Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS? [Archive]

harrowing

22nd Mar 2009, 05:00

Just to clarify: an F/O who has been upgraded to a command endorsement on type my log as ICUS his/her legs when flying with any captain. When acting as PNF (pilot not flying) this is still logged as F/O and still carries the 50% experience penalty. In short about 75% of their two crew time counts towards that magical 2000 figure, or whatever the particular company requires.
The concept of newbies getting a command in the minimum of twelve months is still a bit scary for the older/longer serving crew who did five to seven years in the right hand seat Obviously, prior experience and age/maturity has to be considered.
That may sound like sour grapes, but it gets up your nose a bit, or perhaps just makes the eyebrows raise and the butt cheeks flinch, when a 12 month F/O says he will bid for a command slot when you feel/know that they still have a lot to learn from their side first. Some 800 hour total experience people hve a much better attitude and ability than others with more than twice the time.
The bottom line, as chimbu said, is they still have to cut the mustard when the time comes. Sometimes people get their enthusiasm and confidence confused with their competence.
I tend to have more time and respect for an F/O who realizes 12 months in house may not be sufficient experience before an upgrade than the (over?) confident one who claims to be ready.
Where have all the experienced F/Os gone?
Why did they leave? :confused:
Wasn't this predicted by the pilots anyway? :ugh:
Sorry, thread drift. :=

A Comfy Chair

22nd Mar 2009, 06:22

Tee Emm,

What are you talking about? Qantas F/O's have always been able to log their PF sectors (when they do the takeoff, landing, and decision making as required by the regs) as "ICUS", and log all "PNF" sectors as Co-Pilot.

Initial training is logged as Dual.

Are you suggesting that every flight an F/O operates (either as PF or PNF) will in the future be logged as ICUS? That I highly doubt, as it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the ICUS requirements.

distracted cockroach

22nd Mar 2009, 21:33

Here in NZ, I believe ICUS was only relevent until you had the required hours for company requirements or for an ATPL (think a percentage of this time for an ATPL may be ICUS). As someone else correctly stated, the total hours are really the ones that count otherwise. We don't have a "command instrument rating" or such here.
As for Second Offcers, it's all "co-pilot" time. Be a bit hard to log anything else if you can't do the take-off or landing.
Yes, experience levels are a bit of a concern, but then type of experience is almost as important as total experience. As was previously mentioned, confidence and competence don't always go hand-in-hand, and likewise, lots of hours isn't the only thing that counts.

Green gorilla

22nd Mar 2009, 22:15

I remember the day when 15 years in the right seat was the norm.

43Inches

23rd Mar 2009, 02:51

Are you suggesting that every flight an F/O operates (either as PF or PNF) will in the future be logged as ICUS? That I highly doubt, as it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the ICUS requirements.

ICUS has nothing to do with PF/PNF or who does the take-off landing or taxi. Its just an assessment of a candidates ability to command a flight, that is planning and decision making, procedural knowledge etc, not his ability to fly an aircraft. The ICUS pilot must already have demonstrated the required flying ability during endorsement training and hold all ratings and endorsements required (to be PIC) for the operation. The CAR's state only that the ICUS pilot is assigned as co-pilot of the aircraft, there is no mention of who must manipulate the controls.

This is the same as a qualified captain who logs command regardless of whether he's flying or not. Unless QF has a different set of regs.

Tankengine

23rd Mar 2009, 04:19

harrowing : correct!:ok:
A comfy chair : correct!:ok:
43 inches : Wrong big time!:ugh:

43Inches

23rd Mar 2009, 06:15

Tankengine, not quoting in regard to QF company policy but as CASA regs are written. Having been through a command upgrade elsewhere all line training component was logged as ICUS both PF or PNF.

If you can provide a regulatory reference that ICUS may only be logged whilst pilot flying it would be helpful.

I think what may have been approved is a variation to QFs' Ops manual not the actual regs.

Capt Fathom

23rd Mar 2009, 08:22

ICUS has nothing to do with PF/PNF or who does the take-off landing or taxi

Common sense would suggest you would be the pilot flying! Maybe that's too simplistic!

However, in their quest to achieve command hours as easily and quickly as possibly, some will argue that just sitting in the right seat entitles them to that!:rolleyes:

Note the references in the reg to flying the aircraft.

CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision

(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under
supervision only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
or
(i) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a
commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
and
(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or
her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight
crew rating is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or
grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out
that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned; and
(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose
by the operator of the aircraft.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The operator of an aircraft may permit a person to fly an aircraft as
pilot acting in command only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence,
that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were such a
licence; and
(b) the person holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly
the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person carries out an activity for which a flight crew rating
is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of
flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that
activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned.

43Inches

23rd Mar 2009, 08:40

5.166 What does an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a
person to do?

(1) An air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.
(2) The authority given by subregulation (1) is subject to the limitations set out in regulations 5.167, 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171.

This is the ATPL authorisations, the reference to flying the aircraft must mean that an ATPL holder or CPL holder can not act as PNF then?

Any references to a licence holders privileges will be prefixed with this to enable them to operate an aircraft in flight.

The only casa regulation which pertains to pilot manipulating the controls (pilot flying) is the one with regard to instrument flight time CAO 40. CAR 225 also suggests the PIC need not be seated at a control seat at all as long as a suitably qualified pilot(s)occupy them.

Icarus53

24th Mar 2009, 01:33

There are two different situations to consider here:

a) FO with a command endorsement acts as PF for a sector - in this case the FO is charged with making command decisions under the supervision of the Captain. This only applies when PF. Captain Fathom's CAR 5.40 covers this quite neatly, and is reflected in operator procedures that I am aware of.

b) FO undergoing line training for command upgrade. The FO is charged with ultimate responsibility for command decisions on all sectors (but is under the supervision of a training Captain). The CAR does not seem to explicitly state that this cannot occur, as the issue is whether the pilot is in command or not. If you are exercising command over the flight, are you not "flying the aircraft" in one sense or another?

Keg

24th Mar 2009, 02:14

To answer the original question:

Is it true that Qantas have received approval from CASA for first officers to log In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) for all "legs" the F/O flies? In other words, copilot time is a thing of the past...

If they have then it hasn't yet been communicated to the line. Personally I don't see how it could occur anyway.

inandout

24th Mar 2009, 03:06

Keg, if a 2nd officer held a command rating on the type, what can they log when sitting in either the left or right seat as PNF.

Casper

24th Mar 2009, 04:02

There was a time when ICUS could be logged ONLY when the applicant was undergoing rostered command upgrade training. Having a command endorsement had nothing to do with the issue of being in command of the flight.

