Logbook - ATPL conditions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logbook - ATPL conditions
Hi guys,
Anyone can help me with this issue?
I'm a A320 copilot, i would like to know how should I fill up my Logbook, because I would like to apply later to unfreeze my ATPL, I'm an EASA license holder and I have around 110h as PIC, the requirements by EASA are:
- 250h as PIC (70 PIC and 180 may be as PICUS)
Can I log like 50% of the time as a copilot and the others 50% as a PIC, since my log book only have 4 spaces (PIC, copilot, dual comand, instructor). On the legs that I'm flying as a PF I can log the 50% PIC time and have it signed by the designated PIC on the remarks field with the PICUS, am I right?
Thank you in advinde for your help!
Anyone can help me with this issue?
I'm a A320 copilot, i would like to know how should I fill up my Logbook, because I would like to apply later to unfreeze my ATPL, I'm an EASA license holder and I have around 110h as PIC, the requirements by EASA are:
- 250h as PIC (70 PIC and 180 may be as PICUS)
Can I log like 50% of the time as a copilot and the others 50% as a PIC, since my log book only have 4 spaces (PIC, copilot, dual comand, instructor). On the legs that I'm flying as a PF I can log the 50% PIC time and have it signed by the designated PIC on the remarks field with the PICUS, am I right?
Thank you in advinde for your help!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that's right, log PF time in the PIC column and annotate PICUS in the remarks, with the captain's name in the captain column.
I personally divided the time out into a separate column so I could easily subtract true PIC out later on for job applications etc, but for the ATPL application there's no need for this.
I personally divided the time out into a separate column so I could easily subtract true PIC out later on for job applications etc, but for the ATPL application there's no need for this.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that's right, log PF time in the PIC column
Part-FCL (Page 9) Definitions:
Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.
‘Pilot-in-command under supervision’ (PICUS) means a co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in- command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command.
‘Pilot-in-command under supervision’ (PICUS) means a co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in- command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command.
EG:
PF sets up a Heading of 330
PM monitors that PF set 330 and that aircraft responds correctly
Either is irrelevant as to who is PIC
PIC = The person who made the actual decision that the aircraft should fly
a heading of 330.
The OP may only be a very junior 2nd Officer still learning how to be a co-pilot. It is only senior co-pilots, who are learning to be Captains, who will be allowed to "perform, under the supervision of the pilot-in- command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command" and then (presumably) the whole flight will be logged as PICUS, provided the actual PIC did not need to override any decisions, agrees and endorses the co-pilot's Log Book to that effect.
I foresee another long thread on this topic.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pedant mode 'On":
You don't have an ATPL, not even a 'frozen' one! You have a CPL with passes in ground subjects towards the issue of an ATPL. 'Frozen ATPL' was just a marketing ploy by one of the schools.
Pedant mode 'Off'.
You don't have an ATPL, not even a 'frozen' one! You have a CPL with passes in ground subjects towards the issue of an ATPL. 'Frozen ATPL' was just a marketing ploy by one of the schools.
Pedant mode 'Off'.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP may only be a very junior 2nd Officer still learning how to be a co-pilot. It is only senior co-pilots, who are learning to be Captains, who will be allowed to "perform, under the supervision of the pilot-in- command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command" and then (presumably) the whole flight will be logged as PICUS, provided the actual PIC did not need to override any decisions, agrees and endorses the co-pilot's Log Book to that effect.
A question of my own, however:
the requirements by EASA are:
- 250h as PIC (70 PIC and 180 may be as PICUS)
- 250h as PIC (70 PIC and 180 may be as PICUS)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actualy the requirements are: 250h as a PIC which at least 70h as to be perform as a PIC and the remaining hours can be as PICUS.
So you can have 240h PIC and 10 as PICUS. I'm just pointing the minimuns.
If you are loging the hours in the PIC field and you have a remark PICUS signed by the designated PIC. You are not loging hours as a PIC! You are Copilot doing pf dutties, since the capt tells you: "you have control"
Because in my case i just have 4 fields: PIC, copilot, dual comand and instructor.
I think that later when u became a capt you just have to separate the hours that you have as a designated PIC and the hours that you perform as a PICUS (copilot performing PF dutties)
Am I right?
