ICUS Logging. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

A37575

17th Jun 2006, 08:05

Must admit, I thought to log legal ICUS you must have met all requirements to be in command (apart from the 10 hours on type?) including a current instrument rating and instrument flight currency, where appropriate.

I don't know about Australian rules but I vaguely recall in UK that if at any time during the flight the ICUS crew pilot made an operational decision that was not agreed to by his supervising pilot, the ICUS time for that flight was revoked and reverted to copilot time. I very much doubt if that principle is regarded valid in Australia where ICUS is virtually logged willy-nilly.

I agree with Chimbu Chuckles that ICUS is just another fancy word for copilot time. The real captain just says "Your leg - your decisions" and this genial way of sharing legs has been going on for decades. In that case why don't first officers in airlines always log ICUS every time they are given a leg.

Years ago, there was a requirement to have 500 hours or more real fair dinkum signed for true blue command time in order to qualify for a ATPL. This was progessively watered down over the years to split that into half ICUS half real command. This made the ATPL easier to qualify for - rightly or wrongly.
There is no shame in logging of copilot time and I agree with Chimbu Chuckles when he equates ICUS with Parker 51 time. By the way, do they still make Parker 51's nowadays?

Continental-520

17th Jun 2006, 08:26

You know,

to log legal ICUS you must have met all requirements to be in command (apart from the 10 hours on type

That's what I thought too.

Frankly, ICUS rates so dismally in my world (after I have 10hrs on type, anyway), that I am only logging it to satisfy the legal requirement to do so.

If I could eliminate all the ICUS that I have (which isn't much at all, I'm glad to say) I would.

What irks me too is people who say "I've got 500 multi command", when, say 300 odd of that is ICUS. Once discovered, I usually respond with something like "Oh, ok. So you've really only got 200 multi command, then".

520.

M.25

17th Jun 2006, 09:35

The only real place for ICUS is in a check and training environment and even then it is only performed by an approved check pilot.

rmcdonal

17th Jun 2006, 09:50

I think ICUS is a great training tool. To be granted an endorsement on type all you really have to do is show the instructor that you can land it, and perform some engine out flying, not hard in most light twins (not talking about complicated aircraft here such as turbine/pressurized ).
The ICUS time is to show you how to fly the plane in a command/commercial situation. To make the best decision with regards to how to actually fly the thing. There is a VERY big difference in flying yourself around with an instructor and flying some paying costumers. Anyone who thinks they have mastered an aircraft in the time it takes to get an endorsement is full of sh!t. Even on single engine aircraft it takes longer then couple of hrs to get comfortable.
If used properly ICUS can make a pilot much more competent at flying a particular aircraft, you fly the thing in a REAL situation and the check pilot tells you exactly what you do wrong throughout the flight.
This said I don’t think 300hrs ICUS is really called for. I would say the 10 on type is a good figure to base your flying on, maybe more if the aircraft is a bit faster (EG if you have never flown a twin before and then you get a job fling a Chieftain around, then I would suggest you may need more then 10hrs).
If someone appeared on my doorstep with 300ICUS (Like I’m a Chief Pilot :} ) I would be very suspicious as to why they weren’t set loose with fee paying pax.
The flight plan is just so ATC can know the name of the person incase they need to write somthing up, if you fly the ICUS you can log it (if you meet the requirements and hold a CPL< )
:ok:

haughtney1

17th Jun 2006, 10:11

Under JAA regs, there is the PICUS column in your logbook.
Basically operators double the amount of PICUS required to achieve PIC requirements for command.
None of this silly 500hrs in a multi bug smasher..before you can command that 737:bored: (even though you might have 2000hrs 737 time, with half of that PICUS)

bullamakanka

17th Jun 2006, 11:00

Ronald has it in one.

On a practicle basis ICUS in GA is there to get a pilot up to speed on a new type once type have a basic endo. To cut them loose before hand is pushing it a bit. But to have heaps of ICUS hours is not required. Pretty common sense really.

I have a bit of ICUS in my log book. Maybe 40 hrs out of 800 twin. I dont see any problems with it. We ICUS new guys at work all the time. They log as ICUS, the guy in the RHS as PIC.

Bulla

MBA747

17th Jun 2006, 11:08

One can learn a lot from the guy in the right seat if flying ICUS ( light twins). It is a way of learning quickly and correctly provided the other guy is willing to share his knowledge and you are prepared to take it on board.

It is no different to a young F/O when he comes on line where he depends on the more experienced Capt. to learn the ropes, fortunately for him he has years to learn his skills. The young GA guy might only have 20 to 25 hours ICUS to learn the ropes before he is cut loose.

I remember doing my first trip at night Moorabbin to Hobart. It was pitch black, no moon, no horizon and thinking to myself I wish I had done this before with somebody riding shotgun. ICUS can be very useful if done properly. Don’t knock it.

A37575

17th Jun 2006, 13:13

MBA 747. If ICUS is that valuable then why does not Virgin Blue and Qantas let their first officers log ICUS when they are given a leg as part of normal line operations. After all, they make all the decisions if its their leg (fuel to be carried, PA to be made to the passengers, flight planned altitude etc).
There is no doubt that ICUS overseas is given much more credence by operators (or hirers) than in Australia. Maybe that is why some Australian pilots have been known to fill out two log books. One for overseas consumption (lots of ICUS even though its F/O time) and one for the more modest Australian environment.

rmcdonal

17th Jun 2006, 13:42

A37575 Where not talking about logbook filling, or 300hrs of ICUS. We where discussing using ICUS to make sure new pilots on type or company are brought up to scratch.
CASA states 10hrs cmd which can be ICUS, for IFR Charter. It’s a hell of a lot more feasible for a company to put on an ICUS Captain for the flight and give the newbie a chance to learn, then for you to go out and buy 10hrs CMD PVT flying.
I don’t think MBA747 or myself where for one moment saying go fill your logbooks with ICUS time.
I have to say there have been days where I look across to that empty RH seat and think ‘dam I wish I had done this at least once with someone else’.
Its not about what the time looks like in the log book, its about what the time means to the pilot.

bushy

17th Jun 2006, 14:30

Continental-520

18th Jun 2006, 02:55

That's what I'm talking about. I see the usefulness of ICUS in so far as type familiarity too, of course, but more than necessary is a little bit of an overkill.

