Flight hours as a co pilot (PF) role B737

[Eastern_Skyjets]

G'day, Just a question about flight time.

I am about to start with a company as an FO here in UAE, I have previously only flown in Australian airspace.

I am wondering in which colum of my logbook do I log the time when I am flying the sector as PF?

is it all co-pilot time, or can I use the ICUS section for PF time?

also can I use my flight hours here to count towards a CASA ATPL?

Regards

[NIK320]

I don't know about UAE rules.

CASA has 2 requirementes that will depend on your company to log it as ICUS.
" (e) the operator of the aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.64.html#aircraft) permits the person to fly the aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.64.html#aircraft) as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.64.html#aircraft) is appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s5.64.html#aircraft)."

I dare say wen you try to get a CASA ATPL they will call it all co-pilot time unless its ICUS relating to a cmd upgrade.

[Goat Whisperer]

It's co-pilot. Not a lot of grey area.

[neville_nobody]

It all depends on what regs you are operating under and which license you are using. If you now are using a UAE license you will have to look up what they say about logging. If it is a OZ license then it is copilot.

[unseen]

Why can't it be ICUS if it follows the rules quoted above???

[27/09]

Why can't it be ICUS if it follows the rules quoted above???

Are you referring to CASA has 2 requirementes that will depend on your company to log it as ICUS.
" (e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft."

If so I would hazard a guess that CASA rules don't apply for a pilot operating under UAE rules and flying a UAE registered aircraft. CASA won't be specifying or overseeing how any ICUS is conducted in the UAE so I would guess they wouldn't recognise any ICUS time from the UAE for an Aussie licence.

Some places don't have and ICUS column in their logbook, there may be no provision for ICUS in the UAE.

[Eastern_Skyjets]

Thankyou for the advice, and yes I will ask the training dept about how the hours are logged.

[LeadSled]

Eastern Skyjets,
With the exception of neville nobody and one other, most of what you have been told here is garbage, and not even a good grade of garbage.

Under ICAO Annex 1, it is AICUS by whatever name.
You need to check the rules for your country of license. Don't just ask somebody in the company, check the local law, get your facts straight. You might ask another Australia who doesn't know either , so just makes it up.

What it is NOT, is in command. If your logbook does not have an AICUS/P1-U/S column, it is logged in the command column, with the name of the Captain of the aircraft in the pilot column to make it clear you were not the pilot in command.

Do your own homework, find out the local air law on the subject, and take no notice of people who, quite simply, do not know what they are talking about.

As for all you anal retentives in Australia on this subject, who can't tell the difference between P1 and P1 U/S, with Australia's non-compliance with ICAO, don't forget, Qantas F/0s log AICUS (NOT co-pilot) on every sector where they are pilot flying. And have done for many, many years. And it is legal.

Tootle pip!!

[DeltaT]

Yup go with LeadSled.
Makes me laugh hearing the Australian rules compared to what the rest of the world does.
Strictly speaking, yes go with the country rules of the licence you are flying on.
Which is pretty much this for 2 crew:
From the right seat when PF its ICUS.
From the right seat when PNF its Co-Pilot.
During line training even when PF its Co-Pilot.
Its only ever Command from the left seat.
And its the block to block time, not the scheduled time!
Yes hours will count to CASA ATPL, make sure to get the Capt signatures in the logbook, or letter of verification from the Employer.

[unseen]

Yup go with LeadSled.
Makes me laugh hearing the Australian rules compared to what the rest of the world does.
Strictly speaking, yes go with the country rules of the licence you are flying on.
Which is pretty much this for 2 crew:
From the right seat when PF its ICUS.
From the right seat when PNF its Co-Pilot.
During line training even when PF its Co-Pilot.
Its only ever Command from the left seat.
And its the block to block time, not the scheduled time!
Yes hours will count to CASA ATPL, make sure to get the Capt signatures in the logbook, or letter of verification from the Employer.

Exactly!!!!!

[Centaurus]

Its only ever Command from the left seat.

I understand that Qantas (and some other Australian operators) when conducting command type ratings on new pilots joining the company including cadets, carry out their simulator training in the right hand seat. Notwithstanding, the new pilot is given a command endorsement and not a copilot endorsement. He is not trained in the left seat for a command endorsement.

[A37575]

I am wondering in which colum of my logbook do I log the time when I am flying the sector as PF?

is it all co-pilot time, or can I use the ICUS section for PF time?


Over the years there has been a significant change in the way that copilot time has been regarded. Unfortunately the result is often considered by some copilots has denigrating to their position to actually log the whole flight as copilot. In reality ICUS time means a fat zero in terms of real flying experience. It may boost the ego of some individuals to pretend they are really in command when they are given a leg when of course the captain is the actual pilot in command as always.

