Thanks Capt' et, al.
Am I drawing a long bow with regard to the definition of "fly the aircraft" as a Co-pilot or as a Captain, because the reg apparently doesn't specify. Some have taken the definition as irrespective to what seat, others have taken the view that a catagory of licence be applicable to "command" be it ICUS or otherwise. My interpretation (as well as at least one FOI I know) is that the intent of the reg be applicable to at least an ATPL holder for Aircraft above 5700kg and CPL for aircraft below 5700kg.
If you read the ATOG proposal, the author attempts to validate the logging of ICUS by invoking ICAO annex 1 which permits this activity for the attainment of a "Higher Grade of Licence". If there is no barrier to a CPL holder logging ICUS on aircraft above 5700kg as "defined" in CAR 5.40, then why does the ATOG proposal attempt to redefine the Reg in this manner? My only conclusion is that the author has recognised the prohibition to logging ICUS in aircraft above 5700kg by anyone other than the holder of an ATPL!
Now if I'm wrong (and it certainly won't be the first time), then why all the effort to augment the Reg. Why not simply give the green light for operators to do it. For that matter, why don't operators just do it if the Reg is so clear? The reason; No one wants to stick their necks out. And frankly who could blame them.
As I said, I believe CAR 50.4 is as clear as mud!
p.s. Marauder.
Agree totally. The ATOG proposal also makes mention of due governance by the operator when assigning "Supervisory" Captains for ICUS flights. An obvious attempt to aportion responsibility. The problem is, the due governance it refers to only makes referance to the "Supervisory" Captain as being qualified to fly with a junior albeit qualified First Officer! In other words, no requirement whatsoever above the normal qualification of line Captain.
What a joke!