Irex Question

[Artificial Horizon]

Here is a question that I just can't figure out:

The minimum instrument time in aeroplanes within the last 90 days required by a pilot with a Command Instrument Rating to ac as pilot in command on a single pilot IFR flight in an aeroplane would be -

[a] Single - pilot operations - 1 hour ICUS instrument time on any IFR aircraft including one instrument approach.

[b] Single - pilot operations - 1 hour ICUS instrument flight time in an aircraft certified for single - pilot operation, including one instrument approach.

[c] Single - pilot operations - 1 hour PIC instrument flight time in an aircraft certified for single - pilot operations, including one instrument approach.

[d] Single - pilot operations - 1 hours PIC instrument time on an approved synthetic trainer including one instrument approach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I have ruled out [a] and [d] straight away as they don't include the 'in an aircraft certified for single pilot operations' as in CAO 40.2.1.11.5. I can't for the life of me though see a difference between [b] and [c] as CAO states that both 1 hour PIC and 1 hour ICUS in either an aircraft or synthetic flight trainer with one instrument approach is sufficient for recency. Any ideas???:ugh:

[Fonz121]

The answer is B.

You are recent if you fly one hour ICUS and an approach.

Flying PIC requires 3 hrs IF, of which one has to be flown in an aircraft. ie the other 2 can be done in a synthetic trainer. (+ an approach).

Or the only other possible way to be recent single pilot is to have completed a renewal or initial issue.

[ZappBrannigan]

I would agree, the answer is B.

If the 1 hour IF as a single-pilot op is conducted ICUS then you do not require anything further to be completely current (i.e. no requirement for another 2 hours IF), but if you conduct the 1 hour as PIC, you still have to satisfy 2 more IF hours in-flight or in a synthetic trainer to be current.

The other requirement that isn't mentioned in the question is the 1 hour IF has to be conducted as a single-pilot operation, not just in an aircraft certified for SP ops.

[increasedescent]

I would agree with what the others have said - B.

ID

[PlankBlender]

Beware of exactly these questions in the IREX, I stumbled over a very similar one when I did mine last year.

I had sufficient time and this particular question I took apart word for word and checked against the regs, and still got it wrong. I got a 85% pass anyway, and was quite comfortable looking at the air law type questions, but that one had me stumped. It totally read like it should have come out with the option that said something along the lines of 'no further instrument flight time needed', but it clearly wasn't.. :confused:

The situation presented was one of a single engine IFR pilot with an hour of instrument flight time under his belt in the required time plus other instrument time, and the formulation was about 'additional instrument flight time', not 'instrument time', so beware of the exact question, it's easy to answer the wrong question correctly :}!

[Artificial Horizon]

Thanks guys, that actually makes sense now. Cheers:ok:

[bentleg]

The answer is B.

You are recent if you fly one hour ICUS and an approach.

Flying PIC requires 3 hrs IF, of which one has to be flown in an aircraft. ie the other 2 can be done in a synthetic trainer. (+ an approach).

Or the only other possible way to be recent single pilot is to have completed a renewal or initial issue.

Agree on B. You can also achieve currency by flying one hour IF with an instructor. (I guess this could be construed as ICUS), including an approach.

[Fonz121]

Agree on B. You can also achieve currency by flying one hour IF with an instructor. (I guess this could be construed as ICUS), including an approach.

Hey BL

I was under the impression that dual time (with an instructor) was not applicable to single pilot operations.

[ZappBrannigan]

Agree on B. You can also achieve currency by flying one hour IF with an instructor. (I guess this could be construed as ICUS), including an approach.Not too sure about this. Whether the person is an instructor or not doesn't really matter - if it's dual they do need to be an instructor, but dual won't cover you for your single-pilot currency - and you don't need to be an instructor to supervise ICUS.

If there's any instruction given (instructor rating or not) then the flight can't be logged as ICUS in the first place.

[Fonz121]

ZB

yeah ICUS doesn't have to be an instructor, as long as the right hand seat guy has a cpl and an IR then I think its fine.

[ZappBrannigan]

yeah ICUS doesn't have to be an instructor, as long as the right hand seat guy has a cpl and an IR then I think its fine.Sounds about right. There are some company requirements for ICUS flights not in PVT category, can't remember them too well though.

A few colleagues and I had a discussion a while back about whether you can log ICUS when you're out of currency - i.e. fly out of currency with a current pilot as PIC/safety pilot, and log it as ICUS. Same question applies to NVFR currency. Don't see why you can't - you can't log it as dual unless the other person's an instructor - doesn't leave you with many columns except co-pilot.

[Lasiorhinus]

Two points -

There's a big difference between single-engine, and single-pilot.

Also, you cannot act In Command Under Supervision if you are not current/recent to fly in command. If you're acting in command, you need to be able to act in command, regardless of who's supervising you. The supervising pilot needs to also be legally able to be PIC - so just a CPL and IR is not enough - they need to be current, recent, and endorsed on the aircraft, too.

