What is the "P1 under supervision" time stand for?

[lookxian]

Is there anyone can help me with the flight time calculation?

Recently I read the New Zealand Flight_Crew_Recognition_Info pages.
There is one paragraph

Please note that except where specifically provided for, P1 under supervision, command
practice, ICUS or similar time is not acceptable in lieu of the minimum flight experience
requirements laid down in AC61-1.7 for the ATPL (A).

I am not quite understand what's the P1 under supervision, command
practice, ICUS or similar time stand for? Is there anyone can help?

[mad_jock]

Its European for pretend your the captain but your not really.

The Europeans use it so that the cadets that come out of school with as low as 165hours and go straight onto muticrew aircraft can build enough PIC time to be able to get an ATPL.

NZ has obviously decided that's a pile of poo and only want proper PIC time.

[lookxian]

How about I fly in the company like 7years then got like 3000hrs alrealy and then get the ATPL license. After that I fly with company check pilots to build my PIC hrs. We log this time with note PIC U/S. Could the PIC U/S consider to be PIC time when applying the NZ ATPL?

[lookxian]

thank you mad_jock

[Offchocks]

P1 u/s or ICUS has been around a long time. As mentioned in mad_jocks post it is used for low time pilots in multi crew ops so as to get enough hours for an ATPL.
I have P1 u/s hours from 40 years ago in the UK flying DC3s with 400hrs total. In those days the captain gave you the sector and if you flew it with little input, then he would sign your log book declaring it as a P1 u/s sector, half of those hours went towards that required for the ATPL.

BTW mad_jock I was also flying out of ABZ!

[lookxian]

thank you Offchocks
:ok:

[lookxian]

by the way
what is the P1 or ICUS stands for?

[RAFAT]

mad_jock - I have to disagree and am in Offchocks' camp on this one. Any F/O flying in a commercial aircraft, with 165 hours with a fATPL or 2,500 hours with a full ATPL, cannot log any of their flying as PIC because they are not the PIC, so what's your alternative?

In my commercial logbook I have "Dual", "PIC", "P1 U/S" and "Co-Pilot" columns, so back in my F/O days, when I happened to be PF for a particular sector, I did as Offchocks did and logged the time as P1 U/S and asked the PIC to countersign the entry as per the logbook's instructions. When operating as PNF I logged the time as Co-Pilot, or P2 as in the case of some logbooks.

I couldn't log PF time as PIC because I wasn't the Pilot in Command and it would be misleading, nay dishonest, to log it as such, and as stated above Co-Pilot status applies to PNF sectors. Whilst PF I was P1 (not to be confused with PIC) under the supervision of the Pilot in Command, so logically the time was logged as P1 U/S and I'm happy with that.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
What RAFAT has to say is correct, and in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 for logging flight time.

Once again, those of you who make stupid remarks about about "pretend command time" and other similar derogatory remarks just air your ignorance.

P1U/S, ICUS, AICUS, Command Practice or however described is not command time, and nobody who knows what they are talking about pretends that it is.

It was not invented for modern cadet pilots to log in command to make up minimums for an ALTP/ATPL/ATR. It pre-dates any post WWII cadet schemes, of which I am aware.

Annex 1, little changed except for the MPL, goes back to the foundation of ICAO, and a deal of the technical detail predates ICAO, and goes back to ICAN.

P1U/S etc is a record of the sectors operated by an F/O as what we now call "pilot flying". No more and no less.

Australia used to comply with Annex 1, until some time in the 1970s, when Australia became non-compliant by introducing the present ratbag rules. I am alway ammused, and sometimes bemused at the common Australian pilot attitude, "we know better than the rest of the world", praising themselves as "the only soldier in the battalion in step".

Tootle pip!!

[compressor stall]

Of course another advantage of logging ICUS as an ATPL holding FO is you don't have to subtract 50% co-pilot time for your total aeronautical experience / grand total flying hours. :}


PS. I'm still trying to find where ICUS / P1US etc is talked about in ICAO Annex 1 for purposes other than a higher grade of licence issue.

[LeadSled]

I'm still trying to find where ICUS / P1US etc is talked about in ICAO Annex 1 for purposes other than a higher grade of licence issue.Comp Stall,
You are reading with an Australian mindset, not international English, the para. you refer to makes it clear that ICUS "counts", but does NOT say that logging ICUS is limited to the hours needed for upgrading licenses.
Tootle pip!!

[compressor stall]

but does NOT say that logging ICUS is limited to the hours needed for upgrading licenses.

Agreed.

It's our NAA (CASA) that says that it's not limited - tacitly. That's the Australian mindset, not the international one.

[lookxian]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Pilot Log Books (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90100)

[Tee Emm]

Re logging of flying hours in general. Here is an extract from a heavy landing accident report. The SE Asia operator (737 equipment) concerned has been in the past frequently the subject of PPRuNe comments. The operator is sufficiently concerned about past accidents attributed to low hour co-pilots, to limit what take off and landings they are permitted to do. .

Although these first officers are legally second in command (in some airlines in SE Asia first officers are sometimes referred to as second officers even though the crew consists of two pilots), they are not permitted to take off and land until they have 300 hours on type - even though they have a basic type rating gained in a simulator.


If the captain becomes incapacitated in that period, then best of luck to the passengers!
Even with more than 300 hours on type, landings are restricted to ILS runways only (Presumably because they will be on autopilot all the way to touchdown..

