ICUS Supervision

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

There is no doubt that, under the right conditions, ICUS training can be a valued part of a pilots' development.

However, any benefit that may be a result of this is often eroded, or negated, by the 'supervisory' pilot not being:

1. A QUALIFIED Multi Engine Training Approved Instructor

2. RH Seat qualified

3. The above items and actually experienced in the operation of 'high performance' ME pistons in the commercial SP IFR environment.

Some GA operators actually use ICUS as a way of getting their flight crew up to speed in a new aircraft type, or as part of the process of standardisation and even grooming the pilot and assisting in their professional development.

However, ICUS is often used by a few operators in a cynical manner by taking advantage of inexperienced pilots looking for a 'way in' in order to subsidise operations that have been bid to freight forwarders at, or below cost.

The paying ICUS pilot receives little benefit except time in the logbook, and is then cut lose into the sky without the PROPER experience and info, and some time later, will perpetuate onesself when being assigned to the supervision of another 'low timer' looking for a way in.

How long will it be before 'luck' runs out for some of these people, and a situation arises that needs resucitating from the supervisory pilot, who may be out of their depth and behind the eight ball cause they don't have the training background or RH qualification and experience?

I fear it will one day end in tears and tragedy.

[Wagit]

Well said Col. Walter E. Kurtz
:) :) :) :) :)

[Living End]

Hey Colonel, all sounds good, but do you want to explain how one becomes RHS qualified, also what experiance in the RHS would be necessary and how wold onego about obtaining it?

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

LE,

It would not be a matter of experienced in RHS operations only, but a suitably experience pilot be trained to fly from the RHS. An instructor without appropriate 'High Performance' ME a/c, actual IF and Night and commercial experience may not be suitable; hence, 'suitably experienced'.

Operators of >5700kg aircraft already have these matters addressed in Part C of their company ops manuals, in sections relating to training of training captains and training of check captains, so these could be a good source to model from. The training for supervisory captains may not need to be as stringent, but a formalised approach to holding the company qualification should be a requirement before supervising of ICUS pilots, considering that the flights may be in all sorts of bad weather and dark night (or combinations thereof).

Imagine, if you will, a supervisory pilot trying to recover a plane, possibly out of control, or in an unusual attitude, in IMC from the RHS. That is a real risk that exists in flying with inexperienced pilots under those conditions in high performance aeroplanes. That's not an easy ask, even for qualified people.

A formalised syllabus and standard of competency should be enshrined in the company ops manual and approved by CASA. Portions of an instructor rating syllabus could be used for training pilots to fly from RHS and deal with the physical and optical differences of doing so, and other matters that the company deems a requirement for a supervisory captain, and approved by CASA. The candidate could then be certified as competent to act in command from the RHS and be approved as such by the Chief Pilot.

Prior to approval as a Supervisory Captain, the candidate should have to demonstrate a level of knowledge in matters such as, but not limited to, IFR procedures, General Knowledge, aircraft type technical and operational items (including normal and abnormal procedures), and also demonstrate a competency in the prompt recognition of errors, the ability to clearly advise any corrective action and take control at a point not too early, but before the situation becomes critical etc etc.

A realistic minimum of actual ME command experience could be say, 1000hrs TT, 500ME command, with 150 hrs command on type and at least 50hrs IF, and if night operations are included, 150hrs night. Then again, these are probably not high enough, in real terms.

With regard to getting the qualification, my suggestion would be to go to a Flight Instructor rated training organisation and get some lessons in flying RHS, maybe they can give some sort of letter of confirmation that this training has been undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

I am not sure how much of these matters the proposed changes to Flight Crew Licencing addresses, cause have not perused the NPRM sufficiently, but any correction or opinions welcome.

