 fly into non controlled aerodromes with 30m runways and non precision non runway aligned approaches?

At the end of the day though experience counts for nought in this country. If airlines cannot get anyone they will just get the government to change the rules for them.

[LeadSled]

As there are no recognized ICUS in these parts of the world ----

Absolutely and comprehensively wrong, most of the rest of the world (unlike the nonsense in Australia surrounding ICUS) comply with ICAO Annex 1 rules for logging pilot hours.

What we call ICUS goes by various names in various countries, but the result of ICAO compliance is the same--- as long as you have the 100 actual PIC, meeting the rest of the licensing criteria will never be a problem.

In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS, Command Practice/ description of choice where you happen to be. And the F/O doesn't need an ATPL/ALTP/ATR/name of choice license of a First Class/P1/Command/name of choice endorsement on the aircraft being flown to log P1 U/S/ICUS/dah/dah.

The anal Australian non-ICAO ( we used to be compliant once , in this area at least, back in the G.O.Ds,) seriously career disadvantages young (or any age) Australian pilots in the international job market ----- all in the name of safety, you understand.

Of course, no 457 visa pilot would ever have any P-51 or VH-BIC hours, would they????

Tootle pip!!

[DeltaT]

But with with better facilities. How many FO's in Europe on a 737/A320 fly into non controlled aerodromes with 30m runways and non precision non runway aligned approaches?

For sure.
You need '000s of hours to cope with doing that do you??? :rolleyes:
...Everyone does it a little differently, EU have Cat 2-3 approaches on a regular basis, iceing/de-iceing issues, PAR approaches, SIDS and STARS like playing a chess manoeuvre, and PNG does GPS approaches down through mountain range ravines, I'm sure the list goes on.
Everyone gets trained for where they fly to do what they do.
The hours required in Australia is NOT because of the skill, its supply and demand. People have already said about what higher experience was required so many years ago to get the same job and now over time its come down, but its still high by comparison to the rest of the world.
The 500multi PIC non-ICAO requirement that affect so many early on is farcical, and as Leadsled points out with other rules does nothing for the Australian job market.

[bagchucka]

leadsled

a certain dash 8 operator in aus allows certain f/o's to log icus on their sectors (and co-pilot time on the sectors flown by the captain)

the aircraft is not operated any differently regardless of whether or not it's an icus sector.

there's only one tiller in the dash, the captain always performs the start and he's gonna have the final say as it's his nuts on the chopping board.

personally i think this is nothing more than abuse of a system - i.e horse****.

it's used purely to boost the co-pilots total aeronautical experience and it doesn't stop once they gain an atpl - it is used beyond that to gain the 2000 aeronautical experience required for a command.

icus was great in a chieftain, where the guy under supervision flew it from the left and gained experience all under a watchful eye.

the dash program is a wank.

but i'm keen to hear your thoughts.

[smiling monkey]

Absolutely and comprehensively wrong, most of the rest of the world (unlike the nonsense in Australia surrounding ICUS) comply with ICAO Annex 1 rules for logging pilot hours.

So, leadsled, if these pilots are applying for an Australian ATPL, would they not then be following (in your words) the 'nonsense' ICUS rules that apply in Australia regardless of what rules apply in the country of their employment?

[Checkboard]

In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS,...

Yes, they do - and in doing so they are NOT compliant with the requirements to log ICUS/P! u/S etc. :hmm:

...the biggest difference is the authorities don't care. :uhoh:

[DeltaT]

a certain dash 8 operator in aus allows certain f/o's to log icus on their sectors (and co-pilot time on the sectors flown by the captain)


HAHAHA!! :D

...THIS IS WHAT THE PILOTS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD DO!! :ugh:



This is what myself and others are getting at, your ICUS rules and other things are unique to Australia!

I don't think some of you realise just how much of the AU regs out there are non ICAO. Heck your airspace designation has only just become compliant in the past year.

[mcgrath50]

Are you sure DeltaT?

The only change I remember is the new Class D replacing GAAP and that's not even ICAO, it's a hodgepodge of ICAO, our own doing and FAA :ugh:

[LeadSled]

bagchucka,
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described ------

But, of course, bagchucka, ICAO and the rest of the world have got it wrong, and good old Australia have got it right (but had it wrong in the days of the good old DCA), must be great, being so certain you are the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.