General


Chief Pilot/Fleet Manager on type must make sure that all pilots are aware of the
limitations of less experience pilots, and that policy must be understood by all Pilots..
1. Second In Command (SIC) is only allowed to become a Pilot Flying (PF) after
reaching a 300 flight hours on the aircraft type flown (on type)
2. SIC with more than 300 flight hours on type, may become the PF on takeoff,
but to become the PF for landing, he/she restricted to approach using an
instrument landing system (ILS).
3. Especially for Boeing 737-xxx, with the degree of difficulties because the
length of the aircraft, SIC may become a PF after reaching 500 flight hours on
type.
4. An extreme caution must be exercised anytime flying with less experienced
pilot. The PIC must be prepared to take over the flight control, especially
during takeoff and landing when the SIC is the PF. PIC must keep soft touch on
rudder pedal, control column and thrust levers.
5. When the PIC has less than 300 flight hours on type. The PIC is not allowed to entrust the control to the SIC, irrespective of the SIC total flight time on type..
• SIC not permitted to do Approach and landing on Non Precision Approach (NPA) runway.

[FokkerInYour12]

THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

I had less than 300 hours on type on my last girlfriend.

I could never get a visual approach for landing and I always felt there was a soft touch on my thrust lever.

[RAFAT]

LeadSled - :ok:

[mad_jock]

Its pretend pic time don`t kid yourself its a paper work exercise to allow an atpl issued.

I don`t have a single hour of it logged.

The only people that look at it is the caa. Everyone else its co-pilot time.

[LeadSled]

Its pretend pic time don`t kid yourself its a paper work exercise to allow an atpl issued.
I don`t have a single hour of it logged.
The only people that look at it is the caa. Everyone else its co-pilot time

mad jock,

You are quite entitled to your prejudices and to air your ignorance of the subject, in fact in your case it seems to be: " Don't bother me with facts, my prejudices are made up".

As for never having logged an hour of P1U/S etc., either you have not been in a position, so to do, or quite possibly committed an/many offense(s) by not not keeping an accurate record of your flying times, as required by law.

Tootle pip!!
.

[mad_jock]

I am a line training captain, and didn't need to log any of it because I had 1000 hours PIC from being an instructor.

All you will end up having to do is strip it out from your totals when you get your command and start logging proper PIC time.

The only people even remotely interested in it is the CAA and that's only for ATPL issue.

[Tankengine]

Mad Jock,
ICUS never gets into the Command column so you don't have to "strip it out" when you get a Command. It is also used when under some checks, although dual could possibly be used.
If used correctly there is no issue, if abused it is a crick of s#%^:hmm:

[mad_jock]

the way it works sometimes in Europe mainly the UK is that they log every sector they are PF as PICUS with usually no discussion with the PIC.

And they include it in the PIC totals.

OK what use is it apart from ATPL issue?

[LeadSled]

mad jock,
Could I suggest reading lessons.
I have already posted the very good reason for logging P1 U/S/ICUS whatever, go back, read, digest and understand.
Tootle pip!!

[mad_jock]

nope read it again and still can't see the use of it apart from upgrade for those that don't have proper command time.

You honestly don't think company's take anything from quoting it on CV's do you?

Cv's I see with it go straight in the bucket.

What individuals put in the personal logbooks is up to them. But in the real world its meaningless only proper PIC time counts for anything.

[Tee Emm]

But in the real world its meaningless


Rather like logging instrument flight time in your log book. That column is probably faked more than any other log book entries. Apart from initial instrument rating course where progress reports should be kept and audited, there is no way that a pilot's claims that he has been flying in IMC whether on autopilot or hand flying, can be verified (audited). Worse still we see the ridiculous situation where pilots log instrument flight time at any time they are on an IFR flight plan and flying CAVOK the whole way.. Even taxi time is logged as instrument flight time purely because the aircraft is about to depart on an IFR plan.

[mad_jock]

I agree Tee, under EASA they have logging IFR time and don't even mention instrument time apart from some instructor ratings and 70 hours for ATPL.

They have a requirement for instrument time for ATPL but you get all but 10 hours of it by doing the minimum hours instrument training. So by the time you add in your sim time for type rating you have the min required.

We have had to change the way the FO's have been doing it since we had issues with 2 NAA's and the logging of it. One idiot had been claiming it from the day he started multi crew flying with 200 hours in his log book. Which as we all know they just about know they are sitting in an aircraft but 95% of the Captains job they don't even know exists.

Now there is a section in the part D training manual for it. The FO's as such don't log it but keep a secondary sheet which they record the sectors which they are claiming and get the Captain to sign off and record there license numbers details on. There is a certified copy included in the letter confirming all hours correct for the company flying. The original goes in their training file. The last 5 applications we have had zero problems with 3 different CAA's touch wood using this method. They have to apply to the head of training to start doing it and they have to have 500 hours on multicrew before they can start doing it.

Also now we have a defined day of PICUS so its not just rock up and do the job as normal and sign for it. They have to deal with ground handling and all that other good stuff which the PIC does.

Personally it was a whole heap easier getting the PIC time through instructing and not bothering with the PICUS side of things.

PICUS is of coursed logged during command line training and is in the log book more to prove that they have been line trained as a Captain. We give it a course complete stamp as well.

We have had some chancers that have tried to come in as a DEC claiming PICUS hours as PIC and when you go check the references and log books it turns out they have never been a Captain of a muticrew airliner.

In the real world it doesn't do anything apart from ATPL issue and I have seen it fudged/abused that often now its guilty until proven innocent. Some one comes in with a couple of 1000 co-pilot hours without a mention of PICUS and they go straight to interview with the boss after a tech session with me. Loads of time which the weighting of it doesn't match for muticrew operations and most of the time they have been on the fiddle. With experience I have learned that if its mentioned something is likely to be hooky. Do they think training departments and chief pilots are thick? And haven't been in the same situation themselves and seen the tricks form both sides of the fence.

What someone puts in their own log book is entirely up to them.

And it seems the NZ CAA is of the same mind set as me as well.