ICUS, a slightly different Question?

[EngineOut]

I know the isuues with ICUS have been done to death, but here is a slightly different twist:

Say,

A holder of a CPL is to fly (for example) a B1900 on freight or pax work with nine or less pax, single pilot. (an ATPL is only required for the PIC on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot)

50 hours ICUS are required because it is above 5700kg.

He/she is only a CPL holder so theoretically can not log ICUS!?

Let me first say, I am not in this situation, and it probably does not happen very often, but legally it is a bit strange. Anybody know how you would get around this?

[tubby one]

I think you will find that the 50 hrs ICUS are not "required" but are an option towards getting the required command hours:bored:

[swh]

The 50/25 hrs ICUS options are laid out in CAO 40.1.0, they are reqd for charter or RPT for aircraft above 5700 kg.

The number of seats is irrelivent as a condition for requiring ICUS, you may be getting yourself confused with RPT and the number of pilots reqd.

"Anybody know how you would get around this?"

Have an ATPL, or a CASA exemption, or only do non charter or RPT work (PVT/aerial work). CASA has been treating freight only as aerial work of late.

[Seaeagle109]

Well if you read CAO 40.1.0 Section 8A (including the subpara's) which refers to aircraft above 5700 kg.

You have to do 50 ICUS or 25 ICUS and an approved Sim Course for an aircraft that's engaged in charter or RPT or "Can fly under IFR according to its flight manual"(para 8A1b)

So, regardless of pax/freight or whatever you what to fly, if its over 5700kgs and can fly IFR you need either the ICUS and/or a sim course to fly in command.

And the only way you can log ICUS is under CAO 40.1.0 Para10.7b. ie ATPL's only, so no CPL ICUS, sorry.

[swh]

Seaeagle109 ,

So, regardless of pax/freight or whatever you what to fly, if its over 5700kgs and can fly IFR you need either the ICUS and/or a sim course to fly in command.

Incorrect, the CAOs has an "AND" between 8A.1(a) & (b) not an "OR" as you have indicated

"8A.1 For the purposes of regulation 5.25, it is a condition of each command endorsement that authorises the holder of the endorsement to fly an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700 kg. that the holder of the endorsement must not act as pilot in command of such an aeroplane if:
(a) the aeroplane is engaged in charter operations, or regular public transport operations; and
(b) the aeroplane's flight manual specifies that it may be flown under the I.F.R.;
unless the holder satisfies the aeronautical experience requirements set out in paragraph 8A.2."

[Seaeagle109]

SWH,

My apologies you are correct, it does read "and"; shouldn't try to do this after a beer whilst watching TV and ppruneing at the same time. That's what causes errors.

Still, even if you go private or airwork under the logging of flight time only an ATPL can log ICUS or have I missed an argument to the contrary?

Regards

Seaeagle109

[EngineOut]

I guess we are going around in circles again...

My question/statement was with regard to the fact that you can fly an aircraft above 5700kg, single pilot (less than 10 pax or freight) but you cannot log the time as ICUS to get to that point.

Obviously, you are not going to buy 50 hours on an aircraft like this, and not all operators do AWK/PVT often enough (although I understand freight only CHTR is going into the same category as AWK soon).

SWH- i realise you can get an ATPL or exemption, that was not the point. I also realise that most operators would not employ many people on above 5700kg aircraft single pilot IFR without an ATPL. I was wondering if there was not something else in the regs i was missing...obvioiusly just another case where the regs contradict themselves!

[swh]

EngineOut,

I might be reading too much into what you have written, the problem word I have with what you have written is the word log.

CAO 40.1.0 para 8A.2 does not say a pilot must have logged ICUS, it says "holder's aeronautical experience must consist of". Note that aeronautical experience is not defined in CAR 2 "Interpretation" or CAO 40.1.0.

It is possible for a CP(A)L holder to undertake ICUS IAW CAR 5.40. However IAW CAR 5.52-> CAO 40.1.0 para 10 a CP(A)L holder is required to log ICUS as co-pilot as they were not PIC.

So in short, IMHO you can comply with CAO 40.1.0 para 8 as a CP(A)L holder without logging a single hour of ICUS, but having conducted the required ICUS IAW 5.40 and logged it IAW 5.42 & CAO 40.1.0 para 10, i.e. "co-pilot". However, that was not your question, you included log.

To log ICUS you would still need an ATPL of a certificate of validation as if it were an ATPL.

