Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas F/O's new policy - My Leg - My ICUS?
Is it true that Qantas have received approval from CASA for first officers to log In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) for all "legs" the F/O flies? 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?
Presumably this means copilot time is only logged during a first officer's initial line training on type. Certainly one of the Qantas affiliates has this new policy. Some overseas regulatory authorities recognise ICUS as Command Lite and makes a command easier to attain in terms of flying hours. Seems in Australia that copilot time is scorned when fronting up at an interview but ICUS is looked upon favourably - rightly or wrongly.
"How many hours have you got, son?" " 25 hours copilot time, Sir, and 3400 ICUS" "And how many command hours, son?" "25, Sir - I did the MPL course"
Presumably this means copilot time is only logged during a first officer's initial line training on type. Certainly one of the Qantas affiliates has this new policy. Some overseas regulatory authorities recognise ICUS as Command Lite and makes a command easier to attain in terms of flying hours. Seems in Australia that copilot time is scorned when fronting up at an interview but ICUS is looked upon favourably - rightly or wrongly.
"How many hours have you got, son?" " 25 hours copilot time, Sir, and 3400 ICUS" "And how many command hours, son?" "25, Sir - I did the MPL course"
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
copilot time is a thing of the past
I hear a big regional is looking at gettting the same/similar approval to help with the hour requirements for a command.
Creative accounting
The value or relevance of flight time is not dependent on which column it is entered into the logbook.
This policy would seem to be a way of circumventing certain CASA and insurance requirements to promote those without prior command experience. In the real world, they will still have to cut the mustard.
This policy would seem to be a way of circumventing certain CASA and insurance requirements to promote those without prior command experience. In the real world, they will still have to cut the mustard.
"How many hours have you got, son?" " 25 hours copilot time, Sir, and 3400 ICUS" "And how many command hours, son?" "25, Sir - I did the MPL course"
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 69
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify: an F/O who has been upgraded to a command endorsement on type my log as ICUS his/her legs when flying with any captain. When acting as PNF (pilot not flying) this is still logged as F/O and still carries the 50% experience penalty. In short about 75% of their two crew time counts towards that magical 2000 figure, or whatever the particular company requires.
The concept of newbies getting a command in the minimum of twelve months is still a bit scary for the older/longer serving crew who did five to seven years in the right hand seat Obviously, prior experience and age/maturity has to be considered.
That may sound like sour grapes, but it gets up your nose a bit, or perhaps just makes the eyebrows raise and the butt cheeks flinch, when a 12 month F/O says he will bid for a command slot when you feel/know that they still have a lot to learn from their side first. Some 800 hour total experience people hve a much better attitude and ability than others with more than twice the time.
The bottom line, as chimbu said, is they still have to cut the mustard when the time comes. Sometimes people get their enthusiasm and confidence confused with their competence.
I tend to have more time and respect for an F/O who realizes 12 months in house may not be sufficient experience before an upgrade than the (over?) confident one who claims to be ready.
Where have all the experienced F/Os gone?
Why did they leave?
Wasn't this predicted by the pilots anyway?
Sorry, thread drift.
The concept of newbies getting a command in the minimum of twelve months is still a bit scary for the older/longer serving crew who did five to seven years in the right hand seat Obviously, prior experience and age/maturity has to be considered.
That may sound like sour grapes, but it gets up your nose a bit, or perhaps just makes the eyebrows raise and the butt cheeks flinch, when a 12 month F/O says he will bid for a command slot when you feel/know that they still have a lot to learn from their side first. Some 800 hour total experience people hve a much better attitude and ability than others with more than twice the time.
The bottom line, as chimbu said, is they still have to cut the mustard when the time comes. Sometimes people get their enthusiasm and confidence confused with their competence.
I tend to have more time and respect for an F/O who realizes 12 months in house may not be sufficient experience before an upgrade than the (over?) confident one who claims to be ready.
Where have all the experienced F/Os gone?
Why did they leave?
Wasn't this predicted by the pilots anyway?