No wonder Mick Toller was heard to describe Australia as an aviation Galapagos, where aviation has developed all sorts of strange mutations in splendid isolation from the rest of the aviation world -----

I just hope bagchucka is an accurate description, you certainly shouldn't be any where near the controls of an aeroplane.

And for all that we have a very ordinary safety record ---- great result.

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: In UK, it is logged as P1 U/S, does not have to be in the LHS, and only needs a CPL ---- indeed, in the right circumstances, a PPL can log P1 U/S, last time I looked at the UK CAA on the subject.
PS 2: Checkboard, Why don't you go and read ICAO Annex 1 re. logging hours, instead of further airing your rather profound ignorance ---- it is Australia that is non-compliant, not everybody else --- wake up !!

[Checkboard]

PS 2: Checkboard, Why don't you go and read ICAO Annex 1 re. logging hours, instead of further airing your rather profound ignorance ---- it is Australia that is non-compliant, not everybody else --- wake up !!

PS - Leadsled, as a working pilot in Europe, I don't read ICAO Annexes as they have no force in law, being recommendations only (I know you are, but what am I? :p)

If you weren't so ignorant yourself, you might have recommended JAR-FCL 1.080(c) para (5) for my further reading.

And I stand by my earlier statements.

[bagchucka]

bagchucka,
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described

i described a situation where an operator is allowing the logging of icus purely to circumvent the hour requirement for an atpl and a command upgrade.

is that the intent of icus in your mind?

[Anthill]

Slasher, Yeah I remember the operation with the C150 where you had to have a Senior Commercial Licence to fly it. I thing it was because of some Victorian state govenment requirement in the contract ( ...pilot must have ATPL or eqivalent...:confused:).

Ah, the old days...

Pel-Air advertised for FOs - minimum of 3000 and 2000 ME command?

500 hrs for C206 jobs.

5000 hrs for a Kingair job.

3000 hrs might get you an interview at Kendell.

These guys now flying C441s with 1000hrs: with that experience 25 years ago, you wouldn't be qualified to wash the aeroplane , let alone fly it :eek:

I have observed from the jump seat some of these 28 year old jet captains and one common theme is lack of depth in knowledge. ie can't use wx radar to save their life...and one day they might have to :rolleyes:. It used to be seen as an apprentiship to become a Captain and now I can see how gaps in knowledge and other deficiencies are resulting in poor mentoring for the next generation of FOs.

The back ground on this ICUS thing.. In the mid 1990s, CAO 40 allowed for pilots with a command type (1st class endorsement) rating to log hours flown as P-I-C time. Up until then, the airlines gave their FOs either 'co-pilot' type ratings or '2nd class endorsements'. Holders of these later ratings could only log co-pilot time, regardless of if they flew the sector or not.

With CAO 40 Amendment 13 (if believe), this was changed to reflect the current staus; that FOs could not log P1/command time at all, regardless of the nature of their type rating.

The reason that this had come about was as follows: in 1995, Ansett sent a pilots to Untited Airlines in Denver to do B747 type ratings. The FOs who went to the USA for this training had to get a US licence and instrument rating for the B747 type rating . The Yanks have only one type rating and that is 'Command', so effectively these Ansett FOs recieved a B747 command rating on a US licence and this would be transfered to their Australian licence.

When these FOs came back to Australia, Ansett Flight ops told the CAA (CASA) to issue them with "Co-Pilot" type ratings. Ansett even modified the Endorsements page of the FO's log books to reflect a Co-Pilot B747 rating.The FOs quite rightly were entitled to ask the CAA for "Command" B747 type ratings to be put on their licence. The CAA eventually agreed and complied because all of these FOs had every lawful right to be issued with B747 Command type ratings. This meant they could legally log B747 command time if they were PF for the sector.

Ansett flight ops. were having none of that and got the regulator to change the rules so that only one pilot could log command time for the flight.

[noclue]

bagchucka;
"i described a situation where an operator is allowing the logging of icus purely to circumvent the hour requirement for an atpl and a command upgrade.

is that the intent of icus in your mind?"