Another can of worms similar to this is piston twin co-pilot time. Since the majority of piston twins are single pilot aircraft, why would one bother logging co-pilot time in these?

520.

M.25

18th Jun 2006, 04:01

ICUS time is a great tool when used properly, however I disagree with using it well beyond the point of consolidation or requirement purely for the purpose of building hours. I have just read about a company that charges $19 000 for an instrument rating/ICUS ‘package’. This means that you walk in off the street and pay a company (that has no intention of employing you) in the vicinity of $10 000 for ICUS time which doesn't cost them one cent! Ten grand is pushing the consolidation argument a little.

Anyone who has held a few jobs or flown a few types would be expected to have accumulated some ICUS time, however an excessive amount of ICUS hours might mean that you couldn’t reach a standard, or you simply paid for them.

Even if the PIC didn’t say one word to you for the whole flight, subconsciously you would still know that they are there to fall back onto if required… therefore there is no substitute to real command time.

bushy

18th Jun 2006, 04:38

It's starting to look as if some of these icus schemes are a disquised way of paying for a job.
Another means of getting money from newbies, and helping to undercut charter prices?
We do not need any more of that. Charter passengers deserve a pilot who does not need supervising on every flight.

I recently spoke to a gentleman who had "paid for a block of 737 time" and was out of work again soon after his block of time was done.
I really wonder what the future is for pilots who pay big money for training. Some operators and airlines seem to rely on a turnover of new pilots to pay their way. They need a constant turnover to keep the training money coming.

The airlines take only take a few of them.

1224

18th Jun 2006, 08:49

Hi all, Im lookin at building twin time for a META so is another fellow I fly with. I need 25 ICUS, he needs 25hrs command. Can it be logged as such if neither of us yet have the META.
ie can it be done in such a way as one would log time with an instructor rating buddy?

Better hope CC doesn't read this...he gets pretty worked up about META:}

Woomera

LeadSled

19th Jun 2006, 07:52

Folks,
I have previously posted these thoughts, buy I think they are worth repeating.
Australia is now very NON-ICAO in terms of pilots logging aircraft hours. See ICAO Annex 1.
Australia is out of step with virtually every country where an Australian pilot may want to further his or her aviation career. ICUS is NOT “in command”, it is ICUS, by whatever name (UK = P1 U/S Pilot in Command under supervision) and is well understood.
ICUS is not co-pilot, and not dual ( the "old" Qantas system, would somebody please tell the readers about the present QANTAS/CASA sweetheart deal (aka concession/LOA) so that QANTAS Cadets/low time hires are not disadvantaged by the CAO. I am not having a shot at QANTAS here, they had to do something when this dopey amendment was published, otherwise many QF pilots would never have reached minimum ICAO criteria for a ICAO recognised ATPL, ergo. no command.
What CASA has done with the CAO has ONLY one ultimate result, it seriously damages every Australian professional pilot starting out in the international jobs market.
And yet, NOT EVEN pilots who start threads like this one seem to care that the CASA (relatively recent and not properly consulted or justified at the time) rule change has so badly disadvantaged their (international) career prospects.
Have a look at an old DCA/CAA log book, Australia didn’t always screw its young pilots this way, we used to comply with ICAO, and the wings didn’t fall off.
So where is the outrage at CASA effectively favouring the careers of JAA-EASA/FAA/CA/NZ/SA/HKG/SIN/ALMOST EVERYWHERE ELSE pilots.
Or are you all happy to be shafted because one individual CASA FOI (who has never operated multi-crew in his whole military/civil career) had a bee in his bonnet about a couple of cases of dodgy VH-BIC time, so the whole professional pilot fraternity has to suffer because CASA used a sledgehammer to crack a nut ---- again.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled

morning mungrel

19th Jun 2006, 08:14

Yeah well the ones that make me laugh are those that don't even have the decency to be sitting in the left seat to log ICUS. There's a reason that airlines exclude ICUS from your application these days..........

LeadSled

19th Jun 2006, 14:01

Morning Glory,
Not around SE Asia and the Middle East, they don't. Have you ever sat on a selection board ??
Because of the ratbag (recent non-ICAO) rules here, see what sort of a reception you get at, say, Dragon, as a low time (probably SAAB/Metro) pilot, compared to a pilot with his/her hours logged per. ICAO.
Not all operators fly leg for leg.
Thousands of hours "co-pilot", including any sectors you did as pilot flying lumped in, tells the selection board nothing about your "pilot flying" hours as a co-pilot/F/O ----- which is what ICUS/P1us/Command Practice/name of choice of your NAA is supposed to be all about.
Or is this another case of Australia knows best, Australia is (it was not always thus) now the only soldier in the battalion in step. I wonder why ICAO/other NAAs see such value in differentiating ICUS (must be bulk ignorance) from Co-pilot time??
Mongrel, old chap, it makes not the slightest difference to me, I can measure my time airborne in years, not hours, but I do feel very sorry for young Australian pilots of all ages being disadvantaged when in competition with pilots of other nationalities. Your and your colleagues’ rather narrow minded and aggressive xenophobia does nothing for young pilots at the start of their careers. Are you proud of that??
Oh, and by the way, I do know what I am talking about, watch for a new "about to emerge" Regional not to far from the "big beach" side of the Gulf.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled.

morning mungrel

20th Jun 2006, 02:34

Might not matter to you leadsled, being you are so experienced and all, but if you think that sitting in the right seat of a chieftain operating the radios can even remotely be called ICUS, then you are on drugs. ICUS has it's place. It isn't for endless hours in single pilot certified piston twins. No wonder you can't get a multi driver who can actually tally up their ability with their hours. My company gives young blokes a go, I don't give a **** how many hours they have, all I ask is that you can do what you claim you can do. Fly the aircraft.