So you can have 240h PIC and 10 as PICUS. I'm just pointing the minimuns.
If you are loging the hours in the PIC field and you have a remark PICUS signed by the designated PIC. You are not loging hours as a PIC! You are Copilot doing pf dutties, since the capt tells you: "you have control"
Because in my case i just have 4 fields: PIC, copilot, dual comand and instructor.
I think that later when u became a capt you just have to separate the hours that you have as a designated PIC and the hours that you perform as a PICUS (copilot performing PF dutties)
Am I right?
A1234,the Captain should log the whole flight as `Captain`,co-pilots log as co-pilot PICUS as appropriate.Read your Company Ops Manual,or ask someone in Authority...
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I right?
Because in my case i just have 4 fields: PIC, copilot, dual comand and instructor.
Time as PICUS is recorded in the PIC column.
I have no idea what "Dual command" means.
The 'Instructor' Column is simply there so Instructors can easily record the times that they performed that function in flight.
Read your Company Ops Manual,or ask someone in Authority...
However, as you are a professional pilot, I suggest you do not ask the question "How do I fill out my Log Book?" but rather ask the question "What are the requirements in this company for me to be able to fly as PICUS?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for the explanations/clarifications!
Actually, I know how my company asks us to log the time (I just like to hear another opinions/examples) and right now I had already contacted my local CAA.
In "my" case, I'm allowed to log the PF time in the PIC column, as long as i have it signed by the designated PIC on the remarks with the acronym PICUS.
PF time counts when the PIC says: " You have control"
@Level Attitude
Concerning the form that I performed my questions, I think that its up to me but I would like to thank you for your advice, but actually that was the point!
Safe flights!
Actually, I know how my company asks us to log the time (I just like to hear another opinions/examples) and right now I had already contacted my local CAA.
In "my" case, I'm allowed to log the PF time in the PIC column, as long as i have it signed by the designated PIC on the remarks with the acronym PICUS.
PF time counts when the PIC says: " You have control"
@Level Attitude
Concerning the form that I performed my questions, I think that its up to me but I would like to thank you for your advice, but actually that was the point!
Safe flights!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logbook hours
Hello Dear Pilots ! I fly long hours as FO, like 12 or 13 hours in multy crew aeroplaine , one way .
I started to log hours into Jeppesen Logbook . Have a question about loging multi-pilot time , total time of flight , co-pilot time and IFR hours.
As about a half flight time I do nothing ( resting somewere) , should I log less time into Multi-pilot time and Pilot function ( co-pilot) time than Total time of flight? And still Multi-pilot time would be more than the Pilot function (co-pilot CRZ relieve) as we take off and land alltogether 2+2).
It would be appreciated, if someone could provide a reference in the FAA documents . Logbook describtion , unfortunatly, does not say much. I looked through FAA website but there huge amount of infomation and I could not find that what I need .
And the other question about logging IFR hours , as actual IFR in clouds . You guys really log time during the flight every time you are going through actual clouds or approximate it like 1/3 of the flight time?
Thank you!
I started to log hours into Jeppesen Logbook . Have a question about loging multi-pilot time , total time of flight , co-pilot time and IFR hours.
As about a half flight time I do nothing ( resting somewere) , should I log less time into Multi-pilot time and Pilot function ( co-pilot) time than Total time of flight? And still Multi-pilot time would be more than the Pilot function (co-pilot CRZ relieve) as we take off and land alltogether 2+2).
It would be appreciated, if someone could provide a reference in the FAA documents . Logbook describtion , unfortunatly, does not say much. I looked through FAA website but there huge amount of infomation and I could not find that what I need .
And the other question about logging IFR hours , as actual IFR in clouds . You guys really log time during the flight every time you are going through actual clouds or approximate it like 1/3 of the flight time?
Thank you!
Last edited by Happy Bird; 12th Nov 2015 at 06:10. Reason: Added a question
Happy Bird: When I did flights like yours ie. augmented crew due to flight time limitations issues then the captain is the ONLY crew member who logs the entire block time for the flight. He is considered, in the eyes of the law, to be "in command at all times" even when not on the flight deck!
This is a hangover from maritime law.
