Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS?

[KRUSTY 34]

This whole thing has been debated (at length) before. Even after all the previous discussion, it appears that a definitive clause in the Regs allowing this caper was not forthcoming. My interpretation is that with ICUS the emphasis must be on the (S), and Supervision should mean just that. A structured program under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain, not some half arsed expedient to satisfy the bleating of employers because they are unable to attract "experienced" pilots!

With Ref to CAR 5.40, I would have thought that the licence required to fly in command, (ICUS included) for RPT aircraft above 5700kg MTOW would have to be an ATPL. How the hell can you log any command time if you are not qualified to "command" the operation on anything less than that class of licence!

[Icarus53]

For example if during flight the ICUS pilot is subject to correction because of a decision he has made, then ICUS for the flight is nullified and copilot time logged.

By this rationale, if the Captain makes an error and is corrected by the FO - shouldn't he log Co-pilot too?

Seems to me that ICUS shouldn't be nullified simply because a degree of supervision was applied. That's what the "US" bit means. All of this seems to me to be just good teamwork/CRM, rather than a change in command arrangement. I could see your point of the Captain was forced to take over control of the flight because the safety of the flight was in jeopardy - but otherwise, the FO has still been given responsibility for commanding the flight ("US").

[bushy]

Rubbery rules??

Krusty
I agree with you, and I argued some time ago that surely it must be necessary to have an ATPL in order to get a command endorsement on an aeroplane that was over 5700 kg.
And a command endorsement is necessary for ICUS.
But apparently this is an "inconvenient truth" which can be ignored by the chosen ones in the chosen organisations.
Rubbery rules???
Are these things done in order to commercially manipulate the industry?????

[farrari]

Keg,Re QF 2nd officers, do they log the whole 14hrs over to say LA as Co Pilot or only the time they are sitting in one of the two front seats. What do they log when in the Jump Seat.
When you have a FO and 2nd officer up front what does the FO log.

[max autobrakes]

How does F/O crosswind limits affect this theory. They obviously don't hold a full command endorsement if they have lower limits than what the aircraft is certified to.

[Bullethead]

farrari

During line ops F/Os only log ICUS or co-pilot, S/Os only ever log co-pilot. The whole sector is logged whether on the flight deck or not. The only one who logs command time is the Captain.

max autobrakes

To hold a command endorsement a F/O has to fly to the aeroplane limits and charted approach minima in the simulator but is restricted during line operations as far as crosswind strength and departure and arrival weather conditions.

Regards,
BH.

[Keg]

....and if the F/O loses the takeoff or landing due to the conditions being outside the (more restrictive) company requirements then none of the flight is logged as ICUS.

Max, company limitations are just that and exist for all sorts of different reasons. Many operators would restrict their crews- even single pilot crews- to less than what is allowed under aircraft performance limits and/or CAO/CAR requirements for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the fact that they hold a command endorsement on the aircraft.

[farrari]

Bullethead, Thanks for that. but when you have an FO and 2nd officer up front how can the FO log ICUS when they are not actually been supervised by the Captain who is off the deck, or is this when they log Co Pilot time and only log ICUS when siting with a Captain.Also if the 2nd offficer had a command rating on type then wouldn't they be able to log ICUS time??????

[desmotronic]

What a joke. SO logs copilot when not even occupying a pilot seat, FO logs command without a licence to command the aircraft. By this rationale flight attendants with a ppl should log their flight time as well.

[harrowing]

desmotronic,
An F/A a couple of years ago suggested the F/A should be second in command because some of the new F/Os had only been in the company for six months or so and she had been in over a year! When asked what would she do if ...... she replied she didn't realise any of that was involved.
On a similar vein, one of our CRM instructors used to begin the sessions with a comment that when he first got his command he wondered what had happened to his flying skills. A couple of more experienced captains explained there was a lot more involved in command than just keeping the needles in the right place, and that you have more on your mind than just making a good approach or PA.

[inandout]

Well at VA that's not far off as the FM earns more than the CRFO

[Bullethead]

farrari

When it is the Captain's turn for a break he would discuss with the F/O any operational spects likely to come up during that break and possible courses of action so there is that level of supervision.

I remember some Captains remarking not to call them out of crew rest at all and others wanting a call if anything odd happened. It depends on the individual.

I was F/O on a B744 yars ago en-route SYD-LAX and I was on duty with a very junior S/O and we had a generator problem which required a disconnect. Junior S/O wanted to drag the Captain out of bed to sort things out but I discussed the situation with her and we did the checklist and disconnected the generator. When the Captain came back on duty I briefed him as to what had happened and all he said was. "OK, thanks."

I don't think 'supervision' means the Captain has to be breathing down the F/Os neck all the time. Both are required on duty for departures and arrivals.

As for S/Os logging total time only half of it counts towards aeronautical experience.

As for S/Os joining QANTAS already having a command endorsement, highly unlikely but it has happened, though as QANTAS second officers are not licenced to do take offs and landings they can't satisfy the ICUS requirements, i.e. fly the sector.

Regards,
BH.