404 Titan

20th Jun 2006, 05:53

morning mungrel

I don’t know your background but some of the things you have said just exposes your apparent ignorance of how airlines work and who logs what in a true multi crew environment.
Yeah well the ones that make me laugh are those that don't even have the decency to be sitting in the left seat to log ICUS. There's a reason that airlines exclude ICUS from your application these days..........So how does an F/O log ICUS or P1US from the right seat of a heavy jet? Some airlines in many countries employ large numbers of cadets. How will they ever get a command if they can’t log ICUS/P1US? This maybe the case in Australia but is totally false in most other parts of the world. Every time I fly for my airline and I am performing the duties of the pilot flying I am required by law to log P1US. When I am the pilot not flying I log P2. The captain obviously always logs P1 even when he is in the bunk.
but if you think that sitting in the right seat of a chieftain operating the radios can even remotely be called ICUS, then you are on drugs.
In a true multi crew environment this would be the job of the “pilot not flying” and in most countries would be logged as P2 not ICUS or P1US. While I do have a problem with the excessive use of ICUS or P1US in single pilot aircraft, it has a very important and legitimate role in a true multi crew airline environment.

M.25

20th Jun 2006, 06:32

It appears that some of us are referring to the logging of ICUS in a GA single pilot aircraft (prior to working for an airline), and others are referring to how they log their multi-crew time in an airline.

swh

20th Jun 2006, 08:08

Recently CASA knocked back a chief pilot application because some of his multi engine time was icus. They would not accept it as command time, and he had to go and do some more real command flying before he got approval..

ICUS is co-pilot time, it is not command time. ICUS can be used for some aspects of a chief pilot approval.

ICUS is not co-pilot, and not dual ( the "old" Qantas system, would somebody please tell the readers about the present QANTAS/CASA sweetheart deal (aka concession/LOA) so that QANTAS Cadets/low time hires are not disadvantaged by the CAO. I am not having a shot at QANTAS here, they had to do something when this dopey amendment was published, otherwise many QF pilots would never have reached minimum ICAO criteria for a ICAO recognised ATPL, ergo. no command.

ICUS can only be logged in Australia if the operator has rostered the crew for that purpose.

I have gone through ICAO Annex 1 supplement number 162, I cannot see the non compliance in the Australian regulations with logging of flight time that you claim to know about. I would be pleased if you could share with all specific illustrations of your claims.

I am aware ICAO has never had a ICUS or P1/US classification of flight time, I have read "flight time as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command". They define co-pilot as a licensed pilot serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot-in-command but excluding a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight instruction.

As Creampuff has pointed out before, in the strict legal sense most people incorrectly log flight time in accordance with ICAO rules. Flight time is the total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
For most flights an aircraft comes to a stop during a taxi either inbound and/or outbound, under a strict legal interpretation, this is when the aircraft will either "first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight".

As for QF cadets, they meet ALL the command requirements for the issue of a ATPL under the ICAO rules at the end of their flight training course, before industry placement.:=

The ICAO requirements for the issue of an ATPL are :

2.5.1.3 Experience
2.5.1.3.1 The applicant shall have completed not less than
1 500 hours of flight time as a pilot of aeroplanes. The
Licensing Authority shall determine whether experience as
a pilot under instruction in a synthetic flight trainer, which it
has approved, is acceptable as part of the total flight time of
1 500 hours. Credit for such experience shall be limited to a
maximum of 100 hours, of which not more than 25 hours shall
have been acquired in a flight procedure trainer or a basic
instrument flight trainer.
2.5.1.3.1.1 The applicant shall have completed in aeroplanes
not less than:
a) 250 hours, either as pilot-in-command, or made up by
not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and the
necessary additional flight time as co-pilot performing,
under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the
duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, provided
that the method of supervision employed is acceptable
to the Licensing Authority;:ok:
b) 200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which not
less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as
co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilotin-
command, the duties and functions of a pilot-incommand,
provided that the method of supervision
employed is acceptable to the Licensing Authority;
c) 75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than
30 hours may be instrument ground time; and
d) 100 hours of night flight as pilot-in-command or as copilot.
2.5.1.3.2 When the applicant has flight time as a pilot of
aircraft in other categories, the Licensing Authority shall
determine whether such experience is acceptable and, if so, the
extent to which the flight time requirements of 2.5.1.3.1 can be
reduced accordingly.

All QF cadets have 100 hours command at time of employment with QF.:D

This topic has been done to death on pprune.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

LeadSled

20th Jun 2006, 10:03

SWH,
You have it in one, but do you understand it. Nobody said ICAO call ICUS/P1US/Command Practice/Whatever you NAA’s name of choice call it, but without
a)250 hours, either as pilot-in-command, or made up by
not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and the
necessary additional flight time as co-pilot performing,
under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the
duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, provided
that the method of supervision employed is acceptable
to the Licensing Authority;
as above, no QANTAS cadet (or any other airline cadet course I have ever come across) ever got 250 straight P1 time on a course. Hence the need for as above by whatever name to make up the extra 150.
But it goes far beyond that, a legal record (per ICAO) of the total experience of a pilot, including an F/O as pilot flying is a consideration.
If you can’t see the limitations the CASA CAO imposes,(unless your employer has a deal/concession with CASA) compared to ICAO and US/NZ/Canukistan/UK-EASA/ SIN/Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, I can’t help you.
Nobody on this thread has justified Australia being out of step with the rest of the known (aviation) universe, to the disadvantage of young Australian pilots.
Tootle pip !!

swh

20th Jun 2006, 10:42

But it goes far beyond that, a legal record (per ICAO) of the total experience of a pilot, including an F/O as pilot flying is a consideration.
If you can’t see the limitations the CASA CAO imposes,(unless your employer has a deal/concession with CASA) compared to ICAO and US/NZ/Canukistan/UK-EASA/ SIN/Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, I can’t help you.
Nobody on this thread has justified Australia being out of step with the rest of the known (aviation) universe, to the disadvantage of young Australian pilots.
Tootle pip !!

Your ramblings are noted, however please provide specifics of this so called "deal/concession".

