IFR in VMC
Good stuff. My point remains though, whether or not the VB cap gets his F/o to write down 2hrs IF or not doesn't change the amount of instrument flight time the captain has done, which effectively is much more than the minimum required. I'm not saying it's right to make up IF time , but I don't think it's a big deal or in any way dangerous if you are a 737 Captain in a country where you need many thousands of hours to reach that position.
If you've only got a couple thousand hours and you're flying a chieften it's a different story.
The recency of approaches is much more important. ie if you hadn't done a non precision approach in six months then had to do one for real it would be less than ideal.
If you've only got a couple thousand hours and you're flying a chieften it's a different story.
The recency of approaches is much more important. ie if you hadn't done a non precision approach in six months then had to do one for real it would be less than ideal.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calm down lad, nobody is saying that, all I'm saying is that our VB73 Captain flies 95% of every flight soley by reference to the instruments, scanning scanning scanning, so if he logs 2hrs on a gin clear day who cares? He has probably done 20 hours in reality.
On final - maybe two miles from touch down if you are daring, announce disconnecting autopilot but leave FD on and maybe deselect speed on AT and press stopwatch to time actual hands on flying. Lets be generous and say four minutes of half automatics and half hand flying. Total time of hands on flying for whole flight eight (8) gripping minutes when the life of your passengers are in your hands.
So who are you kidding when you say the captain/FO of a typical B737 airliner flight in Australia spends most of his flight scanning, scanning, scanning. And after landing he says to the data input processor in the right hand seat "Hey! Maaate - put me down for two hours I/F wilya?"
Having observed some of these aces in the simulator struggling to fly wings level hand flying raw data, then their hours and hours of "scanning, scanning, scanning" hasn't improved their "scanning".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee Emm -Spot on.
Thats why I only log .2 I.F for every sector I fly, figure the after a year the law of averages it works it self out. Some days 8/8s blue sky others never get out of the weather.
Thats why I only log .2 I.F for every sector I fly, figure the after a year the law of averages it works it self out. Some days 8/8s blue sky others never get out of the weather.
Oooh, very very no.
Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.
Nice one but surely you are not serious?
Don't get too wound up about it though, I didn't realise you had a different log book, one with a "hand flown IMC" column and one with a "A/P engaged IMC" column.
chatting to F/O about latest union bitching, women, reading newspaper, scratching balls, looking outside in clear gin weather, fiddling with CDU and maybe even radar, making PA's, chatting up female or male flight attendants, depending on your personal preferences
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooh, very very no.
Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.
Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.
If that's not what he means, then I'm curious to know anyway
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For ICUS you must be appointed by an operator. Two mates (without the blessing of an Operator) cannot just go log ICUS. I'm no instructor but I imagine that in Aus (not so in the US I believe) one cannot log Dual unless operating under the auspices of an approved flying school. Without an AOC holder it looks like you'll be stuck with doing 3 hours per 90 days.
FRQ CB
FRQ CB
Dual = Training = Airwork = AOC required, except for a few exemptions.
One way to keep the cost down is too find a basic synthetic trainer approved for recency purposes, some can be cheap and you can use them for 2 of the 3 hours required, legal and no grey areas.
On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?
One way to keep the cost down is too find a basic synthetic trainer approved for recency purposes, some can be cheap and you can use them for 2 of the 3 hours required, legal and no grey areas.
On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43"s
On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?
Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside
On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?
Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside
Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside Today 02:34
a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency? Yesterday 16:00
Or maybe they should have logged their IF time more acurately to prevent such a situation?
Or maybe they're just worn out from scanning, scanning, scanning,
I'm also now interested to know what the FO does as the captain is scanning 95% of the time, is he also scanning?
never get in that position in the first place
Last edited by 43Inches; 21st Dec 2008 at 04:26.
To answer your questions 43,
Yes.
Sometimes people make mistakes and/or errors in judgement. Sometimes ATC places a restriction on your descent, and a stage is reached where a stable approach is no longer achievable. If you fly for long enough one of these things will happen to you and you have two choices 1/ Carry out a go round, or 2/ carry out an unstable approach. Here in Australia we are pretty good at making the sometimes difficult decision to go-around.
Sorry if I was a bit short with you in earlier posts, I had assumed you were a commercial pilot. My bad. Have a good Christmas.
Framer.......Out.
I'm also now interested to know what the FO does as the captain is scanning 95% of the time, is he also scanning
Why do you have to be an ace pilot to achieve this, especially if your monitoring your instruments constantly the whole flight, should be easy.