[kmagyoyo]

Carriers from every other country I can think of need 2 CPTs and 2 F/Os.

Hong Kong lets CX skin that cat with One CN, two FOs and an SO.

NZ do it three man- CN, FO and SO (poor bastards).

I'm unfamiliar with the Aussie rules, all QF FOs have command ratings but do they all have ATPLs? I guess they'd need one to have a 'command rating' yes?

[KRUSTY 34]

You'd think so kmagyoyo, but apparently not? REX pilots are given a command endorsement on the SAAB (yes it is above 5700kg) at time of their initial training. The majority of new REX recruits only have CPLs and many are a long way from qualifying for the ATPL. A situation that would not have been tolerated just a few years back.

I do believe that aircraft above 5700kg can be operated by pilots holding licences less than the ATPL, but not in command on RPT, and Charter ops. As the command endorsement does not take place on commercial ops, perhaps it is this aspect that allows the issue of a "command" endorsement to individuals that are not yet permitted to exercise the privilige of command on the line in anything but PVT or AWK?

As far as being in command on commercial ops (ICUS or otherwise), my understanding is that the minimum catagory of licence must be a class 1 ATPL.

[A37575]

All of this seems to me to be just good teamwork/CRM, rather than a change in command arrangement

I wondered when this "teamwork/CRM" bulldust would surface in this discussion. It didn't take long....

[A37575]

On a similar vein, one of our CRM instructors used to begin the sessions with a comment that when he first got his command he wondered what had happened to his flying skills.

That is an easy one. He lost his flying skills and gained data processing input skills via the automatics. Fact of life in almost every airline with glass cockpits. Read recent accident reports such as Flash Air, Adam Air, Turkish Airlines, and then for the classic proof of the loss of flying skills you only have to remember the Jogjakarta Garuda 737 crash with 220 knots over the fence instead of 135 knots. Result a burnt out aircraft and numerous dead.

[bushy]

We have rubbery rules Krusty.

[Keg]

Example. ICUS pilot is high on profile and is slow to get back on profile despite urging by the captain. ICUS immediately nullified. Logs copilot time for that leg.
Second example, in cruise with weather ahead the ICUS pilot decides to deviate off track and the captain disagrees, the logging of ICUS is immediately revoked for that leg.

It depends on whether the Captain took over or it the situation was just a genuine sharing of information. Did the Captain have to take over on descent? Did the Captain have to tell the F/O how to get back on profile? Was the F/O thinking that there would be a significant wind change/ track miles/ whatever that would impact on the profile? Was the 'urging' by the Captain highlighting that the expected change would not come? Unless the Captain has to 'direct' the F/O on what to do then I'm not sure that simply 'urging' would be enough to abrogate the ICUS requirements.

When it's my sector I'll often throw the 'whaddya reckon...' question to F/Os when it comes to weather diversions to both confirm where their head is at and to make sure I haven't missed something. The reality is that if the F/O wants to divert off track and it's not going to further complicate the situation then I'm happy for them to do it. We can talk about whether it was the right/wrong, efficient/inefficient decision along the way or after it's done and dusted. That doesn't change that the F/O was still IC under my S.

The reality that both examples are a bit thin with respect to information. However given the flimsiness of the examples then I don't think that you can hold a position that says they're [b]NOT[b] ICUS flights.

I wondered when this "teamwork/CRM" bulldust would surface in this discussion.

It appears you structure your working environment different to mine- and a number of other contributors on this forum also. That the way you choose to do things doesn't allow for any supervision or teamwork shouldn't detract from the rest of us that are quite capable of providing input and information without having to take over and still enable the operation to be an ICUS flight.

[swh]

Originally Posted by Tee Emm

In other words, copilot time is a thing of the past, thus neatly removing the requirement to half copilot time for purposes of aeronautical experience?

No, ICUS time is co-pilot time, only one person logs command time, that is the PIC.

People are confusing "Pilot in Command" (as defined under CAR 1988 224 Pilot in command), and logging of flight time. ICUS is defined as "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 A Comfy Chair

Are you suggesting that every flight an F/O operates (either as PF or PNF) will in the future be logged as ICUS? That I highly doubt, as it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the ICUS requirements.

That is correct, the ICUS requirements do not talk about PF/PNF/PM "roles", or the rank which the pilot holds with the operator.

For example an F/O that does not have the command endorsement cannot log ICUS, and if a qualified F/O who has been assigned by the operator to do ICUS goes to the bathroom, that does not stop them from logging ICUS on that sector.

Originally Posted by 43Inches

The CAR's state only that the ICUS pilot is assigned as co-pilot of the aircraft, there is no mention of who must manipulate the controls.

That is correct, the PIC does not need to sit in a control seat at any stage during a flight. However an operator may specify more restrictive conditions in their internal operations manual.

Originally Posted by 43Inches

Unless QF has a different set of regs.

Any operator can have a stricter internal regulation than the legal minimum outlined in their manuals. Some confusion on this thread between the legal minimum set out by CASA, and the QF company minimum which is more restrictive.

