Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS?
I recall that in the old days, a pilot needed 500 hours as pilot in command in order to qualify for the First Class ATPL. And you could only hold any class of ATPL if you were employed by an airline. Other than that you needed a Senior Commercial Pilots Licence (SCPL) to fly something over 5700 kgs in command. The 500 command for a SCPL and the First Class ATPL was real command as ICUS wasn't invented then. Even if you had flown 500 hours in command on Tiger Moths that met the requirement. The problem arose when Qantas cadets with a bare 200 hours CPL who eventually became F/O's, never had that 500 hours in command on anything (gliders didn't count) and so an F/O with 15 years in the job on DC3's, Connies, 707's and DC4's could never qualify for a command.
Qantas then bought a couple of HS 125's and they had a spare DC3 or two. Operating from Avalon, experienced F/O's were checked out in command of these types and let loose to fly around the country to eventually pick up the required min hours. Once they reached the magic 500 command hours, their Second Class ATPL was changed to First Class and the new Qantas captain took his place in the left seat on commercial operations.
Now I might be on thin ice here, but as the costs of operating real training aircraft mounted just to allow Qantas F/O's to get 500 command, someone thought of leaning on DCA to stretch the rules. Qantas have always exerted considerable leverage on DCA/DoT/CASA or whathaveyou. ICUS was the way to go and so ICUS was invented to suit Qantas. Very soon ICAO followed. I have a vague idea the 500 command time was whittled down to 250 command and another 250 ICUS. Australia had a fair amount of muscle in ICAO and the rules were changed. That is why the current ATPL allows a set amount of ICUS towards qualifying. The old First Class and Second Class ATPL disappeared.
While closely supervised ICUS (never happens of course) was originally designed towards the purpose of reaching 500 hours mixed command and ICUS, once the magic 500 had been reached there was no point in further logging of ICUS and so a copilot reverted to logging copilot time regardless if he was given a leg or not.
Then some one realised you needed 10 hours command on type in the GA world of Chieftain's and Barons in order to qualify to fly in command on charter. So, 10 hours ICUS was allowed to replace command. After that GA went mad and every man and his dog started to log ICUS because it looked better in the log book than copilot time.
And so ICUS became the de facto copilot time and in Qantas a copilot would have logged well over 5000 hours ICUS by the time his seniority number came up. In fact this has it's good points if the pilot is looking for a job in India for example. Point to a thousand hours of ICUS in your log book and produce a letter from your chief pilot stating that Australian ICUS is really in command by another name since all the decisions are made by the ICUS pilot, then chances are you may get a direct entry command on the jet ICUS type. I know for sure it worked with one 737 first officer and he has never looked back since then.
But really, once you have reached the minimum mixture of 500 hours command and ICUS to qualify for the Australian ATPL, there is little point in pleading for more and more ICUS unless you want to fly in India..
Qantas then bought a couple of HS 125's and they had a spare DC3 or two. Operating from Avalon, experienced F/O's were checked out in command of these types and let loose to fly around the country to eventually pick up the required min hours. Once they reached the magic 500 command hours, their Second Class ATPL was changed to First Class and the new Qantas captain took his place in the left seat on commercial operations.
Now I might be on thin ice here, but as the costs of operating real training aircraft mounted just to allow Qantas F/O's to get 500 command, someone thought of leaning on DCA to stretch the rules. Qantas have always exerted considerable leverage on DCA/DoT/CASA or whathaveyou. ICUS was the way to go and so ICUS was invented to suit Qantas. Very soon ICAO followed. I have a vague idea the 500 command time was whittled down to 250 command and another 250 ICUS. Australia had a fair amount of muscle in ICAO and the rules were changed. That is why the current ATPL allows a set amount of ICUS towards qualifying. The old First Class and Second Class ATPL disappeared.
While closely supervised ICUS (never happens of course) was originally designed towards the purpose of reaching 500 hours mixed command and ICUS, once the magic 500 had been reached there was no point in further logging of ICUS and so a copilot reverted to logging copilot time regardless if he was given a leg or not.
Then some one realised you needed 10 hours command on type in the GA world of Chieftain's and Barons in order to qualify to fly in command on charter. So, 10 hours ICUS was allowed to replace command. After that GA went mad and every man and his dog started to log ICUS because it looked better in the log book than copilot time.