I understand (and I may be wrong on this point) that by UK rules, if a copilot is given a leg and wishes to log it as ICUS, then right from the flight planning stage if there is any decision the copilot makes re the conduct of the flight he is operating as ICUS, that the captain countermands, no matter how minor in the scheme of things, the copilot immediately is not permitted to log the whole flight as ICUS. Of course whether that rule is used is another story.

There is no shame at being a copilot. Yet that is how it has seemed nowadays; hence the headlong rush for new pilots to log ICUS as a pretend captain. :ugh:

[Ted Nugent]

I understand that Qantas (and some other Australian operators) when conducting command type ratings on new pilots joining the company including cadets, carry out their simulator training in the right hand seat. Notwithstanding, the new pilot is given a command endorsement and not a copilot endorsement. He is not trained in the left seat for a command endorsement.

Negative, if the candidate is undergoing the training for a command endorsement they will complete various scenarios from both left and right seats during their simulator training thus covering the requirements for the command endorsement.

[Eastern_Skyjets]

Roger thanks for the information, I will check with GCAA to see where they stand on this.

[IsDon]

I understand that Qantas (and some other Australian operators) when conducting command type ratings on new pilots joining the company including cadets, carry out their simulator training in the right hand seat. Notwithstanding, the new pilot is given a command endorsement and not a copilot endorsement. He is not trained in the left seat for a command endorsement.

Negative, if the candidate is undergoing the training for a command endorsement they will complete various scenarios from both left and right seats during their simulator training thus covering the requirements for the command endorsement.

Sorry Ted you're wrong. And the original statement you derided was indeed correct.

No requirement to be trained in both seats.

To be able to log ICUS, in Australia, you have to be flying the sector and have a command endorsement on the aircraft. This answers your second question about how your hours count towards CASA licences.

As for Qantas, my employer, all F/Os, certainly wide body F/Os (not certain about the B737), are given a command endorsement as part of their type conversion. This is because the F/O could be sitting with an S/O who only holds a co-pilot rating. I don't know if this is a legal CASA requirement, or just that Qantas thinks its a good idea but I have a command endorsement on the 767 even though I have only ever flown as an F/O from the right seat in the 767.

I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing. As an F/O I have a 20 knot cross wind limit (for reasons I will never understand). So sometimes I do the takeoff, only to have to hand over the landing to the skipper for the landing because the crosswind is greater than 20 knots. In this case I have to log the sector as co-pilot.

Here's another scenario to screw your brain. The 767 no longer has any S/Os and a lot more captains than F/Os. On the Honolulu flights we crew with two Captains and one F/O. One captain is effectively a very well paid S/O. When I fly the sector, even though I spend 1/3 of the time in the bunk, I log it as ICUS.

So to reiterate. Hold a command endorsement on type, and flying the sector which includes the takeoff and landing, ICUS. Otherwise logged as co-pilot.

Don't know how other countries do it and frankly don't care. That's how it is in the antipodes.

As for how you log hours in the UAE I have absolutely no idea. But if you want to track your hours for the purposes of CASA in Australia, then maybe you need to keep track of the sectors you've flown separately.

[Pack2]

"As for all you anal retentives in Australia on this subject, who can't tell the difference between P1 and P1 U/S" :ugh:

There are 2 control seats. One is labeled P1 and the other P2. You can only occupy one of them at any given time. To manipulate flight time to give the impression of command time while sitting in the P2 seat is both dishonest and delusional regardless of what your local authority may permit you to do in the interests of meeting the command hour requirement for the issue of an ATPL.

In my opinion the only time ICUS would be a valid entry in my log book would be if I was occupying the P1 seat after having completed both a left hand seat training syllabus and passed an LPC/IR check and was undergoing command line training. Now I am acting as pilot in command under supervision until cleared to line as a captain.

In the real world of commercial aviation however, Airlines have conspired with aviation regulatory authorities to come up with a system to allow the transition of their cadets to the left hand seat of commercial jets without having to gain the actual experience which was traditionally required.

To put it all into perspective, if you are allowed or indeed expected to log your flight time as ICUS for the purpose of gaining command time for the issue of a licence, then by all means do so. However, realise too that when you come to sit in front of me for that job interview and we discuss your command experience, you may well not be the most suitable candidate having not ACTUALLY held a previous command position.

[Capt Claret]

To manipulate flight time to give the impression of command time while sitting in the P2 seat is both dishonest and delusional regardless of what your local authority may permit you to do in the interests of meeting the command hour requirement for the issue of an ATPL.