Sorry, thread drift.
Last edited by harrowing; 22nd Mar 2009 at 05:08. Reason: post applies to a subsidiary of Q not mainline
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee Emm,
What are you talking about? Qantas F/O's have always been able to log their PF sectors (when they do the takeoff, landing, and decision making as required by the regs) as "ICUS", and log all "PNF" sectors as Co-Pilot.
Initial training is logged as Dual.
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.
What are you talking about? Qantas F/O's have always been able to log their PF sectors (when they do the takeoff, landing, and decision making as required by the regs) as "ICUS", and log all "PNF" sectors as Co-Pilot.
Initial training is logged as Dual.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in NZ, I believe ICUS was only relevent until you had the required hours for company requirements or for an ATPL (think a percentage of this time for an ATPL may be ICUS). As someone else correctly stated, the total hours are really the ones that count otherwise. We don't have a "command instrument rating" or such here.
As for Second Offcers, it's all "co-pilot" time. Be a bit hard to log anything else if you can't do the take-off or landing.
Yes, experience levels are a bit of a concern, but then type of experience is almost as important as total experience. As was previously mentioned, confidence and competence don't always go hand-in-hand, and likewise, lots of hours isn't the only thing that counts.
As for Second Offcers, it's all "co-pilot" time. Be a bit hard to log anything else if you can't do the take-off or landing.
Yes, experience levels are a bit of a concern, but then type of experience is almost as important as total experience. As was previously mentioned, confidence and competence don't always go hand-in-hand, and likewise, lots of hours isn't the only thing that counts.
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.
This is the same as a qualified captain who logs command regardless of whether he's flying or not. Unless QF has a different set of regs.
Tankengine, not quoting in regard to QF company policy but as CASA regs are written. Having been through a command upgrade elsewhere all line training component was logged as ICUS both PF or PNF.
If you can provide a regulatory reference that ICUS may only be logged whilst pilot flying it would be helpful.
I think what may have been approved is a variation to QFs' Ops manual not the actual regs.
If you can provide a regulatory reference that ICUS may only be logged whilst pilot flying it would be helpful.
I think what may have been approved is a variation to QFs' Ops manual not the actual regs.
Last edited by 43Inches; 23rd Mar 2009 at 06:37.
ICUS has nothing to do with PF/PNF or who does the take-off landing or taxi
However, in their quest to achieve command hours as easily and quickly as possibly, some will argue that just sitting in the right seat entitles them to that!
Note the references in the reg to flying the aircraft.
CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision
(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under
supervision only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
or
(i) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a
commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
and
(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or
her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight
crew rating is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or
grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out
that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned; and
(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose
by the operator of the aircraft.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The operator of an aircraft may permit a person to fly an aircraft as
pilot acting in command only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence,
that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were such a
licence; and
(b) the person holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly
the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person carries out an activity for which a flight crew rating
is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of
flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that
activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned.
5.166 What does an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a
person to do?
person to do?
(1) An air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.
(2) The authority given by subregulation (1) is subject to the limitations set out in regulations 5.167, 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171.
(2) The authority given by subregulation (1) is subject to the limitations set out in regulations 5.167, 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171.
This is the ATPL authorisations, the reference to flying the aircraft must mean that an ATPL holder or CPL holder can not act as PNF then?
Any references to a licence holders privileges will be prefixed with this to enable them to operate an aircraft in flight.
The only casa regulation which pertains to pilot manipulating the controls (pilot flying) is the one with regard to instrument flight time CAO 40. CAR 225 also suggests the PIC need not be seated at a control seat at all as long as a suitably qualified pilot(s)occupy them.
