ICUS

[Contact tower on final]

Just been looking at the regs regarding ICUS, and was wondering who can and who can't be the pilot in command. Some people say that only the chief pilot can do it, others say anybody, omebody else says any instructor.

So who is "qualified" to be the PIC when somebody is doing ICUS <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Jimmy Pop]

I think the chief pilot can approve other company pilots to fly as the ICUS check pilot.

[Zeke]

This is a very grey area CASA seems not to be going out of its way to fix.

What operation are you looking at, is it a training flight, is it to build experience for an insurance mimimum, is it a base check, is it a CASA audit, is it a route check, is it done in an aircraft certified for single pilot operation, is it a bank run using ICUS pilots to make a profit ?

Does the aircraft have fully functioning dual controls ...

Who is the "operator" when ICUS is none as a private operation ?

My thoughts is that the other seat should be occupied by either, CASA FOI, ATO, CFI/CP, CASA approved C&T captains, company designated training captains, and in the case of multi-engine aircraft planning IFR, instructors with 10 hours on type, m/e training approval, I/R training approval.

What does you insurance company say ? What does you ops manual say ?

More questions than answers sorry, but whatever is done it would be prudent to have it in your ops manual just incase anything goes wrong.

[I Fly]

Australian CAO 40.1.0.10.7 seems pretty clear. You need an ATPL. And then as per Operations Manual. If you have a CPL and if you are legally entitled to be P1 then you log P1 and if a 'company person' is watching you fly, they can't log watching.

[DESCEND WHEN READY]

Really good question CTOF. I have been wondering the same question for a while. Tha responses have made it a bit more clear.

[Centaurus]

ICUS is a good way of building up faked command hours. I have often seen log books where the so-called ICUS pilot has logged it as command, conveniently forgetting that he is under supervision NOT in command. Any chief pilot/CFI who interviews a prospective pilot employee is wise to closely scrutinize his log book for this very common rort. I once saw a log book which showed 600 hours ICUS DC-3 and Learjet. Very impressive until you read more closely to find out the guy only had a second class endorsement on these types. Saw the same rort on a B737 pilot's logbook, too.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Here here Centaurus, it blows me away that young blokes these days think that 'ICUS' is the same as really being in command <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Particularly the type of 'ICUS' they seem to all be falling over each other to buy <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Face it kiddies, no matter what the people trying to sell this rort tell you there are NO shortcuts!

Chuck.

[okeydokey]

Chimbu,. .Remember ICUS is probably the best way to get 5 or 10 hours up for v/ifr chtr ops. It's that or buy the time on its own. . .Frying pan or fire? Icus is cheaper (hopefully <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ) and best done in moderation.

[I Fly]

BIK_116.80, I was not trying to infer that CAO 40.1.0.10.7 applied to the supervising pilot, just the pilot logging ICUS. You are correct, there is an anomaly. CAO 40.1.0.10 is for LOGGING flight time and CAR 5.40 is for ACTING as pilot in command under supervision. I was thinking along the lines of "there is no point for the timebuilder to ACT if he/she can't LOG". I can't find any other reference regarding LOGGING of flight time. This was debated on pprune last year (perhaps someone can find the thread) Let the debate continue

[LeadSled]

All,. .Oh! Dear, Here we go again, Australian attitudes being applied to what has been the law . .( unchanged for about 50 years) in the UK, is ICAO, and is followed by most countries.

Good on us, once again we are the only soldier in step, about time the rest of the world fell into line.

Have a look at the inside front page of an old DCA log book, we did it the same way as the rest of the world, once. The fiddlers got to work, and now look at the mess.

I will give you one guess as to who winds up seriously disadvantaged in the international jobs market, again, thanks to the current Australian non ICAO "practices".

Outside of Australia, no Chief Pilot has the slightest problem in differentiating between P.1 and P.1 U/S, or "Command Practice" or by whatever name it is actually called in various countries, in giving effect to ICAO Annex 1.

Tootle pip!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

OKDKY,

I have no problems with ICUS logged under the supervision of an appropriate person(CP/Training Captain/etc)for the purpose of line training etc.

