Logging hours as FO

[pilotbro]

When FOs fly offshore operations in an EASA country, say on AW139/189, can they log any of time as PIC time?

I am thinking how junior guys can collect these days 1000 hrs PIC required for EMS (as per EASA requirements)... and whether offshore FO positions filled in the next 2-3 years will help the EMS demand in the next 3-5 years.

[Brutal]

Hello Pilotbro,

You cannot log any hours as PIC as an FO or SFO unless you are the aircraft Captain. This is just the nature of multi-crew operations. If you need PIC then you should try instructing, which can also lead to some aircraft positioning,charter work etc where you are left to make the PIC decisions and can log it appropriately.
A lot of the FO/SFO logbooks are full of P1u/s which is quite frankly a bit of a farce and HEMS employers know you really haven't been actually making all the P1 decisions on all of those flights, (as the Ops manuals state, and I think one of the big 3 operators in the UK state you cannot log more than 50% or something of the flights , with strict stipulations when you do) but a lot of pilots just log it and a large number of Captains, (wrongly) sign the books as they are not bothered, or don't know the rules?
Hope this helps,
B.

[ersa]

Fohnwind - spot on with your post

[roundwego]

In the onshore world nobody gives a t*ss about offshore co-pilot hours. You might as well not even bother logging them, as (rightly or wrongly) you are viewed as a glorified passenger who just does the radio calls.

This just shows the ignorance of some of the onshore world.

[Hot_LZ]

Fohnwind - can you just clarify what the HEMS P2 will be doing differently from an Offshore P2?

[jeepys]

I don't agree with the feeling that offshore P2 hours are worthless.
What the UK offshore job will teach you is discipline and provide a well grounded apprenticeship.
If you do not intend to stay in the offshore world and hope for promotion then yes a whole bunch of P2 hours might not be worth a great deal to some onshore operators if it's a P1 slot you are going for.

[helimutt]

fohnwind, I'm hoping your post is more tongue in cheek than what you believe. As a co-pilot, under certain circumstances you are able to log p1-us whereby you agree with the commander (captain) before the flight, that you will be leading the flight. You make all decisions, which the captain has to agree with, from flight commencement until shutdown. If at any time you have to be over-ruled then that flight is no longer P1-US (pilot in command under supervision) as you havent proved you can act as pilot in command.

As for flying in a straight line only with autopilot on? Really? I don't remember it being that easy all of the time. Yes there are sectors which are straight and level but people who havent flown offshore havent seen some of the things required, similarly offshore pilots may not have experienced the pressures of onshore flying. I would love to see some of the onshore boys fly a night ARA, two crew, to minima and then hand over control to a (god forbid) 'waste of time' co-pilot, to land on a tiny NUI (small unmanned rig) in the middle of winter, North Sea. It has actually been done a few times that I know of. ( I aso know of an ex-offshore guy who got a capatains position with another offshore company, by saying he had over 2500 P1-US hours, when in fact, he'd actually nowhere near that many as he'd literally counted every hour he did as a P1-US hour regardless of who he flew with. ) I'm certain he won't be the first, or the last.
It's horses for courses. The thought of landing in an unlit site onshore, at night for a VIP, under pressure to get the job done, wouldn't exactly fill me with joy.

Some onshore companies say they fly two crew, but believe me, from what i've been told, and experienced, they have a lot to learn.
Single pilot, fine. Proper multi crew with disciplined procedures, both pilots holding ATPL (not that that really matters) :E

Just purely out of interest, what is your background for flying? Do you hold an atpl? offshore? onshore? corporate? HEMS, or are you an R22 jockey? ;

ps whats wrong with being an average co-pilot anyway? It pays the bills :)

[pilotbro]

Can someone explain what P1 and P2, or P1(u/s), or P1-us stand for? How are they defined?

Have been used a lot in the discussion above, and perhaps I am not the only one wondering what they stand for...

[pilotbro]

I see some HEMS operators using 2 pilots. Is it really so that there is no career track for the FO to become a captain (which would require building experience that count in the hours too)? Sounds strange... EASA rules really block this route, too?

