Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS?
SWH,thanks for all that,VA have Cruise FOs who are logging time as Co-Pilot for the Syd -Lax sector, I am correct in saying that those CFO with a command endorsement on the 777 can log ICUS as do the Senior FOs if they meet all ICUS requirements AND the company assigns that time to them.Would that then mean they can log all the time over and back.
Originally Posted by farrari
I am correct in saying that those CFO with a command endorsement on the 777 can log ICUS as do the Senior FOs if they meet all ICUS requirements AND the company assigns that time to them.Would that then mean they can log all the time over and back.
CASA has left the details up to the operator on how ICUS is done for heavy crews.
I would be very surprised if V Australia allow a CFO to log ICUS during their designated rest period, in my view they would not be carrying out the "duties and functions of the pilot in command" as per CAR 5.01(3) during that time.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lord Howe
Age: 44
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH , thanks again, would you or Keg kindly clarify this, when on long haul flights like to LA which is around say 14hrs, do FOs log all that as ICUS OR do they deduct there rest time off this which may be say 6hrs.
G'day inandout,
I never actually bothered to log any ICUS when I was an F/O as I had several thousand hours in command before I joined Q but the way I see it is that if a Captain can log command time in the bunk why couldn't a designated F/O log ICUS when it's his turn in the bunk?
If you're wondering about satisfying minimum hours requirements for an upgrade then I'd have to say that very few pilots in mainline Q would ever get close to promotion, seniority wise, with out having the hours requirements well and truly satisfied.
Regards,
BH.
I never actually bothered to log any ICUS when I was an F/O as I had several thousand hours in command before I joined Q but the way I see it is that if a Captain can log command time in the bunk why couldn't a designated F/O log ICUS when it's his turn in the bunk?
If you're wondering about satisfying minimum hours requirements for an upgrade then I'd have to say that very few pilots in mainline Q would ever get close to promotion, seniority wise, with out having the hours requirements well and truly satisfied.
Regards,
BH.
All,
Could I suggest all you "experts" have a look at ICAO Annex. 1 for the basic logging of flight hours, that is the starting point, and it is ALL QUITE SIMPLE.
That is the way hours were logged in Australia until about 25 years ago, have a look at the regulations repeated inside the front cover of an old DCA/DoA log book.
Then "Australia" decided to make it not only non-ICAO, but hellishly complicated. As usual, Australia knew better than the rest of the world, why have one page of regulations, when you can have 21. Too easy.
The only net tangible result is that Australian pilots, starting their careers, and looking for a job offshore, are seriously disadvantaged, compared to their UK/US/NZ/just about anywhere else counterparts. I will leave all you experts to work out why that is the only real result.
To repeat, as I have every other time this nonsense comes up ----- ICUS is NOT, I say again NOT COMMAND TIME, it is exactly what it say, ICUS (NZ - Command practice, UK/SIN-P1U/S and so on)
I never cease to be amazed how Australian domestic pilots get their knickers in a twist about this sort of thing --- something the rest of the world takes for granted.
Tootle pip!!
Could I suggest all you "experts" have a look at ICAO Annex. 1 for the basic logging of flight hours, that is the starting point, and it is ALL QUITE SIMPLE.
That is the way hours were logged in Australia until about 25 years ago, have a look at the regulations repeated inside the front cover of an old DCA/DoA log book.
Then "Australia" decided to make it not only non-ICAO, but hellishly complicated. As usual, Australia knew better than the rest of the world, why have one page of regulations, when you can have 21. Too easy.
The only net tangible result is that Australian pilots, starting their careers, and looking for a job offshore, are seriously disadvantaged, compared to their UK/US/NZ/just about anywhere else counterparts. I will leave all you experts to work out why that is the only real result.
To repeat, as I have every other time this nonsense comes up ----- ICUS is NOT, I say again NOT COMMAND TIME, it is exactly what it say, ICUS (NZ - Command practice, UK/SIN-P1U/S and so on)
I never cease to be amazed how Australian domestic pilots get their knickers in a twist about this sort of thing --- something the rest of the world takes for granted.
Tootle pip!!
It's good that you mention ICAO Annex 1 Ledsled.
Notwithstanding everything that's been said, every single para of Annex 1 ends with the phrase "...for a higher class of licence." That is, the application of ICAO annex 1 is aimed at the candidate logging ICUS for the purpose of a licence upgrade. Under ICAO annex 1 (to which Australia is a signatory), the logging of ICUS for any other purpose, ie: to satisfy the requirements of a Low Capacity AOC, is not covered!