Are you :confused: yet by such a simple question ?

[EngineOut]

SWH,

I think you got it there with the 'logging' of it- you would make a good lawyer!

I know it was only a trivial question, but one which I could not really find an answer to. Now it is alittle clearer.

[4dogs]

EngineOut and SWH,

If two pilots form the authorised flight crew complement of an aircraft, one will be PIC and one will be copilot. It doesn't matter if one of them is AICUS - the fact that he/she is acting means that he/she is still the copilot.

If CAR(88) 5.40 permits an CPL holder to fly in an AICUS capacity, then CAO 40.1.0 cannot prevent it. Such an outcome would be unlawful as well as stupid. And if you ever get into the argument, just remember that one of the two reasons for AICUS is to qualify for an ATPL and it was designed to be available to CPL holders accordingly.

The different wording of paras 10.5 and 10.7 serve only to highlight the lack of quality control within CASA. It is about time Bill and Peter got it fixed!!

Stay Alive

[nzer]

In the interests of TTMRA, hands across the sea, etc, below is the link to NZCAA Part 61 (AC61) description of the applicability, and eligiblity for logging of what is commonly called here "Command practice" - since (in theory) we are meant to be "harmonising" I append it for what it's worth. I am not suggesting for a minute this is better wording or that by some miracle our CAA is any more "gifted" than CASA!!

www.caa.govt.nz - See "Rules" then Part 61, then pages 18 and 19.

[Hot_Section]

If it's a single pilot aircraft and you have a command endorsement you are legally allowed to operate the aircraft in command. The company may require you to be supervised but you are NOT acting ICUS as it's a single pilot operation.

The question then begs what does the supervising pilot log as he/she is not legally required to be on board.

[Hot_Section]

But, if it's a single pilot operation, there is no such thing as ICUS - it only exists in Multi Crew ops. ie Pilot in Command and Copilot, and trained accordingly in such operations.

Single Pilot ops only have Command and Dual.

[swh]

Hot_Section

INCORRECT

CAR 5.40 applies to aircraft (all aeroplanes helicopters etc), not just multi-crew aeroplanes.

What you have stated is just another one of the insdustry furfys that is out there. :}

Some examples :

RPT in a single pilot aircraft > 10 seats.
IFR without an autopilot installed
Aeromedical IFR with autopiltot u/s > 3 days, and maintenance actions taken
Operator requires two crew
CASA requires two crew

:ok:

[Next Generation]

Hot_Section
But, if it's a single pilot operation, there is no such thing as ICUS - it only exists in Multi Crew ops. ie Pilot in Command and Copilot, and trained accordingly in such operations.

Single Pilot ops only have Command and Dual.

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

NG

[Hot_Section]

NG,

Thanks for your enlightening input.

If I'm incorrect in my understanding of the Command / Dual / ICUS situation would you please explain it to me.

Thanks

Hot_Section

[4dogs]

swh,

My response was to enlighten, not to spark a self-righteous urinary fountain. I thought to let it pass, but I am concerned that your ignorance may mislead others who are swayed by those who yell loudest.


I did not stay that at all, what is said was

I made no reference or allegation in regard to you or your post other than to state from certain knowledge what the relevant provisions in CAR Part 5 reflect in policy and legal terms. In an earlier life, I was directly involved in both the policy formulation and the legal drafting of Part 5. I administered those provisions for 10 years and have dealt with related issues in both the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

This is absolute crap. Its for people going from ATP(A)L to ATP(H)L or reverse. No regulation you will every find says that a CPL(A)L holder can log ICUS.

Your assertion is absolutely incorrect.

Part 5 was drafted with the intention of the closest practicable alignment with ICAO Annex 1 while retaining certain Australian practises that were considered to be value-adding. CAR(88) 5.40 was written specifically to outlaw what was then a common practice for students to fly with another student on navigation exercises, one logging PIC and one logging AICUS. That is why you must hold either a CPL or an ATPL to operate in an AICUS capacity.

AICUS is a specialised form or subset of the capacity in which a pilot operates an aircraft, specifically as a copilot. The primary capacities were limited to three mutually exclusive options: pilot in command, copilot or dual. CAR(88) 5.40(1)(d) specifies this to be the case - it was so drafted to dispel the folklore that AICUS was some variant of PIC!!