Could someone please advise when this changed?

Keg

24th Mar 2009, 04:02

DA, as you're no doubt aware, I've logged ICUS for the sectors where I was PF for years....since about '99 or 2000 when they gave F/Os command endorsements. However the original question was asked as to whether the F/O was going to be logging ICUS for every sector they are operating whether PF or PNF. My perspective on that is as I've written previously.

inandout. I have no idea to be honest. I'm not sure that there would be many S/Os out there with command endorsements on the A330 or 744. I'd put money on there being no S/Os with command endorsements on the A380. Either way it's a bit academic really and I tend to not get into that sort of stuff too heavily unless it's CRM related. :ok:

Casper, both of us in together. See my earlier comments. I started logging ICUS in the late '90s when I got a command endorsement on the aeroplane. In QF terms, I suspect that is where your example about only logging ICUS during command training comes from- the individual would not have had a command endorsement prior to that time.

I seem to recall that the whole command endorsement stuff came about due to the requirement to operate the heavy crew aircraft without an additional Captain. The only way that could occur was with the F/O holding a command endorsement. That may be right or wrong, dunno.

slice

24th Mar 2009, 05:02

So let me get this right, I have a command endorsement on 737NG and when I am the PF (FO) I can log it as ICUS ?? Does not sound correct to me but I stand to be corrected!

Tankengine

24th Mar 2009, 08:07

Slice, that is how it is done at qantas.

In and out, correct, S/Os log all time as Co-pilot.

A37575

24th Mar 2009, 11:26

What are you talking about? Qantas F/O's have always been able to log their PF sectors (when they do the takeoff, landing, and decision making as required by the regs) as "ICUS", and log all "PNF" sectors as Co-Pilot.

Initial training is logged as Dual.

.

In Australia the use of ICUS both in GA and RPT is open to liberal interpretation. The Qantas interpretation is a classic example of the prostitution of the principle of ICUS. On the other side of the coin, under UK regs for instance, ICUS or PICUS can only be logged if at no stage in any part of the flight- including flight planning - the captain sees fit to counter command any operational decision made by the ICUS pilot. For example if during flight the ICUS pilot is subject to correction because of a decision he has made, then ICUS for the flight is nullified and copilot time logged.

Example. ICUS pilot is high on profile and is slow to get back on profile despite urging by the captain. ICUS immediately nullified. Logs copilot time for that leg.
Second example, in cruise with weather ahead the ICUS pilot decides to deviate off track and the captain disagrees, the logging of ICUS is immediately revoked for that leg.

Third example. ICUS pilot decides on certain fuel contents for flight. Captain disagrees and decides on another 2000 kgs. ICUS nullified. This restores faith in a system where ICUS is now worth something - not just an ego trip for a F/O whose captain has decided to let him handle the conduct of the flight.

It is rubbish to log ICUS just because the captain says "your take off chum".
Copilot time is perfectly fair and honest logging and has been for decades. It is not something only lesser mortals log.

KRUSTY 34

24th Mar 2009, 20:42

This whole thing has been debated (at length) before. Even after all the previous discussion, it appears that a definitive clause in the Regs allowing this caper was not forthcoming. My interpretation is that with ICUS the emphasis must be on the (S), and Supervision should mean just that. A structured program under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain, not some half arsed expedient to satisfy the bleating of employers because they are unable to attract "experienced" pilots!

With Ref to CAR 5.40, I would have thought that the licence required to fly in command, (ICUS included) for RPT aircraft above 5700kg MTOW would have to be an ATPL. How the hell can you log any command time if you are not qualified to "command" the operation on anything less than that class of licence!

Icarus53

24th Mar 2009, 20:52

For example if during flight the ICUS pilot is subject to correction because of a decision he has made, then ICUS for the flight is nullified and copilot time logged.

By this rationale, if the Captain makes an error and is corrected by the FO - shouldn't he log Co-pilot too?:ouch:

Seems to me that ICUS shouldn't be nullified simply because a degree of supervision was applied. That's what the "US" bit means. All of this seems to me to be just good teamwork/CRM, rather than a change in command arrangement. I could see your point of the Captain was forced to take over control of the flight because the safety of the flight was in jeopardy - but otherwise, the FO has still been given responsibility for commanding the flight ("US").:8

bushy

25th Mar 2009, 05:58

Krusty
I agree with you, and I argued some time ago that surely it must be necessary to have an ATPL in order to get a command endorsement on an aeroplane that was over 5700 kg.
And a command endorsement is necessary for ICUS.
But apparently this is an "inconvenient truth" which can be ignored by the chosen ones in the chosen organisations.
Rubbery rules???
Are these things done in order to commercially manipulate the industry?????

farrari

25th Mar 2009, 06:25

Keg,Re QF 2nd officers, do they log the whole 14hrs over to say LA as Co Pilot or only the time they are sitting in one of the two front seats. What do they log when in the Jump Seat.
When you have a FO and 2nd officer up front what does the FO log.

max autobrakes

25th Mar 2009, 09:44

How does F/O crosswind limits affect this theory. They obviously don't hold a full command endorsement if they have lower limits than what the aircraft is certified to.

Bullethead

25th Mar 2009, 10:01

farrari

During line ops F/Os only log ICUS or co-pilot, S/Os only ever log co-pilot. The whole sector is logged whether on the flight deck or not. The only one who logs command time is the Captain.

max autobrakes

To hold a command endorsement a F/O has to fly to the aeroplane limits and charted approach minima in the simulator but is restricted during line operations as far as crosswind strength and departure and arrival weather conditions.

Regards,
BH.

Keg

25th Mar 2009, 11:09

....and if the F/O loses the takeoff or landing due to the conditions being outside the (more restrictive) company requirements then none of the flight is logged as ICUS.

Max, company limitations are just that and exist for all sorts of different reasons. Many operators would restrict their crews- even single pilot crews- to less than what is allowed under aircraft performance limits and/or CAO/CAR requirements for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the fact that they hold a command endorsement on the aircraft.

farrari

25th Mar 2009, 19:56

Bullethead, Thanks for that. but when you have an FO and 2nd officer up front how can the FO log ICUS when they are not actually been supervised by the Captain who is off the deck, or is this when they log Co Pilot time and only log ICUS when siting with a Captain.Also if the 2nd offficer had a command rating on type then wouldn't they be able to log ICUS time??????

desmotronic

26th Mar 2009, 01:05

What a joke. SO logs copilot when not even occupying a pilot seat, FO logs command without a licence to command the aircraft. By this rationale flight attendants with a ppl should log their flight time as well. :D

harrowing

26th Mar 2009, 02:08

desmotronic,
An F/A a couple of years ago suggested the F/A should be second in command because some of the new F/Os had only been in the company for six months or so and she had been in over a year! When asked what would she do if ...... she replied she didn't realise any of that was involved.
On a similar vein, one of our CRM instructors used to begin the sessions with a comment that when he first got his command he wondered what had happened to his flying skills. A couple of more experienced captains explained there was a lot more involved in command than just keeping the needles in the right place, and that you have more on your mind than just making a good approach or PA.

inandout

26th Mar 2009, 02:13

Well at VA that's not far off as the FM earns more than the CRFO:yuk:

Bullethead

26th Mar 2009, 04:03

farrari

When it is the Captain's turn for a break he would discuss with the F/O any operational spects likely to come up during that break and possible courses of action so there is that level of supervision.