Zapp - if you're not current to do the flight, you're right - you cant log as PIC, but you also cant log it as ICUS. If your currency has expired, it has to be dual - no other option.

[ZappBrannigan]

Zapp - if you're not current to do the flight, you're right - you cant log as PIC, but you also cant log it as ICUS. If your currency has expired, it has to be dual - no other option.So if you're out of 90-day currency (IFR currency, not just single-pilot currency), you can't simply go up with a (non-instructor) rated+current+endorsed safety pilot as your PIC? I haven't come across this yet, so haven't thought lots about it apart from a quick discussion as mentioned.

[Lasiorhinus]

No, you can't, because you're not current.

Refer CAR 5.40 below, but if you are required to hold an instrument rating to undertake the flight, and you have an instrument rating that is not current, then you do not have a rating that permits you to undertake the flight.

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.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of
strict liability.

Dont forget, though, that if its just your 90 day currency that's expired - you can do your approaches, and up to two hours flight time, in a synthetic flight trainer.

[ZappBrannigan]

I'll accept that, I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

I've probably read that slightly differently in the past - i.e. you DO hold a flight crew rating that allows you to act as PIC (i.e. it's a command rating and you don't require a renewal) - you just don't meet the recent experience requirements (which does not change the fact you DO hold the rating, and the rating is current), and the CAOs specify the recent experience requirements as being required for PIC only. But with ICUS you are effectively PIC, just not legally PIC, so it makes sense that you have to meet the recency requirements as well. If CAR 5.40 said something about being legally able to conduct the flight as PIC, not just "hold a flight crew rating" that would permit it, then that ambiguity would have been removed in my head.

I lied, this did pop up for me a while ago, but it was NVFR currency, not IFR currency - I went up with an instructor and logged it as dual just to be sure.

Edit: just so we're on the same page, I thought I'd reinforce that I'm talking about the 90-day recency with this ICUS discussion here - I'm not talking about logging ICUS when requiring a yearly renewal (which is clearly not holding a current rating, and of course you're not allowed to fly IFR in any capacity except dual).

[Lasiorhinus]

I'm not talking about logging ICUS when requiring a yearly renewal (which is clearly not holding a current rating, and of course you're not allowed to fly IFR in any capacity except dual).

Agreed, but there is no difference in not being allowed to fly IFR in any capacity except dual, because your rating has expired, or because your rating is not current.



Want to open a can of worms?
Get a PRIVATE IFR rating, and you can go flying by yourself, as PIC, on a private flight, when your Command IR is out of currency, and get yourself re-current all by yourself.

[ZappBrannigan]

Agreed, but there is no difference in not being allowed to fly IFR in any capacity except dual, because your rating has expired, or because your rating is not current.

Want to open a can of worms?
Get a PRIVATE IFR rating, and you can go flying by yourself, as PIC, on a private flight, when your Command IR is out of currency, and get yourself re-current all by yourself.No probs - I'm probably mis-using the word current as well.

Yep, that does sound like a can of worms. Silly question - if you've got a PIFR rating, do you fly under a standard IFR flight plan? I've never bothered to figure out what the PIFR rating is all about. The CAOs say "The holder of a command instrument rating shall not act as pilot in command of an aircraft on an I.F.R. flight unless the recent experience requirements of this subsection are satisfied" blah blah... which sounds like one of those weird backward legal situations where holding a CIR means you can't exercise the privileges of a PIFR rating even if you're PIFR-current. I'm sure you can, but it's good enough for another 5 page argument.

Like another version of "if you hold a CPL but have never held a PPL, can you fly a PVT category flight with a Class 2 (i.e. expired Class 1) medical certificate?" - because you require a Class 1 to exercise the privileges of a CPL, which include private flying. Don't answer that one, don't want to completely hijack the thread.

[Lasiorhinus]

Ooh, good point. I'd never thought of it in that way before.

As for no PPL, then its pretty clear you need a class 1 medical :ok:

[Counter-rotation]

ICUS is a funny fish, and I reckon a lot of people (me included) have logged ICUS that wasn't exactly ICUS. And I don't mean intentionally either - but that happens too. :oh:

If you don't have your 90 day recency, but still hold an unexpired instrument rating, I would have thought you could do exactly as Zapp was suggesting. For CAR 5.40 as per Lasorhinus's post, you do in fact hold the rating. You can't act as PIC under the rating, due to recent experience requirements - but you hold it, until it expires.

But I can see the other side of this arguement, as per what Lasorhinus has said... Is this another case where "precident", or "accepted practice" in the industry is decisive (or which CASA office's jurisdiction you're under!)

Let me pose another hypothetical, to "support":confused: my argument:

What about having your required general IF recency, but no ILS in the last 35 days... Then you go out, get a practice ILS when able (even on IFR revenue ops, and single pilot) and as long as you're not in IMC below MSA on the approach, you can fly it, log it - and now you can fly ILS's in IMC again for another 35 days - or can you not do that either?? (We do this when required, though usually you catch it before you actually expire, so subtly different).

Interested in anyone's ideas on that, and the differences between the two if any.

Cheers,
CR.