Agreed. :ok:

[compressor stall]

"I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing."

So let me understand this.

You are a line checked QF 767 FO not undergoing line training for command.
If you do the takeoff and landing, you call the whole flight ICUS?

Really? If this is true, is it just me on here that finds that alarming and immoral? I'm not disputing its 'legality'.

[Capt Claret]

My only ICUS has been when rostered to be trained as PIC on type. All time in the RHS as a Co-pilot has been logged as Co-Pilot time, regardless of who did the takeoff/landing.

I figure that's why Total Aeronautical Experience is calculated by using only 50% of time logged as Co-pilot. :sad:

[compressor stall]

You and me both Claret.

If QF are doing this, I am gobsmacked.

[Ted Nugent]

I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing. As an F/O I have a 20 knot cross wind limit (for reasons I will never understand). So sometimes I do the takeoff, only to have to hand over the landing to the skipper for the landing because the crosswind is greater than 20 knots. In this case I have to log the sector as co-pilot.

I find it hard to believe the QF Ops Manual would allow this for standard day to day line flying.

My current jet and previous turbo prop company OM's both clearly state the restrictions imposed on the use of ICUS and neither have or had the provision to log ICUS during standard line ops.

[compressor stall]

So in that regime, you could log ICUS in the RHS until the issue of your ATPL but then not thereafter?

[beaver_rotate]

From my experience in the QF group and the jet I fly, the QF jet AOCs (ops manuals) can log ICUS when PF. If the landing is relinquished you log it as CO.

Hi capacity AOC, CMD endo on aircraft (to which the group give FO's no exception except for SO's who get CO endo).

Don't see the morality in it? Means eff all to anyone but the QF group anyway! Those cadets had to get their 500 hours ME CMD some how! Another QF do, CASA says how high you want me to jump undoubetdly.

[404 Titan]

It ceases to amaze me the lack of understanding by Australian pilots of the regulatory framework for the logging of ICUS. Airlines like Qantas that employ cadets have a requirement that these pilots can log ICUS so as to qualify for an ATPL. Qantas isn’t the only airline to employ large numbers of cadets in this region. Most of the airlines in Asia and the Middle East also employ large numbers of cadets and have similar logging requirements.

In the Australian context a few lines in the companies Ops manual is all that is required to allow FO’s to log ICUS when PF. In most cases and to keep things simple the requirement will apply to all FO’s in the company irrespective of their background and licences held.

CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision

(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision only if:

(a) the person holds:

(i) a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; or (Minimum CPL)
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; and

(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and (A Command Endoresment)
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight crew rating is required — the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned; and (MECIR)

(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and

(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and (Approval will be in the companies Ops manual)

(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft. (In plain English, the aircraft has a PIC appointed by the company)

(2) The operator of an aircraft may permit a person to fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command only if:

(a) the person holds:

(i) a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft; or (Minimum CPL)
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were such a licence; and

(b) the person holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and (A Command Endoresment)

(c) if the person carries out an activity for which a flight crew rating is required — the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned.(MECIR)

[Keg]

Oh well, I guess we hadn't had this argument for a couple of years so it was probably overdue anyway. :ugh: :rolleyes:

Personally I don't know what the big deal is. There is no law that says the PIC has to be in the LHS. Certainly a Checkie in the RHS for the purposes of training or recency means they are the PIC. So we've established that you CAN be in command in the RHS if suitably endorsed.

If I'm letting the F/O (with a command endorsement) operate the sector in command but under my supervision then is that not ICUS? If I have to take over and make the decisions then obviously the sector ceases to be ICUS. Thankfully the guys and gals I fly with tend to be pretty slick operators- in many cases much better than me- so it's not really a huge issue.

Illegal? No. Immoral? A matter of opinion I guess. My value system would suggest it isn't. Nothing I've read here convinces me otherwise either.

[smiling monkey]

In the Australian context a few lines in the companies Ops manual is all that is required to allow FO’s to log ICUS when PF. In most cases and to keep things simple the requirement will apply to all FO’s in the company irrespective of their background and licences held.

Going back to the original poster's question, and the above quote from 404 Titan, so if the original poster does not have anything in his/her ops manual with regards to logging ICUS, then I guess he/she can not log ICUS when PF and can only log it as co-pilot.

There are a number of Australian pilots in Asia flying as first-officers in various airlines and unless their airline have specifically allowed the logging of ICUS as written in their company's ops manual, then I guess all they can legally log is co-pilot PF time. Guys and girls in Asia are logging ICUS despite the company's Ops manual having no mention of ICUS and they seem to think it's ok to do that, because that's what happens at Qantas. (LOL)

I think the term ICUS is very much an Australian thing (happy to be corrected there) and unheard of in Asia.