I remember some Captains remarking not to call them out of crew rest at all and others wanting a call if anything odd happened. It depends on the individual.

I was F/O on a B744 yars ago en-route SYD-LAX and I was on duty with a very junior S/O and we had a generator problem which required a disconnect. Junior S/O wanted to drag the Captain out of bed to sort things out but I discussed the situation with her and we did the checklist and disconnected the generator. When the Captain came back on duty I briefed him as to what had happened and all he said was. "OK, thanks."

I don't think 'supervision' means the Captain has to be breathing down the F/Os neck all the time. Both are required on duty for departures and arrivals.

As for S/Os logging total time only half of it counts towards aeronautical experience.

As for S/Os joining QANTAS already having a command endorsement, highly unlikely but it has happened, though as QANTAS second officers are not licenced to do take offs and landings they can't satisfy the ICUS requirements, i.e. fly the sector.

Regards,
BH.

kmagyoyo

26th Mar 2009, 06:00

Carriers from every other country I can think of need 2 CPTs and 2 F/Os.

Hong Kong lets CX skin that cat with One CN, two FOs and an SO.

NZ do it three man- CN, FO and SO (poor bastards).

I'm unfamiliar with the Aussie rules, all QF FOs have command ratings but do they all have ATPLs? I guess they'd need one to have a 'command rating' yes?

KRUSTY 34

26th Mar 2009, 07:46

You'd think so kmagyoyo, but apparently not? REX pilots are given a command endorsement on the SAAB (yes it is above 5700kg) at time of their initial training. The majority of new REX recruits only have CPLs and many are a long way from qualifying for the ATPL. A situation that would not have been tolerated just a few years back.

I do believe that aircraft above 5700kg can be operated by pilots holding licences less than the ATPL, but not in command on RPT, and Charter ops. As the command endorsement does not take place on commercial ops, perhaps it is this aspect that allows the issue of a "command" endorsement to individuals that are not yet permitted to exercise the privilige of command on the line in anything but PVT or AWK?

As far as being in command on commercial ops (ICUS or otherwise), my understanding is that the minimum catagory of licence must be a class 1 ATPL.

A37575

26th Mar 2009, 11:54

All of this seems to me to be just good teamwork/CRM, rather than a change in command arrangement

I wondered when this "teamwork/CRM" bulldust would surface in this discussion. It didn't take long....

A37575

26th Mar 2009, 12:03

On a similar vein, one of our CRM instructors used to begin the sessions with a comment that when he first got his command he wondered what had happened to his flying skills.

That is an easy one. He lost his flying skills and gained data processing input skills via the automatics. Fact of life in almost every airline with glass cockpits. Read recent accident reports such as Flash Air, Adam Air, Turkish Airlines, and then for the classic proof of the loss of flying skills you only have to remember the Jogjakarta Garuda 737 crash with 220 knots over the fence instead of 135 knots. Result a burnt out aircraft and numerous dead.

bushy

26th Mar 2009, 12:26

We have rubbery rules Krusty.

Keg

26th Mar 2009, 23:10

Example. ICUS pilot is high on profile and is slow to get back on profile despite urging by the captain. ICUS immediately nullified. Logs copilot time for that leg.
Second example, in cruise with weather ahead the ICUS pilot decides to deviate off track and the captain disagrees, the logging of ICUS is immediately revoked for that leg.

It depends on whether the Captain took over or it the situation was just a genuine sharing of information. Did the Captain have to take over on descent? Did the Captain have to tell the F/O how to get back on profile? Was the F/O thinking that there would be a significant wind change/ track miles/ whatever that would impact on the profile? Was the 'urging' by the Captain highlighting that the expected change would not come? Unless the Captain has to 'direct' the F/O on what to do then I'm not sure that simply 'urging' would be enough to abrogate the ICUS requirements.

When it's my sector I'll often throw the 'whaddya reckon...' question to F/Os when it comes to weather diversions to both confirm where their head is at and to make sure I haven't missed something. The reality is that if the F/O wants to divert off track and it's not going to further complicate the situation then I'm happy for them to do it. We can talk about whether it was the right/wrong, efficient/inefficient decision along the way or after it's done and dusted. That doesn't change that the F/O was still IC under my S.

The reality that both examples are a bit thin with respect to information. However given the flimsiness of the examples then I don't think that you can hold a position that says they're [b]NOT[b] ICUS flights.

I wondered when this "teamwork/CRM" bulldust would surface in this discussion.

It appears you structure your working environment different to mine- and a number of other contributors on this forum also. That the way you choose to do things doesn't allow for any supervision or teamwork shouldn't detract from the rest of us that are quite capable of providing input and information without having to take over and still enable the operation to be an ICUS flight.

swh

27th Mar 2009, 09:36

In other words, copilot time is a thing of the past, thus neatly removing the requirement to half copilot time for purposes of aeronautical experience?

No, ICUS time is co-pilot time, only one person logs command time, that is the PIC.

People are confusing "Pilot in Command" (as defined under CAR 1988 224 Pilot in command), and logging of flight time. ICUS is defined as "in command under supervision if, during flight time in the aircraft, the person performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command while under the supervision of the pilot in command approved for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft."

Are you suggesting that every flight an F/O operates (either as PF or PNF) will in the future be logged as ICUS? That I highly doubt, as it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the ICUS requirements.

That is correct, the ICUS requirements do not talk about PF/PNF/PM "roles", or the rank which the pilot holds with the operator.

For example an F/O that does not have the command endorsement cannot log ICUS, and if a qualified F/O who has been assigned by the operator to do ICUS goes to the bathroom, that does not stop them from logging ICUS on that sector.

The CAR's state only that the ICUS pilot is assigned as co-pilot of the aircraft, there is no mention of who must manipulate the controls.

That is correct, the PIC does not need to sit in a control seat at any stage during a flight. However an operator may specify more restrictive conditions in their internal operations manual.

Unless QF has a different set of regs.

