ICUS
At one stage I recall that the UK regs on ICUS specified something along the lines of: "If at any time during the ICUS flight, the captain of the aircraft disagrees with a particular decision made by the ICUS pilot, then ICUS is immediately cancelled and the ICUS pilot reverts to logging co-pilot time (or dual) for the entire flight".
It is my guess that under those rules (if they still exist and it wasn't in my imagination) that precious few pilots could ever log true ICUS, and the problem would go away.
Certainly in Australia, ICUS is out of control and because pilots log books are never audited by CASA, the system allows pilots to virtually log what they like. The safety net of integrity must be held by the chief pilot/Ops manager to ensure that sly logging of false hours does not take place in their particular organisation. But don't hold your breath on that one..
It is my guess that under those rules (if they still exist and it wasn't in my imagination) that precious few pilots could ever log true ICUS, and the problem would go away.
Certainly in Australia, ICUS is out of control and because pilots log books are never audited by CASA, the system allows pilots to virtually log what they like. The safety net of integrity must be held by the chief pilot/Ops manager to ensure that sly logging of false hours does not take place in their particular organisation. But don't hold your breath on that one..
I guess again another reason why some people are probably logging ICUS wrongly is because the publications are all over the place and half the other documents condradict the others!
A question I have is if you do your IF renewal and it hasn't expired the flight time with the testing officer is normally logged as ICUS....on that same point for your IF single pilot recency if you go up with another guy in the RHS who has a CIR on that class, is current and endorsed on type and you both have a CPL, if you go up and do the hour IF and an approach with him on a PVT ops flight does that qualify as ICUS? On that point does that mean you log ICUS and he logs command?
A question I have is if you do your IF renewal and it hasn't expired the flight time with the testing officer is normally logged as ICUS....on that same point for your IF single pilot recency if you go up with another guy in the RHS who has a CIR on that class, is current and endorsed on type and you both have a CPL, if you go up and do the hour IF and an approach with him on a PVT ops flight does that qualify as ICUS? On that point does that mean you log ICUS and he logs command?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone noticed that the CASA produced log book does not have an ICUS column, so you need to log ICUS time as co-pilot, and keep track of the ICUS in the specialist instructor/ICUS column.
Interesting implications when it comes to the calculation of flight time for obtaining an ATPL.
Interesting implications when it comes to the calculation of flight time for obtaining an ATPL.
BIK_116.80
I must put my hands up as I implied that the CAR required at least a CPL for the supervising pilot. I am afraid that I got Company requirements mixed up with the CAR requirements.
I must put my hands up as I implied that the CAR required at least a CPL for the supervising pilot. I am afraid that I got Company requirements mixed up with the CAR requirements.
Moderator
Puff,
You raise an interesting point in respect of a routine IF renewal.
Excluding AOC operation renewals where specific company procedures and requirements may dictate the answer, I would suggest a view contrary to your suggestion.
When I am doing a routine GA renewal, the testing officer is just along for the ride for the sole purpose of observing my operation.
(a) He/she may indicate what he/she wishes to see
(b) I permit him/her to interfere with the operation in respect of, for instance, simulating engine failure. But I dictate when this may NOT occur. In days of old when the authority did all the tests, eyebrows were often raised when I dictated the minimum height, for example, below which a simulated failure was not to occur. No-one ever challenged my authority on such points .. then again, the examiners weren't idiots either.
(c) he/she may/may not see fit to certify to my advantage at the end of the flight.
But there is no question about who is running the show .. and that is NOT the testing officer.
If the situation is an initial issue test on a single pilot aircraft, then I suggest that the appropriate approach is for the flight to be considered dual (as "copilot" is rather irrelevant).
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
You raise an interesting point in respect of a routine IF renewal.
Excluding AOC operation renewals where specific company procedures and requirements may dictate the answer, I would suggest a view contrary to your suggestion.
When I am doing a routine GA renewal, the testing officer is just along for the ride for the sole purpose of observing my operation.
(a) He/she may indicate what he/she wishes to see
(b) I permit him/her to interfere with the operation in respect of, for instance, simulating engine failure. But I dictate when this may NOT occur. In days of old when the authority did all the tests, eyebrows were often raised when I dictated the minimum height, for example, below which a simulated failure was not to occur. No-one ever challenged my authority on such points .. then again, the examiners weren't idiots either.
(c) he/she may/may not see fit to certify to my advantage at the end of the flight.
But there is no question about who is running the show .. and that is NOT the testing officer.