Last edited by 43Inches; 23rd Mar 2009 at 09:06.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two different situations to consider here:
a) FO with a command endorsement acts as PF for a sector - in this case the FO is charged with making command decisions under the supervision of the Captain. This only applies when PF. Captain Fathom's CAR 5.40 covers this quite neatly, and is reflected in operator procedures that I am aware of.
b) FO undergoing line training for command upgrade. The FO is charged with ultimate responsibility for command decisions on all sectors (but is under the supervision of a training Captain). The CAR does not seem to explicitly state that this cannot occur, as the issue is whether the pilot is in command or not. If you are exercising command over the flight, are you not "flying the aircraft" in one sense or another?
a) FO with a command endorsement acts as PF for a sector - in this case the FO is charged with making command decisions under the supervision of the Captain. This only applies when PF. Captain Fathom's CAR 5.40 covers this quite neatly, and is reflected in operator procedures that I am aware of.
b) FO undergoing line training for command upgrade. The FO is charged with ultimate responsibility for command decisions on all sectors (but is under the supervision of a training Captain). The CAR does not seem to explicitly state that this cannot occur, as the issue is whether the pilot is in command or not. If you are exercising command over the flight, are you not "flying the aircraft" in one sense or another?
Nunc est bibendum
To answer the original question:
If they have then it hasn't yet been communicated to the line. Personally I don't see how it could occur anyway.
Is it true that Qantas have received approval from CASA for first officers to log In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) for all "legs" the F/O flies? In other words, copilot time is a thing of the past...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Could someone please advise when this changed?
Could someone please advise when this changed?
Nunc est bibendum
DA, as you're no doubt aware, I've logged ICUS for the sectors where I was PF for years....since about '99 or 2000 when they gave F/Os command endorsements. However the original question was asked as to whether the F/O was going to be logging ICUS for every sector they are operating whether PF or PNF. My perspective on that is as I've written previously.
inandout. I have no idea to be honest. I'm not sure that there would be many S/Os out there with command endorsements on the A330 or 744. I'd put money on there being no S/Os with command endorsements on the A380. Either way it's a bit academic really and I tend to not get into that sort of stuff too heavily unless it's CRM related.
Casper, both of us in together. See my earlier comments. I started logging ICUS in the late '90s when I got a command endorsement on the aeroplane. In QF terms, I suspect that is where your example about only logging ICUS during command training comes from- the individual would not have had a command endorsement prior to that time.
I seem to recall that the whole command endorsement stuff came about due to the requirement to operate the heavy crew aircraft without an additional Captain. The only way that could occur was with the F/O holding a command endorsement. That may be right or wrong, dunno.
inandout. I have no idea to be honest. I'm not sure that there would be many S/Os out there with command endorsements on the A330 or 744. I'd put money on there being no S/Os with command endorsements on the A380. Either way it's a bit academic really and I tend to not get into that sort of stuff too heavily unless it's CRM related.
Casper, both of us in together. See my earlier comments. I started logging ICUS in the late '90s when I got a command endorsement on the aeroplane. In QF terms, I suspect that is where your example about only logging ICUS during command training comes from- the individual would not have had a command endorsement prior to that time.
I seem to recall that the whole command endorsement stuff came about due to the requirement to operate the heavy crew aircraft without an additional Captain. The only way that could occur was with the F/O holding a command endorsement. That may be right or wrong, dunno.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you talking about? Qantas F/O's have always been able to log their PF sectors (when they do the takeoff, landing, and decision making as required by the regs) as "ICUS", and log all "PNF" sectors as Co-Pilot.
Initial training is logged as Dual.
Initial training is logged as Dual.
In Australia the use of ICUS both in GA and RPT is open to liberal interpretation. The Qantas interpretation is a classic example of the prostitution of the principle of ICUS. 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.
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.
Third example. ICUS pilot decides on certain fuel contents for flight. Captain disagrees and decides on another 2000 kgs. ICUS nullified. This restores faith in a system where ICUS is now worth something - not just an ego trip for a F/O whose captain has decided to let him handle the conduct of the flight.
It is rubbish to log ICUS just because the captain says "your take off chum".
Copilot time is perfectly fair and honest logging and has been for decades. It is not something only lesser mortals log.
Last edited by A37575; 24th Mar 2009 at 11:43.