Any operator can have a stricter internal regulation than the legal minimum outlined in their manuals. Some confusion on this thread between the legal minimum set out by CASA, and the QF company minimum which is more restrictive.

Common sense would suggest you would be the pilot flying! Maybe that's too simplistic!

It is. The PF/PNF/PM role is not defined under ICUS rules. When a F/O who hands over for example to setup the box or brief the approach still can log ICUS. Likewise a crew undertaking a flight test on a multi-crew aircraft, with the testing officer being the PIC in the jump seat, the pilot in the left AND right hand seats can both log ICUS if they have the appropriate qualifications AND the operator has assigned that duty to each pilot.

The pay "rank" the operator associates with the pilots is irrelevant in this example, as only one PIC can be on any flight. Both pilots in the control seats are legally just "co-pilots". If they are performing the "duties and functions of the pilot in command while under the supervision of the pilot in command approved for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft" (CAR 1988 5.01(3)), they can log ICUS.

The PIC does not need to occupy a control seat, or manipulate the controls at any stage during a flight, refer to CAR 1988 224.

CASA does not restrict the number of "co-pilots" that an operator may assign to any flight, and a "co-pilot" is any other person other than the PIC. If the operator assigns the rank of captain to a pilot, that does not automatically mean the are the PIC either. If two pilots with the rank of "captain" fly together, one will be assigned by the operator as the PIC, and the other is a "co-pilot".

FAM 4.13.1 (page 4.24). First dot point.

F/Os have been able to log ICUS for years. Cheers.

This is how QF covers the "the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision" in 5.40.

There was a time when ICUS could be logged ONLY when the applicant was undergoing rostered command upgrade training. Having a command endorsement had nothing to do with the issue of being in command of the flight.

That can still happen today, if the operator specifies that in their manuals.

So let me get this right, I have a command endorsement on 737NG and when I am the PF (FO) I can log it as ICUS ?? Does not sound correct to me but I stand to be corrected!

Only IF you have been ASSIGNED that role by the operator.

On the other side of the coin, under UK regs for instance, ICUS or PICUS can only be logged if at no stage in any part of the flight- including flight planning - the captain sees fit to counter command any operational decision made by the ICUS pilot. For example if during flight the ICUS pilot is subject to correction because of a decision he has made, then ICUS for the flight is nullified and copilot time logged.

That is not correct.

The UK rules say when all duties and functions of the PIC were carried out, such that the PIC did not need to intervene in the interests of safety. If the PIC tells the PICUS pilot a more efficient way of dong something (e.g speed brake, flap selection), or something which provides better comfort to the passengers, that PICUS person can still log ICUS. Comfort and efficiency come after safety. Providing guidance and suggestions on comfort and efficiency is how people LEARN to become better operators.

Also with a fuel decision, if the PICUS pilot comes up with the safe minimum required under the operators fuel policy, and the PIC decides to add "fuel for mum", that again is not a safety issue. The UK rules say the PICUS is responsible for CHECKING the accuracy of the flight plan, load sheet and fuel calculations for the flight. The PICUS is NOT required to CALCULATE the fuel required, in the real world this is done by computer flight planning software.

An example of checking would be to look at FCOM 2 for the flight distance, weight, and altitude and compare that with the computer flight plan. Another example would be to see if the fuel loaded and airport weather would meet the company requirement for ETOPS dispatch and to add fuel if required by an ETOPS CP scenario. Checking NOTAMS/AERAD etc for mandatory holding fuel etc.

With Ref to CAR 5.40, I would have thought that the licence required to fly in command, (ICUS included) for RPT aircraft above 5700kg MTOW would have to be an ATPL. How the hell can you log any command time if you are not qualified to "command" the operation on anything less than that class of licence!

One can have a command endorsement, and be in command of an aircraft above 5700 kg on a PPL, just not in an RPT situation.

ICUS time IS NOT "command" time, it is "co-pilot" time. Only ONE person logs command time on any flight, that is the PIC, and only the PIC is required to have an ATPL.

CAR 5.40 clearly says "a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence" holder can log ICUS.

Also if the 2nd offficer had a command rating on type then wouldn't they be able to log ICUS time??????

They could if they met all the ICUS requirements, including the part about the operator ASSIGNING the pilot for that duty. However QF does not ASSIGN such duties to a "2nd officer". A "2nd officer" is essentially an internal "industrial relations" assignment, not a CASA flight crew qualification, a "2nd officer" as far as CASA is concerned is a qualified pilot, hence they can occupy a control seat on a multi-crew aircraft.

pilotshorvath

27th Mar 2009, 11:04

Basically, I was going to highlight the fact that above all else you can't log ICUS unless your operator approves it.

CAR 5.40
"(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the
aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and"

From what I have heard over the years, not a lot of operators allow the FO to log ICUS.

So maybe Qantas allows the logging of the ICUS time for the PF's leg.

But I would assume most multi-crew operators haven't specifically approved it (i.e. in their OPS manual or otherwise) for normal, everyday line flights. In which case, you can't log the PF leg as ICUS, command endorsement or not.

Cheers.

P.S. Here's a convenient link for CAR 5.40 if you need it, page 41: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/5864DA4B5FBF36F3CA2575710016A28A/$file/CivilAviation1988Vol2.pdf

farrari

27th Mar 2009, 20:28

SWH,thanks for all that,VA have Cruise FOs who are logging time as Co-Pilot for the Syd -Lax sector, I am correct in saying that those CFO with a command endorsement on the 777 can log ICUS as do the Senior FOs if they meet all ICUS requirements AND the company assigns that time to them.Would that then mean they can log all the time over and back.

swh

28th Mar 2009, 03:55

I am correct in saying that those CFO with a command endorsement on the 777 can log ICUS as do the Senior FOs if they meet all ICUS requirements AND the company assigns that time to them.Would that then mean they can log all the time over and back.

I do not have access to V Australia's manuals, but as long as the individual pilot meets the requirements of 5.40 and that individual pilot has been assigned to conduct ICUS by the operator, yes for sure.

CASA has left the details up to the operator on how ICUS is done for heavy crews.

I would be very surprised if V Australia allow a CFO to log ICUS during their designated rest period, in my view they would not be carrying out the "duties and functions of the pilot in command" as per CAR 5.01(3) during that time.

who_cares

28th Mar 2009, 05:59

Whats the first thing the F/O does if the Capt becomes incompacited?

Note the time... so he knows how much command to log:ok:

inandout

28th Mar 2009, 06:08

Bullethead

28th Mar 2009, 09:14

G'day inandout,

I never actually bothered to log any ICUS when I was an F/O as I had several thousand hours in command before I joined Q but the way I see it is that if a Captain can log command time in the bunk why couldn't a designated F/O log ICUS when it's his turn in the bunk?

