Logging F/O time as ICUS

[Paramac]

Would someone please explain the rules regarding this issue as it applies to an F/O that already holds a Full ATPL.

Thanks

[BlueEagle]

It says here,

"A pilot flying as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' shall enter flight time acquired in this manner in the 'Pilot-in-command (P1)' column and 'P1(u/s)' in the 'Holders Operating Capacity' column. In each instance the Commander of the aircraft must certify the entry."

This log-book was printed before JAA.

It makes no mention of the licence held but this should not be relevant. To be able to put just 'P1' in the 'Holders Operating Capacity' column you will need to be the nominated Commander of the aircraft by your company, in other words you will hold a command with that company. If this is the case you can put your name in the 'Commander' column, otherwise it should be the commander nominated by the company for that flight.

Suggest you check this out with the CAA as you are likely to get a dozen different answers here on PPRuNe!!!:)

[fokker]

When you are handling pilot/PF/HP or whatever your company calls it, you may log the time under the P1 column with P1/S in the 'operating capacity' block.

As you already have an ATPL there is no requirement to have the entries countersigned; this is only a verification issue when the times comes to upgrade CPL --> ATPL.

Puzzled though.... how did you get to be an ATPL holder without knowing this?

:rolleyes:

[Paramac]

fokker

Thanks for your imput....to answer your question..Not all countries allow the F/O to log time as P1. Certainly where I come from a co-pilot is just that..a co-pilot.. and all hours gained in this capacity are logged as such. It is not uncommon for an F/O to take ten years or more to get a command.

[4dogs]

Fokker,

Australia is one such country.

Australia also has Command and Copilot Type Endorsements as well as Command and Copilot Instrument Ratings - the product of industry lobbying to avoid the training costs and experience requirements.

In order to legally log ICUS time in Australia, the pilot must hold an appropriate licence with a Command endorsement and, if operating under the IFR, a Command Instrument Rating and must be supervised by a specifically authorised pilot, normally a company Training Captain. The law is silent on which seat the pilot would occupy, although the presumption is that the pilot will occupy the command seat since the purpose of ICUS is for command training, a task that is held to encompass considerably more than just flying the aircraft.

Interestingly enough, it was brought in to stop what was considered to be a "rort" by people applying for the higher grades of licences (and jobs for that matter), that is, people logging copilot time as ICUS just because they were the handling pilot. If you were coming this way with the intention of flying, you could reasonably expect to be questioned fairly closely on the make-up of your flight hours.

I make no comment on what is right, I merely thought to identify the difference.

[fokker]

Thanks chaps. I didn't realise any of that.

A thought, though...........does it indicate perhaps that these places have a little way to go along the CRM path to the 21st century; nothing (well, almost nothing) used to irritate me more than being referred to, especially in the 'welcome' PA, as a 'co-pilot' or worse 'my co-pilot'. The position is F/O or SFO.

Just an observation.

Cheers. :rolleyes:

[Captain Stable]

fokker I'm not sure what it has to do with CRM... :confused:

Going off the thread a little, so shoot me... :D

I do agree with you in disliking the term "co-pilot". A large transport aircraft requires two pilots. They are appointed as Commander (or Captain) and First Officer.

I also dislike the phrase "my co-pilot" in W/A PA's. In general the sort of phraseology I use is "Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of ............... Airways, I'd like to welcome you aboard this flight to ................ My name is ............., I'm your captain today, and with me on the flight deck is my colleague, (S)FO ............. Looking after your safety in the cabin are ................." etc. etc.

Not saying this is right - it's merely the sort of wording I feel comfortable with.

[Sick]

F/o handling time does go down as P1s, (but not PICUS - thats more for command line training).

P1s should not be included if your are asked how much P1 or command time do you have? I heard the Atlas STN recruiters were getting irritated by applicants putting lots of P1 time down on the form to find on meeting then that most of it was P1s.

I think the US is different.

[bookworm]

Paramac

GID44 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_gid44.pdf) has the definitive guidance for the UK.

[Paramac]

Bookworm
Thanks for the link...I am certain to find the definitive answer there..
Cheers

[Young Paul]

I always understood co-pilot to be another phrase for "non-handling-pilot" rather than first officer - so when the captain is PNF, he is the co-pilot and the F/O is the handling pilot.

I never described myself as an airline co-pilot. I did describe myself as an airline first officer.

[tired]

Yeah, agree with 4dogs and others that this "P1s" thing seems to be a UK thing only. In South Africa if you're the Captain you log the time in the P1 column, if you're not the captain you don't log it in the P1 column, no matter whether you're flying the sector or not.

BIK116.8 - agree with your sentiments exactly. ;)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Just curious about why you want to log P1s with an ATPL. Surely the only use of P1s is to artificially create the "P1" hrs needed for issue of the ATPL...