And so ICUS became the de facto copilot time and in Qantas a copilot would have logged well over 5000 hours ICUS by the time his seniority number came up. In fact this has it's good points if the pilot is looking for a job in India for example. Point to a thousand hours of ICUS in your log book and produce a letter from your chief pilot stating that Australian ICUS is really in command by another name since all the decisions are made by the ICUS pilot, then chances are you may get a direct entry command on the jet ICUS type. I know for sure it worked with one 737 first officer and he has never looked back since then.
But really, once you have reached the minimum mixture of 500 hours command and ICUS to qualify for the Australian ATPL, there is little point in pleading for more and more ICUS unless you want to fly in India..
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still distorts the total aeronautical experience.
Compare two examples:
1) PPL Holder hires a C152 for an hour of circuits as they build hours towards CPL.
2) FO in an RPT operation is made responsible for all decision making and aircraft handling (with supervision by a Captain) on a sector of one hour, including conduct of flight planning, weather diversion and an instrument approach.
Has the FO not earned a full hour in the log book (rather than the 0.5 he would earn as Co-pilot)? Or is it fair to say that the PPL holder is accruing aeronautical experience twice as fast?
Right - I'm off to supervise a Captain for the day!
Icarus
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeronautical Experience is a very broad assessment of someones ability.
Who has the greater experience between a guy with 2000hrs TT sitting in the right hand seat of a C152 doing laps around the circuit as an instructor or the guy with 2000hrs operating as an FO on turbo prop/jet RPT operations.
I would rather sit next to the later as I am sure most others would also. I am sure Joe Public would think so as well.
I guess CASA just needs to draw a line somewhere and let the Professionalism and High Standards of a companies Check and Training Department to sort out the experienced from the inexperienced.
Who has the greater experience between a guy with 2000hrs TT sitting in the right hand seat of a C152 doing laps around the circuit as an instructor or the guy with 2000hrs operating as an FO on turbo prop/jet RPT operations.
I would rather sit next to the later as I am sure most others would also. I am sure Joe Public would think so as well.
I guess CASA just needs to draw a line somewhere and let the Professionalism and High Standards of a companies Check and Training Department to sort out the experienced from the inexperienced.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we discuss the legalities about FO's logging ICUS when PF on normal line flights.
Are all Qantas line captains designated as 'Supervisory Captains' and specifically assigned as such on normal line flight????
Are all Qantas line captains designated as 'Supervisory Captains' and specifically assigned as such on normal line flight????
Nunc est bibendum
The Qantas Flight Administration Manual states that all 'landee Captains' (a non-landee captain can't give away a sector anyway) are authorised to supervise ICUS sectors being operated by F/Os. Remember that the FAM is authorised by CASA.
So in a word, 'yes'.
Are all Qantas line captains designated as 'Supervisory Captains' and specifically assigned as such on normal line flight????
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't deny that it is in compliance with the regs.
I don't have a problem with ICUS per se, for example, the purpose of command training or candidates who have passed their command check (not just command endorsement), and require to act in command under supervision until they meet the minimum hours required to operate unsupervised.
I still maintain that - legal or not - the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility , makes FO's logging ICUS on day to day line ops - a sham.
At the end of the day, you take whatever you can get - if the company has the approvals for it.
Happy landings.
I don't have a problem with ICUS per se, for example, the purpose of command training or candidates who have passed their command check (not just command endorsement), and require to act in command under supervision until they meet the minimum hours required to operate unsupervised.
I still maintain that - legal or not - the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility , makes FO's logging ICUS on day to day line ops - a sham.
At the end of the day, you take whatever you can get - if the company has the approvals for it.
Happy landings.
It certainly is pure slog Keg, as many a poster here can testify. What I'm really fishing for however is the logging of ICUS by QF F/O's not under command training, which of course is what this post is all about.
Did you log ICUS from the RHS prior to commencement of your Command training. If so, did the "Supervisory" Captain have a syllabus or some other format to follow??
Did you log ICUS from the RHS prior to commencement of your Command training. If so, did the "Supervisory" Captain have a syllabus or some other format to follow??