If you're wondering about satisfying minimum hours requirements for an upgrade then I'd have to say that very few pilots in mainline Q would ever get close to promotion, seniority wise, with out having the hours requirements well and truly satisfied.

Regards,
BH.

LeadSled

29th Mar 2009, 09:29

All,
Could I suggest all you "experts" have a look at ICAO Annex. 1 for the basic logging of flight hours, that is the starting point, and it is ALL QUITE SIMPLE.

That is the way hours were logged in Australia until about 25 years ago, have a look at the regulations repeated inside the front cover of an old DCA/DoA log book.

Then "Australia" decided to make it not only non-ICAO, but hellishly complicated. As usual, Australia knew better than the rest of the world, why have one page of regulations, when you can have 21. Too easy.

The only net tangible result is that Australian pilots, starting their careers, and looking for a job offshore, are seriously disadvantaged, compared to their UK/US/NZ/just about anywhere else counterparts. I will leave all you experts to work out why that is the only real result.

To repeat, as I have every other time this nonsense comes up ----- ICUS is NOT, I say again NOT COMMAND TIME, it is exactly what it say, ICUS (NZ - Command practice, UK/SIN-P1U/S and so on)

I never cease to be amazed how Australian domestic pilots get their knickers in a twist about this sort of thing --- something the rest of the world takes for granted.

Tootle pip!!

KRUSTY 34

29th Mar 2009, 13:21

It's good that you mention ICAO Annex 1 Ledsled.

Notwithstanding everything that's been said, every single para of Annex 1 ends with the phrase "...for a higher class of licence." That is, the application of ICAO annex 1 is aimed at the candidate logging ICUS for the purpose of a licence upgrade. Under ICAO annex 1 (to which Australia is a signatory), the logging of ICUS for any other purpose, ie: to satisfy the requirements of a Low Capacity AOC, is not covered!

My point is, that if Australian Regs adhere to ICAO annex 1, then if the candidate holds a CPL, he/she should only log enough ICUS to satisfy the requirements of the ATPL. If the candidate already holds an ATPL, then the provisions of ICAO Annex 1 do not apply.

Now before you start quoting CAR 5.40 swh, can you tell me why the proposal from the Airline Transport Operations Group (ATOG) within CASA, has yet to be implemented allowing operators to sanction Pilots logging ICUS from the RHS on regular line ops. It has been two years since some brainiac came up with that flawed document, and my sources tell me that it has been all but buried.

In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?

Not trying to pick a fight, I simply would like to know the rationale behind it, and you seem to be the one with the answers.

bushy

29th Mar 2009, 13:31

I think it is because some less than admirable flying schools/charter companies have been persuading young pilots to pay for ICUS on charter flights (in single pilot aeroplanes)in order to log time in multi engined aircraft.
The organisation will have a lower wages bill that way, and the young pilots are logging twin time early, so they can go for that lucrative skygod job that they believe is waiting for them.

swh

3rd Apr 2009, 12:01

SWH , thanks again, would you or Keg kindly clarify this, when on long haul flights like to LA which is around say 14hrs, do FOs log all that as ICUS OR do they deduct there rest time off this which may be say 6hrs.

That is up to QF to specify in their manuals, if it were up to me, I would specifiy while they are performing the duties and functions of the pilot in command, i.e. not while resting.

Could I suggest all you "experts" have a look at ICAO Annex. 1 for the basic logging of flight hours, that is the starting point, and it is ALL QUITE SIMPLE..

Firstly, Annex 1 is part of the ICAO "International Standards and Recommended Practices", it is not law. Each ICAO state must implement the ICAO, UN or any other international agreement into their own legal system for it have a head of power and be legally enforceable. ICAO standards are not legally enforceable anywhere, you do not have ICAO police, nor an ICAO court, and ICAO does not issue licences or register aircraft either.

Australia complies with Annex 1 par 2.1.9 entirely on this point. The ICAO states which have differences to 2.1.9 includes Belarus, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, China, United States, Spain, and Ukraine.

The UK has a different way of crediting flight engineer time towards the issue of a pilots licence, and in the US, flight time as co-pilot may be credited in full toward a higher grade of licence.

That section of Annex 1 relates to how flight time is to be logged and calculated for the issue of a higher grade of pilot licence, it is silent on how flight time is logged after gaining the highest grade, or logging flight time in general. It does not limit the logging of ICUS after obtaining an ATPL, as under the licencing system which is where you find para 2.1.9 (under Licences and Ratings for Pilots), talks about the minimum requirements applicants need to have to obtain new "Licences and Ratings for Pilots".

One can, and normally does have in excess one or more areas of the minimum requirements for the issue of a licence, once you reach the minimum, you can and must still keep logging that flight time. A couple rhetorical questions, do you stop logging instrument time after you gain your CPL even if you have more than the 10 hours required ? Do you stop logging command time even if you have enough for the issue of an ATPL ? Do you stop logging co-pilot time when you get an ATPL ?

What ICAO actually says

"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."

To put the paragraph in context, it comes from the "General rules concerning pilot licences and ratings", it is part of Annex 1 that talks about the issue of new licences.

To repeat, as I have every other time this nonsense comes up ----- ICUS is NOT, I say again NOT COMMAND TIME, it is exactly what it say, ICUS (NZ - Command practice, UK/SIN-P1U/S and so on)

I agree totally, I have said the same earlier in this thread.

To quote the corrigendum ICAO Annex 1 in July 2006.

"Pilot-in-command under supervision. Co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, in accordance with a method of supervision acceptable to the Licensing Authority."

CAR 1988 5.01 (3)

"For the purposes of this Part, a person flies an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision if, during flight time in the aircraft, the person performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command while under the supervision of the pilot in command approved for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft."

Notwithstanding everything that's been said, every single para of Annex 1 ends with the phrase "...for a higher class of licence." That is, the application of ICAO annex 1 is aimed at the candidate logging ICUS for the purpose of a licence upgrade. Under ICAO annex 1 (to which Australia is a signatory), the logging of ICUS for any other purpose, ie: to satisfy the requirements of a Low Capacity AOC, is not covered!

That is not correct, you are mixing things up. Annex 1 section 2 is setting standard to get a new licence or rating. Essentially 2.1.9 is putting into words how one come up with the "Aeronautical Experience" requirement which is different to the "Grand Total Flying Hours". This is covered the Australian regulations for each licence type for example in CAR 1988 5.173. To see how this is implemented, have a look at Form 196 for the application of an ATPL.