My point is, that if Australian Regs adhere to ICAO annex 1, then if the candidate holds a CPL, he/she should only log enough ICUS to satisfy the requirements of the ATPL. If the candidate already holds an ATPL, then the provisions of ICAO Annex 1 do not apply.
Now before you start quoting CAR 5.40 swh, can you tell me why the proposal from the Airline Transport Operations Group (ATOG) within CASA, has yet to be implemented allowing operators to sanction Pilots logging ICUS from the RHS on regular line ops. It has been two years since some brainiac came up with that flawed document, and my sources tell me that it has been all but buried.
In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?
Not trying to pick a fight, I simply would like to know the rationale behind it, and you seem to be the one with the answers.
Notwithstanding everything that's been said, every single para of Annex 1 ends with the phrase "...for a higher class of licence." That is, the application of ICAO annex 1 is aimed at the candidate logging ICUS for the purpose of a licence upgrade. Under ICAO annex 1 (to which Australia is a signatory), the logging of ICUS for any other purpose, ie: to satisfy the requirements of a Low Capacity AOC, is not covered!
My point is, that if Australian Regs adhere to ICAO annex 1, then if the candidate holds a CPL, he/she should only log enough ICUS to satisfy the requirements of the ATPL. If the candidate already holds an ATPL, then the provisions of ICAO Annex 1 do not apply.
Now before you start quoting CAR 5.40 swh, can you tell me why the proposal from the Airline Transport Operations Group (ATOG) within CASA, has yet to be implemented allowing operators to sanction Pilots logging ICUS from the RHS on regular line ops. It has been two years since some brainiac came up with that flawed document, and my sources tell me that it has been all but buried.
In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?
Not trying to pick a fight, I simply would like to know the rationale behind it, and you seem to be the one with the answers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICUS
I think it is because some less than admirable flying schools/charter companies have been persuading young pilots to pay for ICUS on charter flights (in single pilot aeroplanes)in order to log time in multi engined aircraft.
The organisation will have a lower wages bill that way, and the young pilots are logging twin time early, so they can go for that lucrative skygod job that they believe is waiting for them.
The organisation will have a lower wages bill that way, and the young pilots are logging twin time early, so they can go for that lucrative skygod job that they believe is waiting for them.
Last edited by bushy; 5th Apr 2009 at 23:30.
Originally Posted by inandout
SWH , thanks again, would you or Keg kindly clarify this, when on long haul flights like to LA which is around say 14hrs, do FOs log all that as ICUS OR do they deduct there rest time off this which may be say 6hrs.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Could I suggest all you "experts" have a look at ICAO Annex. 1 for the basic logging of flight hours, that is the starting point, and it is ALL QUITE SIMPLE.
Firstly, Annex 1 is part of the ICAO "International Standards and Recommended Practices", it is not law. Each ICAO state must implement the ICAO, UN or any other international agreement into their own legal system for it have a head of power and be legally enforceable. ICAO standards are not legally enforceable anywhere, you do not have ICAO police, nor an ICAO court, and ICAO does not issue licences or register aircraft either.
Australia complies with Annex 1 par 2.1.9 entirely on this point. The ICAO states which have differences to 2.1.9 includes Belarus, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, China, United States, Spain, and Ukraine.
The UK has a different way of crediting flight engineer time towards the issue of a pilots licence, and in the US, flight time as co-pilot may be credited in full toward a higher grade of licence.
That section of Annex 1 relates to how flight time is to be logged and calculated for the issue of a higher grade of pilot licence, it is silent on how flight time is logged after gaining the highest grade, or logging flight time in general. It does not limit the logging of ICUS after obtaining an ATPL, as under the licencing system which is where you find para 2.1.9 (under Licences and Ratings for Pilots), talks about the minimum requirements applicants need to have to obtain new "Licences and Ratings for Pilots".
One can, and normally does have in excess one or more areas of the minimum requirements for the issue of a licence, once you reach the minimum, you can and must still keep logging that flight time. A couple rhetorical questions, do you stop logging instrument time after you gain your CPL even if you have more than the 10 hours required ? Do you stop logging command time even if you have enough for the issue of an ATPL ? Do you stop logging co-pilot time when you get an ATPL ?