[travelator]

At the end of the day, there is the PIC and everyone else regardless of what is logged.

[smiling monkey]

At the end of the day, there is the PIC and everyone else regardless of what is logged.

The issue here is whether an F/O can log ICUS or not. Why is it a big issue may not be apparent for those who already have their ATPLs. Being able to log ICUS makes it easier and quicker to tick all the boxes for the issue of the ATPL.

For example, those F/O's with the minimal PIC time for the CPL (say around 70 hours) will still need to get 250 hours of PIC time of which 180 hours can be ICUS to qualify for the ATPL. If you're flying in an airline as F/O, then it's not easy getting an extra 180 hours PIC unless you can log 180 hours as ICUS.

Also for the 100 night hours requirement, it's 100 hours night excluding dual; so if not logging ICUS, then you'd be logging co-pilot which only counts for 50% and therefore will take twice as long.

And also at least 100 hours of the 200 hours cross-country for the issue of the ATPL can be ICUS if you don't have 100 hours cross-country as PIC.

So this is what's all the fuss about, with regards to ICUS or no ICUS.

[404 Titan]

smiling monkey

There are a number of Australian pilots in Asia flying as first-officers in various airlines and unless their airline have specifically allowed the logging of ICUS as written in their company's ops manual, then I guess all they can legally log is co-pilot PF time. Guys and girls in Asia are logging ICUS despite the company's Ops manual having no mention of ICUS and they seem to think it's ok to do that, because that's what happens at Qantas. (LOL)

Incorrect. In Hong Kong the HKCAD dictates how pilot hours are logged. They mandate all FO’s performing the duties of the PF log P1US (ICUS). FO’s performing the duties of PM (PNF) log P2 (Co-Pilot). There is no requirement for approval in our companies ops manual. My understanding is that Singapore, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain are the same.

We log hours this way because we are required to log our hours this way. How pilots at Qantas log their hours is as a results of Australian regulations and has absolutely no bearing how we go about it.:ugh:

[romeocharlie]

Compressor stall, gobsmacked you will be. It's in the company FAM, and basically states that CAR 5.40 be adhered to and you will be involved in all the decision making processes including tech log, flight planning etc.

It's different I'll give you that!

[LeadSled]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pack2
To manipulate flight time to give the impression of command time while sitting in the P2 seat is both dishonest and delusional regardless of what your local authority may permit you to do in the interests of meeting the command hour requirement for the issue of an ATPL.

Agreed. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing."

So let me understand this.

You are a line checked QF 767 FO not undergoing line training for command.
If you do the takeoff and landing, you call the whole flight ICUS?

Really? If this is true, is it just me on here that finds that alarming and immoral? I'm not disputing its 'legality'. You and me both Claret.

If QF are doing this, I am gobsmacked.Consider your gob smacked ---- and you probably need your brains brushed, as well, they seem thoroughly stalled.

Folks,
The original poster poster asked a question, with a perfectly legal answer, in fact it turned out to be pretty much ICAO Annex 1, which is what (unsurprisingly) most countries do, all that changes is just what various states call P1 U/S, AICUS, ICUS, Command practice etc., but frankly many of posts exhibited said Australian non standard (non-ICAO compliant) anal approach and a complete inability to understand P1 U/S by whatever name IS NOT "---- IN COMMAND" time, and is NOT logged as such.

Each and every one of you is under a legal obligation to log your time in accordance with the rules you are flying under, "opinion" or "morality" does not come into it.

As Keg and Co. have pointed out, Qantas logs time in accordance with Annex 1, and has done for many, many years. In fact, exactly as the inside front cover of the old DCA logs books required, until one dingbat got a bee in his bonnet, and the rules were changed to the non- ICAO compliant nonsense we have in the current rules.

Tootle pip!!

PS: 404 titan, that about sums it up, looks like the whole world, except little Australian is thoroughly immoral and incompetent, but said whole world doesn't really give a toss about all the Australian aviation aberrations, of which this is but one.

[Centaurus]

in many cases much better than me


Now come on Keg - you know you don't really mean that - you are just being modest:E

[Eastern_Skyjets]

Centurus you must have something like 20,000 hours on the 73, what did you put down in your logbook in your co-pilot days?