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Common sense would suggest you would be the pilot flying! Maybe that's too simplistic!

It is. The PF/PNF/PM role is not defined under ICUS rules. When a F/O who hands over for example to setup the box or brief the approach still can log ICUS. Likewise a crew undertaking a flight test on a multi-crew aircraft, with the testing officer being the PIC in the jump seat, the pilot in the left AND right hand seats can both log ICUS if they have the appropriate qualifications AND the operator has assigned that duty to each pilot.

The pay "rank" the operator associates with the pilots is irrelevant in this example, as only one PIC can be on any flight. Both pilots in the control seats are legally just "co-pilots". If they are performing 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" (CAR 1988 5.01(3)), they can log ICUS.

The PIC does not need to occupy a control seat, or manipulate the controls at any stage during a flight, refer to CAR 1988 224.

CASA does not restrict the number of "co-pilots" that an operator may assign to any flight, and a "co-pilot" is any other person other than the PIC. If the operator assigns the rank of captain to a pilot, that does not automatically mean the are the PIC either. If two pilots with the rank of "captain" fly together, one will be assigned by the operator as the PIC, and the other is a "co-pilot".

Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere

FAM 4.13.1 (page 4.24). First dot point.

F/Os have been able to log ICUS for years. Cheers.

This is how QF covers the "the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision" in 5.40.

Originally Posted by Casper

There was a time when ICUS could be logged ONLY when the applicant was undergoing rostered command upgrade training. Having a command endorsement had nothing to do with the issue of being in command of the flight.

That can still happen today, if the operator specifies that in their manuals.

Originally Posted by slice

So let me get this right, I have a command endorsement on 737NG and when I am the PF (FO) I can log it as ICUS ?? Does not sound correct to me but I stand to be corrected!

Only IF you have been ASSIGNED that role by the operator.

Originally Posted by A37575

On the other side of the coin, under UK regs for instance, ICUS or PICUS can only be logged if at no stage in any part of the flight- including flight planning - the captain sees fit to counter command any operational decision made by the ICUS pilot. For example if during flight the ICUS pilot is subject to correction because of a decision he has made, then ICUS for the flight is nullified and copilot time logged.

That is not correct.

The UK rules say when all duties and functions of the PIC were carried out, such that the PIC did not need to intervene in the interests of safety. If the PIC tells the PICUS pilot a more efficient way of dong something (e.g speed brake, flap selection), or something which provides better comfort to the passengers, that PICUS person can still log ICUS. Comfort and efficiency come after safety. Providing guidance and suggestions on comfort and efficiency is how people LEARN to become better operators.

Also with a fuel decision, if the PICUS pilot comes up with the safe minimum required under the operators fuel policy, and the PIC decides to add "fuel for mum", that again is not a safety issue. The UK rules say the PICUS is responsible for CHECKING the accuracy of the flight plan, load sheet and fuel calculations for the flight. The PICUS is NOT required to CALCULATE the fuel required, in the real world this is done by computer flight planning software.

An example of checking would be to look at FCOM 2 for the flight distance, weight, and altitude and compare that with the computer flight plan. Another example would be to see if the fuel loaded and airport weather would meet the company requirement for ETOPS dispatch and to add fuel if required by an ETOPS CP scenario. Checking NOTAMS/AERAD etc for mandatory holding fuel etc.

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34

With Ref to CAR 5.40, I would have thought that the licence required to fly in command, (ICUS included) for RPT aircraft above 5700kg MTOW would have to be an ATPL. How the hell can you log any command time if you are not qualified to "command" the operation on anything less than that class of licence!

One can have a command endorsement, and be in command of an aircraft above 5700 kg on a PPL, just not in an RPT situation.

ICUS time IS NOT "command" time, it is "co-pilot" time. Only ONE person logs command time on any flight, that is the PIC, and only the PIC is required to have an ATPL.

CAR 5.40 clearly says "a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence" holder can log ICUS.

Originally Posted by farrari

Also if the 2nd offficer had a command rating on type then wouldn't they be able to log ICUS time??????

They could if they met all the ICUS requirements, including the part about the operator ASSIGNING the pilot for that duty. However QF does not ASSIGN such duties to a "2nd officer". A "2nd officer" is essentially an internal "industrial relations" assignment, not a CASA flight crew qualification, a "2nd officer" as far as CASA is concerned is a qualified pilot, hence they can occupy a control seat on a multi-crew aircraft.

[pilotshorvath]

swh, good post - beat me to it

Basically, I was going to highlight the fact that above all else you can't log ICUS unless your operator approves it.

CAR 5.40
"(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the

aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and"

From what I have heard over the years, not a lot of operators allow the FO to log ICUS.

So maybe Qantas allows the logging of the ICUS time for the PF's leg.

But I would assume most multi-crew operators haven't specifically approved it (i.e. in their OPS manual or otherwise) for normal, everyday line flights. In which case, you can't log the PF leg as ICUS, command endorsement or not.

Cheers.

P.S. Here's a convenient link for CAR 5.40 if you need it, page 41: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...on1988Vol2.pdf