If you examine CAR(88) 5.172 as an example, you will note that the aeronautical experience requirements set out therein make no reference to logbooks, only to "a person's aeronautical experience must consist of" certain prescribed requirements. While your logbook is the normal means of recording your aeronautical experience, it is not the only legal means.

It is worth noting the structure of CAR(88) 5.173(8): that is the provision that gives effect to halving of copilot time (but only for the purpose of meeting the licence requirements) except for copilot time that is conducted as AICUS, for which full credit is given.

It was and remains a drafting presumption that the secondary legislation, in this case the CAR(88) 5.52 directions published in CAOs 40.1.0 and 40.3.0, is consistent with the head of power for the provision. As I have already stated, that is unfortunately not the case because the consequential amendments required by Part 5 were poorly handled and even more poorly supervised. The effect of the CAO provisions for logging of flight time, now distinguished between CPL and ATPL, is inconsistent with the CAR Part 5 policy determinations.

At the risk of being repetitive, AICUS was authorised for two specific purpose: first, to gain the aeronautical experience requirements for a CPL to upgrade to ATPL; and, second, to meet the experience requirements for command endorsements on aircraft over 5700 kgs MAUW and such others as may be prescribed from time to time. The somewhat rare ATP(H)L to ATP(A)L process was incidental to the policy considerations, however the exclusion of students on all-through courses without gaining a CPL on the way through was deliberate.

It may well be that the loss of corporate knowledge within CASA, combined with the focus on the new Part 61, may well have led to policy drift. Certainly the knowledge base within the Area Offices on these matters is abysmal and I have no doubt confusing or incorrect advice has been given out. We can all thank our Great Aviation Reformer for that, amongst many other things.

Stay Alive,

[swh]

4Dogs,

Good post, I can see from reading it that you were involved with writing Part 5.

I take it It was and remains a drafting presumption that the secondary legislation, in this case the CAR(88) 5.52 directions published in CAOs 40.1.0 and 40.3.0, is consistent with the head of power for the provision. As I have already stated, that is unfortunately not the case because the consequential amendments required by Part 5 were poorly handled and even more poorly supervised. The effect of the CAO provisions for logging of flight time, now distinguished between CPL and ATPL, is inconsistent with the CAR Part 5 policy determinations.

Means No regulation you will every find says that a CPL(A)L holder can log ICUS.

So Your assertion is absolutely incorrect.

Was not absolutely incorrect (to use DCA/CAA soeak)....and Certainly the knowledge base within the Area Offices on these matters is abysmal and I have no doubt confusing or incorrect advice has been given out.

Its only confusing because people like yourself that administered those provisions for 10 years and have dealt with related issues in both the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made it confusing.

The knowledge base within the Area Offices on these matters is only abysmal because the people who administered the rules did an abysmal job at documentation.

I get really pi$$ed off when ex public servants bag the current people doing the job that they themself could not do.

If you were so good in your time, there would be no “remains a drafting presumption that the secondary legislation…….”, get a grip.

Thanks for putting your hand up, we now have someone to point the finger at.


:ok:


P.S. This response does not serve to enlighten, to spark a self-righteous urinary fountain, but to vent my frustration at the crap rules you administered FOR A DECADE. :\

MATE ADMIT IT “remains a drafting presumption that the secondary legislation” means a CPL(A)L holder cannot LOG ICUS. You stuffed up.

[4dogs]

SWH,

Oh dear, oh dear - I appear to have upset you. That was not my intention.

Actually, I enjoyed being there and worked with a very professional bunch of folks who were dedicated to the mission - as I am sure that you are.

Its only confusing because people like yourself that administered those provisions for 10 years and have dealt with related issues in both the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made it confusing.

There was little apparent confusion up until the end of 2000 - your post was the first inkling that the original plot had been lost. In legislative drafting terms, 9 or 10 years of consistent application is a fairly robust result.

The knowledge base within the Area Offices on these matters is only abysmal because the people who administered the rules did an abysmal job at documentation.

I presume that you have read all of the Central Office files, policy notes and Explanatory Memoranda before coming to that conclusion. An alternative view may be that the subsequent training was/is deficient. That I may have contributed to that outcome is not in dispute - I accept that it may well be the case. However, I wasn't seeking to blame anyone - I was expressing my opinion of what I believe the knowledge base to be.

I get really pi$$ed off when ex public servants bag the current people doing the job that they themself could not do.