You also wrote this;
"it's used purely to boost the co-pilots total aeronautical experience and it doesn't stop once they gain an atpl - it is used beyond that to gain the 2000 aeronautical experience required for a command.

icus was great in a chieftain, where the guy under supervision flew it from the left and gained experience all under a watchful eye. "
(my bolding)

So it's fine to do in a chieftain, to gain experience before you go out on your own, but to do the same thing in a dash is, "wank" I think you wrote. :ugh:

[bagchucka]

difference is the guy in the chieftain isn't doing it to circumvent the requirements for an atpl and eventually a command upgrade.

[LeadSled]

If you weren't so ignorant yourself, you might have recommended JAR-FCL 1.080(c) para (5) for my further reading.Checkboard,
My poor deluded chap, I suggest you do a bit of updating, yourself, .080, pages 2-A-33/34/35, which spells out EXACTLY what I said, even with a sample log book page, showing how to write up your log book page, when you are doing AICUS, and you are NOT the PIC.

This complies EXACTLY with ICAO Annex 1 ( and the old Australian rules)

My experience and licenses are not limited to Australia.

Tootle pip!!!

PS: What all those of you who actually think Australia has got it right, and the rest of the world is wrong, is the simple fact that you conflate logging IN COMMAND and AICUS (by whatever name) as being the same, when they are NOT THE SAME. There is nothing "cheating" about logging AICUS/P1 U/S etc., and whether is is for the purpose of application for a license, or for assessing a potential recruit, those who understand are not the least bit confused, and understand that the two are NOT the same.

[LeadSled]

---is that the intent of icus in your mind? Bagchucka,
Are you as really as dim as you come across.

The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS/AICUS etc is to accurately record the flying of a co-pilot/first officer/or as may be the case, when they are pilot flying, acting in command under supervision.

Making it quite clear they are NOT the pilot in command, and they are not logging time as pilot in command.

Nothing more, nothing less. That the pilot time so recorded is then put to a number of quite legal and proper uses is quite straight forward ---- except to people like you.

Tootle pip!!

[ejet3]

LeadSled you sound like a of skygod! i am qantas i am the best im never wrong, don't look at me in the terminal either :E what about your job security :}

[bagchucka]

Are you as really as dim as you come across.
perhaps not as smart as a qantas skygod like yourself

but....

The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS/AICUS etc is to accurately record the flying of a co-pilot/first officer/or as may be the case, when they are pilot flying, acting in command under supervision.

so bloggs logs his icus for each sector he flies. unlike the logging of co-pilot time (which is halved) icus goes in the book one-for-one. therefore bloggs gains his atpl quicker than what he would have if he were only logging co-pilot time. he then continues logging his icus to reach the 2000hrs aeronautical experience required for a command. again, he reaches this quicker than if he were only logging co-pilot time.

doesn't quite sound the like the The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS.

[LeadSled]

bagchucka,
You obviously don't even understand how the hours are made up for the issue of an ATR/ATPL/ALTP/name of choice license.

It doesn't matter how many hours P2/co-pilot/ name of choice you have logged , it never adds to the command time needed for the license.

That required command time can be made up of actual command time and AICUS/ICUS/P1 U/S/name of choice. Please read and try and understand what the regulations say, it's not that hard.

Eject 3,

Isn't it interesting, that statements of fact are met with reactions like yours ---- sorry, but I come from a world of facts, and I have no time for those who are full of ill informed "opinions" ( actually I could put it in somewhat stronger language, but I don't want to upset the mods. or your obviously highly developed sensitivities) that are plainly contrary to clear, simple and black and white facts.

Tootle pip!!

[Checkboard]

Leadsled Now that you have managed to Google the reference I gave you (and well done for that :D), let's have a look at your statement:
In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS, Command Practice/ description of choice where you happen to be.

Now, I said:
Yes, they do - and in doing so they are NOT compliant with the requirements to log ICUS/P! u/S etc.

Now, as I didn't bother to elucidate specifically in which way they were not compliant, you really don't have an argument - however, the requirement for ICUS logging is that the pilots needs to fulfil the duties of the PIC. That means that it needs to be agreed before the flight, and briefed to the crew that the flight will be conducted in that way (the duties of the PIC being so much more than having a fuel guess and wiggling the stick :rolleyes:). Once it is done correctly, then:

all time recorded as SPIC or PICUS must be countersigned by the aircraft commander/flight instructor in the Remarks (column 12).