The other co-pilots log the actual time that they operate from their designated seat. (this may be LHS or RHS depending on company policy regarding training from said seats) Thus the other crew would normally log about one half of the block time. I have heard that certain ME carriers even exclude the "resting hours" from the annual 900 hrs total - although I have no proof of this.
With regard to IFR/IMC Do not confuse IFR (how the flight is conducted ie. rules) with IMC which is actual flight conditions. For example a flight may be totally IFR but completed entirely in VFR conditions.
This is a hangover from maritime law.
The other co-pilots log the actual time that they operate from their designated seat. (this may be LHS or RHS depending on company policy regarding training from said seats) Thus the other crew would normally log about one half of the block time. I have heard that certain ME carriers even exclude the "resting hours" from the annual 900 hrs total - although I have no proof of this.
With regard to IFR/IMC Do not confuse IFR (how the flight is conducted ie. rules) with IMC which is actual flight conditions. For example a flight may be totally IFR but completed entirely in VFR conditions.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much Meikleour!
Very much appriciate your reply to my questions Meikleour! It put some more light on logbook mystery for me and solves some questions !
If I put this knowledge to practice , I would write only the half of the total Block Time as FO .
Say for instance , if the Total Time of Flight ( i.e. Engine time ) 12.28, I wright in my log book for the TOTAL TIME OF FLIGHT only 06.14 . Is it right ?
PILOT FUNCTION TIME = (12.28 - 1.30) : 2 = 05.29 ( I log 05.29 )
01.30 - this is Multicrew environment time, when every member of the crew have a say in a dissision making ( as per CRM ) and ligaly also responsible for what they do ! All four pilots seating in the cockpit and this time is the duty time also! So I have to log this time , to show that I was present in the cockpit at the time! ( 00.30+01.00, 30 min - from the engine start to the CRZ and 01.00 preparationg for a landing , approach , landing , taxing untill enging shut down) it is approximation of course .
Now , 4 pilots in the cockpit from push back to CRZ ( MULTI-CREW ) , which is approximatly 01.30 + 2 pilots in the cockpit during CRZ phase (also MULTI-CREW) , which is 05.29= 06.59 MULTI-CREW TIME goes to my logbook . Is it right?
But my concern in this situation is that the TOTAL FLIGHT TIME ( 06.14 ) now is less than the time in the MULTICREW TIME (06.59).
Should not the TOTAL TIME OF FLIGHT be at least equal to MULTICREW TIME for the FO?
Would be good , if someone please proved me this the documents or explanation ( brakedown procedures ) on how correctly to write hours in logbook , that written by some AUTHORITY ( e.g. FAA) some kind of guide.
Thank you all !!!
If I put this knowledge to practice , I would write only the half of the total Block Time as FO .
Say for instance , if the Total Time of Flight ( i.e. Engine time ) 12.28, I wright in my log book for the TOTAL TIME OF FLIGHT only 06.14 . Is it right ?
PILOT FUNCTION TIME = (12.28 - 1.30) : 2 = 05.29 ( I log 05.29 )
01.30 - this is Multicrew environment time, when every member of the crew have a say in a dissision making ( as per CRM ) and ligaly also responsible for what they do ! All four pilots seating in the cockpit and this time is the duty time also! So I have to log this time , to show that I was present in the cockpit at the time! ( 00.30+01.00, 30 min - from the engine start to the CRZ and 01.00 preparationg for a landing , approach , landing , taxing untill enging shut down) it is approximation of course .
Now , 4 pilots in the cockpit from push back to CRZ ( MULTI-CREW ) , which is approximatly 01.30 + 2 pilots in the cockpit during CRZ phase (also MULTI-CREW) , which is 05.29= 06.59 MULTI-CREW TIME goes to my logbook . Is it right?
But my concern in this situation is that the TOTAL FLIGHT TIME ( 06.14 ) now is less than the time in the MULTICREW TIME (06.59).
Should not the TOTAL TIME OF FLIGHT be at least equal to MULTICREW TIME for the FO?
Would be good , if someone please proved me this the documents or explanation ( brakedown procedures ) on how correctly to write hours in logbook , that written by some AUTHORITY ( e.g. FAA) some kind of guide.
Thank you all !!!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAP 804, section 1, part E:
I would take this to mean that co-pilots can count PF logs as PICUS for the purpose of the PIC time required to issue an ATPL. Otherwise, how will a cadet with a CPL and 100 hours PIC ever be able to meet the requirements?