Previous to this little tantrum, I was unaware that you were a "current " person doing what I apparently could not do. In fact, I had presumed that you had been misled rather than that you were doing the misleading - an error which, in my ignorance, I sincerely regret. My intention was to "bag" the system rather than the people at the coalface. In my limited experience, inspectors are often only as good as their managers and their organisational arrangements - raw talent is often frustrated simply by the procedural issues that constrain regulatory bodies. I would be concerned for your personal welfare if indeed you are employed in an Area Office and you are so excited by my offer of a bit of history. On the other hand, if you are in some way responsible for the current level of corporate regulatory knowledge, then you may well have only an "outraged at this personal attack" defence left to you.

If you were so good in your time, there would be no “remains a drafting presumption that the secondary legislation…….”, get a grip.

I wasn't seeking adulation and my intention was not self-aggrandisement - obviously, I have failed to communicate my intentions adequately and for that I am also sorry. But you might consider that there are many reasons for not being able to ensure that all the consequential drafting was completed accurately or within an appropriate timeframe. I can only presume that your "get a grip" means that you have not experienced the challenges of legislative drafting in a multi-departmental environment with fairly rampant internal politics, particularly during major organisational change. Suffice it to say, it is a luxury to get the same team to draft both the primary and consequential amendments for the same senior management to approve. In this case, the team was broken up at the completion of Part 5, the proposed amendments to CAR 217 were set aside by an unfocused senior management team and the consequentials were left to another overworked and under-resourced group who had little passion for the task. So, for me, the drafting presumption remains valid.

Thanks for putting your hand up, we now have someone to point the finger at.

I think that if you had embarked on even the most superficial of research, you would have discovered that everyone on the Part 5 team had their hands up for many years and indeed welcomed any and all feedback in relation to their product. No one was ever hiding - quite the opposite. The tone, level and style of your response suggests that your involvement is relatively new and that you are not acquainted with me or my other project partners. That you feel the need to point a finger at anyone is unfortunate - playing the "blame" game is both unproductive and unrewarding.

As for your obsession with the act of "logging" flight time and your concern at my "absolutely incorrect" statement, I would like to offer a couple of comments.

First, my comment was focused on your statement about why AICUS exists rather than the logging issue. As a matter of fact, your assertion in that regard remains "absolutely incorrect", as I sought to explain in my previous post.

Second, you are in fact correct that there is no regulation that says that a CPL(A)L holder can log AICUS. However, there is no regulation that says that an ATP(A)L holder can log AICUS either, because that is not the structure of the relevant parts. Hence, I unconsciously disregarded your reference to "logging" regulations as nugatory and had no intention to argue about what I perceived as another example of the lack of regulatory precision common within the industry at large.

Third, we are in heated agreement that the directions set out in Part 40 of the CAOs on the logging of flight time are a stuff-up. Unfortunately, I didn't draft those provisions and I thought I had made it clear that I do not understand why the CPL paragraph is written differently from the ATPL provision. My argument is that, in terms of the head of power in CAR(88) 5.40, the CPL provision is ultra vires.

Perhaps it might be therapeutic for you to divert some of your obvious nervous energy to addressing that CAO problem rather than sniping at the messenger. In any event, the Bigger Picture is much more relaxing than chasing selective minutiae - unless you happen to be RHS.

Stay Alive,

[swh]

4Dogs,

You must jest if you think you have upset me :)

You very quick to mention then team approach (committee) to drafting, but not real quick to take the team approach to criticism. You knew of the "drafting presumption", as part of the DCA/CAA/CASA team what did YOU do about it ?

You woffel on a bit, "I presume that you have read all of the Central Office files, policy notes and Explanatory Memoranda before coming to that conclusion.", no, how could one, esp the stuff that has been destroyed, "all" no, have you ? now be honest how could you have read ALL ? and what does that have to do with joe public, its not law. You seem to be hiding behind a heap of paperwork, if it weighs 2t, it must be good .... :yuk:

"Previous to this little tantrum, I was unaware that you were a "current " person doing what I apparently could not do. blah blah blah blah " another heap of assumptions......

Point 1 : To repeat myself, a CP(A)L holder can conduct ICUS (CAR 5.40), a CP(A)L can not log ICUS (CAO 40.10.0).

Point 2: To repeat myself, an ATP(A)L holder can conduct ICUS (CAR 5.40), and a ATP(A)L can log ICUS (CAO 40.1.10).

Points 1 & 2 are statements of fact under the current law, in simple short clear English. You have used a heap of fancy words, at the end of the day, in simple short clear English you have not been able to address this.