What I do object to is pilots with a second class endorsement logging 'ICUS' just because it's their sector, and pilots buying 100's of hours 'ICUS' to make their logbook look 'better'.

I'm a Chief pilot and I will not even consider anyone with 2 type ratings and 200 hrs ICUS or some such. I would be lucky to have 300+ hours ICUS spread over 8 or 10 command type ratings gained in Reg 203/Supplemental Airline/ and Corporate over 10000+ hours.

There is a big difference, as far as I'm concerned, between being the PIC and shouldering the RESPONSIBITIES that go with that position and play acting Captain in the RHS where if it all goes pair shaped you just hand over. If you really are the Captain you're in the poo....if you're just pretending the worst that will happen is that sector can't( or certainly shouldn't) go in the ICUS column.

None of this means that it is not the real Captain's responsibity to allow the F/O to excerise his 'command judgement' as much as possible within the constraints of the company SOPS and his experience level.

In my opinion.

Chuck

[Zeke]

Bindook,

Some people say that unless you are an me/ir instructor on type you cannot do ICUS unless you have an ATPL.

Many people see ICUS as training/line training as such they believe that either an ATPL is required (where it allows the holder to conduct conversion training), or an instructor rating with ME/IR training approvals as per the CAO what a multi-engine instructor is allowed to do.

What are your thoughts on these views.

Z

[joechen]

hang on a sec guys, anyone who's done an instructor rating will know that 20 out of the required 50 hours training for the rating can be done as mutual training with a fellow instructor trainee with one student logging PIC and the other logging ICUS. i don't know many people that had an atpl when they started instructor training.

[Kaptin M]

Surely one question will clarify whether the time is ACTUAL P1, or P1 U/S - and that question is, "Which seat were you sitting in, when you flew these hours?".

Perhaps CASA needs to include a column for a signature after each flight/sector that must be signed by the PIC.

Doesn't matter WHAT we do, it still won't stop some people!

[Turbine]

Hi jetage,

[quote]...with a fellow instructor trainee with one student logging PIC and the other logging ICUS.<hr></blockquote>

Two instructor candidates can both log command at the same time as long as they are in the process of undertaking training for the rating. Read <a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/400107.pdf" target="_blank">CAO 40.1.7 4.1B</a> (keeping in mind that although two student instructors may log all the time as command, one pilot will be nominated as the 'Captain' of the ship).

Contact tower on final, to answer your question - any approved may be the PIC in the course of conducting ICUS. That 'approval' normally comes from your operations manual. CASA won't approve your ops manual without a well-defined policy on ICUS and its application. Because CASA policy falls well short of sufficient this is one area that should be well scrutinised by your FOI when approving your operation.

You do not need a ME training approval or even an instructor rating in most cases. Remember that an instructor may only exercise the privileges of his rating <a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/orders/040.htm" target="_blank">under the supervision of a CFI</a> and a ME instructor may only exercise his ME training privilege away from a flying school on a Private basis (Ref: CAR).

As for the minimum licence qualification, could it be that some are confusing the old ATPL requirement for 5.21 conversion training? The <a href="http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR002550.htm" target="_blank">minimum licence for an ICUS</a> candidate is a CPL with the necessary ratings etc for the proposed operation. The CAO's only make an allowance for ICUS in commercial operations (<a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/orders/4392.htm#part82" target="_blank">CAO 82</a>) which effectively eliminates <a href="http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR002960.htm" target="_blank">PPL holders</a> from partaking in any ICUS flying. Those people that say that only the CP or a rated instructor may complete the ICUS flying are probably quoting out of their ops manual - but this is a sensible company imposed restriction rather than CASA regulation.

Something else to be very careful of is CASA's well-publicised interpretation that says that two pilots in the same aircraft constitute a multi crew aeroplane. Does your CP have 400 hours multi crew? If it were a true multi crew aeroplane (&gt;5700kg) obtained for the first time the requirement for the 400 hours command multi crew would be waived but the 400 multi crew requirement stands when a company operates a Chieftain that will be used for ICUS. The same requirement applies to IFR aircraft without an autopilot! Don't figure! (Ref <a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/orders/4392.htm#part82" target="_blank">CAO 82.0</a> Table A). I know this defies the whole purpose of ICommandUS but it's just CASA ass covering in a way that can't be applied in everyday aviation.