What ICAO actually says
"2.1.9 Crediting of flight time
2.1.9.1 A student pilot or the holder of a pilot licence shall be entitled to be credited in full with all solo, dual instruction and pilot-in-command flight time towards the total flight time required for the initial issue of a pilot licence or the issue of a higher grade of pilot licence.
2.1.9.2 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as copilot of an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the co-pilot flight time towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot licence.
2.1.9.3 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as co-pilot performing under the supervision of the pilot-in command the functions and duties of a pilot-in-command, shall be entitled to be credited in full with this flight time towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot licence."
To put the paragraph in context, it comes from the "General rules concerning pilot licences and ratings", it is part of Annex 1 that talks about the issue of new licences.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
To repeat, as I have every other time this nonsense comes up ----- ICUS is NOT, I say again NOT COMMAND TIME, it is exactly what it say, ICUS (NZ - Command practice, UK/SIN-P1U/S and so on)
To quote the corrigendum ICAO Annex 1 in July 2006.
"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."
CAR 1988 5.01 (3)
"For the purposes of this Part, a person flies an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision if, during flight time in the aircraft, the person performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command while under the supervision of the pilot in command approved for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft."
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Notwithstanding everything that's been said, every single para of Annex 1 ends with the phrase "...for a higher class of licence." That is, the application of ICAO annex 1 is aimed at the candidate logging ICUS for the purpose of a licence upgrade. Under ICAO annex 1 (to which Australia is a signatory), the logging of ICUS for any other purpose, ie: to satisfy the requirements of a Low Capacity AOC, is not covered!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Now before you start quoting CAR 5.40 swh, can you tell me why the proposal from the Airline Transport Operations Group (ATOG) within CASA, has yet to be implemented allowing operators to sanction Pilots logging ICUS from the RHS on regular line ops. It has been two years since some brainiac came up with that flawed document, and my sources tell me that it has been all but buried.
In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?
In addition, if CAR 5.40 neatly covers all of this, then why the need for the ATOG proposal in the first place?
Maybe that had something to do with MPL licences and ICUS, they just ended up changing 5.40 in December to say that CPL, ATPL, and MPL licence holders can log ICUS, previously only CPL and ATPL holders could.
Nunc est bibendum
inandout, it's all ICUS in the same way that it's all command time for the PIC. When I was an F/O and going on a break, I'd brief the Captain (or the S/O if the S/O was PF) as to the operation whilst I was gone- if I wanted them to climb early, climb late/ not at all, etc. Basically give them a quick overview of what the flight plan said, what the winds forecast was, what implications that had and the decision based upon current information.
They could take it or leave it but it was still me being ICUS even though I was about to disappear into the bunk.
They could take it or leave it but it was still me being ICUS even though I was about to disappear into the bunk.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what? It is all about ego, really. More and more in this CRM message of assertiveness by copilots, there have emerged two types of character. Some who are perfectly happy to be a copilot. To raise and lower the landing gear, and pick up a take off and landing here and there. They are not concerned about it being "MY leg." They are just happy to be an airline pilot and be out of GA...
Then there are the cocky bastards who sulk if not given two legs out of three as if it is their God given "right". Their chests swell with self important pride and just a weeny bit of arrogance, when the captain says "your leg" and that night, before they go to bed, they can ever so carefully, licking the tip of their idelible pencil, write in their log book: MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.
Ego is satisfied. They nominated the top of descent and this must have been a COMMAND DECISION. So ICUS it is in the log book. None of this slum dog millionaire copilot time - that's just for cadets....
The somewhat vulgar term "It's just a wank" covers the subject succintly.
Then there are the cocky bastards who sulk if not given two legs out of three as if it is their God given "right". Their chests swell with self important pride and just a weeny bit of arrogance, when the captain says "your leg" and that night, before they go to bed, they can ever so carefully, licking the tip of their idelible pencil, write in their log book: MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.
Ego is satisfied. They nominated the top of descent and this must have been a COMMAND DECISION. So ICUS it is in the log book. None of this slum dog millionaire copilot time - that's just for cadets....
The somewhat vulgar term "It's just a wank" covers the subject succintly.
Nunc est bibendum
MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.
Ego is satisfied.
Ego is satisfied.
So there goes your 'ego' line of argument. Got any other straw men you want to have a go with?
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's mentoring - not ICUS.
You can over intellectualise it as much as you like.