Frankly I don’t think people will have read this far now, they would have become utterly disinterested in the response you have penned, like I have, I will leave the last say to you, I will not read this thread again.

The original question from EngineOut has been answered some time back.

From the real world.

:ok:

[Creampuff]

SWH: You state that:a CP(A)L can not log ICUS (CAO 40.10.0).Under which provision would a CP(A)L be prosecuted if she logged ICUS?

[sancho]

SWH have a Bex and a quiet lie down eh?

As a CPL I have conducted ICUS in accordance with the CAO's towards an approval, logged it (how else do you record it officially) and the testing ATO has accepted the hours logged (including ICUS) as valid. CASA has then issued the approval after receiving the appropriate paperwork from the ATO following the successful flight test.

I am responsible for logging flight time accurately and in accordance with the law and they (ATO & CASA) are responsible for validating and confirming same when issuing new ratings, approvals etc.

As far as I am concerned that's good enough for me.

We all know the CAO's and CAR's are in many areas inconsistant, contradictory and darn well hard to read, so what's new...

Get a life and don't worry so much about it.

[turbantime]

I'm with sancho on this one, Ato's and CASA regularly accept ICUS time logged for certain approvals and as far as I know, noone has been pulled up for it.....so obviously it must be ok.

As for the argument, CAR 5.40 says that a CPL holder can fly as ICUS with certain conditions of course.

CAO 40.1.10.5 says that CPL holder may log PIC or co-pilot
CAO 40.1.10.7 says ATPL holder must log PIC, ICUS, co-pilot

So here it is, the difference between may and must leaves a loophole because CAR 5.40 states that if you're acting as a co-pilot on a flight then it can be flown as ICUS if the operator allows it, appoints you as ICUS, and you hold the relevant PIC endorsement etc

And as for logging it, as above, you may log it as co-pilot but then again if you've flown it as ICUS there's nothing saying that logging ICUS can't be done.

Ask anyone out there logging ICUS and getting approvals, CASA ATO's check it off and in some cases so do the FOI's so it must be ok. :ok:

[swh]

Sancho,

If I recall correctly the “approval” you refer to was your twin training approval, which you are required to have 50 hrs multi PIC, of which not less than 25 hours may be conducted as ICUS (CAO 40.1.7 para 9.7).

You have been very generous with facts in your post, I am not aware of any requirement for an ATO or CASA to validate your log book, or indeed if they did, I am aware that you are required to “certify that the above particulars are true in every respect.”, and the examiner to sight your logbook, license, and training records on the test form.

If you look at the “Flight Crew Licensing Industry Delegates Handbook“ part 10.9 for Additional Instructing Privileges for the actual process that the ATO/delegate would have followed.

If I recall correctly another instructor and yourself each paid for the best part of 25 hrs in a light twin and did some local flying, one of you was logging PIC, the other ICUS, in a private operation.

Yes it may be very true that you had 50 hrs inside a multi-engine aircraft at the time of commencing the flight test, but you really only had about 25 hrs of "hands on" flying that was not dual.

I still don’t know today which of the two instructors at any stage was actually logging PIC, the one in the RHS, or the one in the LHS. If I also remember correctly one of the instructors used to turn up late, and not bringing along any charts.

If I also recall correctly the CP of the company you worked for had reservations about this process, and the you went to an ATO outside the company you worked for to gain the approval. If I also recall correctly the CFI of the company you worked for did not recommend you for the test, that was done by another CFI of a school you did not even work at. Once you had the approval the company you worked for “had” to recognize it as it was on your license.

My problem with this is I do not believe a person could be competent with 25 hrs of "hands on" flying in a light twin to teach multi engine endorsements.

By paying for only 25 hrs each, you effectively only got 25 hrs of "hands on" flying the aircraft which was not dual, and 25 hrs of just sitting there fat dumb and happy/unhappy as the case may have been.

I was not aware that you fully disclosed the circumstances of logging the “ICUS” time to either the ATO or CASA, I was not aware that the ATO or CASA checked to see if the flight time was logged IAW CAR 1988 5.54 (2).

Also, out of interest did you approach CASA or the ATO and actually ask them “If I have over 50 hrs in a twin, and only 25 hrs of that was hands on flying that was not dual, does that meet the requirements of CAO 40.1.7 9.7 (a)”

As I indicated in the PM I sent you and you have decided not to reply to, if you were to have an accident now conducting twin training, would an insurance company deem that you actually gained a valid rating ?