All the cadets that I know of being trained in Australia (QF/SQ/CX/EK/KA/CZ/CA/KA/CI) etc all exceed ICAO requirements by some margin.

Please enlighten us all why you think the CAOs should not impose limitations, it is delegated legislation for the good of the community.

Please provide evidence to support your previous claim "Australia is now very NON-ICAO in terms of pilots logging aircraft hours. See ICAO Annex 1".

I see the requirements for logging of ICUS to be very simple, it is legal, even in GA in aircraft certified for single pilot operations. One just needs to follow a few SIMPLE rules.

As for your question "I wonder why ICAO/other NAAs see such value in differentiating ICUS (must be bulk ignorance) from Co-pilot time??", for many people its the only measure of the number of sectors they have done as a professional pilot. I know many see 150 hours of ICUS in say a two crew jet operation to be far more valuable and relevant to the future of an airline pilot than 150 hours of glider towing.

I do have concerns if a pilot logs "ICUS" while in the bunk on a long haul flight, and some ICUS logging in "private" operations.

A proposal is on the floor for zero flight time people flying airlines; the new generation of pilot will only train in simulators, including the CPL.

LeadSled

20th Jun 2006, 15:14

SWH,
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to “the good of the community” that results from CASA imposing “limitations” on Australian pilots logging flight time, NOT in accordance with ICAO Annex 1, thus disadvantaging Australian pilot’s employment competitiveness. And don’t feed us the line that Australia is in compliance by notifying a difference to ICAO, it might be true, but it doesn’t help a young pilot getting a job.
As for the rest of your last post, please advise anybody reading this thread which cadet courses provide 250 hours pilot in command, without benefit of logging ICUS.
Are you actually familiar with current CASA “rules” for logging flight time? From various parts of your last post, references to glider towing etc, it would not seem so, which would also account for your apparent inability to notice the CASA differences from the relevant part of Annex 1 that you so helpfully posted.
As to the ‘QF/CASA Concession”, if you have any mates in QF, ask them for a relevant copy of the FSO/FAM details.
As to the MPL, check your facts, the ICAO draft SARP is now frozen, and will be officially available NOV 06, there is no provision for “zero” flight time training, although it is true that there is no fixed relation between simulator hours and flight hours.
Tootle pip!!

morning mungrel

20th Jun 2006, 21:31

Thank you M.25 You are correct. Sorry Titan, I can't let that go. "My ignorance?" I'm quite aware of overseas airline practices, and where this country falls behind. The original poster has asked previously about instrument ratings and certain companies "offers" of extended ICUS. (as long as you pay for it). This being in GA single pilot aircraft, both single and multi engine. What type of aircraft/flying are we referring to? I did not refer to airline operations, and was not discussing airline operations. I thought that was quite clear from my second post addressing leadsled, had you actually read it. Apology accepted.

swh

21st Jun 2006, 00:53

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to “the good of the community” that results from CASA imposing “limitations” on Australian pilots logging flight time, NOT in accordance with ICAO Annex 1, thus disadvantaging Australian pilot’s employment competitiveness. And don’t feed us the line that Australia is in compliance by notifying a difference to ICAO, it might be true, but it doesn’t help a young pilot getting a job.

I have asked you to expand on your claims, you cannot provide any specifics.

If you read my previous post, "I have gone through ICAO Annex 1 supplement number 162, I cannot see the non compliance in the Australian regulations with logging of flight time that you claim to know about". We are fully complaint with logging flight time. If you want to find the ACTUAL rules for logging flight time in aeroplanes, have a look at CAO 40.1.0, section 10. Requirements for logging ICUS are in CAR 1988 5.40.

It is completely legal for ANY pilot, cadet or otherwise to achieve an ATPL in ANY country that I am aware of with 100 hours command. This is not a "loophole", it is a standard provision laid out by ICAO in back and white.

In Australia, an applicant must have 250 hrs command, or 100 hours command and 150 hrs ICUS. Combinations like 200 hrs command and 50 hrs ICUS will not get you an ATPL anywhere.

Even under JAR–FCL 1.280 "(2) 250 hours either as pilot-in command or at least 100 hours as pilot-in commandand 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot in-command the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the Authority"

In Australia, it is much the same, from CAR 1988

“5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.

(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.

5.173 (2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command under supervision."

If you look at the Australian requirements, they are identical to the ICAO Annex 1 requirements I previously posted. Australia does not require ATPL applicants to have "500 hours in multi-pilot operations" like JAR FCL does.

A simple example of “the good of the community”, is flight and duty time limitations, Annex 1 does not impose these on pilots.

Zero flight time training is coming like it or not, maybe not next year, or the year after, it is being discussed in detail in JAR circles.

bushy

21st Jun 2006, 05:00

So what's the point of paying to get lots of ICUS in GA single pilot aeroplanes?
Surely it would be better to be paid for flying as PIC.

I think the GA organisations that are selling ICUS are actually selling jobs, and subsidising there own charter operations.

Woomera
I thought abusing people was discouraged. Is it ok to say someone is "full of crap" Not my idea of polite discussion.

LeadSled

21st Jun 2006, 06:09

SWH,
My dear chap, you do rather rapidly sink to abuse, rather than stick to the to the point.
Let me put it another way, to see if I can get one simple point across.
If an Australian licensed pilot, flying an Australian registered aeroplane, in Australia, whether on an AOC or not, logs all categories of flight hours as per the previously ICAO compliant ANR/CAR (see frontispiece of a "traditional" DCA/CAA pub. CA7 log book,some had an ICUS column) Australian rules/UK/NZ/CA/SIN/HKG etc., (they are all functionally the same) will that satisfy the present CASA CAR 5.40 ??
If the answer is YES, I have no case.
Unfortunately the answer is NO.
See CAR 5.40(1)(b) and (c) and, of course, 5.40(2)(b).
ICAO/Australia prior this amendment/UK/NZ/CA/SIN/HKG etc., did/does not impose this restriction, Australia is not ICAO compliant, it is really quite simple
So, I ask you again, what is the “good of the community” that is achieved by imposing this “restriction” on (usually young) Australian pilots?? Would you care to answer this one question for the benefit of Australian pilots thus disadvantaged "for the good of the community", versus their professional peers from ICAO compliant countries.
As for the rest of your post, I can cut and paste too, those numbers were never the issue, only how you achieve them. Just to add another little wrinkle, why haven’t I mentioned US/FAA ??--- Which is ICAO compliant, and without registering a difference.
As to “talk” in JAA, perhaps you (now) mean EASA. EASA supports (and JAA did support) the new Multi Pilot Crew Pilot License, MPL, SARP. The vote of the Air Navigation Commission and the full council of ICAO was unanimous. I stand by my remarks on the MPL, there is no provision for zero flight time.
Oh!, and by the way, despite your assertion that "ICUS is co-pilot", sorry, it is just ICUS, no more, no less, and counts 100% for your record of Total Aeronautical Experience, not 50%.
Tootle pip??