Oh, and what on earth is an operating capacity column in a logbook?? Surely the hours go in the appropriate column for the operating capacity. P1, P2, or Dual?

[BlueEagle]

AB - If you were an F/O by company appointment and flying as the F/O on a multi-crew aircraft would you log the sector you were given as 'P1' under the 'Holders Operating Capacity' or as P1u/s ? Who's name do you put in the 'Commander' column, (CAA log-book format), or would you leave it blank?

The Instructions given in GID44 seem pretty clear for a UK licence holder, if you are the nominated Commander, by your company, (you have completed their command course, been checked out, are current in the LHS and sign all the paper work), you may log P1, anything else is either P2 or P1u/s and there is no change after you have obtained your ATPL to the P2, P1u/s status until you get your command, P1u/s is not just for higher licence issue.

A word of caution to all First Officers, if you are planning on changing employers you should remember that no one likes a log-book cheat and as a pilot you are expected to be able to interpret such documents as GID44, to most employers Command time is time spent as an appointed captain, not time under supervision of another captain whilst you are a First Officer.
(Obviously single crew counts as command time!).

Again, most employers won't waste much time on a person if they think his log book is inaccurate, regardless of how good he is.

[Centaurus]

BIK 116.8. Right on. There should be no shame in being a co-pilot - first officer - second in command - second dickey -co-joe, or whatever.
This desperate avoidance of being perceived as a lower being than a captain seems to have crept in over the years. One sees it in GA where the first thing a newly "graduated" CPL holder does is to dash off to the pilots shop and buy two or even three gold stripes.

In the old days (deep sigh....) we often had NCO pilots called Sergeants flying say a Lincoln or a Dak. One was known as the pilot and t'other was called the second pilot. Nowadays one hears of the "Commander" of a Cessna 150.

Exits hastily stage left....

[Agaricus bisporus]

Blue Eagle, I'm not sure I get your point.

I'm afraid I don't understand your first paragraph at all, I think we all understand who logs P1 and who logs P2, but why would anyone want to log P1s after issue of an ATPL, as the only purpose of P1s is to accumulate the notional P1 hours for the issue of that licence. Surely P1s has no purpose whatever beyond that? Or does it?

Cerainly I've never been asked to sign for P1s except by pre ATPL FOs. (and then 4 times out of 5 only after the flight when they had not mentioned it in advance and had done nothing more than ordinary FO duties, and therefore weren't entitled to it anyway)

Centaurus, it seems to be a widespread misunderstanding. Pax often ask our FOs when they will become a "proper" pilot, or when they will get their Pilots licence. Non aviation people sometimes ask if I am a co-pilot or a real one...God only knows where they get it from.

[BlueEagle]

Sorry AB, think I may gave been unintentionally obtuse!

The only real point I was trying to make was that unless one is a captain one cannot log P1 in the 'Holders Operating Capacity',
it has to be either P1u/s or P2 and that my interpretation of GID44 is that this will be the case regardless of licence held.
If an F/O is given a sector he may prefer to log it in the 'Holders Operating Capacity' column as P1u/s rather than his only alternative, P2, even if he does have an ATPL.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Blue Eagle, thanks for that, all understood. Still, I remain a little surprised that an FO might expect to log his sectors as P1s. Surely his "operating capacity" is as P2 handling/not handling, and neither of those, per se, equate to P1s.

P1s is in no way at all comparable with "handling pilot".

116,80. The Ops Manual l(and no doubt the relevant JAR bumph) ists a string of requirements to be met before P1s can be logged; essentially the FO has to act as Captain in all respects from end to end of the flight, and that is kind of hard to achieve if the real Capt didn't know about it until afterwards! What would you have done?

[Sick]

You are quite right in what you say AB, but most log books dont allow the facility for splitting P2 time into HP and NHP, so it is accepted practice to put it in the P1s column so as to have a record of handling time and for the issue of an JAR ATPL, (if not already held)- you are perhaps being a little too fastidious. The misuse tends to come when someone is asked how much P1 time they have, and that should only include command[/B] time.

[LeadSled]

BIK whatever,
I would strongly recommend you peruse ICAO Annex 1, before you start suggesting that anything that isn’t “The Australian Way” is fraudulent.

The UK practice ( and Australian before one single person in then DoA got his nickers in a twist about P1S/ICUS) and JAA, and quite a number of counties in the Australian neighborhood all essentially follow ICAO.

Australia is the only country which makes it almost impossible for a young ( cadet course type) pilot to accumulate the 1500 hours including the required command time ( made up of P1 and P1S/ICUS) for An ALTP/ATPL.

The whole Australian (current) way of logging hours puts Australian pilots starting their careers at a very serious disadvantage in the international job market.