Is it true you are advocating this ICUS angle for the issue of multi-engine training endorsements purely from a financial prospective ? or do you honestly believe the 25 hours of just sitting there doing nothing gave you the necessary exposure to multi-engine flying to competently teach ?

turbantime

You still with Sancho on this one now ? Do you agree with what they have done ?

[grrowler]

swh, so you did decide to read this thread again

:rolleyes:

Anyway everyone, I yesterday (finally) got my ATPL. As part of the process, CASA obviously had a look at my log book, which contains several hours ICUS which I flew and logged, including several night hours which I needed to make up my required 100.

The lovely lady at CASA didn't query it at all, so I guess there is no problem flying and logging ICUS on a CPL.

So there's the answer (was that even the question?)

[swh]

grrowler,

Unfortunately most of the licensing delegates across the country are unable to tell the difference between a C310 and a C340....they are not pilots, generally don’t have any requirement to sit air law exams etc...

They go by the paperwork presented to them, copy the last page, check to see if the numbers on the form match the numbers in your book....and go by your deleleration that everything is true and correct....but as to knowing where to find inconsistencies...enter the data into LARP and issue you with a new license. As per the delegates handbook ....

If you were to ask them if a CP(A)L holder could log ICUS in an aeroplane, they more than likely would not know, might refer you to an FOI or Canberra. Then the answer you get will depend on who you talk to, and exactly what question you ask...can a CPL holder conduct ICUS IAW CAR 5.40 or can a CP(A)L holder log ICUS IAW CAR 5.54 (2) ....

More than likely the copy of the page of your logbook will be thrown out, as very few people actually have files in CASA, normally only delegates, approval holders, people with non compliance history.

What you have just highlighted is an inability of the delegates behind the counter to actually know if the information presented to them is valid. How do they know you actually flew TF??

Guess this means you might to across to the LHS seat now …

PS : The locals in FRV still miss you.

[grrowler]

swh, what point are you trying to make? Are you trying to point out the inadequacies in the laws and how they are written, which we already know, are you trying to launch personal accusations and inappropriate suggestions about people, or are you actually trying to answer the question with some practibility and commonsense?

Surely if a CPL can't count ICUS towards his/ her ATPL requirements, this would be listed in the so-called "delegates handbook", along with all the other hour requirements, such as halving copilot time, etc, etc.

Now I don't, unlike some others, pretend to be any authority on the regs, etc, however having followed through this thread and looked up the references, I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense.

Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct? :8

[turbantime]

You still with Sancho on this one now ? Do you agree with what they have done ?

Whether I agree with what they do is irrelevant. What I am saying however is that logging of ICUS by cpl holders must be ok since it is a common practice and noone I know of has ever been pulled up for it.

What about all the operators that charge for ICUS time in their various twins? It's advertised on websites etc. Their respective CASA FOI's surely know about the operation yet they do not say anything against it.

And the question by grrowler is also quite a good one.

Nowhere in the regs/orders can I see the fact that CPL holders cannot log ICUS....but as usual, a grey area with the law. :confused:

[swh]

grrowler,

More than happy to answer questions ...

"I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense."

CAR 5.52 (2) "CASA may give directions in Civil Aviation Orders setting out the information about each flight undertaken by the holder of a flight crew licence, a special pilot licence or a certificate of validation that the holder must record in his or her personal log book."

In CAR 5.52 (2) it says that CASA may give directions in the CAOs for the logging of flight time. For aeroplanes they have done so in CAO 40.1.0 para 10.

CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a CP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command.

CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a ATP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command, or ICUS.

CAR 5.52 (4) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (2).

It is an offence IAW CAR 5.52 (5A) not to follow a direction issued in CAR 5.52 (2), ie not to log flight time IAW CAO 40.1.0 para 10.

CAR 5.52 (5A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

CAR 5.52 does not refer to logging of flight time in CAR 5.40.

Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct?

Okay, firstly its not the roles of the pilots to decide what a person logs, or where they are seated in the aircraft, its the operator, refer CAR 224 & CAR 5.40.

The person who is nominated as the PIC by the operator, logs command.

If the operator nominates the other person to do the exercise as ICUS, what that person logs depends on their licence.

CAR 5.40 (d) states "the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft"

IAW with CAO 40.1.0 ....