3
Logging of time
3.1
Pilot-in-command flight time
A co-pilot acting as pilot-in-command under supervision on an aircraft on which more
than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or as required by
Part-OPS provided such pilot-in-command time under supervision is countersigned
by the pilot-in-command.
3.5
PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision)
Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the 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.
A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS,
instrument flight time* etc.
* Instrument flight time is the time when flying by sole reference to instruments
Logging of time
3.1
Pilot-in-command flight time
A co-pilot acting as pilot-in-command under supervision on an aircraft on which more
than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or as required by
Part-OPS provided such pilot-in-command time under supervision is countersigned
by the pilot-in-command.
3.5
PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision)
Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the 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.
A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS,
instrument flight time* etc.
* Instrument flight time is the time when flying by sole reference to instruments
Happy Bird: I think you are over-complicating this issue!
a) take off and landing times will define the total flight time. If that is an issue for you - draw an extra column in your logbook for it.
b)any time spent taking rest/off duty in flight cannot be counted for licencing purposes except for the captain, as I explained.
c) if your company requires you all 4 crew to be in the flight deck for climb and descent - then this time counts as P2 unless it is P1CUS as listed before.
All of the licencing authorities are well aware of crewing arrangements for heavy crewed flights therefore it is important that you do not try to log your "bunk time" as operating time!
When I was operating as relief crew I did many flights of up to 14 hours where only 6 or 7 hours were logged, and when operating as a single relief pilot giving relief to the two other pilots I would log MORE operating time than the pilots who conducted the take-off and landing!
On a B747-200 with a 5 man crew, the relief would do 10 hours in the seat to give each other pilot 5 hours off duty time during flight. Now that was tiring!
a) take off and landing times will define the total flight time. If that is an issue for you - draw an extra column in your logbook for it.
b)any time spent taking rest/off duty in flight cannot be counted for licencing purposes except for the captain, as I explained.
c) if your company requires you all 4 crew to be in the flight deck for climb and descent - then this time counts as P2 unless it is P1CUS as listed before.
All of the licencing authorities are well aware of crewing arrangements for heavy crewed flights therefore it is important that you do not try to log your "bunk time" as operating time!
When I was operating as relief crew I did many flights of up to 14 hours where only 6 or 7 hours were logged, and when operating as a single relief pilot giving relief to the two other pilots I would log MORE operating time than the pilots who conducted the take-off and landing!
On a B747-200 with a 5 man crew, the relief would do 10 hours in the seat to give each other pilot 5 hours off duty time during flight. Now that was tiring!
a) take off and landing times will define the total flight time. If that is an issue for you - draw an extra column in your logbook for it.
Now, to the endless misunderstandings and misconceptions of PICUS.
It may well be that some (apparently usually UK companies) have strange and lax interpretations of this, but the wording and intent of the rule is perfectly clear.
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.
flight were carried out, in such a way that the intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was not required.
First of all, note that there is no mention whatsoever of who is pilot handling to achieve PICUS. It is of course perfectly possible to log it when non handling. The insistence on PICUS being logged as some function of being handling pilot is of itself the biggest indication of a complete misunderstanding of the entire concept. It doesn't say much for understanding the fundamental nature of Captaincy either.
The pilot logging PICUS must carry out all the duties and functions - note "all" the functions which means he must have conducted the preflight brief inc cabin crew if appropriate, assessed the weather, notams, made all the fuel and loading decisions, liased with the ground agent and dispatcher, handled the loadsheet and filled in the Tech Log and all other paperwork and returns/reports at the end of the flight. He may of course delegate some of those items just as a Captain does but he must maintain the overall position of Pilot in Command (Under Supervision). Once again, he acts out the entire role of the Captain from beginning to end of the flight, but under the supervision of the real Captain. This involves a great deal of work and effort from the P2 but nowhere, nowhere does it mention handling the aircraft; well, of course it doesn't as handling the aircraft has nothing at all to do with being (or practicing being) the Captain. d'uh oh!