LeadSled

21st Jun 2006, 06:29

Folks,
A quick correction before SWH has a go at me, again!
A few stray zeros floating around today, of course the correct references are CASA CAR 5.4, CAR 5.4 (1)(b) and (c) and CAR 5.4 (2)(b).
Tootle pip!!

turbolager

21st Jun 2006, 07:20

swh said:
It is completely legal for ANY pilot, cadet or otherwise to achieve an ATPL in ANY country that I am aware of with 100 hours command. This is not a "loophole", it is a standard provision laid out by ICAO in back and white.

Actually, in NZ (unlike the rest of the planet) 150 hours PIC is still required for issue of an ATPL.

And thus there have been many cases of airline pilots being forced to rent 152s to fly in circles for a few hours to hit 150 PIC, so that they can complete their ATPL flight test and get their first command, on the 747..

More consolidation in the 152 for you Co-Joe, your 20k logbook doesnt count for squat down here.

The staggering irrelevance of this requirement is completely lost on NZCAA however :rolleyes:

swh

21st Jun 2006, 18:18

If an Australian licensed pilot, flying an Australian registered aeroplane, in Australia, whether on an AOC or not, logs all categories of flight hours as per the previously ICAO compliant ANR/CAR (see frontispiece of a "traditional" DCA/CAA pub. CA7 log book,some had an ICUS column) Australian rules/UK/NZ/CA/SIN/HKG etc., (they are all functionally the same) will that satisfy the present CASA CAR 5.40 ??

Nothing written in a front of a logbook is law. Even current logbooks that are sold today have incorrect statements regarding logging of flight time in them.

A few stray zeros floating around today, of course the correct references are CASA CAR 5.4, CAR 5.4 (1)(b) and (c) and CAR 5.4 (2)(b).

Are they ? 5.04 is "Medical certificate: flight crew licence" and 5.40 is "Pilot acting in command under supervision". Please enlighten us ......

CAR 5.40, if that is the one you were trying to refer to, is complaint with ICAO. How do you think it is not complaint with ICAO ?

I have asked, and asked, and asked for you to provide references which support the statements you are making. You have failed to do so yet again.

Actually, in NZ (unlike the rest of the planet) 150 hours PIC is still required for issue of an ATPL.

I have seen that in AC 61-1.7, however under Part 61.253 (the actual legal requirement) its is not actually a requirement. It clearly says on the first page of AC 61-1.7, that it "is not intended to be the only means of compliance with a rule".

The AC clearly allows for "Command practice is time gained in accordance with rule 61.31(b). No more than 50 percent of the total command practice flight time may be used for paragraph ii) mentioned above." Which is for the PIC requirement.

It is possible in NZ to gain an NZ ATPL with just the ICAO levels of experience.

From ICAO, the actual differences between a NZ license and ICAO Annex 1 are as follows :

"CHAPTER 2
2.1.5.2 c) Not implemented.
2.1.10 Not implemented.
2.2.2.1 New Zealand regulations do not specifically exclude solo international flights.
2.3.1.3.2 There is no requirement for a cross-country solo flight totalling not less than 150 NM for aeroplanes or 100 NM for helicopters in the course of which two landings at two different aerodromes shall be made.
2.3.1.4.1 h) Instrument flight training is required only when night privileges are sought.
2.3.2.1 In some conditions private pilots are authorized to act as the pilot of an aircraft operated for hire and reward.
2.5.1.5.1 e) Not implemented.
2.5.1.5.1.1 f) Not implemented.
g)
2.7.1.3.2 There is no requirement for a cross-country solo flight totalling not less than 150 NM for aeroplanes or 100 NM for helicopters in the course of which two landings at two different aerodromes shall be made.
2.7.1.4.1.1* Instrument flight training is required only when night privileges are sought.
2.7.2.1 In some conditions private pilots are authorized to act as the pilot of an aircraft operated for hire and
reward.
2.8.1.3.1.1 c)
2.8.1.4.1 h) Instrument flight training is required only when night privileges are sought.
2.9.1.5.1 d) Not implemented.
2.9.1.5.1.1 f) Not implemented.
g)
2.12
2.13 Glider and free balloon pilots need not have a licence when they are not flying for hire and reward."

As you can see, NZ has no difference with ICAO over 2.5.1.3.1.1.