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Syllabus for "Supervision"???
Captain's Command responsibility
the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility
Nunc est bibendum
Krusty, I've logged ICUS in the RHS since I was given a command endorsement on the 767 in about 2000. Interestingly, I think command training (when I was in the LHS) is considered dual.
The requirements is in the FAM:
I'm not sure why there has to be a 'syllabus' though. There are a bunch of requirements to satisfy so I guess in some respects that's a syllabus but the reality is that if the F/O is ICUS.
I agree but if they F/O does all of the above including covering off all aspects of CAR224, 233, 239, 244, 245, 139, 145, 234, etc, etc, with me providing the supervision then have they not operated ICUS?
The requirements is in the FAM:
In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) involves:
• the pilot ICUS making all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the
aircraft;
• the pilot holding a command aircraft endorsement and a command instrument rating if the flying activities require such a rating;
• the operator permitting the person to fly the aircraft as pilot ICUS;
• the Pilot-In-Command of the aircraft being appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft;
• the requirements of CAR 5.40 being fulfilled.
Apart from the normal management roles and designated procedures associated with the First Officer as Pilot Flying (PF), ICUS should include:
• all aspects of flight planning;
• appraisal of aircraft Technical Log and liaison with Ground Engineering;
• consideration of items included in CAR 233, Responsibility of Pilot-In-Command Before Flight;
• consideration of requirements relating to meteorological conditions of destination and alternate aerodromes;
• the responsibility to ensure that the operation at all times complies with the Company fuel policy;
• progressive management of the flight;
• any other aspect of the flight that the Captain would normally manage.
Note: Only Landee Captains are approved to supervise ICUS sectors.
The intent of ICUS is that the First Officer is supervised and allowed to make the relevant decisions. However, Captains are reminded that this does not relieve them of the responsibilities of Pilot-In-Command.
• the pilot ICUS making all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the
aircraft;
• the pilot holding a command aircraft endorsement and a command instrument rating if the flying activities require such a rating;
• the operator permitting the person to fly the aircraft as pilot ICUS;
• the Pilot-In-Command of the aircraft being appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft;
• the requirements of CAR 5.40 being fulfilled.
Apart from the normal management roles and designated procedures associated with the First Officer as Pilot Flying (PF), ICUS should include:
• all aspects of flight planning;
• appraisal of aircraft Technical Log and liaison with Ground Engineering;
• consideration of items included in CAR 233, Responsibility of Pilot-In-Command Before Flight;
• consideration of requirements relating to meteorological conditions of destination and alternate aerodromes;
• the responsibility to ensure that the operation at all times complies with the Company fuel policy;
• progressive management of the flight;
• any other aspect of the flight that the Captain would normally manage.
Note: Only Landee Captains are approved to supervise ICUS sectors.
The intent of ICUS is that the First Officer is supervised and allowed to make the relevant decisions. However, Captains are reminded that this does not relieve them of the responsibilities of Pilot-In-Command.
...the difference between making run of the mill operational decisions (like poling /FCU-ing around etc) under the watchful (and countermanding) eye of the Captain, and a Captain's Command responsibility.
Having never logged ICUS in my entire career in the RAAF, GA and airlines, I wondered why the eagerness for some pilots to log ICUS rather than copilot time? After all, presumably you are still a copilot with all the usual responsibilities that the position implies and that includes Second in Command.
For example, is there some sort of perceived increase in crew pecking order or status involved - like wearing an additional stripe, extra pay, or perhaps more street cred with the hosties, when compared to logging copilot time? If none of the above, what is the great attraction therefore, of hundreds or even thousands of hours of logged ICUS versus the same hours in the copilot column of your log book?
For example, is there some sort of perceived increase in crew pecking order or status involved - like wearing an additional stripe, extra pay, or perhaps more street cred with the hosties, when compared to logging copilot time? If none of the above, what is the great attraction therefore, of hundreds or even thousands of hours of logged ICUS versus the same hours in the copilot column of your log book?
Centaurus,
What a wonderful construction, based on half facts, half fiction, and half wishful thinking, making 150% rubbish.
Before you work so hard on your RSI, why not do a bit of research !!.
