PIC Question

[radiodude]

Hi all, I did a flight test just over a week ago and filling in my log book now.

I forgot to ask the testing officer if I can log the flight as PIC.

Would anyone know if I can or the ATO is PIC.

Thanks.

[drpixie]

Current ruling is that it's PIC if you passed, but ICUS if fail or incomplete.

[radiodude]

Thats awesome :) well I did pass. I couldn't find the regs on where it stands.

So I guess I log it as PIC time :)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Flight Examiner (not ATO’s anymore) is PIC. Absolute. They have full discretion and authority over the flight. Think initial instrument rating. You can’t log command time if you don’t have a rating.

DrPixie no offence, but never seen a rule relating to how you log time based on passing or failing. Quote one and I’ll happily retract.

CASR 61.A2
61.080 Definition of flight time as pilot for Part 61
A person’s flight time as a pilot is:
(a) the duration of the following flights:
(iv) if the person is a flight examiner—a flight during which the person exercises the privileges of his or her flight examiner rating

Only one person can log PIC time, and that’s the FE.

61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight;
and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking
responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and (b) the person is not receiving flight training.

[radiodude]

Flight Examiner (not ATO’s anymore) is PIC. Absolute. They have full discretion and authority over the flight. Think initial instrument rating. You can’t log command time if you don’t have a rating. Only exception for example might be if your instrument rating was renewed before it lapsed, you could log ICUS.

Ok no worries. It makes sense. I guess a BFR you can log PIC but going off what you mention a flight test you don't have the rating/licence yet

[radiodude]

Interesting. Reading through my CASA portal. It says on my RPL & PPL flight tests I was PIC. Thats conflicting.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

There are a lot of ill informed furphies and just plain old wives tales out there. Just remember one person has to be in charge and that’s the FE. They can exercise authority at any time.
ps. You can’t log ICUS for an RPL because you don’t hold a pilot license until after the test when CASA sends it out to you.
If you’re told anything else, ask for a reference, such as I gave. No misinterpretations then.:ok:

[Cloudee]

Ok no worries. It makes sense. I guess a BFR you can log PIC but going off what you mention a flight test you don't have the rating/licence yet

The instructor is the PIC during a flight review. Read the relevant CAAP.

[CAVOK92]

This forum reminds me of hanging around an aero club :) they defiantly should change the word the first P stands for.

[Superfly Slick Dick]

Current ruling is that it's PIC if you passed, but ICUS if fail or incomplete.


LOL. “I failed my RPL but I’ll be logging the 1.5 ICUS..”
Seriously? How pathetic.
Start filling your logbook out like that and the industry, and prospective employers will make assumptions of you and your character pretty quickly.
And seriously people.. stop saying things like BFR and ATO. Geezz...

[AmarokGTI]

Hi all, I did a flight test just over a week ago and filling in my log book now.

I forgot to ask the testing officer if I can log the flight as PIC.

Would anyone know if I can or the ATO is PIC.

Thanks.

how can you log PIC? What would the “ATO” log?

[drpixie]

Flight Examiner (not ATO’s anymore) is PIC.
I didn't realise we were after consistency :O

I agree 100% with you about the legal and practical situation - the examiner or instructor is in command of the flight and can override any decision/action/inaction of the candidate. And my quick search of casa.gov.au and the regs finds nothing contrarey to that. However CASA FOIs in their convoluted inconsistency have told many FEs and schools that successful licence tests may be logged as PIC - presumably of the basis that the FE must have done nothing because if they did anything then it should have been a fail! (But no, I don't have that in writing.)

So Radiodude, check with the examiner or your chief pilot / HOO.

[Dexta]

The instructor is the PIC during a flight review. Read the relevant CAAP.

Not according to that reference MakeItHappenCaptain posted. A review (no instruction) is simply that, a review. So the person being reviewed is PIC. If things do not go well and instruction is required then the Reviewer can say "My Aircraft" and take over thus becoming PIC.

On a safety point, if you ever fly with another pilot, being a friend, Instructor for an AFR or an Examiner ALWAYS determine before flying EXACTLY who will be Pilot In Command, because if things turn nasty for whatever reason, confusion as to who is flying the aircraft can ultimately lead to disaster.