Now before you start quoting CAR 5.40 swh, can you tell me why the proposal from the Airline Transport Operations Group (ATOG) within CASA, has yet to be implemented allowing operators to sanction Pilots logging ICUS from the RHS on regular line ops. It has been two years since some brainiac came up with that flawed document, and my sources tell me that it has been all but buried.

In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?

No idea, it is perfectly legal and acceptable to log ICUS from the RHS, some aircraft do not have a RHS, and you can log ICUS in them as well. As I said earlier, the regulations are silent on what rank you are assigned by the operator, or which physical seat you occupy so I do not see the need for this.

Maybe that had something to do with MPL licences and ICUS, they just ended up changing 5.40 in December to say that CPL, ATPL, and MPL licence holders can log ICUS, previously only CPL and ATPL holders could.

Keg

3rd Apr 2009, 13:22

inandout, it's all ICUS in the same way that it's all command time for the PIC. When I was an F/O and going on a break, I'd brief the Captain (or the S/O if the S/O was PF) as to the operation whilst I was gone- if I wanted them to climb early, climb late/ not at all, etc. Basically give them a quick overview of what the flight plan said, what the winds forecast was, what implications that had and the decision based upon current information.

They could take it or leave it but it was still me being ICUS even though I was about to disappear into the bunk.

A37575

4th Apr 2009, 12:59

You know what? It is all about ego, really. More and more in this CRM message of assertiveness by copilots, there have emerged two types of character. Some who are perfectly happy to be a copilot. To raise and lower the landing gear, and pick up a take off and landing here and there. They are not concerned about it being "MY leg." They are just happy to be an airline pilot and be out of GA...

Then there are the cocky bastards who sulk if not given two legs out of three as if it is their God given "right". Their chests swell with self important pride and just a weeny bit of arrogance, when the captain says "your leg" and that night, before they go to bed, they can ever so carefully, licking the tip of their idelible pencil, write in their log book: MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.

Ego is satisfied. They nominated the top of descent and this must have been a COMMAND DECISION. So ICUS it is in the log book. None of this slum dog millionaire copilot time - that's just for cadets....

The somewhat vulgar term "It's just a wank" covers the subject succintly.

Keg

4th Apr 2009, 13:49

MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.

Ego is satisfied.

Not sure what log book you're using A37etc but mine has an ICUS column and my name didn't appear in the command column until I was actually the PIC. Until that time my name was in the column 'other crew' and the ICUS was very obviously ICUS due to being under the heading with the BIG BOLD LETTERS. :ugh:

So there goes your 'ego' line of argument. Got any other straw men you want to have a go with? :E

Jet_A_Knight

5th Apr 2009, 12:33

You can over intellectualise it as much as you like.

Logging ICUS when you're really an FO on normal line flying from the RHS is a complete sham.:mad:

If the flying has a proper training purpose - eg a cadet candidate for a captain position who has done the command endorsement and command line training and passed the line check, and is flying from the perspective of a captain (eg LHS) yet doesn't have the required command time to hold the command position unsupervised - is reasonable.

But to log a pseudo command as an FO on general day to day line flying is utter bull****.

Talk about fraud.:ugh:

LeadSled

5th Apr 2009, 15:29

Once A Night,

Let me try and put it another way:

(1) We know who, how and when "Command" is logged -- by the Pilot in Command.
(2) We know (or should know -- I have seen all too many breaches of this one) who and when to log dual.

In this day and age, flight station duties are often referred to as "pilot flying" and "support pilot", or something similar, but regardless, the designated Pilot in Command always logs command, and:

(3) the co-pilot, when "support pilot", logs co-pilot time.

So, this leaves the little matter of what the co-pilot logs, when he/she is the "pilot flying", and the Captain/Pilot in Command is "support pilot".

Despite what so many of you seem to think, ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/Description of Choice IS NOT pilot in command, and there is nothing fraudulent about logging ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC as ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoS ----- because that is exactly what it is ----it is NOT logging Command time.

Last time I noticed, many Australian log books even have separate columns for ICUS, so I don't have to look at the "remarks" column, or whatever some log books call it, to see the ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC noted.

Believe me, when I am looking at pre-employment records/CVs, and I get to look at quite a few, I want to see a record of the sectors operated by the applicant ---- when he/she was a co-pilot with his/her previous employers flying multi-pilot crews ------ because, believe it or not, we still have organisations that do not (all things being equal) fly leg for leg.

If the whole sodding lot, for a co-pilot, is logged as "co-pilot", regardless of who was doing what to whom, I only have the applicant's word for the actual "hands on" time, and I am far from the only one who puts a high value on "stick and rudder" time, logged so that I can double check the VH-BIC time.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The current QANTAS arrangements precisely comply with Annex I (and "satisfy" CASA) to the last legal dotted i and crossed t, despite what some of you bush lawyers seem to think. It was not always so!!

Mr.Buzzy

5th Apr 2009, 21:00

Sykes

6th Apr 2009, 01:58

You know what? It is all about ego, really. More and more in this CRM message of assertiveness by copilots, there have emerged two types of character.

You've forgotten the third type:

Those FO's who just fly and log whatever their company directs them to log, and HOPE TO GOD that they aren't rostered on with some condescending, arrogant, obnoxious pig of a captain who's convinced that he's damned if he's going to allow some "CRM bullsh1t" stop him letting an FO do anything more than:

To raise and lower the landing gear, and pick up a take off and landing here and there.

Probably more of that type than some posters might think... :ok:

harrowing

6th Apr 2009, 03:58

Sykes,
There are possibly fewer of that type than some posters might think.
IMHO

Jet_A_Knight

6th Apr 2009, 15:07

Despite what so many of you seem to think, ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/Description of Choice IS NOT pilot in command, and there is nothing fraudulent about logging ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC as ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoS ----- because that is exactly what it is ----it is NOT logging Command time.

It still distorts the total aeronautical experience.

If the whole sodding lot, for a co-pilot, is logged as "co-pilot", regardless of who was doing what to whom, I only have the applicant's word for the actual "hands on" time, and I am far from the only one who puts a high value on "stick and rudder" time, logged so that I can double check the VH-BIC time.

And here I was thinking that a logbook is a legal document.:hmm:

So how does the FO who flies for a company that doesn't use these rubbery figures log their time to satisfy your suspicions??:ugh:

A Comfy Chair

6th Apr 2009, 22:52

Jet A Knight,

Why are you so upset about the logging of ICUS?

Has it occured to you that what the Qantas F/O's (amongst others) do is exactly what CASA INTENDS by the ICUS rule? If it wasn't, I'm sure the definition would change back!

It isn't "rubbery figures"... it is what the regs say they are to log!