Sorry if I was a bit short with you in earlier posts, I had assumed you were a commercial pilot. My bad. Have a good Christmas.
Framer.......Out.
Sometimes ATC places a restriction on your descent, and a stage is reached where a stable approach is no longer achievable.
1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...
2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach.
3. Be monitoring descent profile the entire descent, anticipate what ATC is doing with other traffic and position the aircraft to be flexible in case track shortening becomes available. This requires effective situational awarness generated by an good scan and management.
Of course a go-round is necessary in cases of an unstable approach or any other situation which requires it, but a go-round will cost a lot more than a few extra miles or minor profile adjustments to avoid it.
If the crew choose to ignore what their 'scan' is telling them and push on for a close approach to save time than this highlights another problem.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43 Inches,
You seem hell-bent on showing that QF/DJ 737 pilots don't scan enough and that it can sometimes be a safety issue. Fair enough i guess but you are not supporting your argument with any logic. Just a side-swipe comment about 'red 737's' having to do go-arounds. Are you reffering to DJ and QF 737's when you say 'red 737's' or have you narrowed the focus to just QF now?
When Framer said that ATC restrictions can cause a visual approach to become unstable if continued any further he/she was quite right, and often it is the result of an ATC error not a crew error. Or just a circumstance like a busy frequency meaning further descent does not become available soon enough.
You countered the statment by saying;
"If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;
1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...
2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach"
Most of the time what you say is carried out, no problem. What Framer means is that sometimes things just don't come together, for whatever reason, and then the correct action is to go-around.
Saying that the captains scan rate has a bearing on any of this is a long stretch of the bow. I'd go so ar as to say it's a bit silly really.
CJAM......ps, sometimes I make up my IF time which might explain why I had to go-around last week when someone decided to request an airways clearance on tower frequency with many ums and arrs to fill the pauses. If only I had scanned my way out of that one ha ha.
You seem hell-bent on showing that QF/DJ 737 pilots don't scan enough and that it can sometimes be a safety issue. Fair enough i guess but you are not supporting your argument with any logic. Just a side-swipe comment about 'red 737's' having to do go-arounds. Are you reffering to DJ and QF 737's when you say 'red 737's' or have you narrowed the focus to just QF now?
When Framer said that ATC restrictions can cause a visual approach to become unstable if continued any further he/she was quite right, and often it is the result of an ATC error not a crew error. Or just a circumstance like a busy frequency meaning further descent does not become available soon enough.
You countered the statment by saying;
"If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;
1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...
2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach"
Most of the time what you say is carried out, no problem. What Framer means is that sometimes things just don't come together, for whatever reason, and then the correct action is to go-around.
Saying that the captains scan rate has a bearing on any of this is a long stretch of the bow. I'd go so ar as to say it's a bit silly really.
CJAM......ps, sometimes I make up my IF time which might explain why I had to go-around last week when someone decided to request an airways clearance on tower frequency with many ums and arrs to fill the pauses. If only I had scanned my way out of that one ha ha.
Just to clarify for anyone reading the thread, in order for you to be logging ICUS, both pilots MUST be employed by a company, operating under the company AOC, with the company dictating who is PIC and who is ICUS. There are a couple other rules as well, but the main point is that you CANNOT just fly ICUS with a classmate.
Although one that I'm interested in knowing, can one fly ICUS on a ME IFR flight (commercial flight, say a charter) if they hold a MECIR but are not IF recent (3hrs etc)? PIC is current on everything.
Although one that I'm interested in knowing, can one fly ICUS on a ME IFR flight (commercial flight, say a charter) if they hold a MECIR but are not IF recent (3hrs etc)? PIC is current on everything.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
question
1. I am currently in the US flying a BE 200 and I was wondering under CASA regs if time is logged as dual recieved and given can it be logged as PIC by both if the captain is an instuctor or would it be UCIS for the right seat only. Both of them are Multi Enigine Rated and endorsed. Here in the US if you are both rated in the A/C and endorsed I.E. High Altitude and one of you is an instructor you can both log PIC if it is also logged as dual given and recieved
2. As well as if there are two pilots flying taking turns under the hood while the other is acting as saftey pilot can they both log PIC?
The reason why I ask I will be flying in Australia and I am trying to make my log books understandable by both FAA and CASA from training to present day
2. As well as if there are two pilots flying taking turns under the hood while the other is acting as saftey pilot can they both log PIC?
The reason why I ask I will be flying in Australia and I am trying to make my log books understandable by both FAA and CASA from training to present day