[the wizard of auz]

I thought that one had to be "qualified on type" before being elligable for ICUS time. that being said I find it hard to understand why one would need all this right hand seat experiance. strewth, its only two and a half feet from the left hand seat and if your any sort of pilot you should be able to fly from any control seat. so the instruments are a bit further away, but you have a AH ors HSI and an alti in front of you in most high performance IFR aircraft, so whats the drama.

[Living End]

Genarally sounds good colonel, but approvals by CASA may be a bit long winded, keep it in house I say.

You seem to state that it would be difficult for a qualified pilot to recover fm a dangerous situation fm the RHS in a high performance twin, I persume something like a chieftan. How about the multi IFR instructor who encounters this situation albeit in a low performance Duchess and with quite an inexperienced pilot flying, if the student were to lose it they instructor may have to fly an approach fm the RHS. I think the instructors job would be tougher (he may even be less experienced than the criteria you have also set out).

Let's face it, if you are losing the plot to the extent that someone needs to takeover in a chieftan, you shouldn"t be there!

[John Eacott]

The thread title gives a clue. It's supervision of an endorsed pilot, NOT training. The rotary world suffers from this more than most, since Transport Class A R/W is >2750kg, and our endorsement criteria is based on Transport class (A or B). Hence, a 'simple' helicopter of only 3200kg, because it is classed as Transport Class A, requires 10 hours endorsement training (with, of course, a QHI) then 15 hours ICUS before VFR charter is allowed by the endorsed pilot, and 25 hours before IFR charter. The complexity of the helicopter is irrelevant, the weight is the only criteria. There are helicopters of <2750kg which have far greater systems and handling complexities than many mid 3 tonne machines, yet they have only 5 hour endorsement requirement :(

Now, why on earth would we want to do the ICUS time with an instructor? Maybe if it was the pilot's first multi and he/she was a bit shaky through endorsement training we would, but otherwise, it's generally a PITA that is hard to justify. I've even flogged ML -SY - ML just to run off the hours, that's a lot of non rev to justify, without the added inconvenience of cranking up the criteria of the supervisory pilot! Until CASA reviews its criteria (and the sun rises in the west :rolleyes: ) we are stuck with a requirement that makes no allowance for the experience of the pilot being endorsed and supervised (at least, in the rotary world). I see no reason to make it more restrictive.

[Bagot_Community_Locator]

Take a look at the CAR's regarding who can do ICUS :

5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision
(1) A person must not fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under
supervision unless:
(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.
(2) The operator of an aircraft must not permit a person to fly an aircraft
as pilot acting in command under supervision unless:
(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.


There is NO "legal requirement" to be either :

- Right hand seat qualified
or
- to be a Multi engine training approved instructor

[Dale Harris]

BCL you are correct, there is no requirement. However, I think the colonel's post was about whether there should be.............

Personally, the other posters have it right in the main, ICUS is for getting to the minimum time requirement for IFR chtr or whatever, nothing more. It is no more difficult to fly from the right as the left I have found. The person in the left seat is supposed to be endorsed, which means they are supposed to be able to fly the aircraft. They are there to pick up some polish, really. However colonel, your point about the right side having some decent experience is relevant I think. Nothing worse than the poor ****** in the right seat being "guided" by someone who has no F**king idea themselves.......

As has been pointed out before, if they F**K it up badly enuf for the right side driver to have to take over, then they won't be flying with me again..........

Colonel, be careful what you wish for.............

[fanning]

Theres a company advertising in an aviation magazine this month offering ICUS for such and such dollars per hour on Charter and RPT routes. I have advertisments like this advertised before, but usually on freight charters, not RPT

Would the requirements be different for RPT at all ? (Route Checks etc?)

And if this is legal, then surely it is at least defeating the purpose of the points raised in this thread.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Wiz

I am referring to the supervisory pilot, not the pilot AICUS. There are some subtle and not so subtle differences flying RHS. Firstly there are issues with muscle memory and skills developed over many hours of manipulating controls from the LH seat. Also, there are optical issues (parallax specifically) with gazing at instruments 'only 2 1/2 feet away' from an angle. Not many bugsmahers are equipped with anything more than an extra AH or Altimiter on the RHS, possibly a stray ADF or something like that, let alone a full panel. So it's not a matter of being 'any kind of pilot should be able to fly from any control seat' but a matter of exposure and proper explanation of the differences involved.