brown_eyes

22nd Jun 2006, 04:23

LeadSled

22nd Jun 2006, 09:03

Folks,
Looks like I’ve given SWH another free kick, those straying zeros again, but never mind, I’ve got broad shoulders. Maybe I should give up earlier in the evening, so I don’t get my murds woddled.
Anyway, back to the point.
SWH,
Firstly, I don’t believe I referred to log books presently on sale, but specifically to publication CA7, and they did accurately provide “an acceptable means of compliance”, with the law as it then was, and prior to the changes that gave us what we have now.
Could we agree that we are supposed to accurately record the flying we do? I hope so.
I would ask you, once again, to carefully read Annex1 as appropriate, and CAR 5.40, the conditions for flying an Australian aircraft as pilot in command under supervision.
I will spell it out, in part.
CAR 5.40(1)(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and ----- (c) but c adds little more to the case.
Also;
CAR 5.40(2)(b) the person holds an holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command, and;
You have previously asserted that ICUS is NOT in command, I agree with that, I disagree with your assertion that ICUS is co-pilot time ---- it is ICUS, or if you like AICUS as it is sometimes/still referred to.
Now please go back and look at Annex 1, or the rules of other NAAs for flying/logging ICUS by whatever name.
The difference (and the difference CAA filed or intended to file with ICAO at the time, Australia is rather lax about filing differences, as the 1999 ICAO audit of CASA pointed out) was and is that the Australian rule, as above, required the person flying/logging ICUS to be qualified as pilot in command on the type.
Prior to the above CAR 5.40, Australia did not require a pilot logging ICUS to be qualified as pilot in command on the type.
Annex 1 does not require a pilot flying/logging ICUS/P1us/command practice etc., to be qualified to fly the aircraft as pilot in command. That is, to a large degree, the whole point of ICUS, to achieve the total command time (actual + ICUS) to qualify for an ATPL by whatever name.
Send me an email, I will even give you an intro. to the FOI who was the project manager for this change, he has just or is about to retire in the latest round of CASA staff reduction, pity really, because except for this little aberration of long ago, he is one of the good guys.
This why I have repeatedly said that young Australian pilots are now disadvantaged in the international jobs stakes, because many airline co-pilots/FOs do not necessarily have a license and endorsements that meets the requirements of CAR 5.40(b) et al.
Therefore, in their day to day line flying, they can’t log a sector as pilot flying as ICUS, and along with that, claim 100% of that time as part of their Total Aeronautical Experience. Plus have a detailed record of the sectors flown as “pilot flying”, ie;ICUS
In this day and age of computerise and automated initial screening, if you don’t “make the numbers”, your application goes no further.
In a previous post, I made an oblique reference to FAA, which has a far more open (less prescriptive) approach. You will only find specific details in an airline’s Part 121 Operations Specification, but it would be unusual for an FO in any sizeable FAA Part 121 operation to not have an ATR/etc, and be rated on the type, and in most of the cases I have knowledge of, when the FO flies the leg, he or she just logs “in command”.
Tootle pip!!

Zhaadum

22nd Jun 2006, 12:24

Lead Sled,

SWH sure knows his way around loopholes in AUS/NZ legislation. :mad:
He loves to cut and paste reams of rules and numbers up the wazoo to confuse you.

However, just ask him about how he avoided the 12 month limitation as a Grade 2 Instructor prior to Grade 1 upgrade by flying to NZ and obtaining an equivalent NZ licence and CIR rating (certified Flight Instructor, THEN returned to AUS as a NZ pilot (:hmm: sure) and requested a Grade 1 upgrade as he had the required hours, (but NOT the 12 months, only 9 months as a Grade 2). CASA did not want to issue the Grade 1 rating but did so as they were constrained by their own badly written legislation.

So much for scruples and honesty eh? Be careful what you believe, the truth is out there but not with this guy.

Z.:ok:

P.S. ICUS IS NOT COPILOT TIME! It is a separate thing, like command is to dual etc. The other pilot is not supposed to share the flying duties with you, but just watch and ensure you are safe. He will say little to you if anything at all. How then is your time copilot if he isn't doing anything? I don't need regs to justify this either, it is common sense.

Give it your best shot SWH.:bored:

AerocatS2A

22nd Jun 2006, 13:24

I'm not quite sure how SWH's personal history has anything to do with the details of CASAs ICUS regs :confused:. Anyway...

P.S. ICUS IS NOT COPILOT TIME! It is a separate thing, like command is to dual etc. The other pilot is not supposed to share the flying duties with you, but just watch and ensure you are safe. He will say little to you if anything at all. How then is your time copilot if he isn't doing anything? I don't need regs to justify this either, it is common sense.

You do need regs to justify it actually. Regs and common sense have nothing to do with each other (unfortunately), and it's regs that we must comply with, not common sense.

swh

22nd Jun 2006, 14:22

I was told by a UK airline pilot that one could only log ICUS or P1 time on airline a/c if you had a Part1 endorsement . So I guess if Oz airlines only provide P2 endorsements for their FO's they cannot log P1 time.

All QF FOs have command endorsements and instrument ratings, cadets get their ICUS sometimes at QF, sometimes during industry placement prior to joining QF. Some countries only issue a P2 rating to CPL holders on multi crew aircraft. It depends on what is acceptable to them.

CAR 5.40(1)(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and ----- (c) but c adds little more to the case.
Also;
CAR 5.40(2)(b) the person holds an holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command, and;
You have previously asserted that ICUS is NOT in command, I agree with that, I disagree with your assertion that ICUS is co-pilot time ---- it is ICUS, or if you like AICUS as it is sometimes/still referred to.

ICAO Annex 1 says ...

"250 hours, either as pilot-in-command, or made up by not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and the necessary additional flight time as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, provided that the method of supervision employed is acceptable to the Licensing Authority"

The method of supervision employed that is acceptable to CASA is CAR 5.40, i.e. it is ICAO complaint. ICAO does not lay down what is "acceptable to the Licensing Authority".

From http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/flight_time.htm, which is a summary (not exact law) of CAR 2 etc.

"Co-pilot means all flight time while serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in command.", for ICUS, another pilot is the PIC.

"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."

However, just ask him about how he avoided the 12 month limitation as a Grade 2 Instructor prior to Grade 1 upgrade by flying to NZ and obtaining an equivalent NZ licence and CIR rating (certified Flight Instructor, THEN returned to AUS as a NZ pilot ( sure) and requested a Grade 1 upgrade as he had the required hours, (but NOT the 12 months, only 9 months as a Grade 2). CASA did not want to issue the Grade 1 rating but did so as they were constrained by their own badly written legislation

The scenario you are describing is possible and legal under CAO 40.1.7, so are similar scenarios for military and non-military flight instructors (from Australia or overseas) coming to civilian flying in Australia not holding the hour/time requirements of CAO 40.1.7.

As for the "badly written legislation" you refer to....