Until about 1965, ALL Qantas F/Os had an ATPL/ command endorsement on the aeroplane, and flew a sector from the LHS. This made it very easy to slip off to, say, Cathay or MEA.
Then somebody had a really bright idea, lets issue something called a "Second Class ATPL/IR" and stamp the back "endorsed to first class standard", then notify a difference to ICAO that this satisfied the ICAO requirement for two ATPL/ALTP/ATR license holders on international flights. Time took care of the remaining F/Os with a "real" ATPL.
For good measure, Australia notified a further difference,that Australian ATPL/SCPL/CPL were not ICAO compliant, this is the basis for the problems of Australian license recognition in many countries (not UK CAA/FAA, where problems were/are a "policy" matter).
In an era when industrial relations were really poisonous, this made it just that little more difficult for Australian pilots to get a job outside the country.
The Australian PPL was, then, the only ICAO compliant license issued by Australia.
For many years thereafter, due to an alleged bottom drawer deal with DCA, a QF F/O flying a leg (still from the LHS) logged DUAL, not P2 or ICUS. Given the definition of "dual", carrying passengers??? Strange but true.
A lot of the other things you are confusing, for the apparent purpose of constructing another conspiracy against QF cadets, involved QF "promotional criteria", NOT ICAO and/or DCA et al requirements for the issue of the ATPL license. Indeed, the QF cadets of that era were all farmed out around Australia, PNG and the Pacific, and only came back in to QF to start S/O training after they had accumulated 1000-2000 hours. No grounds for a dirty deal, or pressure on ICAO there!!
If you have any doubts about hours required by ICAO, have a look at the UK records, including the BEA/BOAC cadets, from the early '60's, who were on an airline flight deck as an F/O with about 210-230 hours total. Indeed, what BEA/BOAC/Lufthansa etc. were doing then was almost identical to the Multi-Crew Pilot License now. T'was all "ICAO". No 500 hours "real" command there.
In the '70's, a swag of pilots, surplus to QF requirements (the first oil price shock -- the remaining 707's dissappeared two years ahead of the "pre-shock" plan") went offshore. All of a sudden, all the "dual" had to be re-written as ICUS (no rule changes) for presentaion to UK CAA/FAA/DCA Ireland/Zambia/Lebanon/Jordan/Singapore etc.--- log books suitably stamped by QF ---- to DCA (or whatever it was by then) regulations/ICAO ---- as per the inside page of a DCA log book, CA-7, read in conjunction with the Air Navigation Act 192?and the Air Navigation Regulations ---- The CAAct/CARs/CASRs/CAOs etc came much later.
QF F/Os moved permanently to the RHS in approx. the mid/late '70's.
Issuing QF F/Os with a proper ATPL (ICAO) license AGAIN, only came about quite recently, with pressure on Australia to become ICAO compliant, we have a long way to go.
From memory, the basis of the present so complicated regulations appeared in late '80's or early '90's, all because of just one FOI ,who got the same bee in his bonnet about "ICUS" as quite a few of you. Interestingly, to this day, he is an FOI with nil operational experience in other than single pilot operations.
Tootle pip!!
What a wonderful construction, based on half facts, half fiction, and half wishful thinking, making 150% rubbish.
Before you work so hard on your RSI, why not do a bit of research !!.
Until about 1965, ALL Qantas F/Os had an ATPL/ command endorsement on the aeroplane, and flew a sector from the LHS. This made it very easy to slip off to, say, Cathay or MEA.
Then somebody had a really bright idea, lets issue something called a "Second Class ATPL/IR" and stamp the back "endorsed to first class standard", then notify a difference to ICAO that this satisfied the ICAO requirement for two ATPL/ALTP/ATR license holders on international flights. Time took care of the remaining F/Os with a "real" ATPL.
For good measure, Australia notified a further difference,that Australian ATPL/SCPL/CPL were not ICAO compliant, this is the basis for the problems of Australian license recognition in many countries (not UK CAA/FAA, where problems were/are a "policy" matter).
In an era when industrial relations were really poisonous, this made it just that little more difficult for Australian pilots to get a job outside the country.
The Australian PPL was, then, the only ICAO compliant license issued by Australia.