[404 Titan]

Javadreaming

Logging ICUS time when not in the left seat is like logging time as a second officer....not much good!!!
Say who? You? What do you base this ignorant statement on?
airlines don't view such time as any good towards a command upgrade.
BS. If that was the case cadets in airlines all over the world would never achieve commands. This clearly isn’t the case.
If you were to go to another airline they won't be saying " oh great you have 500 hours ICUS; let's make you a captain".
No and they wouldn’t be giving me a direct entry command either with 6000+ hours command and 15000 hours total experience. If you want to change airlines most airlines will make you start at the bottom, irrespective of your experience.
But hey I'm sure it will be an interesting talking point at your next interview if you do log time in the right seat as ICUS...
Again total BS. You need to get out and see how most of the world works. You’re clearly demonstrating your ignorance with comments like that.
But seriously, if your in the right seat your a copilot. Don't let the ego or anyone's else's convince you otherwise.
No one is trying to convince the original poster of anything of the sought other than to log his “Co-Pilot” hours as in accordance with UAE regulations.

[Depone]

Same in the UK and Ireland.

[Keg]

Now come on Keg - you know you don't really mean that - you are just being modest :E


'Some' rather than 'most' then? :ok: :} :p

[compressor stall]

Probably the most interesting thing about this is how aggressively defensive people get over this one.

Leadsled, without lowering yourself to insults again, can you please point out in Annex 1 where it states the requirements of logging of flight time that is not for the purposes of attaining a higher rating. It could be that my copy is out of date.

Oh, and I am well aware that you need to log the flight time as required by your NAA and one's ops manual. I do this.

[Opinion]But I still think its a perverted interpretation of the ICAO regs for NAA's to allow logging ICUS (or whatever you want to call it) for line checked ATPL holders flying in the RHS not undergoing upgrade training. [\opinion]

[Centaurus]

Presumably if you log ICUS, the captain who is supervising you has a company and CASA approved training syllabus he should follow. This should include assessing the ICUS pilot right from the first meeting at briefing through to your flight planning, engine starting, take of technique and in fact everything until the engines are closed down. In other words the ICUS leg is fully documented and results kept on your training file.

After all, this is the process that takes place when a pilot undertakes command training in the left seat. ICUS should be no different.

[Centaurus]

you must have something like 20,000 hours on the 73, what did you put down in your logbook in your co-pilot days?

Goodness gracious, no. Much less than half that. During line training on type I logged the time as dual. All other RH seat flying logged as copilot regardless of being PF or PNF.

In the old days no such thing as ICUS. That was introduced by Qantas when they discovered their ten year F/O's could not hold an ATPL despite thousands of hours on types because they did not have 500 hours in command time needed in those days for issue of an ATPL.

Qantas then introduced a DC3 and HS 125 to allow F/O's to build real command hours up to the 500 command needed for the ATPL. I think they flew these aircraft around Australia to pick up command hours. That was expensive and so Qantas lobbied the then regulator to drop the requirement for 500 in command for an ATPL, by introducing the concept of ICUS to what it is today.

It meant a significant dilution of previous standards but that was ignored in the face of mounting costs of reaching 500 command hours especially for cadet pilots in Qantas. Inevitably ICAO followed suit and dropped the required command hours for an ATPL to what it is today. All the above is from a fading recollection, so could be slightly inaccurate.

[AvEnthusiast]

Sorry don't shout! When you are PNF, is that time logged in the logbook as well? or no only the other PF will log that time and you only log your PF time? it it's so then where does go the experience of pilot non flying?

[Wizofoz]

PF and PNF time, while acting as 2IC is co-pilot time.

And for the original poster, AFAIK there is no "ICUS" provision in GCAA regs, and in any case, no additional command time requirements for ATPL or Upgrade, so no real need for them anyway.

[training wheels]

Sorry don't shout! When you are PNF, is that time logged in the logbook as well? or no only the other PF will log that time and you only log your PF time? it it's so then where does go the experience of pilot non flying?

Yes, if you're PNF for that sector, you log the time as well. If you're commander of the ship, then you log it in the 'Command' column; if you're an FO, then you log it in the 'Co-pilot' column. Pity there isn't a PF / PNF column in the Airservices logbook; I write PF in the 'Instructor/Specialist' column when I'm flying the sector. If it's left blank then I'm PNF.

The only time I've logged ICUS was for my PPL and CPL flight test and IR renewal. Didn't really concern me for the ATPL as I already had enough PIC time from instructing.

[LeadSled]

----- please point out in Annex 1 where it states the requirements of logging of flight time that is not for the purposes of attaining a higher rating.C.Stall,
I point out the interpretation of Annex 1 adopted by a very large majority of the world's National Aviation Authorities as my authority for the interpretation.
This included Australia until the dingbat I mentioned was let loose, and Australia (as in some many things aviation) departed from the rest of the world.