Then again who would propose minimum experience requirements for “Public Transport” that means that a new CPL cannot even do a daylight VFR sightseeing flight, as is proposed in the lunatic Part 121A/B

Tootle pip!!

[Amblegirl]

Lead[b]-whatever,

Suggest [b]you read UK GID 44 and then tell me if you think a UK co-pilot can correcly log a sector as "P1S" simply because they are the pilot flying.

These guys are logging EVERY sector where they are the pilot flying as "P1S", whether they meet the requirements for "P1S" or not, which in my experience 99.9% of the time they do not.

As I have pointed out, recruiters in other parts of the world perceive the practice as fraudulent. Since they are the ones giving out the jobs, their opinion is of some relevence.

Why do Australian employers need to hire zero-time cadets when there are plenty of experienced pilots available who already hold ATPLs?

[HugMonster]

My understanding of the right to log P1/s (at least, in the UK) is that the pilot must be an ATPL holder, rated on type (or undergoing a successfully-flown type rating test), and handling the aircraft as well as making all decisions regarding how the aircraft is operated, whilst being under the supervision of the actual commander.

I see nothing fraudulent about this, since it is a recognised and accepted practice.

That having been said, the different capacities that can be entered in a logbook and how it is broken down in columns is a waste of time and is overdue for a radical overhaul.

IMHO P1/s should be flown from the left seat with a training captain in the right seat, e.g. on line training flights. I see no reason to break down logged hours into PF and PNF. In a multi-crew aircraft, everything should then be logged merely as P1 or P2.

There will always be oddities and anomalies, but I think the whole system needs more clarity, and the CAP407 logbooks also need redesigning. What, for example, is the difference between "Dual" and "P2"?? :confused:

[BlueEagle]

Dual is 'under instruction', P2 is co-pilot/first officer duties.
well that is my interpretation!

Dual was once classified as P3.

[LeadSled]

Amblegirl and All,

Like I said, start with ICAO Annex 1.

Having been in the business for quite a long time, I don’t know anybody with any brains, amongst recruiters who confuse “In Command” and “In Command under supervision”, or as the Kiwi’s call it, Command practice.

I have certainly never had any problem determining what a pilot’s real experience is, but I do want to always see how much hands on experience a job applicant has, and if it is all lumped into P2 or Co Pilot, then I have to take that apart.

Then there is the little matter of “Total Aeronautical Experience”, and what counts as one for one hours and what is only credited 50%.

P1, P1S and Dual are all one for one, but what is happening in Australia is that F/O’s are being told they can only claim 50%, even if they did the sector. Again, look at Annex 1.

The basic rules for logging “In command under supervision” in the UK have changed little over the years, and as long as the various columns in a log book are correctly annotated, there is no fraud.

I have noted some log books have been printed with separate P1 and P1 S or ICUS columns, this makes the record keeping a little easier, but when it comes to the totals, it all comes out the same.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

All,
Quiet a long time means since Bembridge had a hand cranked VDF loop, and Weybridge still had an MF Radio Range.
Cheers,

[4dogs]

LeadSled,

You have mentioned ICAO Annex 1 several times in support of your position. Could you post a couple of the extracts that are relevant, please.

[BBK]

Hug monster

You asked why would someone log pf/pnf? In my company it's not unusual for a F/O to log only 2/3 landings per month therefore I use P1/s mainly to denote time as pf ie. handling (landing) pilot. It certainly isn't because I'm trying to con anyone that it's command experience because clearly it isn't.

However, I was puzzled by some of AB's comments about what constituted a P1/s sector. It's been my experience in both my current and previous companies that when it is the F/O's sector he/she makes the decisions unless the Capt. decides to override them. For example, with regard to fuel I will make a decision about what I feel is appropriate and most Captains will respect that decision. I do understand that the buck stops with the commander and so should they feel compelled to override me I accept that with good grace as being their perogative. This "role reversal" was part of my previous company's SOP and was enshrined in the Ops Manual as a way of developing the skills needed to make the transition to commander. In that respect the normal F/O duties were entirely compatible with logging P1/s.

Lastly, regarding welcome PAs by the Captain I don't mind in the slightest what they call me: F/O, co-pilot, my learned colleague, fellow aviator etc etc!
:)

[LeadSled]

Richard4Dogs,

Come to think of it, it’s a 4dog night where I am right now, feels like it’s about to snow, and I would say moderate to severe icing from 4000 ft, from where I am sitting. And sitting I will stay, not a nice day for flying.

Would love to oblige, but ICAO does not make anything available easily, I only have a hard copy of Annex 1, with no ability to scan it in, and in any event, it would appear to be copyright.

Sorry ‘bout that.

Tootle pip !!