Is it ICUS when you are getting checked out by an ATO?

[training wheels]

I've heard two different opinions about this, so I'm interested in knowing what the consensus is on this.

When you're doing a flight test with an ATO (eg, MECIR renewal), do you log it as ICUS in your log book or is it dual? I'd say ICUS because the ATO isn't actually giving you any instruction so it's not dual; he/she is just an observer. Am I correct? And if that's the case, do you write SELF in the PIC column of your logbook and the ATO's name in the "other pilot" column?

[Dehavillanddriver]

An entirely uneducated view - but my thoughts

If you are qualified to act as PIC on the flight - i.e. you hold a valid CIR and your flight test is a renewal, then it is command not icus, as you are the captain of the flight.

I am sure that others more knowlegable will be able to prove me wrong and give you a better answer

[airman1]

From memory ICUS must be conducted whilst engaged in a commercial operation So renewals can’t be logged as ICUS


Happy to be corrected :ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

CASA had a flick through my logbook a couple of years ago and the FOI picked up on my last Chief Pilot check flight.

I had logged it as PIC (I mean... I flew... the FOI just sat there being a smart arse :ok: ) but I was told in no uncertain terms that it should have been Dual. :hmm:

As you say, there is no instruction given. Just because the guy in the RHS is telling you what to do doesn't make him PIC :ugh:

[Brian Abraham]

Don't have a reference to hand, but always told and logged as command. Think, who signed for the aircraft, whose name is on the flight plan, and whose going to carry the can if you bend it.

[maui]

If it is a renewal, the FOI/ATO does not need to be qualified on the aircraft. Ergo it must be PIC for the left seat. (At least that used to be the case. Don't know if things have changed over the last 14 years)

Maui

[bushy]

We have far too many instances where there is no certainty, and people who should know disagree on the meaning of our regulations.

[tio540]

then it is command not icus, as you are the captain of the flight


No two pilots can log the flight as command.

As you say, there is no instruction given. Just because the guy in the RHS is telling you what to do doesn't make him PIC

See above

Think, who signed for the aircraft, whose name is on the flight plan, and whose going to carry the can if you bend it

See above


If it is a renewal, the FOI/ATO does not need to be qualified on the aircraft. Ergo it must be PIC for the left seat


The FOI needs to be endorsed to fail an engine as part of the renewal. Makes sense doesn't it.

Renewal is dual if the CIR has expired. I believe it is ICUS if the CIR is still current.

[RadioSaigon]

There is a difference (as discussed long ago) in NZ Law; there, every flight-test/renewal is logged as PinC with the ATO logging co-pilot -unless you fail the flight-test/renewal, in which case the candidate logs dual and the ATO PinC.

The assumption there is that, as you are being assessed for competency to act in that role, you must be assumed to be PinC. Unless you fail. :E

[glekichi]

Wasn't the initial issue of an instrument rating the exception to that rule, R.S?
I'm pretty sure I remember P.D getting pretty worked up about the issue!

[Howard Hughes]

If you can't answer this question should you even hold a rating?;)

[training wheels]

If you can't answer this question should you even hold a rating?;)

As you can see from the responses on this thread, there are varied opinions as to what should be logged. I've been told that's it's to be logged as dual, but disagree, thus the reason for my post.

Rather than give a smart arse response HH, how about you tell us how you would log this in your log book?

[RadioSaigon]

Pete did my initial too glekichi... it's in the logbook as PinC and Pete Co-

Hard to imagine him getting all worked up about anything ;)

[training wheels]

There is a difference (as discussed long ago) in NZ Law; there, every flight-test/renewal is logged as PinC with the ATO logging co-pilot -unless you fail the flight-test/renewal, in which case the candidate logs dual and the ATO PinC.

The assumption there is that, as you are being assessed for competency to act in that role, you must be assumed to be PinC. Unless you fail. :E

I like the logic and the reasoning behind that. Why can't CASA come up with a similar black and white policy to this?

[Howard Hughes]

Rather than give a smart arse response HH, how about you tell us how you would log this in your log book?
If it was a smart arse answer I was giving, I would have followed it with this smilie ( :rolleyes: ).

However if you must know how I would log it, it would be CORRECTLY!;)

[Mach E Avelli]

At the briefing stage the ATO should be making it clear that the pilot under check is to make all COMMAND decisions. If the ATO has to intervene in any way it is usually (should be) a FAIL. Normally one can't fail while receiving dual instruction, but the necessity to instruct on a test is fail material of itself. Depending on the ATO, a test gone wrong is sometimes allowed to continue on the basis that it is then training and would then be logged as ICUS or dual.
The only tests I ever logged as ICUS were initial rating or endorsement tests, because of course at that stage I was not qualified to be in command under the IFR, or in command of the particular type etc. But certainly not dual because the 'instruction' was over, or I would not have been there in the first place. Ditto with line training - the training logged as ICUS but the check-to-line as command. The nature of the check and name of the check pilot/examiner always clearly shown in the notes alongside the flight, so anyone auditing the logbooks would know that there had been no attempt to falsify the entry or over-claim command hours.
Taking cover from the experts now.......