CP(A)L holder : the ICUS person is not the PIC then they must be "co-pilot", they can still make a notation in the details sections stating it was done as ICUS.

ATP(A)L : the person logs it as ICUS.

:ok:

[grrowler]

Yes, you have quoted those regs many times, yes I understand what you're saying. However, logic and past experiences from many pilots would suggest that a CPL can log ICUS.

I feel you are getting caught up on the wordings of a couple of regs, rather than opening your eyes and looking at the big picture. The orders and regs are there primarily for air safety (at least that is the intention). What about the fact it says in 40.1.0 that a CPL must log..., while an ATPL may log.... ON your next crusade are you going to argue that ATPL's don't actually have to log flights because it only says "may", not "must"?

Earlier 4dogs posted on this thread saying he had been involved in the writing of these regs and orders, and what the intention of them was. Rather than taking that on board, you chose rather to blame him/ her personally for any inconsistencies that exist.

You seem to have what I've seen in most ex-instructors I know, an inability to look at things practically, and an inability to accept when they are wrong.

[swh]

grrowler,

So your basically saying what I have I have said is correct, but because your perception differs you can choose to do what you will, where do you draw the line ..... Which rules do you choose to follow? Just the ones you agree with?

4dogs may have had the best intentions in his days and for all I know his intentions were implemented on CAO 40.1.0, however I do hot have access to the amendment history as to why paragraph 10.6 has been removed from CAO 40.1.0.

This (CAO 40.1.0 Para 10.6) would be the most logical/sequential place for the inclusion of logging of ICUS by CPLs, however in the present amendment I have it is not included.

It may very well have been included in the past in para 10.6, removed for a reason (possibly abuse) however people continue practices unaware of the change.

I don’t know, all I can say it’s not there now.

PS : I think you have your may and must the wrong way around for cpl and atpl.
.

[grrowler]

And I guess you're choosing to do the same, interpretting the rules to suit your position. Perception is an amazing thing, it can never be wrong!

Yes, that's right, I (and many others apparently) have a different perception to you, swh!! And no, your stating and restating that you are correct hasn't convinced me that you are(I'm not one of your former students!!). I draw my answer from my ( and others) experience with CASA dealing with this problem. Are you now saying CASA is wrong?

Ok, I made a mistake with the ATPL/ CPL thing, but do you see my point? There is no apparent reason for a difference in the english used, so why is there? ICUS has very valid uses for CPL's, and just because you suggest it's reference has been removed because of abuse doesn't mean it's so, it could just as likely have been a typo that's been carried through (you yourself suggesting (in different words) that CASA wouldn't pick up a mistake if they made one...)

If your point is that the Regs and Orders should be rewritten in normal and practical english, I agree 100%!

[Tinstaafl]

A comment on readability & use of english in the rules & regs: If you think Oz rules are bad you should see the abomination that is the UK's regs! :sad: :rolleyes:

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Everyone,

I have found the answer you have all been debating. A CPL can log ICUS. See,

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/flight_time.htm

swh,
I couldn't find your post about the first person to find the words CPL, logging and ICUS in the same sentence for $50, but here it is.

I believe you now owe me.

Enjoy.

[swh]

Tell me why do they have on that page ......

"Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged. "

There is a time and place for everything, ICUS is a type of co-pilot time (CAR5.40 (d)).

And tell me why they say "(ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following: "

When CAR 5.40 is "REG 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision” and does not mention the word log, and is not referred to by CAR 5.52. Applying the literal, mischief, or golden rules to CAR 5.52 still provides no answer to the logging of ICUS by a CP(A)L holder in an aeroplane.

At the end of the day it's CASAs role to create the delegated legislation, that web page does not form part of it, so they can not use it to prosecute, nor can you use it as a defence.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following

"Include" is the key word.

Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged

Then reference

Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:

I don't understand, seems to be a contradiction. Correct me if wrong.

[grrowler]

So it starts again...
I'd forgotten all about those CASA guidelines for logging, etc (I do try to remember the advisory / guidelines they have on fuel reserves, etc).

Now, bearing in mind of course that CASA apparently doesn't know what it's talking about :confused: except some times when it suits;

ICUS:

Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours; blah, blah blah

As already highlighted, it also states a CPL can log ICUS, and it is logged as ICUS... pretty clear to me.

swh, serious question; are the CAAP's also only advisory, therefore not proscecutable (if that's a word)?