LE,
The instructor would be familiar with flying from RHS, and therefore aware of the subtle differences (hopefully!!). True, the instructor may be less experienced than what I suggest above, but one would expect they would have reasonable experience on manoeuvres such as UA recovery etc, as well as having experience on the training twin (BE76/PA44etc). Plus, the instructor is generally on a training mission that can be aborted if the weather gets too nasty for training. Your last point about losing the plot on a Chieftain, you shouldn't be there in the first place is part of the sub-point I am trying to get across in this post.

JE,

Good points about recognising the experience of the pilot being endorsed. This is a very valid point . However, in this post I am pointing to the situation of an inexperienced supervisory pilot who may be supervising an inexperienced pilot on a machine that quite often, they may both be out of their depth in, in different roles.

Ibex,

Paragraph 1 very true.

Here's a scenario:

A pilot with a ME endorsement and 50hr on a BE76 (mostly VFR) gets themselves a Chieftain or Aerostar endorsement. They also hold a ME CIR, yet have no IF experience except for the IF time gained under the hood and their only logged IF time is for their initial rating and recency requirements. They approach Company X with view to paying $60/hr and gaining enough command 'experience' to satisfy the regs (10hrs), and maybe a little more in order to try and get in to the company as one of their below award wage pilots. Supervisory pilot 'X', who has little experience in the aircraft type or type of all weather and Night IFR commercial operations, no experience in flying from RH seat, is tasked to 'supervise' the new paying AICUS pilot on in operations in bad weather and night, that require Non Precision IAP to the minima. You would have to agree, that this situation has a huge risk attached to it. This scenario is legal - but is it SAFE?

Type endorsements do not usually involve flying the new aircraft type in IMC conditions and night, nor arethey required to.

BCL - Read the post properly, I am referring to the supervisory pilot, not the person AICUS.

Dale H - It is no more difficult from the RHS, just DIFFERENT. Those differences must be explained to, and some experience given in the process, to the supervisory pilot prior to being allowed to act in the supervisory role. I am not wishing for the above mentioned scenarios, quite the contrary, I am trying to bring about an awareness of this accident waiting to happen, and sincerely hope it does not.

I think most readers have missed my point, so I summarise it:

Prior to a Pilot acting as SUPERVISORY PILOT of other pilots AICUS should:

-Be subject to minimum experience criteria as suggested above (a realistic minimum of actual ME command experience could be say, 1000hrs TT, 500ME command, with 150 hrs command on type and at least 50hrs IF, and if night operations are included, 150hrs night.)

-Demonstrate a level of knowledge in matters such as, but not limited to, IFR procedures, General Knowledge, aircraft type technical and operational items (including normal and abnormal procedures)

- Be given instruction, and demonstrate proficiency in, flying from the RHS, and in the prompt recognition of errors, the ability to clearly advise any corrective action and take control at a point not too early, but before the situation becomes critical etc etc.

- Be give a company qualification, signed off by the Chief Pilot eg an approval to act as a supervisory pilot.

If it's good enough for >5700kg, it should be good enough for bugsmahers.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Q. a pilot with two hundred hours doing ICUS flying a PA31 with a 2000+ hour pilot in the RH seat, who is really in command.

This pilot with 200 hours, what are the chances of this company actually employing him\her to fly the aircraft without the 2000 hour person in the RH seat, nil.

So in reality these 200 hour persons are subsidising the companies routes, end of stories.

As has been pointed out, legally the 200 hour pilot needs to be endorsed with 5\10 hours on type for VFR\IFR flight.