[Okihara]

From CASR 61.095:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x368/screen_shot_2019_07_08_at_11_16_51_595428be29653929d5df3cd23 ccf6ac2f9e85517.png
I understand that someone would be logging their flight test under PICUS time (whatever that means) provided that they already hold a pilot licence.
The same applies for a BFR.

I have never seen any reference suggesting that a pass in a flight test allows one to log under command time though.

[Okihara]

Reading through my CASA portal
Where exactly do you see that? I can't see any PIC column in the self service app.

[Lead Balloon]

But note that the phrase “pilot under command under supervision” is also defined for the purposes of Part 61. So when you’re trying to interpret 61.095 you have to refer to the definition of “pilot under command under supervision”. (I say “trying”, because I’ve given up. I just go with whatever folklore prevails at the time.)

If I undergo a flight review as a private pilot in my own aircraft, I don’t “authorise” the ATO or FE, or whatever they are called this week, to do anything.

And I’m always fascinated by the paradox of “performing all of the duties of” PIC at the same time as being “under supervision”. If I am in fact PIC I am in charge and nobody is supervising and nobody has authority to intervene to override my decisions and activities. If somebody with authority to intervene and override my decisions and activities is on board, it follows that I’m not in charge and cannot be performing all of the duties of PIC.

[Mach E Avelli]

[QUOTE=Lead Balloon;10512536]

If I undergo a flight review as a private pilot in my own aircraft, I don’t “authorise” the ATO or FE, or whatever they are called this week, to do anything....
.... If I am in fact PIC I am in charge and nobody is supervising and nobody has authority to intervene to override my decisions and activities..../QUOTE]


Actually, you do authorise the examiner as PIC, and that person does have authority to over ride decisions etc. You acknowledge this when you accept the briefing, which should always include the standard hand-over/ take-over mantra required in any flight test.
If the examiner does not include that in the briefing, time to dust off the FEH.

[Okihara]

As it is, from CASR:pilot in command under supervision means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the
duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who
is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.


I see no contradiction of 61.095 here: "other than a student pilot" is compatible with 61.095 (1) (a), i.e. the person holds a pilot licence.
In fact, I find the CASR rather clear (in this context, that is). It's CAAP 5.81-1(1) that I find rather confusing when it comes to logging of flight time for BFR.

[Lead Balloon]

[Y]ou do authorise the examiner as PIC.Are you saying that I, as PIC, am authorising the FE to be PIC? There mere articulation of the concept highlights the paradox.

I’ve always treated ICUS as available only to AOC holders in relation to pilots who fly under the authority of the AOC. In those circumstances the AOC holder does have statutory authority to authorise pilots to be PICs of aircraft operating under the AOC. In other words, it’s neither the ‘PIC’ nor the ATO/FE that’s deciding who’s ‘in charge’ - it’s “the operator” (to use the words of the definition of “pilot in command under supervision” in Part 61).

(Why read CAAPs? That way lies madness. A CAAP is just the strong opinion of someone in CASA as to how that person thinks the law should work. The law determines how the law actually works.)

[machtuk]

I love the confusion here, CASA must shake their heads ! Why do they have ICUS in a log book anyway? (You are in CMD making all the decisions but are under supervision, doesn't get simper than that!)For this very reason! No biggy just log ICUS, you should be proud of every minute you log!:-)

[LeadSled]

I love the confusion here, CASA must shake their heads ! Why do they have ICUS in a log book anyway? (You are in CMD making all the decisions but are under supervision, doesn't get simper than that!)For this very reason! No biggy just log ICUS, you should be proud of every minute you log!:-)
Machtuk,
Because, unlike the rest of the (broadly) comparable word, Australia and Australian pilots have always had a very strange bee in their collective bonnets about "pilot in command", and seem to look for every opportunity to confuse "pilot in command" and "pilot in command under supervision".

The very simple fact that "pilot in command under supervision" IS NOT "pilot in command" is, apparently, (along with ICAO Annex II and many other countries equivalents AICUS/Command practice/P1-U/S etc) a concept that raises great anguish in Australia.

Starting with ICAO Annex II, how you log it and how it counts towards "command" and "total aeronautical experience" should be straight forward, and even was, in Australia, until the 1960s, when we started fiddling around with a range of non-ICAO pilot licenses --- all with the aim of making it bureaucratically difficult for pilots to quit Australian airline jobs and get much higher paid jobs, with vastly better promotion prospects, outside Australia.

