View Full Version : Picus

19th Dec 2003, 00:52
Hello folks,

Can somebody tell me when you can log flight hours as PICUS. If you fly commercial twin engine aircrafts (but single engine certified), is it than possible to log the flight time as PICUS when you are not PIC?
I thank you for your responses.


19th Dec 2003, 03:24
So, let me get his right, you're asking whether you can claim 'Pilot in Command Under Supervision' time for operating in an aircraft for which you have no rating whilst not flying with a FI/CRI?

Is that really what you're asking?

I would say the answer is NO!

19th Dec 2003, 04:01
...but whilst carrying (what has now become) a passenger, BEagle. :confused:

19th Dec 2003, 16:23
As with so many things, the answer is in LASORS - Section A (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf), Appendix B in this case.

There are two cases given where PICUS may be used:

"Co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot-in-command." You can only be a co-pilot on an aircraft which is certified with a minimum crew of two or more, so this doesn't apply to any single-pilot aircraft, regardless of how many pilots are actually on board, and what type or class ratings they have.

"Pilot undergoing any form of test flight with a JAA or CAA Authorised Examiner (other than [pilot undergoing a flight test in the capacity of co-pilot])" where you can only log PICUS fo a successful test.

So the answer is No. In fact, as BEagle has hinted, you can't log the time at all if you're not licensed to fly the aircraft, unless you're with an appropriately rated instructor.


19th Dec 2003, 16:51
FFF - Suggest you read LASORS again. What it actually says is:

A co-pilot acting as pilot-in-command
under the supervision of the
pilot-in-command on an aeroplane on
which more than one pilot is required
under the type certification of the
aeroplane or as required by JAR-OPS
provided such pilot-in-command time
under supervision (see 5 below) is
countersigned by the pilot-in-command

Therefore PICUS may be claimed in an aircraft certified for single pilot but operated as 2 pilot under JAR-OPS (Citation I springs to mind).

Where did the idea come from that this hypothetical pilot does not hold a type-rating on the aircraft concerned? I see no reference to that in the original question.

Perhaps the confusion arose because Dirrick mistakenly wrote single-engine when he really meant single-pilot, thereby prompting Beagle's initial sarcasm. But then, of course, it's our God-given right to pour scorn on those who's grasp of written English is inferior to our own isn't it?

Answers to that last rhetorical question accepted only if written in perfect colloquial Flemish.

Happy Christmas

19th Dec 2003, 17:13
You said: "Dirrick mistakenly wrote single-engine when he really meant single-pilot." I'm not so sure that he did. But whatever he meant, I don't see anyone "pouring scorn" on anyone else's standard of written English - or even mentioning anyone else's standard of written English, for that matter, except you.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Whatever Dirrick intended to ask, I'm sure he'll find the answers in the combination of those bits of LASORS which I've quoted and those which you've quoted. :ok:


19th Dec 2003, 21:09
I think i know where DIRRIK is coming from.

Say the cessna 406 turboprop, which is single crew.

Under JAR-ops for it to be operated as single crew IFR it must have a functioning autopilot.

Now if the AP is US JAR-ops states that it must have 2 IR qualified pilots on board. It dosn't stipulate that both pilots need to be type rated or even the second pilot a CPL holder.

I don't have a clue if you can log it or not.

There are quite a few corp operators out there fly with what appeares to be 2 crew on board in white shirts because the punters like to see 2 pilots. But in reality there is only one person type rated who is operating the machine the other is there for show. I believe the going rate is about 50-60 quid a day for ironing a shirt and pretending you know what you are doing.

You definatly can't log this flying even if you are lucky enough to have a pole about.

Personally I wouldn't put the time in your log book in the first case because it looks a bit daft if on your CV if you are claiming turboprop time while not holding a type rating. Use it as a method to keep current flying IFR. Maybe bring it up at interview to show that you havn't been sitting with your thumb up your bum waiting for a job to fall in your lap.

While working at xxx flying school i was lucky enough to be allowed to fly as second pilot on xxx. And if you were allowed to fly some procedures and TO and landing but don't lie. More than likely the interviewer will know someone from that company and will phone up asking what your flying was like. The network in the UK is unbelievable and especially in the corp and regional airlines the fleet captains and ops directors all know each other.


20th Dec 2003, 01:31
Hello all,

Sorry I meant single pilot certified aircraft. I hold the rating and I am flying as second pilot. Thank you for your answers to my question.



20th Dec 2003, 05:37
interesting point over the countersignature, while technically correct acording to LASORS I never did this either as an FO or Captain on multicrew types, whenever a licence upgrade was needed the company used to send a letter from the ops director stating all the hours were correct from company records. Saved us dragging logbooks around.
Now Im back to being an FO , but use a fully computerised logbook. Now I all ready have my ATPL issued but what would someone who still had to get one issued do, you cant exactly get the skipper to sign your laptop every day. An how about the guys doing 6 sector days for EZY etc how quickly can you fill in a logbook at the end of the day.
Anyhow seems the world is a little less trusting these days.

Pub User
22nd Dec 2003, 16:32
mad jock


"Now if the AP is US JAR-ops states that it must have 2 IR qualified pilots on board. It dosn't stipulate that both pilots need to be type rated or even the second pilot a CPL holder."

Surely the word 'qualified' implies qualified both on type and for the operations undertaken (commercial/private)?

22nd Dec 2003, 20:05
Don't know

But seen it done quite a few times. But it was just on the change over onto JAR-ops so they could have just been making it up.

I can't remember if it was public transport flights though.


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1