How do I log thee - let me count the ways. With apologies to Liz Browning (1850)

[Tee Emm]

Back in the early 1950's a pilot needed (among other things), 500 hours command time to qualify for a senior commercial pilot's licence (SCPL) or a First Class ATPL.

This was to prove a head-ache for the Qantas cadet pilot scheme where, after graduation with a bare CPL, the pilot would spend upwards of 10 years as copilot on Super Constellations, Boeing 707's and other types of the international fleet.

By the time their seniority number got to where a command was available, the lack of 500 hours in command proved the stumbling block. Remember, they started as cadets with no hours and the most they might have had was the 75 hours in command needed for a CPL. Yet by now they would have nearly 10,000 hours of copilot time.

Qantas solved the problem by using a DC3 and HS 125 and allowing these experienced copilots to pick up real command time by flogging around Australia towards 500 hours command in their log books. In most cases, too, Qantas cadets were farmed out to compliant charter operators in Australia and the Solomons to obtain command hours on singles and light twins. This was to prove excellent value in terms of making command decisions - something that has been lost with the current practice of cadets going directly into the right seat of big jets and turboprops.

All this proved awfully expensive so before long Qantas talked the regulator (DCA) into accepting the concept of ICUS and before long the 500 hours in command was watered down to 250 in command and 250 ICUS - or thereabouts.

The years passed and the regulator quietly permitted the erosion of the original ATPL standards for in command hours needed for ATPL. To be fair, overseas regulators through ICAO may have also influenced the steady lowering of the command hours needed for issue of an ATPL. Perhaps our regulator of each era chose to take the easy way out under the pretext of harmonisation?

At the time of writing, Aeronautical experience requirements for the issue of an Air Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL) are detailed in Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 5.172. The requirements are summarised as follows:
1500 hours total flight time, which includes:
750 hours in an aeroplane, which includes:
250 hours PIC and ICUS, which includes:
70 hours PIC
200 hours cross country, which includes:
100 hours PIC or ICUS
75 hours instrument, which includes:
45 hours in flight
100 hours night PIC or co-pilot.
............................................................ ....................................So, now all the pilot needs for the ATPL is 170 hours (?) pilot in command. The rest is made up of ICUS or copilot. A far cry from the post war 500 hours real in command time. Most experienced pilots quietly agree that ICUS hours are no more than dual or copilot in sheeps' clothing and worth SFA in terms of real experience. Rather like the position of "cruise captain" in some Australian registered airlines where a copilot logs in command while the aircraft captain (who also logs command at the same time) has a snooze down the back.

Recently, a well known regional airline that has its own cadet training scheme, is about to introduce PICUS. Not ICUS - but PICUS. Seems their first officers (copilot sounds too old fashioned), who have graduated with a bare CPL and the regulatory 75 hours min in command time, are going to strike future problems with the total hours needed before a command upgrade is available. A figure of 3000 hours total aeronautical experience is perhaps the company minimum required to fly in command of the airline's twin engined turbo-props.

Since copilot time is halved for the purposes of logging total aeronautical experience flying time, this could cause lengthy delays in years before promotion to captain is attained simply because twice the number of copilot hours are needed to reach 3000 hours of total aeronautical experience.

The solution is brilliant and the airline is working on poor old CASA. That is the introduction of PICUS or Pilot in Command Under Supervision. Copilots in this airline are not allowed to start the engines. Also they are not permitted to fly from the left seat. That is the captain's job. On these turbo-prop types, the nosewheel steering is on the captain's side and the copilot cannot therefore taxi the aircraft.

But once airborne and given the sector, the copilot will log PICUS all the way (in lieu of copilot time) and thus log the full flight time in his log book. It does not have to be halved anymore because PICUS/ICUS is logged full time. The cadet pilot can soon pick up the minimum required combination of PICUS/ICUS to supplement his paltry 70 hours command time from his CPL, and eventually qualify for his ATPL.