[handysnaks]

Fohnwind, I think one of the very important requirements for the Hems companies is NVIS time, this (I believe), is due to the requirements of the charities not the operators. Quite a few charities are looking to move into night time HEMS. This may explain why (assuming what you say is true), many NA co-joes were not successful with PAS. Regarding the 'proper multi crew experience. Well, if the commanders have it, then they can bring that experience to the operation. How much proper multi crew experience do NS co-pilots have when they start?
(Asks an ex- NS co-pilot, although it was a long time ago)

[helimutt]

Can you imagine? A pilot in HEMS with no responsibility, and only there to make up the numbers? Whats the pay like? Any jobs going? ;)

[LowEnArgh]

Thread drift but a few comments from reading the above.

fohnwind In fact, having co-pilot hours will often rule you out of an onshore job. Witness the recent PAS HEMS hiring policy of hiring 200 hour HEMS co-pilots (without an IR) as oppose to hiring more experienced pilots.

I'm not sure this is true. It's a minimum, not the standard. I think a good offshore P2 with an IR/MCC and multi-crew experience would be seen rather favourably if the face fit, as would a good onshore FI with 500hrs P1 time - either could be equally as competent in the role. I believe they hire from across the spectrum. I know most of the guys previously employed in HEMS P2 roles, and their experience ranged from 250hrs without IR to 2500hrs offshore ME with IR, with everything in-between.

I would have thought that it's better to hire a pilot with an IR who has proper multi crew experience. But apparently not...

Some HEMS is moving in the direction of day/night NVIS multi-crew IFR. Others are day-VFR only. Indeed some day hems aircraft don't have AP/SAS/ILS/EFIS or captains with IR's. The last thing they need sat next to them is an over experienced P2 who feels entitled to a P1 slot because of their S92 rating and 1500hrs P2 offshore, trying to big themselves up with tales of IFR/offshore experiences etc when it's largely irrelevant to the role, and irritating. Not tarring all with that brush, but suggesting it's horses for courses, and much about personality - the right balance of experience, and willingness to learn the role specific skills. The entitled can rub people up the wrong way.

I see some HEMS operators using 2 pilots. Is it really so that there is no career track for the FO to become a captain (which would require building experience that count in the hours too)? Sounds strange... EASA rules really block this route, too?

It depends what experience the P2 had beforehand, and if you're any good. EASA require HEMS captains to have a min of 1000hrs P1, or 1000hrs total time with 500hrs as co-pilot in HEMS (or something to this effect). So if you have 1000hrs P1 and a few years HEMS P2 experience then there is a route, it's a question of if the face fits, and a P1 availability. If you have less than 1000hrs P1 then the hours in HEMS are quite slow, so it's not so easy to meet the requirements. 500hrs as HEMS co-pilot would probably be 3-4 years or so.

[whoknows idont]

Can someone explain what P1 and P2, or P1(u/s), or P1-us stand for? How are they defined?

Have been used a lot in the discussion above, and perhaps I am not the only one wondering what they stand for...

Interesting question coming from someone who has
about 1000 hours of rotary wing flight, not more.

:rolleyes:

[hueyracer]

It should be fairly simple:

One can only log Copilot hours, if the aircraft is required to be flown by a crew of two-either by the FOM, or by the company OM.

If it is a single pilot helicopter, you cannot log hours-legally.

Hours don´t mean anything anyways....i have seen Captain´s with 3000 hours not able to fly, and Copilots that only had 500 hours having a perfect hand for the machine....

All it is is a number in your cv, defining whether you qualify for "insurance discount" or OGP standards, or not...

[gulliBell]

Yes, very simple.
P1 = the person appointed by the operator to be the pilot in command. He doesn't need to touch the controls for the whole flight, he is still the P1 and has final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft at all times.
P1U/S is a co-pilot who has been appointed by the operator to act as a PIC under the supervision of the P1 who has been appointed by the operator in that supervisory role. The P1U/S does not have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft. Ordinarily a P1U/S log book entry should be certified (i.e. signed off) by the P1 who supervised the P1U/S.

[hueyracer]

....and only if that company has a PICUS program which is approved in their ops manual....

[Sir Niall Dementia]

fohnwind/ERSA;

It may seem the way you see it, but there are other factors. I flew offshore for years, did all the P2/P1U/S stuff and then got a command. I got into on-shore by chance a year after being made redundant, the learning curve was nearly vertical at first, and I had some great mentoring from a few really knowledgable guys.