It is intended to give P2s the opportunityto practice the role of Captain. Who handles the a/c is utterly irrelevant
This requirement is far, far from just logging handling time as P2. It requires an active and specific participation - note active - from the Captain from the first moment the crew meet in the crewroom and does not end until the P2 had completed the post flight paperwork. Then, and only then may the Captain choose to append his signature and thereby his Professional approval of the FO's conduct of the flight in his name.
A Professional pilot does not do that lightly, and a truly Professional company does not allow this time to be logged merely on the basis of who flew the sector. They might as well award it for time spent commuting by train for all that has to do with PICUS
The failure to apply this procedure faithfully merely cheats our FOs out of invaluable practice and insight into the role of Captain which should ultimately be greatly to their advantage once the Command course comes up. And we should never be cheating FOs out of Professional practice and training.
How should the Council for the Defence (or the pilot, God forbid) answer when the Judge is trawling through his training records and discovers that fundamental requirements for award of his ATPL had been subverted? I think he'll think what I think, if you see what I mean. ie that a number of specifically required qualifying hours had been fraudulently recorded in the pilot's logbook for the specific purpose of gaining an ATPL with the active connivance of the Company. Where would that leave the defendant?. The practice of awarding PICUS for handling sectors is no better and no different from the PPL who just sharp-pencils in a few score P1 hours to big up the totals for award of his CPL. Think on that.
Last edited by Wageslave; 14th Nov 2015 at 16:18.
Wageslave: Yes, that was my typo! I meant to refer to block times as defined in CAP407 Please accept my grovelling apologies.
However, in true PPRUNE fashion I was trying to help Happy Bird with his/her query which was about logging of time on supplemented crewed flights! Your hijacked rant about logging of P1Cus was never in the equation.
Since the early '70s it was common practice in UK airlines for copilots to log their PF sectors as P1Cus for ATPL upgrade purposes. Of course it doesn't mean very much but perhaps you weren't around in the days when "leg and leg about" was not common practice. Aircraft often had more than one copilot and many of the ex-wartime skippers were more than happy to log the lions share of the PF sectors so P1Cus was one indication of how much handling a copilot had been allowed!
I remember a period when I was in BEA when one sector in ten was about average for a copilot.
In BOAC at that time it was not unknown for command candidates to arrive on their course with less than 100 landings achieved in 8 years on the line!! Base training to achieve this shortfall was not unheard of.
I am aware that other countries had different views on this. Indeed the old Sabena used to rigidly apply what you outlined so copiously.
Thats the end of the history lesson! As you can probably guess neither me or Happy Bird are particularly interested in the logging of P1C/us
However, in true PPRUNE fashion I was trying to help Happy Bird with his/her query which was about logging of time on supplemented crewed flights! Your hijacked rant about logging of P1Cus was never in the equation.
Since the early '70s it was common practice in UK airlines for copilots to log their PF sectors as P1Cus for ATPL upgrade purposes. Of course it doesn't mean very much but perhaps you weren't around in the days when "leg and leg about" was not common practice. Aircraft often had more than one copilot and many of the ex-wartime skippers were more than happy to log the lions share of the PF sectors so P1Cus was one indication of how much handling a copilot had been allowed!
I remember a period when I was in BEA when one sector in ten was about average for a copilot.
In BOAC at that time it was not unknown for command candidates to arrive on their course with less than 100 landings achieved in 8 years on the line!! Base training to achieve this shortfall was not unheard of.
I am aware that other countries had different views on this. Indeed the old Sabena used to rigidly apply what you outlined so copiously.
Thats the end of the history lesson! As you can probably guess neither me or Happy Bird are particularly interested in the logging of P1C/us
Meikelour, You seem strangely upset. There really is no need for theatrical self-abasement because you misleadingly used incorrect terminology - which is, incidentally, nothing to do with a "typo" at all. "Helping" people on technical matters is far from helpful when incorrect/sloppy terminology is used.
I gather that logical reasoning isn't to your taste but may I gently suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the meaning of "rant" and "hijack"? Once again you are using incorrect terminology. Further, just because your last post was on a given subject does not mean that the entire thread is now restricted to that matter, nor excuse patronising jibes about your personal lack of interest in matters raised by others (and not me, in this case).
Even a cursory scan would reveal the matter of PICUS had already been raised. Incorrectly, you'll notice, hence the attempt to put it right before any more newbies are mislead by incorrect "facts" being presented here. Or is it somehow not done to address two matters in one post?