This suits the airline, which seems unconcerned about low hour copilots flying its aircraft - since the main airline worry is losing its experienced captains going for jet jobs and leaving vacancies in the left seats of its turbo-props. Instead of the cadet copilots spending double the normal years reaching say 3000 hours total aeronautical experience, they log PICUS instead of copilot and reach the minimum hours in half the grand total flying time and with far less flying experience. Problem solved...

Makes you wonder when the time will come that CASA will dropped the standards so low, that copilot time disappears from log books and every new copilot will legally log PICUS from the time he first flies as second in command. In other words, his first copilot trip after completing line training. And all the time he logs PICUS it will be the automatic pilot flying the aircraft. Now that is another worry..

[4dogs]

Tee Emm,

If you read CAR (1988) 5.172 and 5.173 properly, you can actually qualify for an ATPL with ZERO real command time.

5.172(2)(a)(ii) allows for 500 hours AICUS, no command requirement
5.172(3) allows for 100 hours AICUS, no command requirement

CASA didn't invent this, ICAO did - to make MPL work. Unfortunately, it was never limited to MPL.....

5.40 was specifically written to close off the abuse of AICUS stemming from the ubiquitous ICAO lack of specificity, something undone by PM when he was in charge of airline operations and now being soundly abused by Qantaslink DHC 8 management and undoubtedly many others who see no value in those formative command decisions where few folks other than the perpetrator were at risk.

Stay Alive,

[DasTrash]

So, now all the pilot needs for the ATPL is 170 hours (?) pilot in command
Nope, just 70, the rest is ICUS.

The ICUS issue is starting to cause some concern in some of the regionals. Unlike QANTAS where a Cadet will fly 10'000 hrs as an FO before holding enough seniority for a command, in the regionals their number will arrive (and have arrived) after 2.5-3 years. This has already caused problems and has required in some airlines for the command requirements to be raised so that the cadets can be held out of the Captain seat for a little longer.
The raising of the command requirement has caused a backlash from the Cadets who 'deserve' a command, as they have done their time with the company.
Just to clarify, the ICUS time is not logged while playing the roll of Captain, it is simply logged whenever the FO is pilot flying. Nothing else changes.

[kimir]

Once the Hours are met and if they have a good check record let the "candidate" try for the command upgrade...just like anyone else. If they fail then they don't have the experience/aptitude yet, wait in the sin bin, just like anyone else. Unfortunately it will put pressure on the check and training staff. I imagine senior management would be keen to just get people in the seats. Another way to check the cadets command judgement would be to utilise the sim for "unplanned scenario" training. Eg Flt A-B...something will happen on the way...good luck. This could be used as a pre command evaluation. Just a thought.

[Icarus53]

Surely the rules for obtaining an ATPL should be based on a thorough risk assessment of how much and the types of experience necessary to make a pilot suitable to command an RPT flight? ALthough I can't personally vouch for the processes of CASA or ICAO, I will assume this to be the case for the sake of discussion.

Unfortunately, pilots' fraternity (do we have a sorority these days?:p) insists on applying its own less structured methodology to determine whether or not someone has what it takes to be an airline Captain. hence we will see any number of different "magic figures" that a pilot needs to have in a log book before they are seen as having cut enough mustard. 1500 hours, 2000, 5000 ...... whatever it is, some people are just willing to assert that if you don't have the magic number, then you can't possible have what it takes.

What's your magic number? On which particular flight does a pilot depart completely unsuitable for command and then magically arrive at the destination with all the grand knowledge and experience worthy of an extra bar on the shoulder?

Unfortunately, none of these "magic numbers" are based on good science or solid statistical evidence. You might hear the cry - "more experience = less likely to make a critical error". Statistically, this is true in a very narrow sense. HF evidence shows that there is a very strong link between handling errors and experience, but that judgement errors remain relatively constant over time.

So what's more important in a Captain? Presumably after several years in the right seat, passing checks every few months and flying half the sectors, an FO should have demonstrated that he/she is at least capable of handling the aircraft. If it is suspect for any reason, then a robust CAR 217 organisation should have identified the problem by the time a command is available. It comes to judgement then, and although our "gut" may tell us otherwise, judgement does not necessarily improve with more flight hours.