If you wish to interpret Annex 1 in another manner, and believe that Australia is the "only soldier in the battalion in step" that is your privilege, but the vote is against you.

In the old days no such thing as ICUS. That was introduced by Qantas when they discovered their ten year F/O's could not hold an ATPL despite thousands of hours on types because they did not have 500 hours in command time needed in those days for issue of an ATPL. Centaurus,

With the very greatest of respect ( see, Folks, I can be real nice) that is absolute rubbish.

Firstly, if you have been around that long, have a look at the inside front page of the old DCA logbooks.

Secondly, until about 1965, most QF F/Os has a full ATPL, and until the early '70's all QF F/Os as Pilot Flying flew in the LEFT seat, not the right, but QF got severely pissed of at F/O's with all that "command" time ( Cathay were more than happy to recognize ICUS as something of value) shooting through to Cathay in a small but steady stream.

Again, in the early '60's, DCA and Qantas did a dirty deal, and the old Flight Administration Manual required F/O's as pilot flying to log "dual" --- despite a load of passengers down the back, so that F/O's couldn't accumulate what Cathay wanted for direct entry Captains. The dirty deal included the invention of the "2nd Class ATPL endorsed to First Class Standard", and a notification to ICAO that this would satisfy the ICAO requirement for all international operations to be crewed by two pilots with an ATPL".

The logging hours part of the dirty deal was overturned when the company lawyers had a look at it, when it was brought to their attention ---- particularly the regs. not permitting carriage of passengers during "dual".

That is when QF reverted to logging time in accordance with the old DCA log books, ie; in compliance with ICAO Annex 1. It took a lot longer for the fiddled 2nd Class License to disappear, and to have both Captain and F/O with ICAO compliant licenses.

The HS 125, DC-3 and later, an Aztec and finally C-152 command time was all about factored time and nothing to do with cadets. Factored time was an internal QF piece of nonsense where you needed 4500 "factored" hours for command, 2000 for F/O, and whatever command time you had was "factored" (multiplied by), depending on the aircraft. Hours in command on a 4 engine aircraft over 12,500lb were factored by 2.5. Any twin was factored by 1.25 or 1.5, weight again, and so on. Qantas were thinking about ex-RAAF Herc. pilots, what they got was a bunch of ex-RAN pilots who had flown Heron 1Bs, said 4 engines and "over" 12,500 --- just ---- who got a big jump compared to their their seniority list position --- by up to 10 years.

You obviously have only a very limited grasp of the history, all those early cadet courses of the mid-60's on did up to 2 years in GA, didn't come back into the company until they had (usually) around 1500h PIC. There was only a handful of pilots who had been part of an earlier cadet scheme ( run in conjunction with TAA, if I recall correctly, at RACNSW) who ever had the hours problem you mention, and they were not the primary reason for the DC-3 or HS-125. In fact, the major reason for the -125s was S/O license renewals, to save B707 time, hence 2 -125s with the highest cycles by far of any of the type, mostly accumulated circuit bashing up to 8 hours per day at Narromine, occasionally Avalon.

Having been on the committee of the AFAP Overseas Branch for much of relevant time, I am well familiar with the whole period, and what went on.

To suggest, as somebody did, that the fictional "changes" at the time resulted in a reduction in QF standards, I can only express myself in the same terms as the CEO of News Ltd., Kim Williams,(talking about the proposed media censorship rules) and say bollox.

Titan 404 has it right, what is it about some Australian pilots that the holy word "Command" cannot be used in conjunction with the words "Acting in" or just "in" and " under supervision".

Get real, chaps, and join the rest of the world.

Tootle pip!!

[Keg]

Myth busted. Well done LeadSled. :D

[compressor stall]

Qantas logs its time in accordance with Annex 1
I point out the interpretation of Annex 1 adopted by a very large majority of the world's National Aviation Authorities as my authority for the interpretation.
A novel way of presenting fact. So Qantas logs its time in accordance with its interpretation of its NAA (CASA) which has added some things to Annex 1. As does, presumably, every other company in this land.
.

If you wish to interpret Annex 1 in another manner
I will continue to interpret Annex 1 with what's in Annex 1, and the respective national regulations with what's in the respective national regulations, thanks.

The NAAs have made their regulations and changed what they see fit (possibly as a result of Airlines needing piots with more command time for ATPL issue).

and believe that Australia is the "only soldier in the battalion in step" that is your privilege, but the vote is against you.
Never said anything of the sort, and not sure where you are pulling our quotes from as they are not mine. The EASA regs are clear evidence of this (and HKCAA of which I was previously unaware). As an aside, I am genuinely curious, however, as to which airlines and NAAs permit it around the world when not used stricly IAW ICAO Annex 1.