As far a RH seat endorsing goes, that would be another waste of money, if you can fly an aeroplane from the LH seat, the RH doesn't take that much adjusting.

My advise to younger Pilots is hold on to you money, if you work for a company, when it is your time to fly a twin, the CP will spend the time with you that is required.

If you have low hours and are looking for a job, in my eyes i would be less likely to employ a person with ICUS in a highish performance twin, as a general statement these persons feel they are some how going to require less time cutting their teeth in the single engine GA world, not the case.

get your license, go north or get an instructor rating and be very very carefull where you spend your dollars. never pay all your money up front for a course, if you do, the minute they have your money they dont particularly jump when you tell them to.

[Dale Harris]

LHRT, Too true...........

[HabibBro]

There has already been some Tears at the ongoing Circus regarding exactly this! Those brakes are on aren't they?? oooopppss:eek:

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

LHRT,,

"This pilot with 200 hours, what are the chances of this company actually employing him\her to fly the aircraft without the 2000 hour person in the RH seat, nil."

Not true. There are some low time pilots operating for certain bankrunners out of BK, for a fact. They have had, in the last 18 months at least one gear up landing and atleast one engine failure in flight. Their last bingle was on the ground, thankfully and in front of an audience to boot. Word has it the 'supervising' pilot on a recent BK ground collision is not exactly flush with PA31 time or twin experience, yet was tasked for the role, and allegedly in an aircraft not fitted with dual brakes. Yes the pilot AICUS held the endorsement, but so what. Also allegedly, that certain Chief Pilot/Operator used job security as a form of pressure to ensure the supervisory pilot took on the task.

Once again, i reiterate, it is not about 'going and getting a RH endorsement'. It is about companies ASSIGNING SUITABLY EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED SUPERVISORY PILOTS. This would be a company position, not granted by CASA as such, but someone (eg Chief Pilot) would be responsible (and answerable in the event of any incident) for ensuring that there is some sort of standard applied to these all too prevalent operations.

You can be as blase as you want about the pros and cons of RHS flying, but experience in aircraft and operation type should be a requirement, given the prevalence of this practice.

[John Eacott]

"It is about companies ASSIGNING SUITABLY EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED SUPERVISORY PILOTS. This would be a company position, not granted by CASA as such, but someone (eg Chief Pilot) would be responsible (and answerable in the event of any incident) for ensuring that there is some sort of standard applied to these all too prevalent operations."

Walter,

This is already the case. Under CAR 5.40 (1)f, "The pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft" ie the pilot in command, of the PICUS, has to be approved by the operator, and an approval issued in writing to that effect. CASA audits have highlighted this requirement for years, with the ridiculous situation, as with CAO 20.11 certificates, where the Chief Pilot has to approve himself in writing!

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Col Walter,

It's not about the companies responsibility to put a pilot in the right hand seat who's trained to do so, it's their responsibility to put a PIC in the aircraft, whether he\she be in the left or right seat is irrelevant, ultimately the PIC is responsible for the safe conduct of the aircraft, it's just like trying to blame the Autopilot for not holding altitude in CTA.

for all intensive purposes the ICUS pilot is the autopilot, as a PA31 is a single pilot approved aircraft.

[Sheep Guts]

I agree with suitabely select ICUS Pilots in each company by the Chief Pilot . As well as a Company safety officer, responsible for the accumalation of accident data relaying to Aircraft operated by the company.

This would not be a monitor as such , and not be seen as a "Dobber so to speak" . But a person who can bring any issues to the Chief Pilot and Management on behalf of the piloting and non-piloting staff. I tried to do this at the last Aussie company I worked at, I found alot of usefull info on the NTSB and ATSB websites, with accident reports on similair aircraft. Printed them out and put them in a folder for all to peruse dont know if they still use it or update it. But I think the position of Safety Officer shouldnt be confined to RPT or Airline Ops , charter should do it aswell.

Just a thought

Regards

Sheep