Airlines are fully aware what ICUS means, and no-one pretends it is command time... so what is the problem?

KRUSTY 34

7th Apr 2009, 01:13

I think the problem is when ICUS is not really ICUS! ie: What does the "Supervision" component of ICUS entail? If it is merely the fact that the "real" Captain is present on the flightdeck, then that could mean anything! I know of Captains who are concientious enough to embrace the spirit of a supervisory role. They would undoubtably encourage "command" decisions by the more junior pilot, and to that end the exercise would have some merit, albeit adhoc!

On the other hand, I know of a similar number that would treat the flight as a normal line operation and make no effort to "play teacher". And frankly, why should they? Without continuity, how can any ICUS under these circumstances be viewed with anything other than suspicion.

My point is, that without a structured program, supervised by a properly trained Captain, is ICUS really ICUS? Or does the integrity of the "S" really not matter?

desmotronic

7th Apr 2009, 02:25

The fourth type of captain is the cadet/captain with decades seniority 10,000 hours co pilot/ICUS, and f*ck all COMMAND.

Centaurus

7th Apr 2009, 13:50

I recall that in the old days, a pilot needed 500 hours as pilot in command in order to qualify for the First Class ATPL. And you could only hold any class of ATPL if you were employed by an airline. Other than that you needed a Senior Commercial Pilots Licence (SCPL) to fly something over 5700 kgs in command. The 500 command for a SCPL and the First Class ATPL was real command as ICUS wasn't invented then. Even if you had flown 500 hours in command on Tiger Moths that met the requirement. The problem arose when Qantas cadets with a bare 200 hours CPL who eventually became F/O's, never had that 500 hours in command on anything (gliders didn't count) and so an F/O with 15 years in the job on DC3's, Connies, 707's and DC4's could never qualify for a command.

Qantas then bought a couple of HS 125's and they had a spare DC3 or two. Operating from Avalon, experienced F/O's were checked out in command of these types and let loose to fly around the country to eventually pick up the required min hours. Once they reached the magic 500 command hours, their Second Class ATPL was changed to First Class and the new Qantas captain took his place in the left seat on commercial operations.

Now I might be on thin ice here, but as the costs of operating real training aircraft mounted just to allow Qantas F/O's to get 500 command, someone thought of leaning on DCA to stretch the rules. Qantas have always exerted considerable leverage on DCA/DoT/CASA or whathaveyou. ICUS was the way to go and so ICUS was invented to suit Qantas. Very soon ICAO followed. I have a vague idea the 500 command time was whittled down to 250 command and another 250 ICUS. Australia had a fair amount of muscle in ICAO and the rules were changed. That is why the current ATPL allows a set amount of ICUS towards qualifying. The old First Class and Second Class ATPL disappeared.

While closely supervised ICUS (never happens of course) was originally designed towards the purpose of reaching 500 hours mixed command and ICUS, once the magic 500 had been reached there was no point in further logging of ICUS and so a copilot reverted to logging copilot time regardless if he was given a leg or not.

Then some one realised you needed 10 hours command on type in the GA world of Chieftain's and Barons in order to qualify to fly in command on charter. So, 10 hours ICUS was allowed to replace command. After that GA went mad and every man and his dog started to log ICUS because it looked better in the log book than copilot time.

And so ICUS became the de facto copilot time and in Qantas a copilot would have logged well over 5000 hours ICUS by the time his seniority number came up. In fact this has it's good points if the pilot is looking for a job in India for example. Point to a thousand hours of ICUS in your log book and produce a letter from your chief pilot stating that Australian ICUS is really in command by another name since all the decisions are made by the ICUS pilot, then chances are you may get a direct entry command on the jet ICUS type. I know for sure it worked with one 737 first officer and he has never looked back since then.

But really, once you have reached the minimum mixture of 500 hours command and ICUS to qualify for the Australian ATPL, there is little point in pleading for more and more ICUS unless you want to fly in India..

Icarus53

7th Apr 2009, 23:07

It still distorts the total aeronautical experience.

You're right here Jet_A, but I suggest that it distorts it towards a more balanced total.

Compare two examples:

1) PPL Holder hires a C152 for an hour of circuits as they build hours towards CPL.

2) FO in an RPT operation is made responsible for all decision making and aircraft handling (with supervision by a Captain) on a sector of one hour, including conduct of flight planning, weather diversion and an instrument approach.

Has the FO not earned a full hour in the log book (rather than the 0.5 he would earn as Co-pilot)? Or is it fair to say that the PPL holder is accruing aeronautical experience twice as fast?

Right - I'm off to supervise a Captain for the day!:}:E

Icarus

Merlins Magic

8th Apr 2009, 04:19

Aeronautical Experience is a very broad assessment of someones ability.

Who has the greater experience between a guy with 2000hrs TT sitting in the right hand seat of a C152 doing laps around the circuit as an instructor or the guy with 2000hrs operating as an FO on turbo prop/jet RPT operations.

I would rather sit next to the later as I am sure most others would also. I am sure Joe Public would think so as well.

I guess CASA just needs to draw a line somewhere and let the Professionalism and High Standards of a companies Check and Training Department to sort out the experienced from the inexperienced.

Jet_A_Knight

8th Apr 2009, 04:39

Before we discuss the legalities about FO's logging ICUS when PF on normal line flights.

Are all Qantas line captains designated as 'Supervisory Captains' and specifically assigned as such on normal line flight????

Keg

8th Apr 2009, 05:17

The Qantas Flight Administration Manual states that all 'landee Captains' (a non-landee captain can't give away a sector anyway) are authorised to supervise ICUS sectors being operated by F/Os. Remember that the FAM is authorised by CASA.

Are all Qantas line captains designated as 'Supervisory Captains' and specifically assigned as such on normal line flight????

So in a word, 'yes'.

KRUSTY 34

8th Apr 2009, 06:08

Is there a syllabus for this supervisory role Keg? Or do they make it up as they go along! :suspect:

Jet_A_Knight

8th Apr 2009, 06:50

I don't deny that it is in compliance with the regs.

I don't have a problem with ICUS per se, for example, the purpose of command training or candidates who have passed their command check (not just command endorsement), and require to act in command under supervision until they meet the minimum hours required to operate unsupervised.

I still maintain that - legal or not - the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility , makes FO's logging ICUS on day to day line ops - a sham.

At the end of the day, you take whatever you can get - if the company has the approvals for it.

Happy landings.

Keg

8th Apr 2009, 09:15

Yes Krusty, it's called command training. Depending on where you come from It's 4-6 months of pure slog. :ok:

KRUSTY 34

8th Apr 2009, 11:07

It certainly is pure slog Keg, as many a poster here can testify. What I'm really fishing for however is the logging of ICUS by QF F/O's not under command training, which of course is what this post is all about.