You may note that from my first post, I never queried the legality of the process. I was aware of it and the relevant regs when used for increase of command hours for ATPL. I was also aware that the CASA regulations don't explicitly prohibit logging of ICUS for a command endorsed line checked ATPL holding FO (for which my opinions still stand).

I was genuinely surprised to hear this was done in QF -and CX for that matter - for line checked command endorsement ATPL holding FOs.

One enduring questions remains - Why? What's the point?

[Centaurus]

All the above is from a fading recollection, so could be slightly inaccurate.








I made that above caveat because recollections can be inaccurate and I am perfectly happy to be corrected. Thank you for labelling my recollections as rubbish:ok:

You obviously have only a very limited grasp of the history

You certainly have a pleasant way of expressing your thoughts. You would make a good check captain:ok:

[G Limit]

This is ridiculous. Captain logs command, FO logs Co-pilot.
If you need command time for an ATPL then HTFU and go get command time.

[Capt Fathom]

Everyone wants to be the Captain!

ICUS = logging time as a captain, without actually taking the final responsibility of being the Captain!

What a cop out !!

[AerocatS2A]

Everyone wants to be the Captain!

ICUS = logging time as a captain, without actually taking the final responsibility of being the Captain!

No, ICUS = ICUS. It is definitely not captain or command.




This is ridiculous. Captain logs command, FO logs Co-pilot.
If you need command time for an ATPL then HTFU and go get command time.

Yes, HTFU and go and get your required command hours beating the circuit to death in a C152.

What is ridiculous is the idea that command time in and of itself is of any value when compared to first officer time in the actual aircraft and operation that you will eventually be captain on.

If I have 5,000 hours as first officer flying a B737 around the Pacific, observing and assisting a multitude of different captains making a variety of command decisions in various different situations but fall short by 100 "command" hours to qualify for an ATPL, then I am unable to be upgraded to captain. If I go and hire a C152 and do a 100 hours flying around the city, I am suddenly qualified though?

If I am an FO on a Dash 8 flying low level surveillance flights below LSALT at night I can't be upgraded to captain on the same operation until I have 100 hours night command in addition to the usual ATPL. It doesn't matter if I have 300 night hours first officer time flying below LSALT on surveillance, none of that counts, that is apparently not relavent experience. If I go out and get those hours in the circuit in a C152 though, I'm golden. That is legally valid time that in addition to the ATPL will qualify me for a command upgrade to fly Dash 8s at night below LSALT.

These are the types of situations ICUS is being used for. It has nothing to do with pretending to be captain or anything like that. It is about enabling relavant FO time to be used to gain the necessary qualifications to be upgradable because that FO time is far more valid in real terms than time spent in command burning holes in the sky in a bug-smasher.

Logging ICUS beyond what is required to get a qualification is a bit pointless but ultimately harms no one. No one is under any illusions that it is real command time and I don't think anyone is trying to present it as such.

I think there is an attitude in the industry amongst those who feel they have "done the hard yards" that everyone else should have to go through the same process. That attitude could do with being stamped out.

I won't say I had to do the hard yards, I had my fair share of good fortune, but it certainly wasn't endless and there was plenty that didn't go my way. I spent a long time in GA and I had a few years of down time where it looked my flying career might be over. When I did get back into flying it was with a company that didn't have ICUS written into their ops manual. The ICUS time in my logbook is limited to time spent line training in the left seat. For a while a significant portion of my night command time was made up of hours spent flying a light twin on autopilot aimlessly around the sky at max endurance power settings.

I don't think anyone else should have to go through such a pointless process though. If you are flying B737s for an airline and wish to be a B737 captain, then lets recognise your FO time as an apprenticeship that counts entirely toward that goal. To not do that, to force someone to go and hire the cheapest piston aircraft they can find to meet some antiquated notion of the importance of "real" command time, that is what is ridiculous.

[*Lancer*]

No doubt some of you would be shocked by the total number of command hours some former cadets would have, despite checking out as Captains.

To imply that these pilots should be flying circuits in a 152 (or some equally irrelevant type of operation to what they're already doing) to get said hours is even more ridiculous than the ICUS system.

For King Air (etc) operators, obviously attitudes are different. It's a different type of operation in practice.