The problem doesn't stem from the operators (I'm writing about corporate/charter here) it stems from the customers and their insurance companies. We have exactly the same two crew procedures as offshore (Ok, we don't fly ARA's) we train two crew exactly the same way. We also multi-rate, so all pilots fly 2-3 different types and everyone flies both single pilot IFR and multi-crew IFR. BUT, the people who insure the customers as the key men in their companies don't like accepting P2/P1U/S hours. I spend hours every insurance renewal arguing with the underwriters, but the keyman underwiters want 2500 hours P1 with IR, and if you stick that on the hull insurance then you get cheaper premiums, and the aircraft owners will always grab a quick saving, no matter how many banks/hedge funds/supermarket chains they own. They do, not/refuse to accept that the ever widening skills gap is causing a huge crisis in a tiny industry, and they are largely responsible

The next snag is crew cost. I can't afford to hire someone purely as a P2, they have to be able to fly P1/P2 on multiple types from day one, and a sound safe knowledge of on-shore procedures (including landing on a T in Devon on a dark night in winter) is a big advantage.

I wish I had answers, but I don't, I am desperately concerned for the future of the on-shore helicopter industry in the UK. I am due to go in the next retirement block, the difference in hours and experience between me, and one other here pilot here and all the other guys are is huge, I have more P1 at night than one of my guys has total time, and that should not happen.

I can understand the HEMS hiring process on cost grounds, they can create their own specialists in exactly the same way that off-shore has done for years, but the workload on the P1's, especially on NVIS will be high.

SND

[Wageslave]

Having been FW for the last 20 years I am amazed to find the definition given above for P1u/s. Amazed to find that it still exists in that form, it's correct form.

Amazed because as soon as I got my command on f/w my FOs were proffering logbooks at the end of a day's flying and expecting me to sign P1u/s without it ever having been mentioned in advance! I got a bit of a reputation for being a grumpy sod for declining. It now seems universal in many if not most UK airlines that every jet f/o writes - now figure this out - every handling sector as P1u/s!! No discussion, no mention of this to the skipper, no signatures any more, every f/o, every day does this and even more bizarrely it is legal apparently having been OK'd by our wonderful CAA! The company endorsed their logbooks with a fib-stamp when they need licence assessments to say all is in order in the logbook. This is all enshrined in the Ops Manual.

No one in my last 2 f/w companies (both household names) but the oldest and crustiest had ever heard of the correct way of doing P1u/s. F/Os simply didn't believe me thinking I was winding them up. Many of our foreign (european) pilots were aghast at our P1u/s system though, so it is a local rule.

How the heck can the CAA run two such contradictory lines? What "logic", if I may so abuse the word, makes a handling sector be the one that a pilot makes the command decisions on? Do the CAA have any notion at all of the nature of aviation? What are they smoking down there in the Belgrano?

Thus all our F/Os appear to be gaining their ATPLs on an official, CAA sponsored dodge that would be illegal in the rest of Europe as I understand it. Strange!

[Brutal]

Well said wageslave....I was also the "mean" one..saying it had to be "earned" not just logged...Some P2's used to get really upset! :{
The more bone idle the co pilot, the more they protested:=

[212man]

Thus all our F/Os appear to be gaining their ATPLs on an official, CAA sponsored dodge that would be illegal in the rest of Europe as I understand it. Strange!

I agree with all your comments about earning the signature, and briefing the roles in advance, however I'm not sure that PICUS can be considered a "CAA sponsored dodge".

Here's the EASA Part FCL definition:
PICUS flight time: provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the competent authority, a co-pilot may log as PIC flight time flown as PICUS when all the duties and functions of PIC on that flight were carried out in such a way that the intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was not required.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

fohnwind;

Some are hiring pilots with 700 hours, that tends to be the day/fvr single engine end of the market. I would love to invest in new pilots, I do not have a profit margin that allows it. You may doubt my post, I am happy to prove the point and show you what we get from the key man insurers. Please pm me if you want.

Don't forget the key man insurers are taking the risk of what may happen to a multi-national company if the Chief Exec gets killed in an accident, not the hull and third party risks, the key man risks run into billions.

As for what you have heard, I've no doubts there are cowboys on-shore, and I certainly saw plenty off-shore.

As for 2 crew; the company either has full two crew procedures in the OM, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the clients know that it is two qualified pilots with one working as single pilot. Go through Wyvern clearance some time, and see how the audit process works. Its' expensive, but essential to fly a lot of the US market in Europe,

And finally, we don't own the aircraft, if the owners can save a couple of quid on insurance premiums they will, just as they whinge about pilot costs, anything to do with safety that costs, maintenace costs and hourly rates. I often compain that going back off-shore would lead to a fairly dull existence, knowing what I'm doing next month, but I would miss the challenge of on-shore, and despite your comments flying with some very highly motivated, professional aviators, in a small, friendly group.