This was the era of "Second Class ATPL endorsed to First Class Standard" and similar abominations ---- with the necessary "difference" notified to ICAO re. any AU aircraft engaged in international aviation.

The latest Part 61 nonsense is just the current chapter in a long and very un-meritorious sage, the like of which says a lot about Australia as an aviation Galapagos.

Once again (and just one of some many) we have a long thread on something that just would not happen anywhere else.

Tootle pip!!

[compressor stall]

Whilst I am in no way an apologist for CASA's abomination of legalese that is the current regulatory regime (nor previous licensing iterations) the question as posed by the OP and the ensuing replies are by no means unique to Australia. There are not dissimilar threads on pprune discussing the same topic in UK, FAA, JAR, EASA land....

[Mach E Avelli]

Look at it this way: Only one pilot can log PIC. That will be usually be the instructor or examiner, who should fill in the 'specialist/instructor' logbook column as well as the appropriate 'command' column. Otherwise the totals won't match and come CASA audit time the training records won't agree either. There is an exception, where an examiner may log co-pilot, but that is more an airline thing and not what we are discussing here.
Even a humble flight review will have the instructor issuing certain commands e.g. "demonstrate a steep turn", and you can bet if the outcome of any manoeuvre is seriously in doubt, the instructor will take control regardless of who owns the aeroplane.
Also, otherwise, what does the examiner/instructor log? There is no 'along for the ride' column in the logbook. The old term 'supernumerary' came closest to that definition but does not adequately describe a supervisory function.
Whether the other (candidate) pilot logs dual, co-pilot or ICUS depends on the type of operation, candidate's role and training organisation policy - being checked or reviewed warrants ICUS if it goes well. If it does not go well, and there has been some intervention from the other seat, maybe dual would be more truthful.

[Okihara]

Luckily, we log time to one decimal.

[compressor stall]

Luckily, we log time to one decimal.

Yes, but that still doesn't disguise the vexing issue of logging night when it turns dark enroute. Is it when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon as observed from the aircraft? Or at ground level some 39000 feet below? To get it wrong would surely be a 50 penalty unit offence against some part of Part 61 I can't pain myself to check?

[Okihara]

Yes, but that still doesn't disguise the vexing issue of logging night when it turns dark enroute. Is it when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon as observed from the aircraft?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/978x536/screen_shot_2019_07_08_at_19_40_32_c71addc364538b91660079103 8e38df857d3bd38.png

[mustafagander]

I agree with you Leady. The CAAP is a bit silly. The criterion used by my outfit is "could you legally carry out this operation if the checkie were not there"? If the answer is yes, you're PIC. OTOH if your rating has expired, you're not recent etc, etc, then no, AICUS.

[Lead Balloon]

ICAO Annex II, Leaddie? You probably meant ICAO Annex I, which reveals all.

Here is the definition of “Pilot-in-command under supervision” from ICAO Annex I: 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.

[Lead Balloon]

radiodude: You were either the PIC from the start of and for the ensuing duration of the flight, or you weren’t. Subsequent events cannot change the objective facts at the start of the flight.

You say you were subject to a “flight test”. For what were you being “tested”? Were you allowed to conduct the flight as PIC, if the FE had not been there?

[no_one]

I suspect that some of the confusion in the thread above comes from reading about the US regulations where more than 1 person can log PIC time for a flight,

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/sdl/local_more/avsafety_program/media/LOGGING%20PILOT-IN-COMMAND%20TIME.pdf

[LeadSled]

ICAO Annex II, Leaddie? You probably meant ICAO Annex I, which reveals all.

Here is the definition of “Pilot-in-command under supervision” from ICAO Annex I:
Lead Balloon,
My apologies, it must have been too late at night.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

I suspect that some of the confusion in the thread above comes from reading about the US regulations where more than 1 person can log PIC time for a flight,

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/sdl/local_more/avsafety_program/media/LOGGING%20PILOT-IN-COMMAND%20TIME.pdf
no one,
The "confusion" comes from Australia being out of step with the rest of the world, with which we compare ----- unless, like some, you believe Australia is the only one in step.
Having once been ICAO compliant, I know exactly who, when and why the present Australian "confusion" commenced, it was a truly confused (but very influential at the time) mind that started the rot.
The solution, revert to ICAO compliance in logging time.
Tootle pip!!

PS: For many years, more than one person in AU could log PIC --- and surprise, surprise, it didn't result in bodies raining from the skies.