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?