For many years thereafter, due to an alleged bottom drawer deal with DCA, a QF F/O flying a leg (still from the LHS) logged DUAL, not P2 or ICUS. Given the definition of "dual", carrying passengers??? Strange but true.
A lot of the other things you are confusing, for the apparent purpose of constructing another conspiracy against QF cadets, involved QF "promotional criteria", NOT ICAO and/or DCA et al requirements for the issue of the ATPL license. Indeed, the QF cadets of that era were all farmed out around Australia, PNG and the Pacific, and only came back in to QF to start S/O training after they had accumulated 1000-2000 hours. No grounds for a dirty deal, or pressure on ICAO there!!
If you have any doubts about hours required by ICAO, have a look at the UK records, including the BEA/BOAC cadets, from the early '60's, who were on an airline flight deck as an F/O with about 210-230 hours total. Indeed, what BEA/BOAC/Lufthansa etc. were doing then was almost identical to the Multi-Crew Pilot License now. T'was all "ICAO". No 500 hours "real" command there.
In the '70's, a swag of pilots, surplus to QF requirements (the first oil price shock -- the remaining 707's dissappeared two years ahead of the "pre-shock" plan") went offshore. All of a sudden, all the "dual" had to be re-written as ICUS (no rule changes) for presentaion to UK CAA/FAA/DCA Ireland/Zambia/Lebanon/Jordan/Singapore etc.--- log books suitably stamped by QF ---- to DCA (or whatever it was by then) regulations/ICAO ---- as per the inside page of a DCA log book, CA-7, read in conjunction with the Air Navigation Act 192?and the Air Navigation Regulations ---- The CAAct/CARs/CASRs/CAOs etc came much later.
QF F/Os moved permanently to the RHS in approx. the mid/late '70's.
Issuing QF F/Os with a proper ATPL (ICAO) license AGAIN, only came about quite recently, with pressure on Australia to become ICAO compliant, we have a long way to go.
From memory, the basis of the present so complicated regulations appeared in late '80's or early '90's, all because of just one FOI ,who got the same bee in his bonnet about "ICUS" as quite a few of you. Interestingly, to this day, he is an FOI with nil operational experience in other than single pilot operations.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Apr 2009 at 15:45.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisvegas
Age: 46
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic seems to pop up on pprune every 6 months or so. I am curious....for those of you that DO NOT work for QF....why do you seem so upset that QF F/O's are logging ICUS? Bear in mind (and this has been stated many times) that the process is approved by CASA and is part of company procedure. Why does this process cause so much distress to so many out there?
Centaurus,
What a wonderful construction, based on half facts, half fiction, and half wishful thinking, making 150% rubbish.
Before you work so hard on your RSI, why not do a bit of research !!.
What a wonderful construction, based on half facts, half fiction, and half wishful thinking, making 150% rubbish.
Before you work so hard on your RSI, why not do a bit of research !!.
You certainly have a way with words old chap. Pity about the venom with which they are delivered if only because your attitude wreaks of scorn when well meaning individuals don't get their perceived facts right.
You are quite correct in saying that in earlier years, the first officer in QF was permitted to operate from the left seat when the captain decided. That may have originated from normal procedure in the RAAF on various multi-engine bombers and transports. The RAAF rules required the second pilot (first officer in civil parlance) log copilot time regardless of from what seat he operated.
Apart from the nasty little streak in the opening sentence, the rest of your explanation is informative and I am sure, factual. Thanks for going to the trouble of setting the record straight..
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And TAA pilots used to be sent to Alice Springs and Darwin to get some command time on DH Doves and Nomads, so they could be upgraded.
They did schedued clinic flights and left the emergency evacuations to the RFDS.
Leadsled has come up with a very informative post. (as always)
I thought our "safety regulator" was there to ensure that the best possible safety was maintained, and did not interfere with the commercial aspects of civil aviation.
I even thought they were independent.
Silly me.
They did schedued clinic flights and left the emergency evacuations to the RFDS.
Leadsled has come up with a very informative post. (as always)
I thought our "safety regulator" was there to ensure that the best possible safety was maintained, and did not interfere with the commercial aspects of civil aviation.
I even thought they were independent.
Silly me.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled has come up with a very informative post. (as always)