"6.5 An applicant for a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 1 who holds or has held an overseas instructor authorisation is exempt from compliance with subparagraph 4.3 (a) if he or she:
(a) holds a flight instructor rating (aeroplane) grade 2; and
(b) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs 4.3 (b), (c), (d) and (e).

6.6 In this subsection:
an overseas instructor authorisation means an authorisation that was issued
by the responsible authority of a Contracting State to give flight instruction for an overseas pilot licence that authorises a person to fly an aeroplane in private operations as a pilot in command."

Does not appear to be poorly written at all.

P.S. ICUS IS NOT COPILOT TIME! It is a separate thing, like command is to dual etc. The other pilot is not supposed to share the flying duties with you, but just watch and ensure you are safe. He will say little to you if anything at all. How then is your time copilot if he isn't doing anything? I don't need regs to justify this either, it is common sense.

I beg to differ, especially in a multi crew scenario. I would love you to turn around to a QF captain when your logging ICUS as an FO and say "just sit, dont share the flying duties, just watch and ensure things are safe, say little if anything at all".

The person who is logging ICUS is not in command, is not the PIC, the CARs clearly say that all flight time that is not command, or dual, is copilot.

The confusion which is easy to understand is that ICUS counts 100% towards the total aeronautical experience, where time that is logged co-pilot is only count at a rate of 50%. This is not saying that the flight time logged as ICUS is command or dual. Its is still co-pilot time, another pilot was PIC, and you should log the name of that pilot as being PIC.

The one simple questions/test to ask….

Is the person logging ICUS the PIC ?

No, therefore they are a co-pilot. ICUS can only be logged in a multi-crew environment (which can be in a single engine, single pilot certified aircraft).

This is how ICAO put it ...

"2.1.9 Crediting of flight time

2.1.9.1 A student pilot or the holder of a pilot licence
shall be entitled to be credited in full with all solo, dual
instruction and pilot-in-command flight time towards the total
flight time required for the initial issue of a pilot licence or the
issue of a higher grade of pilot licence.

2.1.9.2 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as copilot
of an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall
be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the
co-pilot flight time towards the total flight time required for a
higher grade of pilot licence.

2.1.9.3 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as
co-pilot performing under the supervision of the pilot-in-command
the functions and duties of a pilot-in-command,
shall be entitled to be credited in full with this flight time
towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot
licence."

LeadSled

25th Jun 2006, 08:55

SWH,
You still haven’t got it, have you.
Despite your demonstrable ability to cut and paste, you still seem to have great difficulty with what you have cut and pasted means, and what ICAO/most of the rest of the known ICAO universe does with ICUS, and is what Australia used to do, but is NOT what Australia now does.
Per ICAO/most of the rest of the known ICAO universe, a CO-PILOT performing the duties of PILOT ACTING IN COMMAND UNDER SUPERVISION of the PILOT IN COMMAND, said co-pilot is entitled to log the time as ICUS/P1us/Command Practice/whatever, and count 100% to his/her TOTAL AERONAUTICAL EXPERIENCE.
Under these circumstances he/she DOES NOT log co-pilot.
As I said way back, ask any mates in QANTAS what a QF FO logs when he/she does a sector in command under supervision, aka. Pilot Flying, if he/she works for mainline.
I have no idea what happens under the QF Regional AOC, nor whether ALL QF Regional FOs have a license/endorsements that meets the requirements of CAR 5.40 to operate ICUS, perhaps some other readers can enlighten us.
A QF mainline FO, despite having a Command Endorsement/Instrument Rating, (a relatively recent thing, post the demise of the 2nd Class ATPL/IR "endorsed to first class standard", another "ICAO Difference" and many years after the CAR 5.40 restrictions arrived on the scene) is not (generally) qualified to be QF Pilot in Command, I will leave you to work out the reason why, and what the normal and non-normal exceptions might be.
A QF mainline FO is entitled to log ICUS when operating a sector as the pilot flying, ie;AICUS.
The salient fact remains that for many young Australian pilots, the very restrictive non-ICAO (except by filing a difference) Australian rule puts them at a disadvantage in the international jobs market.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled.
PS: Re. A rather curt reply to turbolager suggests that you don't really understand the legal relationship between a regulation, particularly an "outcome" or "performance" based regulation, and an "acceptable means of compliance", an AC (Australia, NZ, US), a CAAP (Australia),AMC/TGL (JAA/EASA) CAP (UK) etc.
The AC quoted by turbolager is "the law", unless NZ CAA agrees to an alternative means of compliance.

swh

25th Jun 2006, 10:19

Per ICAO/most of the rest of the known ICAO universe, a CO-PILOT performing the duties of PILOT ACTING IN COMMAND UNDER SUPERVISION of the PILOT IN COMMAND, said co-pilot is entitled to log the time as ICUS/P1us/Command Practice/whatever, and count 100% to his/her TOTAL AERONAUTICAL EXPERIENCE.
Under these circumstances he/she DOES NOT log co-pilot.

I have brought to CASAs attention before to what I believe is an error in the CAOs. No provision is made in the Australian CAOs for a CPL holder to log ICUS in an aeroplane, however a provision is made for a CPL holder to conduct ICUS in the CARs. From CAO 40.1.0 (note Paragraph 10.6 is missing)

"10.5 The holder of a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence may log as time in
command the total time elapsed during his or her command, in flight, of an
aeroplane. He or she may log as co-pilot the total time during which he or she
serves as co-pilot.

10.7 The holder of an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence must log his or her
flight time in accordance with whichever of the following is applicable:
(a) any flight time during which the licence holder acts as pilot in command
must be entered in his or her log book as time in command;
(b) any flight time during which the licence holder acts as pilot in command
under supervision must be entered in his or her log book as time in
command under supervision;
(c) any flight time during which the licence holder acts as co-pilot must be
entered in his or her log book as time as co-pilot."

Under strict legal interpretation, ICUS in an aeroplane should be logged as ICUS if your an ATPL holder, and co-pilot if your a CPL holder. It is time performed in a multi-crew environment other than being the PIC. CAO 40.1.0 paragraph 10 is the only legal basis for logging of flight time in an aeroplane.