Having said that, do you have multi crew checklists? Do you have a multi crew Part B or equivalent? Do you have any CRM training? If you think about it, whenever two pilots occupy the same aeroplane space it is VERY important that they have defined communication and cockpit procedures. It may not be a multi crew aeroplane but ICUS is certainly a multi crew environment. Our own manual has two-pilot procedures both as a two-pilot and ICUS aeroplane. The ICUS aeroplane uses the single pilot checklist with the second pilot’s services used only when specifically requested or when he feels the need to make comment in the course of normal checking or training duties. Our own ICUS policy is in our Part C Check and Training manual.

It's always been questionable whether ICUS flight in excess of the 10 hours permitted by CAO 82 is even legal. Certainly it is abused by certain operators that use ICUS to subsidise their dodgy bank runs. At times, two friends will fly together and both accumulate command flight time. It is criminal and CASA should make a broad 'black and white' industry interpretation and start enforcing policy rather than hiding behind its poetic nature. Most FOIs have a different understanding of the same legislation so some operators are left with an operational advantage whilst others are left at the mercy of a failed aviator.

ICUS is a valuable tool in getting to know an aircraft if it is a learning exercise and conducted by appropriately qualified and capable people. ICUS does not teach a pilot command judgement and that 'working GA mentality' which can only ever be learned through single pilot IFR.

Other PPRuNe threads worth reading:

<a href="http://www.acay.com.au/~andrewk/pprune/icus.htm" target="_blank">IFR/ICUS training</a>. .<a href="http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=006692&p=" target="_blank">Logging of ICUS</a>

[joechen]

Turbine,

the instructor training thing. you're right that both students log PIC and one is nominated as "captain". doesn't that mean that the "captain" PIC logs it as genuine command while the "not-captain" PIC logs it as ICUS? surely one can't have both pilots log genuine in command for the same flight? can you?

[Turbine]

jetage,

[quote]From CAO 40.1.7 4.1B: ...where mutual practice in accordance with sub-subparagraph 4.1A (b)(ii) is undertaken, one pilot must be nominated as pilot in command but both pilots may log all of the flight time during which mutual practice is undertaken as counting towards the flight time requirement.<hr></blockquote>

Having both pilots log command is an industry (and CASA accepted) interpretation that everybody has made.

First, if you incorrectly logged the time as ICUS or dual or even copilot the regulation allows you to log all of the flight time during which mutual practice is undertaken as counting towards the flight time requirement. In other words it's simply telling you to log 100% of the time!

By definition, the pilot who is not nominated as the ultimate PIC is certainly not 'under instruction', not acting as a copilot and is definitely not 'under supervision' - thus the reg does allow two pilots to log command but ONLY in this instance.

[hannah]

Hmmm,I am surprised by a few of the replies here.. .Chim,chuckles..you dont seem to agree with people paying for ICUS. .note;. ................................................ .I'm a Chief Pilot and I will not even consider anyone with 2 type ratings and 200 hours ICUS or some such..... .................................................. .As a CP wouldn't you normally conduct ICUS anyway before letting someone lose on a machine like a Chieftain even if they had experience and wouldn't you appreciate it as an operator for any company if a pilot came on board with a little bit of an idea on the operating systems so you only had to fine tune? people have to get experience somehow to ever be considered.. .I dont know too many that have been blessed with a pass onto a machine like this without first having "experience".Obviously ICUS is not as golden as passenger paying command experience but it surely is a start? Particulary if they have done ICUS in IFR conditions..at night...

Turbine.. .Note:. .................................................. .Certainly abused by certain operators that use ICUS to subsidise their dodgy bank runs. .................................................