If the situation is an initial issue test on a single pilot aircraft, then I suggest that the appropriate approach is for the flight to be considered dual (as "copilot" is rather irrelevant).
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
BIK 116.8 - No worries - out of interest, i have loked up the current version of the Rule (NZCAA Pt 61 31 (c)), and the essential difference, as I glean from the posts, from CASA Rules/practice is the restriction to an "RPT" operation - the bits in brackets are my expansions - "...the holder of a CPL when acting as co-pilot on air transport operations (= RPT) in an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot (either by the AFM "Minimum Crew" or by Rules due to pax seating #'s etc) is entiltled to be credited with the ...flight time during which that co-pilot is performing the duties and functions of a PinC under the supervision of a PinC designated for that purpose by the operator, provided that during every such flight that co-pilot...." (and there follow 5 paras of prescriptive items which must be met). So here it wouldn't apply to a PPL, or Non Air Transport Ops OR a SPIFR a/c, @ the present time.
Grandpa Aerotart
Sobeit read my post again.....where did I say that ICUS should not be done for the purposes of training, meeting insurance minimums etc.
Just to make things clear for you. If some joker sends me his resume and I see(what I consider) rediculously large amounts of 'ICUS' logged in a Baron/Chieftain/310 etc then his resume will be binned, instantly!
What I would consider reasonable is between 10 and 20 hours per GA twin type rating, any more is BS logbook padding! If he honestly needed 50 or 100 hours to get up to speed he is useless anyway!
If he/she has some turbine command type ratings then perhaps 20 to 30 hours/Turbine type rating is reasonable.
If he/she has a jet command rating then between 30 and 150 ICUS hours on type would be reasonable depending on whether they are Bizjet or Airline types, what the company requirements were and the individuals background.
If you disagree, good......but you mistake me for someone who cares!
Chuck.
Just to make things clear for you. If some joker sends me his resume and I see(what I consider) rediculously large amounts of 'ICUS' logged in a Baron/Chieftain/310 etc then his resume will be binned, instantly!
What I would consider reasonable is between 10 and 20 hours per GA twin type rating, any more is BS logbook padding! If he honestly needed 50 or 100 hours to get up to speed he is useless anyway!
If he/she has some turbine command type ratings then perhaps 20 to 30 hours/Turbine type rating is reasonable.
If he/she has a jet command rating then between 30 and 150 ICUS hours on type would be reasonable depending on whether they are Bizjet or Airline types, what the company requirements were and the individuals background.
If you disagree, good......but you mistake me for someone who cares!
Chuck.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ,Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHimbu Chuckles,. .Maybe a little clearer second time around.. .I think we need to consider why pilots are doing this ICUS. I am certain they would prefer to save themselves some time and bucks by not doing it if they were still in with an equal chance by not.. .Most insurance companies are asking for 50 hours twin before you can go as PIC or otherwise pay increased premiums, I have heard of some that have a 100 hour minimum requirement.It use to be "or as approved by the CP".. .Has this been due to past experiences they have set this requirement? Or are they just trying to set a better safety standard?. .Unless you land a job with a company who are happy to run two pilot crew for your first twin job this 50 hours could be difficult to reach,perhaps a little slow.
I feel most people are not making their log books look more attractive by doing plentiful ICUS, they are just trying to put themselves in the picture by jumping the insurance hurdles which should only be helpful to any future employer.
. .No offence but does chuckles mean you are a happy soul and laugh a lot? Your parting words for me were not that gracious. . .I will grace you anyway...have a nice weekend..
I feel most people are not making their log books look more attractive by doing plentiful ICUS, they are just trying to put themselves in the picture by jumping the insurance hurdles which should only be helpful to any future employer.
. .No offence but does chuckles mean you are a happy soul and laugh a lot? Your parting words for me were not that gracious. . .I will grace you anyway...have a nice weekend..
Grandpa Aerotart
Nah I'm a very happy chappy, as those who know me will attest.
As far as I'm concerned if your employer trains you properly then they should have no qualms about paying the extra premium for a few weeks to get you over that hurdle. We're not talking a lot of money for chrissake.
That's what my first employer in PNG did for me when they put me in the left seat of a C185 and two weeks later a BN2 with 350 hours TT.
Chuckles
As far as I'm concerned if your employer trains you properly then they should have no qualms about paying the extra premium for a few weeks to get you over that hurdle. We're not talking a lot of money for chrissake.
That's what my first employer in PNG did for me when they put me in the left seat of a C185 and two weeks later a BN2 with 350 hours TT.
Chuckles