Logging ICUS when you're really an FO on normal line flying from the RHS is a complete sham.
If the flying has a proper training purpose - eg a cadet candidate for a captain position who has done the command endorsement and command line training and passed the line check, and is flying from the perspective of a captain (eg LHS) yet doesn't have the required command time to hold the command position unsupervised - is reasonable.
But to log a pseudo command as an FO on general day to day line flying is utter bull****.
Talk about fraud.
Logging ICUS when you're really an FO on normal line flying from the RHS is a complete sham.
If the flying has a proper training purpose - eg a cadet candidate for a captain position who has done the command endorsement and command line training and passed the line check, and is flying from the perspective of a captain (eg LHS) yet doesn't have the required command time to hold the command position unsupervised - is reasonable.
But to log a pseudo command as an FO on general day to day line flying is utter bull****.
Talk about fraud.
Last edited by Jet_A_Knight; 5th Apr 2009 at 12:43.
Once A Night,
Let me try and put it another way:
(1) We know who, how and when "Command" is logged -- by the Pilot in Command.
(2) We know (or should know -- I have seen all too many breaches of this one) who and when to log dual.
In this day and age, flight station duties are often referred to as "pilot flying" and "support pilot", or something similar, but regardless, the designated Pilot in Command always logs command, and:
(3) the co-pilot, when "support pilot", logs co-pilot time.
So, this leaves the little matter of what the co-pilot logs, when he/she is the "pilot flying", and the Captain/Pilot in Command is "support pilot".
Despite what so many of you seem to think, ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/Description of Choice IS NOT pilot in command, and there is nothing fraudulent about logging ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC as ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoS ----- because that is exactly what it is ----it is NOT logging Command time.
Last time I noticed, many Australian log books even have separate columns for ICUS, so I don't have to look at the "remarks" column, or whatever some log books call it, to see the ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC noted.
Believe me, when I am looking at pre-employment records/CVs, and I get to look at quite a few, I want to see a record of the sectors operated by the applicant ---- when he/she was a co-pilot with his/her previous employers flying multi-pilot crews ------ because, believe it or not, we still have organisations that do not (all things being equal) fly leg for leg.
If the whole sodding lot, for a co-pilot, is logged as "co-pilot", regardless of who was doing what to whom, I only have the applicant's word for the actual "hands on" time, and I am far from the only one who puts a high value on "stick and rudder" time, logged so that I can double check the VH-BIC time.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The current QANTAS arrangements precisely comply with Annex I (and "satisfy" CASA) to the last legal dotted i and crossed t, despite what some of you bush lawyers seem to think. It was not always so!!
Let me try and put it another way:
(1) We know who, how and when "Command" is logged -- by the Pilot in Command.
(2) We know (or should know -- I have seen all too many breaches of this one) who and when to log dual.
In this day and age, flight station duties are often referred to as "pilot flying" and "support pilot", or something similar, but regardless, the designated Pilot in Command always logs command, and:
(3) the co-pilot, when "support pilot", logs co-pilot time.
So, this leaves the little matter of what the co-pilot logs, when he/she is the "pilot flying", and the Captain/Pilot in Command is "support pilot".
Despite what so many of you seem to think, ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/Description of Choice IS NOT pilot in command, and there is nothing fraudulent about logging ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC as ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoS ----- because that is exactly what it is ----it is NOT logging Command time.
Last time I noticed, many Australian log books even have separate columns for ICUS, so I don't have to look at the "remarks" column, or whatever some log books call it, to see the ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC noted.
Believe me, when I am looking at pre-employment records/CVs, and I get to look at quite a few, I want to see a record of the sectors operated by the applicant ---- when he/she was a co-pilot with his/her previous employers flying multi-pilot crews ------ because, believe it or not, we still have organisations that do not (all things being equal) fly leg for leg.
If the whole sodding lot, for a co-pilot, is logged as "co-pilot", regardless of who was doing what to whom, I only have the applicant's word for the actual "hands on" time, and I am far from the only one who puts a high value on "stick and rudder" time, logged so that I can double check the VH-BIC time.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The current QANTAS arrangements precisely comply with Annex I (and "satisfy" CASA) to the last legal dotted i and crossed t, despite what some of you bush lawyers seem to think. It was not always so!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what? It is all about ego, really. More and more in this CRM message of assertiveness by copilots, there have emerged two types of character. Some who are perfectly happy to be a copilot. To raise and lower the landing gear, and pick up a take off and landing here and there. They are not concerned about it being "MY leg." They are just happy to be an airline pilot and be out of GA...