It is my experience that those requirements are NEVER met by European FOs when they log P1 U/S - hence my post.

and I have no time for those who are full of ill informed "opinions"
... Lord knows how you put up with yourself, then. :rolleyes:

[DeltaT]

A letter from the airline company is also acceptable in leiu of the signatures.
Who's to say they didn't brief beforehand?

If you want to get to the nitty gritty how about the one of some Qantas pilots logging scheduled time and not block to block :ouch:

Who/what/how meters the IF actual logged in any flight?

People who have had to record time via different methods, Tacho, Airswitch and add a bit on, all inaccuracies.

Night hours

ZFT sim time used to be logged as actual, now they've done a 180 on that.

I am sure there is more

[Checkboard]

A letter from the airline company is also acceptable in leiu of the signatures.
That was the point of my initial post. It's not compliant with the letter of the law, however the UK CAA have run up against the same problem this thread is about - that cadets who join airlines never gain the command requirements of the ATPL. Instead of fixing the law, the CAA have decided to ignore it. That has lead to FOs in Europe logging "P1 U/S" for 50% of their total flight time as a matter of course. It's well known around the world (if you read the application websites for airlines about the world they all say - "Don't claim any FO time as command." or something similar.) but that doesn't make it right. ICUS is supposed to indicate "command training", if you log 50% of everything as ICUS then ICUS no longer has meaning.

Who's to say they didn't brief beforehand?
I say it. :rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

Checkboard et al,
For goodness sake, can we get one very simple concept through you collective bonces ----- AICUS IS NOT IN COMMAND TIME ---- the Captain is always in command --- and will log the time for the sector as such.
A co-pilot/F/O, when flying AICUS (most good airlines work sector for sector, making allowances for the occasional management Captain, who needs all the practice he/she/it can, or Cat II/III conditions) should log 100% of the block to block sector time as AICUS.
Only in Australia are such simple concepts apparently controversial.

---that cadets who join airlines never gain the command requirements of the ATPL.Izzatso??? I guess that means that a good proportion of the BA/KLM/Lufthansa ---- add a very long list of Asian airlines ---- present Captains have never gained the hours for an ATPL/ALTP/ATR ---- must be all dispensations ----- or, perhaps somewhat more likely, you just have no idea what you are talking about !!

At least the various NAAs and ICAO, (excepting Australia) understand the difference between IN COMMAND and AICUS ----- even if you and, apparently many of your colleagues, do not.

E(or should that be Re)ject 3,
Sorry, old chap, as I work for my own company, I guess my job security is entirely in my own hands.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Gee!! Thanks for the old JAR/FCL reference, and the wonderful world of Google ----- I guess that I would have had no idea, without your help!! I guess it must have been my imagination that I thought I spent years on an FCL working group
Pity you didn't have a closer read yourself, then you might have got your facts straight.

[Checkboard]

I guess that I would have had no idea, without your help!!
Yep - that's what I was implying. You understood one thing, at least. :p

[frigatebird]

When acting as the Chief Pilot in a nearby country, I couldn't get over the number of hours In-Command logged by some Kiwi Twin Otter copilots when checking their logbooks to confirm they weren't busting the max/p.a. That was the way they logged at home, so they freely logged Copilot time as Command so they could get the time up towards the ATPL requirement for an upgrade to the left seat. All without any input from the Captain of the day. If they did the alternate sector, they logged Command.
I would not sign or stamp their logbooks without confirmation from the Captain that on that sector they had complied to the standard definition of Command ICUS ! Must have upset a few, as I wasn't kept in the position for long....

[27/09]

frigatebird
I couldn't get over the number of hours In-Command logged by some Kiwi Twin Otter copilots when checking their logbooks to confirm they weren't busting the max/p.a. That was the way they logged at home, so they freely logged Copilot time as Command so they could get the time up towards the ATPL requirement for an upgrade to the left seat. All without any input from the Captain of the day. If they did the alternate sector, they logged Command.

Interesting comment, if I understand you correctly then these pilots weren't filling their logbook correctly, in other words forging their hours and should have been reported to the authorities. What you allude to is most certainly not the accepted practice in New Zealand. As a Co-pilot in NZ you can log either Co-pilot time or Command Practice time, the Command practice entry must be signed by the Captain or noted in company records. The only time you can log Command Time is to have your name in the P in C column.