I am dead against those who try an elevate ICUS as being command time. It is not command, it is a type of co-pilot time which is counts 100% towards aeronautical experience, where its logged as “co-pilot” it is counted at a rate of 50%.

I think we are finally in agreement from your "CO-PILOT performing the duties of PILOT ACTING IN COMMAND UNDER SUPERVISION" statement, that the person who is logging ICUS, is actually a co-pilot, and therefore all time logged (be it in the co-pilot, ICUS, or command column) is co-pilot time.

A QF mainline FO, despite having a Command Endorsement/Instrument Rating, (a relatively recent thing, post the demise of the 2nd Class ATPL/IR "endorsed to first class standard", another "ICAO Difference" and many years after the CAR 5.40 restrictions arrived on the scene) is not (generally) qualified to be QF Pilot in Command, I will leave you to work out the reason why, and what the normal and non-normal exceptions might be.
A QF mainline FO is entitled to log ICUS when operating a sector as the pilot flying, ie;AICUS.

In my previous post I commented on this, all FOs have command endorsements and ratings. Second officers still have co-pilot endorsements.

The salient fact remains that for many young Australian pilots, the very restrictive non-ICAO (except by filing a difference) Australian rule puts them at a disadvantage in the international jobs market.

Could you clarify what your view is non-ICAO, is it that CAO 40.1.0 does not allow a CPL holder to log ICUS ?

A rather curt reply to turbolager suggests that you don't really understand the legal relationship between a regulation, particularly an "outcome" or "performance" based regulation, and an "acceptable means of compliance", an AC (Australia, NZ, US), a CAAP (Australia),AMC/TGL (JAA/EASA) CAP (UK) etc.
The AC quoted by turbolager is "the law", unless NZ CAA agrees to an alternative means of compliance.

Did you mean the AC 61-1.7 I quoted ?

Don’t think my reply was curt at all, I have been in contact with them privately over a related issue, they actually thanked me for that reply. I have sent them a copy of ICAO Annex 1.

AC 61-1.7 is not law, it has no head of power, it is the "standard policy". The AC clearly says "is not intended to be the only means of compliance with a rule", Part 61, which is the law.

The problem for anyone in NZ is trying to find someone in the CAA to take the responsibility for a lateral decision. Cases have presented to the CAA that meet all the legal requirement for a ATPL under the NZ Part 61, and ICAO annex 1, however these applicants are a little left field for the local industry.

LeadSled

26th Jun 2006, 13:52

SWH,
You really do have a problem with English (legal) comprehension, don’t you.
But you certainly are a starter for the Guinness Book of Record “Repetitive Cut and Paste” Stakes.
It’s a bit like some of the student “essays” I have seen recently, a wonderful example of the information available on the internet, all assembled in a neat and eye pleasing fashion, but not a clue do they have, as to what it all means.
You don’t, by any chance, write IREX questions for CASA, do you, your interpretations of “aviation law” are so far off the mark?? Or maybe you wrote CASA AWB 02-003 Issue 2, with its’ somewhat “quaint” concoction of random misinformation prepared, apparently, by the terminally confused.
I have no intention of repeating myself; the answers to your continued “questions” are already in my posts on this subject. Have another read, you might understand that I actually have some long term knowledge of this particular subject, as I prepared the objections of one of the two pilot unions in Australia to the then CAA going “non-ICAO” on this matter.
The objections, obviously, were ignored, so one more “exemption” was added to the hundreds used by QF, all so it could continue to operate in the real world.
With all due respect, the conclusions you have drawn from the bits and pieces you have cut and pasted are not correct, no matter how fervently you may believe in those conclusions. Do you really think every QF FO on a Dash 8, perhaps an ex-cadet, is command qualified on “day 1” on line??
You really should try and make some attempt to understand the relationship between primary and subordinate legislation, and CAAPs/ACs/AMCs etc as acceptable means of compliance,(not "policy") because there is going to be a lot more of it, and a lot less “black letter” law.
If you are, in fact, in NZ, I can refer you to an excellent lawyer, a leading light in the ALAANZ, who can explain “what’s it all about”.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled.

swh

26th Jun 2006, 15:24

You don’t, by any chance, write IREX questions for CASA, do you, your interpretations of “aviation law” are so far off the mark?? Or maybe you wrote CASA AWB 02-003 Issue 2, with its’ somewhat “quaint” concoction of random misinformation prepared, apparently, by the terminally confused.
I have no intention of repeating myself; the answers to your continued “questions” are already in my posts on this subject. Have another read, you might understand that I actually have some long term knowledge of this particular subject, as I prepared the objections of one of the two pilot unions in Australia to the then CAA going “non-ICAO” on this matter.
The objections, obviously, were ignored, so one more “exemption” was added to the hundreds used by QF, all so it could continue to operate in the real world.

Total dribble…one can only repeat oneself if they actually made a point to start with.

The only reason I post what I do it provide the information to lazy people who don’t know what they are talking about to back my points up.

I have backed every point up I have made with excepts from CARs/CAOs, unlike yourself who have provided nothing substantive at all.

CAAPs etc are not law, they "provide advice" to CASA/Industry, never have been law, they have NO HEAD OF POWER. Its a convoluted process as it is to provide a head of power for the Atc/CARs/CAOs etc from the constitution.

An Airworthiness Bulletin (AWB) is issued to inform the aviation public, in a systematic way, of essential information not considered mandatory. The information contained in an AWB is for information only, and issued by CASA to disseminate information as quickly and as clearly as possible.

If they were law you could readily provide me to case law where a breach has been prosecuted.

QF have 272 exemptions, none, zilch, zero against CAO 40.1.0, or anything else to do with issue of a pilots licence (unless you count the ability to use a 330 simulator overseas) . If you don’t believe me please feel free to contact Diane Shelback in the CASA Legal Services Group, on 02 6217 1180 or ring the main CASA number 131757.

I would suggest the reason your objections were ignored is that you cannot provide a factual argument, format a paragraph, or to back up any of your claims. Just like the majority have ignored your posts on this thread.