SND

[Wageslave]

212 Man, I don't think you've read my post. You quote the EASA definition. Yes, correct. But how do you defend automatically awarding P1u/s to an f/o for every one of his handling sectors - but handling sectors only (are command decisions only made on handling sectors? Shouldn't they practice command on non handling sectors too?) The Captain is specifically excluded from any form of supervision of this beyond the normal Capt/cojo supervision and is generally unaware that the f/o is claiming to have made any, let alone all command decisions at all!

But No! The CAA in their infinite wisdom allow a variation from that EASA definition where the Capt need not even be aware that the f/o is logging P1 time...and certainly has no say over whether to grant it or not. I certainly call that a CAA sponsored dodge though I sometimes think "fraud" would be more accurate. This fraud robs f/os of the opportunity to learn Captaincy and decision making. This now apparently occurs instantly as some sort of transfusion in Command training and is perhaps related to the fear some companies have that older Captains might seek to instil some of that subversive Airmsns.....Sh!t! I Nearly said Airma....Oh God!! you know, that subversive rubbish that we used to think essential in a safe aviator. And it would never do to have Captains instead of trainers coaching f/os in the niceties of the job, would it? Anarchy might prevail, and questioning SOPs!

I had one cocky little 200hr sprog on his very day on the line (double LON CDG in crap weather) ask how he should divvy up my 3 sectors to his one into P1u/s as he was entitled to sectors turn and turn about! Entitled!
I jest not.

[tipsock]

Wageslave - I thought I had to have the entry signed by the Captain to log PIC/US, are you saying this is not required under CAA?

From CAP804 - "all time recorded as SPIC or PICUS is countersigned by the aircraft pilot-in-command/flight instructor in the Remarks"

[Wageslave]

Fohnwind. What on earth do you fondly imagine can divine about my CRM from calling a cocky little sprog a cocky little sprog? Read the damn post to see why he deserved to be called that will you, you cocky little sprog.

tipsock, For no-signature automatic (handling sector only mind...) P1u/s your company has to have approval from the CAA and this is given in conjunction with an approved command training system. You'd know if your employer had that, but in any case you are going to learn far more, far better from your line Captains over the years before your command using the traditional method than from a synthetic three day "command decisions" course. I think one reason big airlines dislike the proper system is that it instils Airmans..Oh! God, I nearly said it again! well, you know what it instils and the big companies don't like that as they see it as a threat to their rigidly inflexible SOP, automatics and magenta line training system that turns out identical, unquestioning, sometimes unthinking and above all obedient clones who all toe the company line because they simply aren't aware that there is another way to fly - ie by using your brain. It may sound odd to some of you in rotary where I expect that unmentionable "A" word is still regarded as important. In the big loco world that word and it's concept has been utterly banished for a decade or more - trainers never ever use it (I never once heard it used in the training environment in almost 15 years) - it is simply not considered the correct way to operate in SOP land. New f/os arrive on line not even knowing what the word means as they have never heard it before. Incredible but true.
Make the best of the good, working system you have to become a proper, thinking pilot and absorb the collective knowledge of your Captains.

[Wageslave]

How does the language one employs affect the facts?
Fella, once again, try actually reading my post - that is actually reading it to see why a 200hr f/o demanding to be awarded P1u/s for sectors he hadn't flown and imagining he's entitled to sectors of is choosing was seen as a cocky little sprog. Entitled indeed!

Rest your case? Gawdelpus! You need a course in logic matey if you make assumptions on that basis.


It occurs to me to ask if you are by any chance that cocky little sprog?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Gentlemen
We live in a world where Volkswagen make money by telling lies, where senior officials at FIFA line their own pockets, where governments do secret (illegal?)deals over tax with the major corporations. I have had to work with two FI's who were previously sacked for falsifying their logbooks yet are still employed as FI's with major players. Our world is no less corrupt than elsewhere so it's 'caveat emptor' when you run through the CV's as a CP. Sad but true and the declining efficacy of regulatory oversight is not helping.

G.

[LowEnArgh]

Wasn't there a police 'pilot/CPL/IR' who made it all the way into employment and line training a while back (probably pre-NPAS) who had nothing more than a PPL and some falsified docs? I don't think they lasted long, but still....

[puntosaurus]

See here (http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?t=51623&referrerid=110355)

[MarcK]

So why would anyone sign on as an FO when all the hours accrued are useless towards getting a command?

[tipsock]

Wageslave - thanks for the reply, seems to go against CAP804 but I suppose the CAA can give exemptions to it's own rules. Seems a crazy way to do things which would be prone to falsification.