I don't offer these ideas as concrete evidence supporting a hypothesis, but merely as talking points that often go ignored when grand old pilots are discussing this aging question of "how low is the company going to go"?:ugh:

Captains in my company will tell you on a given day:
1. That cadet FO is a legend.
2. That FO with 8000 hours is useless.
3. That guy needs to be watched like a hawk - cadet you see.
4. That FO should have a command tomorrow.

Similarly, FOs will tell you:
1. My Captain today is brand new - have to watch him a bit.
2. Thank God that Captain (with 15000 on type) is flying with so-and-so. Someone needs to keep him safe.
3. Thank God I'm flying with so-and-so; best Captain in the company.

Et cetera, ad nauseum. There are good pilots, there are bad pilots. Perhaps more specifically, there are people who execute command well, and others who are unsuitable for command. Within the confines of my company, I see very little evidence that suitability is correlated with flight hours.

Although I would love to tap away for hours on the subject, its probably time I went and found some kevlar.

[neville_nobody]

I agree with ICARUS's sentiment, however the issue at the moment is that we are pushing the limits to the extreme. When I started flying professionally certain GA compaines required 1000 hours total before they even looked at you to fly a 210. Kendalls used to need 4000+ hours for a interview to 'be competitive'. These days we are talking about commands at 1500 total time....

The question is do we really want a 1500 hour pilot PIC in RPT with a 200 hour cadet FO? If they had a fatal accident I can see right now what one of the contributing factors that will be mentioned in coronial. They will then point to America and say if the biggest user of aviation in the world is increasing the minimum experience why are we decreasing ours?

[A37575]

I may be wrong but I think the RAAF have a policy of posting new 220 hour pilots directly from Pilots course to C17A Globemasters. Within a short time they are on operations in a war zone. Of course their Wings course flight training is light years ahead of a Wagga cadet in a Warrior and that helps.

[Johnny_56]

What about insurance?

Back a couple of years ago the ole 'we need X amount of hours before you can fly for us due to insurance' kept coming up when trying to get the first job. Do insurance companies have any say in this?

Now BARS seems to be being introduced to GA so you need 500 multi command to fly a PA-31/C404 (for certain contracts anyway). But you can tool around in your SAAB with nothing... what the?

[neville_nobody]

I may be wrong but I think the RAAF have a policy of posting new 220 hour pilots directly from Pilots course to C17A Globemasters.

Difference is that the RAAF deal with very small number of elite pilots who are handpicked from day one for the roles that they will be doing. You have the smartest guys they can find getting unlimited budget training. The RAAF will be more than happy to scrub you at any time if you don't make the grade they don't care how much money they have spent.

There is no absolutely no comparison between a 200 hour RAAF pilot and a 200 hour civilian pilot.

Major airlines don't even do half the testing and recruiting that the RAAF do and that's with experience pilots!!

[A37575]

There is no absolutely no comparison between a 200 hour RAAF pilot and a 200 hour civilian pilot.


I don't recall saying in my post that there was. Lets not visit that subject. I have met and operated with some excellent 200 hour commercial pilots and equally have flown in the RAAF with some quite ordinary types.

But in all cases where a inexperienced first officer is in the right hand seat of any aircraft, there will be an inevitable period of sweat if the captain happens to get incapacitated and unable to function and thus leaving a newly graduated pilot on his own. This very small risk exists in the military as well in civil flying. But pilots have to gain experience somehow and the risk of the other chap becoming seriously incapacitated has been accepted as part of the risk of flying. Same as car drivers..

[Spinnerhead]

It seems absurd that whilst the training and experience requirements to obtain an unrestricted drivers licence have increased dramatically in recent years - the opposite is true for a pilots licence!

All pilots have different abilities, BUT experience improves them all.

This lowering of standards is cost driven, it has nothing to do with ability or some supposedly fantastic training scheme.