[Horatio Leafblower]

The only tests I ever logged as ICUS were initial rating or endorsement tests, because of course at that stage I was not qualified to be in command

...then how can you be "In Command Under Supervision"?

Not qualified = not in command.

In my example above - a Chief Pilot or CFI flight check - the victim MUST be qualified to act as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned, on the operations proposed (otherwise WTF is he doing there?).

I am sure the ATO Manual will have guidance on this matter :rolleyes:

[Fred Gassit]

Pretty sure it is ICUS

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not qualified = not in command.


Bingo. Until you have a sticky in your book for that type (if req) you are NOT qualified to command, hence no ICUS is permitted.

Back to ATO country,
From the ATO Manual
Pilot-in-Command: The ATO is the pilot in command when occupying a control seat.
Applicants will log dual for all flight tests except when undertaking a CIR renewal. If the
applicant is the holder of a CPL with current CIR and meets the appropriate recency
requirements, the applicant may log ICUS. When the ATO occupies a backseat/jump seat,
(in a mentoring role/observing role), he is not the pilot-in-command.

[Angle of Attack]

MakeitHappenCaptain,

You Said it perfectly!

At the end of the day are you really craving the few hours per year ICUS? Log it dual its the law and if you are craving ICUS hours then you have more serious problems. Why does it matter? As a serious question?
:)

[Mach E Avelli]

OK, always willing to be corrected, even if it doesn't make sense when read against various other definitions of what constitutes 'dual'.
Now, when the ATO checks from the jump seat, what does the ATO log?
What about the nutso 'total aeronautical experience' calculation? Another unique Australian innovation. Time in the cockpit is surely flight time - the F/O is not there gaining half the experience of the Captain. The Poms allowed F/O handling flying to be P1/S (ICUS) but each sector claimed had to be signed for by the real P1. In signing it, the real P1 was effectively saying that the other guy made all the right decisions on his/her sector. Like any system probably open to abuse, but usually works OK as a prospective employer can see easily enough from a pilot's log what is 'real' command and what is what we would term ICUS.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

AoA,

Totally agree. This debate pops up every few months.

Everyone take note....
Two extra hours dual is not that much in the bigger scheme of things.
It will not make any difference over any other candidate with similar hours.
:rolleyes:

[training wheels]

MakeItHappenCaptain,

You Said it perfectly!

At the end of the day are you really craving the few hours per year ICUS? Log it dual its the law and if you are craving ICUS hours then you have more serious problems. Why does it matter? As a serious question?
:)

Well, I can assure you that I have no "craving" for ICUS hours dude. I'm just curious as to why some people say I can log ICUS on an MECIR renewal and others say I can't.

And MakeItHappenCaptain has explained the reason why, very well. That's what this forum is for isn't it? Or is it to undermine those who ask legitimate questions?

As for your "Log it dual its the law", I suggest you have another read of what MakeItHappenCaptain wrote. It can be logged as ICUS under certain conditions.

[Centaurus]

The Poms allowed F/O handling flying to be P1/S (ICUS

What a pitiful policy. It is almost as if logged copilot time is shameful and the log book holder will do anything to avoid being labelled as a copilot. In command under supervision sounds much more cool. If the pilots position in the company is a copilot then he is a bloody copilot and there is no loss of face in that, surely. Anyone knows that ICUS is nothing more than a sop to a pilot's ego. :=

[Tee Emm]

Grade one instructor was eager to pick up more command time on twins. Another instructor same school was logging twin time normally. First instructor carefully changed the initials of the second person to his own initials on the authorisation sheet. Just added a stroke of the pen here and there. It went unnoticed for weeks until CASA just happened to drop by and saw a log book laying on a table. By rotten luck it was the first instructors log book.

May as well start somewhere says the CASA FOI to his side-kick. They checked this log book against the old authorisation sheets and smelt a rat. Both instructors interviewed by CASA. One pronounced guilty of forging the other instructors hours in his own log book. Naughty boy smack on the wrist given. Naughty boy now a Qantas captain.

[Mach E Avelli]

Centauris, I think the Pom policy had its genesis because post-WW II a co-pilot was very much nothing more than a radio operator who worked the gear and flap levers. It was rare for co-pilots to ever get a handling sector. So, when they did , it was a big enough deal to warrant a sign-off as P1/S. In my early years I had the misfortune to fly as a DC3 F/O with one of these Pommy p....s and we would do six-sector days with him hogging every one. So, of course when I flew with a more progressive skipper, I was after him for a P1/S signature until I got the necessary time up for a command myself.
Now that we have moved on to a more enlightened age when we expect co-pilots will get approximately 50% of the handling, perhaps that system is not so relevant. But then, neither is the silly calculation of 'total aeronautical experience' whereby flight time as F/O is halved. These days the F/O is (or should be) far more than a radio operator.