CS, as for why ICUS is continued to be logged on PF sectors - who knows? Maybe the system is too difficult to change? Maybe it's to meet pilot-on-watch implications in the ops manual? In the end, it doesn't really matter anyway... airliner ICUS time is pretty irrelevant.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This whole issue is peculiarly Australia, out in the real world, ICUS/AICUS/P1-U/S/Command Practice/Whatever It is Called by a local NAA just isn't an issue, with the widespread adoption of the MPL for airline cadet pilot training, it just isn't an issue.
But, in good old Australia the battle rages on, the Holy Word "Command" must not be used in conjunction with any other word, and certainly not with the intent of ICAO Annex 1, and "The Rest Of The Know World" (or most of it) has got it wrong.
Geeez, some of you bloke would be upset to know that, in most cases with US operators, the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.

Centaurus and like, how's that grab ya!! Straight unadorned, unvarnished, unqualified (and I mean the Holy Word is unqualified, not the pilot) command time. This is something FAA just does not get hot and bothered about.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Centaurus, I do and I was.

Tootle pip!!

[JPJP]

Geeez, some of you bloke would be upset to know that, in most cases with US operators, the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.


I'm afraid that you are completely incorrect. Not only is that illegal under the U.S. FARs, it would also get you laughed out of any interview upon inspection of your logbook.

The First Officers (F.O.) in the majority of cases hold a SIC Type Rating for the aircraft they operate. Therefore, it is illegal for them to log the time as PIC or ICUS. That is certainly the case for the ATR example you used above. If the F.O. holds a PIC Type Rating in the aircraft type, it would still be illegal for them to log the time as PIC. Unless they are designated by the operator as the PIC they log the time as SIC.

Basically, if you signed for the aircraft and are listed as the Captain you may log PIC. This also applies to heavy crew operations with more than one F.O.

ICUS is not an issue in the U.S. since the cadet schemes haven't reared their ugly heads here ...... Yet.

[Tee Emm]

the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.


I vaguely recall (and I am sure you will happily correct me if I am wrong, Ledsled!) that in another era there was an Aussie ANO that said once you had an ATPL you could log all flying as in command. I knew one former airline pilot that did just that - including his on-duty dead head positioning time and passenger time. It took DCA years to re-phrase that wording when it was shown that it led to rorting the intention. But not before the said airline pilot had claimed he had over 38,000 hours in his log book. I know because I was his flying instructor and his claimed hours simply weren't true

[JPJP]

But, in good old Australia the battle rages on, the Holy Word "Command" must not be used in conjunction with any other word, and certainly not with the intent of ICAO Annex 1, and "The Rest Of The Know World" (or most of it) has got it wrong.

Leadsled

You might like to consult the hiring pages for every Legacy/Major carrier in the U.S. They strictly define what Command time means. No, Command time is not sitting beside the Captain, it's not just handling the controls, it's not being a second officer sitting in a seat when the Captains in the bunk, and it's not attending an MPL course.

The point is - in some parts of the "world", some companies require significant turbine command time to even be hired as an F.O. Some of them require a minimum of 1000 hours in command of a jet in RPT. As a result, the definition of command time remains important long after another airline scams its second officers into an ATP with an ICUS exception.

The real question is this; why should a nations flag carrier have to hire a pilot that isn't even able to hold an ATP ? Why would you support this practice as a Check Airmen ?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. current F/O practice, it must have changed quite recently, and having checked with the son of an old mate, who is currently a United "F/O", neither he, nor anyone he knew, had a "SIC rating", they all had a B747 rating, period, on their ATPs. Maybe that varies with carriers. Maybe he is going to have to change what he logs ---- or his colleagues.
Certainly, when he flies, he flies as the designated SIC.

JPJP,
Large numbers of the world's airline are substantially crewed by pilots who started off as cadets. Countries like AU, CA,US are the exceptions. In many cases, these cadet schemes (BA/LH/JA/SQ etc) date back to the early 1960s.

There is absolutely no evidence that airlines hiring pilots that do not already have an ATR/ATPL or be qualified to hold same are any less safe than pilots who have had a few years to develop or consolidate bad habits in GA or third level carriers.

Tootle pip!!

[JPJP]

Leadsled,

You are absolutely correct regarding a United 747 F.O. That's why I used the word "generally" with regard to the SIC Type Rating. In order to fly international routes from the U.S, pilots are required to have a PIC Type Rating. This may allow a pilot to log Command time if an augmented crew has 3 F.Os and 1 Captain as opposed to 2 Captains and 2 F.O.s

You are also correct that the 'SIC Type Rating' is recent. It was the FAAs response to ICAO. What has not changed is the fact that an SIC, other than in the circumstances mentioned above, cannot log Command time.

I will defer to your experience and QANTAS excellent safety record on the subject of Cadets. Although, two QANTAS pilots I have known for many years seem to disagree with your opinion. Lufthansa is another positive example whilst Air France seems to have some issues with regard to training.

Cheers.