Did you log ICUS from the RHS prior to commencement of your Command training. If so, did the "Supervisory" Captain have a syllabus or some other format to follow?? :confused:

Jet_A_Knight

8th Apr 2009, 12:31

Krusty, by the looks of things, the syllabus is in the format of the run sheet.;)

Icarus53

9th Apr 2009, 02:25

Captain's Command responsibility

If you are wielding the above as a line checked Captain, have you not demonstrated satisfactorily that you are capable of supervising a line checked FO in the conduct of his/her duties? What extra training syllabus is required?

the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility

Jet_A - I'm with you all the way to the end of this part of your statement. I just don't see how you follow to your conclusion. There is a World of difference between the two (agreed), and that difference is clearly reflected in the log book entry - ICUS is not PIC, and I see nothing in the regs or other posts here that suggest the two are comparable. So what's the sham?

Keg

9th Apr 2009, 03:25

Krusty, I've logged ICUS in the RHS since I was given a command endorsement on the 767 in about 2000. Interestingly, I think command training (when I was in the LHS) is considered dual.

The requirements is in the FAM:

In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) involves:
• the pilot ICUS making all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the
aircraft;
• the pilot holding a command aircraft endorsement and a command instrument rating if the flying activities require such a rating;
• the operator permitting the person to fly the aircraft as pilot ICUS;
• the Pilot-In-Command of the aircraft being appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft;
• the requirements of CAR 5.40 being fulfilled.

Apart from the normal management roles and designated procedures associated with the First Officer as Pilot Flying (PF), ICUS should include:
• all aspects of flight planning;
• appraisal of aircraft Technical Log and liaison with Ground Engineering;
• consideration of items included in CAR 233, Responsibility of Pilot-In-Command Before Flight;
• consideration of requirements relating to meteorological conditions of destination and alternate aerodromes;
• the responsibility to ensure that the operation at all times complies with the Company fuel policy;
• progressive management of the flight;
• any other aspect of the flight that the Captain would normally manage.
Note: Only Landee Captains are approved to supervise ICUS sectors.
The intent of ICUS is that the First Officer is supervised and allowed to make the relevant decisions. However, Captains are reminded that this does not relieve them of the responsibilities of Pilot-In-Command.

I'm not sure why there has to be a 'syllabus' though. There are a bunch of requirements to satisfy so I guess in some respects that's a syllabus but the reality is that if the F/O is ICUS.

...the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility.

I agree but if they F/O does all of the above including covering off all aspects of CAR224, 233, 239, 244, 245, 139, 145, 234, etc, etc, with me providing the supervision then have they not operated ICUS?

Centaurus

9th Apr 2009, 14:34

Having never logged ICUS in my entire career in the RAAF, GA and airlines, I wondered why the eagerness for some pilots to log ICUS rather than copilot time? After all, presumably you are still a copilot with all the usual responsibilities that the position implies and that includes Second in Command.

For example, is there some sort of perceived increase in crew pecking order or status involved - like wearing an additional stripe, extra pay, or perhaps more street cred with the hosties, when compared to logging copilot time? If none of the above, what is the great attraction therefore, of hundreds or even thousands of hours of logged ICUS versus the same hours in the copilot column of your log book?

LeadSled

9th Apr 2009, 15:34

Centaurus,
What a wonderful construction, based on half facts, half fiction, and half wishful thinking, making 150% rubbish.

Before you work so hard on your RSI, why not do a bit of research !!.

Until about 1965, ALL Qantas F/Os had an ATPL/ command endorsement on the aeroplane, and flew a sector from the LHS. This made it very easy to slip off to, say, Cathay or MEA.

Then somebody had a really bright idea, lets issue something called a "Second Class ATPL/IR" and stamp the back "endorsed to first class standard", then notify a difference to ICAO that this satisfied the ICAO requirement for two ATPL/ALTP/ATR license holders on international flights. Time took care of the remaining F/Os with a "real" ATPL.

For good measure, Australia notified a further difference,that Australian ATPL/SCPL/CPL were not ICAO compliant, this is the basis for the problems of Australian license recognition in many countries (not UK CAA/FAA, where problems were/are a "policy" matter).

In an era when industrial relations were really poisonous, this made it just that little more difficult for Australian pilots to get a job outside the country.

The Australian PPL was, then, the only ICAO compliant license issued by Australia.

For many years thereafter, due to an alleged bottom drawer deal with DCA, a QF F/O flying a leg (still from the LHS) logged DUAL, not P2 or ICUS. Given the definition of "dual", carrying passengers??? Strange but true.

A lot of the other things you are confusing, for the apparent purpose of constructing another conspiracy against QF cadets, involved QF "promotional criteria", NOT ICAO and/or DCA et al requirements for the issue of the ATPL license. Indeed, the QF cadets of that era were all farmed out around Australia, PNG and the Pacific, and only came back in to QF to start S/O training after they had accumulated 1000-2000 hours. No grounds for a dirty deal, or pressure on ICAO there!!

If you have any doubts about hours required by ICAO, have a look at the UK records, including the BEA/BOAC cadets, from the early '60's, who were on an airline flight deck as an F/O with about 210-230 hours total. Indeed, what BEA/BOAC/Lufthansa etc. were doing then was almost identical to the Multi-Crew Pilot License now. T'was all "ICAO". No 500 hours "real" command there.

In the '70's, a swag of pilots, surplus to QF requirements (the first oil price shock -- the remaining 707's dissappeared two years ahead of the "pre-shock" plan") went offshore. All of a sudden, all the "dual" had to be re-written as ICUS (no rule changes) for presentaion to UK CAA/FAA/DCA Ireland/Zambia/Lebanon/Jordan/Singapore etc.--- log books suitably stamped by QF ---- to DCA (or whatever it was by then) regulations/ICAO ---- as per the inside page of a DCA log book, CA-7, read in conjunction with the Air Navigation Act 192?and the Air Navigation Regulations ---- The CAAct/CARs/CASRs/CAOs etc came much later.

QF F/Os moved permanently to the RHS in approx. the mid/late '70's.

Issuing QF F/Os with a proper ATPL (ICAO) license AGAIN, only came about quite recently, with pressure on Australia to become ICAO compliant, we have a long way to go.

From memory, the basis of the present so complicated regulations appeared in late '80's or early '90's, all because of just one FOI ,who got the same bee in his bonnet about "ICUS" as quite a few of you. Interestingly, to this day, he is an FOI with nil operational experience in other than single pilot operations.

Tootle pip!!