Who's name were they showing in the P in C column and the Co-Pilot column?

[frigatebird]

Can't say I remember seeing any signature by the designated Captain-of-the-Day against the entry in the Copilots logbook, as I would have expected. My interpretation of ICUS is that first the Co- being upgraded has to have Command training in the left seat to learn to handle the tiller and get used to operations from there, with the different checklist responses etc., then be rostered with a Training Captain (not just any Line Captain) who acts as a normal F.O. from the right seat for the purposes of the normal Line decision making, and is only prepared to offer Command advice (or take over), if he is unhappy. They didn't swap seats, as we used to do single-engine turnarounds in the Otter at the outports, so when they logged Command ICUS from the right seat for a sector, it fell short in my opinion. Took over as C.P. just before a busy time, from a fellow who hadn't been checking the logbook entries very thoroughly, some pilots were understating their hours on company returns so they could be rostered for more flights, while at the same time those on an hourly contract rate were still submitting their excessive actual hours flown to the Paymaster to be remunerated for the flying performed. At $100 an hour, an extra 100 or 150 hours a year was worth a bit to the people concerned. The aircraft engineering and daily flight records were used as a crosscheck of hours flown as well.
The FO's concerned in the upgrades bluffed the local CAA, 'This is allowable in NZ' so there wasn't much support from that quarter. But they complained to management so sides were taken, and when it wasn't so busy I was put off without being given a reason..

[27/09]

Frigatebird

I guess this type of thing happens where there are differing names for similar things and the different logbooks from various administrations don't have the same names for things and don't have the same columns.

There is Command Practice (no ICUS or any other similar thing) in NZ which is similar to ICUS though I couldn't be sure they're the same thing by exact definition. Command Practice is done in the RH seat while flying the line with a line Captain though in many cases there are some limitations on when a Co-pilot can log Command Practice and which Captains may give it. For the Co-Pilot to be in the LH seat he/she must fly with a Training Captain. This normally occurs when doing the line training for a command upgrade, however is still only logged as Command Practice at best, it cannot be logged as P in C.

I still fail to see how they could log P in C and expect anyone to accept that they were P in C.

[LeadSled]

27/09
In NZ, Command Practice IS the local version of ICUS/AICUS/P1 U/S etc., and NZ rules for logging flight time comply with ICAO Annex 1.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

Checkboard,
You really are a supercilious twit, aren't you.

I will back my knowledge of JAR-FCL rules, TGLs etc., and the transitions from 2012 through 2017, and interpretations of same, against you any time --- based simply on your proven inability (as your previous posts so amply demonstrate) to even read and understand the current rules, and how they are applied.

Tootle pip!!

At least I now save a lot of money, not having to pay huge amounts of money to keep a paper ICAO etc. regulatory library up to date, a necessity in my particular job.

[bagchucka]

At least I now save a lot of money, not having to pay huge amounts of money to keep a paper ICAO etc. regulatory library up to date, a necessity in my particular job.

just think of all that extra cash you'll be able to invest in stroking your ego now...

[LeadSled]

You really are a supercilious twit, aren't you. Bagchucka,
And, one again, you confirm what a twit you really are.
If knowing what I am talking about, and having my facts straight, and being able to save a bit of dough, compared to the cost of paper amendments is ego stroking, so be it. It sure beats the hell out of being wrong!!
But it really says more about the attitude of twits like you, than anything else ---- that facts get up so far up your nose, they collide with your prejudices !!
Stick to chucking bags, preferably at the local busport.
Tootle pip!!

PS: As an old mate of mine used to say, every organisation needs to employe someone (like you??) who is always wrong, when it comes to decision time, ask them (you) and whatever the answer, that's one possibility that can safely be discarded.

[B747ERNG]

Just out of my curiosity, on a given long-haul flight there's a Captain, senior FO and a FO. During the cruise, the captain takes 3 hours schedule break in the bunk while the senior FO occupied the left hand seat along with the FO on the right hand seat. During this 3 hours period, does the senior FO log command time or co-pilot time given he/she is making decisions without the presence of the captain in the cockpit? Can the captain log 3 hours flight time in his/her logbook while he/she is actually resting in the bunk?

thanks

[Tankengine]

B747ERNG,
That is not the way it is done at Qantas.