Arguing that localised, anecdotal and unpopular conditions two or three generations ago is reason to ignore or misinterpret rules today where such things no longer exist is a false and irrational argument, just as your justification for it at the time is specious. BEA's operating standards have attracted much interest on PPRuNe and rightly so too, I think, though quite how the matters you quoted could affect the then use of PICUS I can't really see. (yet another typo/technical inexactitude here, I'm afraid.) No doubt what you meant to type was P1u/s. It may be pretty much the the same thing but one is derived from modern pan-European ops, the other the historical UK ANO rule, regimens no more interchangeable than the acronyms themselves.
To excuse my clearly inadequate experience in all matters and of P1u/s in particular I can only go by what I have seen from BA, BCAL and TEA, plus a smattering of lesser names. Surprisingly close to your own list, isn't it. However. I certainly never heard of it being interpreted any way other than the way I described until quite recently, in an airline well known for having eradicated the concept of "airmanship". And yes I know the UK CAA turn a blind eye, even collude in the scam. We know how they bend over to the big guns when it suits and it's pretty shameful. It doesn't make it right. When they re-write the definition to make pilot handling the only requirement to award PICUS I'll back down, but until then the current definition stands.
Mikelour, try not to let the injustice of being an FO FEW under those horrid ex-wartime skippers cloud your judgement but technical inaccuracies, false logic and spurious ancient excuses for breaking rules have no place in todays's Professional world, any more than they did then. Any more than does sneering at those who try to maintain correct standards in this industry that relies so much on the adherence to correct standards.
Nice day!
I gather that logical reasoning isn't to your taste but may I gently suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the meaning of "rant" and "hijack"? Once again you are using incorrect terminology. Further, just because your last post was on a given subject does not mean that the entire thread is now restricted to that matter, nor excuse patronising jibes about your personal lack of interest in matters raised by others (and not me, in this case).
Even a cursory scan would reveal the matter of PICUS had already been raised. Incorrectly, you'll notice, hence the attempt to put it right before any more newbies are mislead by incorrect "facts" being presented here. Or is it somehow not done to address two matters in one post?
Arguing that localised, anecdotal and unpopular conditions two or three generations ago is reason to ignore or misinterpret rules today where such things no longer exist is a false and irrational argument, just as your justification for it at the time is specious. BEA's operating standards have attracted much interest on PPRuNe and rightly so too, I think, though quite how the matters you quoted could affect the then use of PICUS I can't really see. (yet another typo/technical inexactitude here, I'm afraid.) No doubt what you meant to type was P1u/s. It may be pretty much the the same thing but one is derived from modern pan-European ops, the other the historical UK ANO rule, regimens no more interchangeable than the acronyms themselves.
To excuse my clearly inadequate experience in all matters and of P1u/s in particular I can only go by what I have seen from BA, BCAL and TEA, plus a smattering of lesser names. Surprisingly close to your own list, isn't it. However. I certainly never heard of it being interpreted any way other than the way I described until quite recently, in an airline well known for having eradicated the concept of "airmanship". And yes I know the UK CAA turn a blind eye, even collude in the scam. We know how they bend over to the big guns when it suits and it's pretty shameful. It doesn't make it right. When they re-write the definition to make pilot handling the only requirement to award PICUS I'll back down, but until then the current definition stands.
Mikelour, try not to let the injustice of being an FO FEW under those horrid ex-wartime skippers cloud your judgement but technical inaccuracies, false logic and spurious ancient excuses for breaking rules have no place in todays's Professional world, any more than they did then. Any more than does sneering at those who try to maintain correct standards in this industry that relies so much on the adherence to correct standards.
Nice day!
Artic Circle: with your operator do you employ "cadets" ( ie. Pilots with only the basic licence and not the full ATPL) and if so, how do those pilots achieve the hours requirement for the issue of an ATPL? Or, is the ATPL only obtained whilst on the command course much in the manner that Sabena used to do. This caused all sorts of grief for the ex Sabena, highly experienced copilots who came out to Hong Kong because they did not hold an "equivalent" licence.
Artic Circle:Thanks for that explanation. I guess with a large time gap then ATPL theory exam passes may expire or is there no longer a link between the theory stuff and the eventual issue of the senior licence?