Then there are the cocky bastards who sulk if not given two legs out of three as if it is their God given "right". Their chests swell with self important pride and just a weeny bit of arrogance, when the captain says "your leg" and that night, before they go to bed, they can ever so carefully, licking the tip of their idelible pencil, write in their log book: MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.
Ego is satisfied. They nominated the top of descent and this must have been a COMMAND DECISION. So ICUS it is in the log book. None of this slum dog millionaire copilot time - that's just for cadets....
The somewhat vulgar term "It's just a wank" covers the subject succintly.
Then there are the cocky bastards who sulk if not given two legs out of three as if it is their God given "right". Their chests swell with self important pride and just a weeny bit of arrogance, when the captain says "your leg" and that night, before they go to bed, they can ever so carefully, licking the tip of their idelible pencil, write in their log book: MEL-SYD 1.5 hours. Pilot in Command....self. And if they are honest will add in tiny letters the word icus.
Ego is satisfied. They nominated the top of descent and this must have been a COMMAND DECISION. So ICUS it is in the log book. None of this slum dog millionaire copilot time - that's just for cadets....
The somewhat vulgar term "It's just a wank" covers the subject succintly.
Spot on A37575. It's the fluffy grey rules that "are left to the operator" that are wide open to abuse.
The accountants must love being able to interpret such rules!
bbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another type?
You know what? It is all about ego, really. More and more in this CRM message of assertiveness by copilots, there have emerged two types of character.
Those FO's who just fly and log whatever their company directs them to log, and HOPE TO GOD that they aren't rostered on with some condescending, arrogant, obnoxious pig of a captain who's convinced that he's damned if he's going to allow some "CRM bullsh1t" stop him letting an FO do anything more than:
To raise and lower the landing gear, and pick up a take off and landing here and there
Probably more of that type than some posters might think...
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite what so many of you seem to think, ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/Description of Choice IS NOT pilot in command, and there is nothing fraudulent about logging ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoC as ICUS/P1U/S/Command Practice/DoS ----- because that is exactly what it is ----it is NOT logging Command time.
If the whole sodding lot, for a co-pilot, is logged as "co-pilot", regardless of who was doing what to whom, I only have the applicant's word for the actual "hands on" time, and I am far from the only one who puts a high value on "stick and rudder" time, logged so that I can double check the VH-BIC time.
So how does the FO who flies for a company that doesn't use these rubbery figures log their time to satisfy your suspicions??
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet A Knight,
Why are you so upset about the logging of ICUS?
Has it occured to you that what the Qantas F/O's (amongst others) do is exactly what CASA INTENDS by the ICUS rule? If it wasn't, I'm sure the definition would change back!
It isn't "rubbery figures"... it is what the regs say they are to log!
Airlines are fully aware what ICUS means, and no-one pretends it is command time... so what is the problem?
Why are you so upset about the logging of ICUS?
Has it occured to you that what the Qantas F/O's (amongst others) do is exactly what CASA INTENDS by the ICUS rule? If it wasn't, I'm sure the definition would change back!
It isn't "rubbery figures"... it is what the regs say they are to log!
Airlines are fully aware what ICUS means, and no-one pretends it is command time... so what is the problem?
I think the problem is when ICUS is not really ICUS! ie: What does the "Supervision" component of ICUS entail? If it is merely the fact that the "real" Captain is present on the flightdeck, then that could mean anything! I know of Captains who are concientious enough to embrace the spirit of a supervisory role. They would undoubtably encourage "command" decisions by the more junior pilot, and to that end the exercise would have some merit, albeit adhoc!
On the other hand, I know of a similar number that would treat the flight as a normal line operation and make no effort to "play teacher". And frankly, why should they? Without continuity, how can any ICUS under these circumstances be viewed with anything other than suspicion.
My point is, that without a structured program, supervised by a properly trained Captain, is ICUS really ICUS? Or does the integrity of the "S" really not matter?
On the other hand, I know of a similar number that would treat the flight as a normal line operation and make no effort to "play teacher". And frankly, why should they? Without continuity, how can any ICUS under these circumstances be viewed with anything other than suspicion.
My point is, that without a structured program, supervised by a properly trained Captain, is ICUS really ICUS? Or does the integrity of the "S" really not matter?