Really I cant think of any "dodgy bank runs" on the coast here, I think CASA have been doing their ramp checks well enough plus the freight providers are cleaning out anyone who looks risky.. .I know a machine that was ramped 6 times in it's first 12 months with no problems, no dodgy there.. .And as far as ICUS subsidy.. it does have small operating costs with taxi,fuel delays and engines not been managed as smoothly as an "experienced" pilot" but it is still a service that is in demand.. .The whole idea of two pilot crew is another "safety net" for pilots who are expected to go in bad conditions.. .I realise the bank run pilots are well capable of operating the machine by themselves but if they are tired and things go wrong with freight stacked to the roof, someone there to help out would be comforting. I beleive even Impulse prefer to work on this two pilot crew for night freight.. . If the ICUS was not charged there would still be the demand, if they gave it for free we would all be knocking down their doors and lining up..."for the experience"

I feel it is good for pilots who want to broaden their experience, practice their new skills to build confidence, all while feeling comfortable in the environment of someone who finds it second nature even if he is just sitting there watching, just incase things do go wrong..pretty good insurance... .Crawl before you walk...

. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[nzer]

BIK 116.8 - re the NZCAA "view" - this is the view of an individual in CAA, altho i understand what drives it. Our Rules are clear - Pt61/AC6 specify the requirements for logging of "Command Practice" as it is described in NZ - and refer to the logging/crediting of "CP" for an F/O - this then implies a multi-creww aircraft - the Operator is required to have practices/procedures inplace to meet the intent of the Rule so that "CP" has some value/realism - how much will be eternally debated so I am not going to go there - suffice it to say it is a world wide practice, so who are we to argue. The NZCAA view as expressed (I am assuming) relates to a SPIFR type, with minimal RHS Flight Instrumentation, in which a pilot "riding along" but not required by the AFM to be there, logs "CP" the value of such an exercise is questioned where there is no crew system, checklist system, etc- there is an NPRM to Rule Pt 61 - including "Logging of Flight Time" - in the printing @ the moment, which will address this very issue, ie, allow logging/supervision of CP in what would normally be a SPIFR type, but to specify minumum Flt Instrumentation levels, Operator Procedures, etc - the effect will to "open up" the logging of "CP" to other than multi-crew types, once SOP's etc are in place. Cheers.

[601]

There are a few restrictions on who and how ICUS can be conducted.

1. The person doing the ICUS must hold at least an CPL, an endorsement on the aircraft that would let him/her fly the aircraft as PIC and any rating(s) that are required for the operation, i.e. Instrument, sling, etc, etc.

2. The person doing the ICUS is the co-pilot of the aircraft. (does this have implication as how you log the time in your log book, see below)

3. The operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly as pilot acting in command under supervision.

4. The PIC (the person supervising) is appointed by the aircraft operator.

So the requirements of CAR 5.40 do not allow the holder of a PPL to receive ICUS and the person conducting the ICUS must also hold at least a CPL.

If the person acting as pilot in command under supervision must be the co-pilot, it then follows that he/she would have to log the flight time as co-pilot.

CAO 40.1.0.8A and CAO 82.3 just states what minimum aeronautical experience a pilot conducting certain operations, e.g. PIC under the IFR (82.3.4.1(b)) or PIC of an aeroplane above 5700 Kg (40.1.0.8A.2(a).

The CAR states the circumstances under which a pilot may fly an aircraft as pilot in command under supervision.

CAO 40.1.0.10.7(b) seems to contradict CAR 5.40 (1)(d), but one could argue that the CAR applies to CPL and the CAO is a concession against 5.40(1)(d) to ATPL holders as it specifically mentions ATPL holders or does the CAR overrule the CAO and CPL and ATPL holders can only log co-pilot time? If they act as co-pilot hjow can they log ICUS.

An example of the CAR and CAO at odds, see CAO 29.5.7.1(a) and CAR 157(1)(b).

Can any one show where P1 and P2 are defined in the CARs/CAOs. Suggest we stay away from the overseas definitions.

As to the type of operation, private, aerial work, etc. the CAR does have any requirements or limitations so ICUS may be conducted on a private flight as an aircraft conversation may conducted on a private flight. As long as both pilots have at least a CPL, ratings as required and the operator approves.