[No Body]

Don't forget, though, that the recent experience requirements for approaches apply to the Pilot in Command


11.4 The holder of a command instrument rating shall not carry out an ILS or LLZ approach in IMC as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, within the preceding 35 days, that person has performed in flight, or in a synthetic flight trainer approved for the purpose, either one of those approaches.


If you are conducting ICUS you are obviously not the PIC, and therefore do not necessarily need to be current for a given instrument approach.

[ZappBrannigan]

If you are conducting ICUS you are obviously not the PIC, and therefore do not necessarily need to be current for a given instrument approach.That's the million dollar question we're asking though - to log ICUS, do you have to be actually legally able to conduct the flight as PIC? If not, then you can log ICUS to get back your expired approach currency, expired 90-day IFR PIC currency, expired single-pilot currency, or yearly renewal (if conducted prior to expiry) with an ATO/safety pilot as your PIC.

For a single approach it's probably yes - e.g. if you're completely current except for the ILS, you can conduct a flight as ICUS with an ILS-current PIC next to you and get your ILS currency back - but the other ones are a little harder.

[Lasiorhinus]

Don't forget, though, that the recent experience requirements for approaches apply to approaches in IMC

11.4 The holder of a command instrument rating shall not carry out an ILS or LLZ approach in IMC as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, within the preceding 35 days, that person has performed in flight, or in a synthetic flight trainer approved for the purpose, either one of those approaches.


If you are out of your 35 (or 90) day recency, then all you need to do is fly an approach in VMC. It doesnt need to be under the hood, it doesnt even need to be on an IFR flight. All you have to do is fly the approach as published.

[Counter-rotation]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying there, and I agree. It actually was a pretty crap comparison, as far as relating to the "other, non-approach" recency requirement... :O

I still believe you can fly ICUS on an IFR flight, outside your 90 day general recency, provided you have an unexpired CIR. (Important! - I am only talking about single pilot aeroplanes and single pilot operations here, I think you guys are too?) You are under the supervision of a legally able, qualified and recent PIC who is responsible for the flight. So there it is, (according to me) - log ICUS with an hour instrument time, and you're good to go PIC again. Bung in an approach, and you're good to go as single pilot PIC too (subject to further specific approach recency)... Basically what Zapp said earlier I think. If it's revenue flying, it's got to be bone fide IMC, not under the hood, but can be over one or two or more sectors until you get an hour. If you're just taking an a/c out - who cares if it's ICUS or Dual? Not me, but some might.

But with ICUS you are effectively PIC, just not legally PIC, so it makes sense that you have to meet the recency requirements as well.

Got to differ there - you're effectively PIC, and he/she (your companion) is legally PIC. This is exactly what allows you to get your recency back, without resorting to dual (no pax) or simulators or...
If you met the recency requirements for PIC the whole things a moot point - go fly it PIC. Again, I am referring to single pilot a/c and operations, not where a 2nd crew is required.

CR.

[No Body]

If you are conducting ICUS, you are not the PIC - you are the copilot.


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.


See here also for more guidance on ICUS flying: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib91117/0901.pdf

[ZappBrannigan]

Got to differ there - you're effectively PIC, and he/she (your companion) is legally PIC. This is exactly what allows you to get your recency back, without resorting to dual (no pax) or simulators or...Yep that's what I said (bad wording, I wrote "just not", probably read as "not just"), but still not sure about the legalities of what we're discussing here - wouldn't be surprised either way :)

[PlankBlender]

1. Seems to refer to the VOR RWY 14R chart, unless you sat the exam a while back and the carts have changed since then. With DME/GPS u/s you can only fly the VOR RWY 14R, the ILS/LOC RWY 32L, or the NDB RWY 32L. On those charts, the only reference to a 2500 height is in the VOR RWY 14R (although the question suggests your first choice would be rwy 32L, so why wouldn't you use the ILS 32L approach, but that's another question), so one has to assume they're looking for an explanation of the '2500 (VOR)' on the VOR RWY 14R chart.

The 2500 is, if I read the chart correctly, only applicable to the reversal turn (hence the 'VOR' in brackets), and although 'established on VOR 310R' would also be true it is also true for arrival via the arc/straight in, and not uniquely significant for the 2500 height, so the 'completion of reversal turn' is probably what they're looking for here (refer also AIP 1.5.1.20.2)..

2. To be in G you need to be under the 6500 step at Canberra, hence you'd need to be at A060 which would also put you above the lowest LSALT for W10 of 4200 (WOL/EXETA segment).

3. Depends on exactly what they were asking for, the lowest LSALT for that route is 4500, the highest 5000 from BN to DIGGA (only on the TAC).

4. From ERSA EMERG-3 1.5.4 Note 1, squawk 7600 and descend to get out of severe turbulence. Without the turbulence, you'd have to maintain the last acknowledged level (1.5.4(e)), but due to the severity of the turbulence you should be able to descend ('Pilots should follow these procedures unless strong reasons dictate otherwise.' Severe turbulence would qualify as a 'strong reason'.).