Mega Merged: REX Recruitment/Cadetship and Working for REX
SWH you don't work for CASA do you?
ICUS in spirit was intended for a Chief Pilot or Check/Supervisory Captain to line train another Captain for the purpose of checking them to the line.
ICUS only became a gray area when companies like Rex, employed cadets and low time (cheap) Pilots without the required experience for a command. When the companies needed to upgrade these (cheap) Copilots to Captains, they did/do not meet the minimum experience requirements. Due to this dilemma, ICUS has been pushed (and sold) as the magical solution (which also keeps them handing over money to be a (cheap) Pilot).
In reality modern interpretations (and demands) of ICUS are a new way of bypassing experienced Pilots who demand a fair days pay for that experience. Companies are now in favour of cheap inexperienced Pilots who are willing to ram a fist fill of cash to bypass a few years of hard work, locking them into the company with nowhere to go, while waiting hopefully for some ICUS. Pilots like myself (and others) went north and flew until the boxes were ticked for an ATPL. We then chased Turboprop jobs wherever we could, knowing a command was in reach when our number came up.
ICUS IMO really is a symbol of the rot in our industry. The sooner ICUS becomes what it was originally intended for, the sooner the experienced guys will be paid a fair wage for a fair days work.
ICUS in spirit was intended for a Chief Pilot or Check/Supervisory Captain to line train another Captain for the purpose of checking them to the line.
ICUS only became a gray area when companies like Rex, employed cadets and low time (cheap) Pilots without the required experience for a command. When the companies needed to upgrade these (cheap) Copilots to Captains, they did/do not meet the minimum experience requirements. Due to this dilemma, ICUS has been pushed (and sold) as the magical solution (which also keeps them handing over money to be a (cheap) Pilot).
In reality modern interpretations (and demands) of ICUS are a new way of bypassing experienced Pilots who demand a fair days pay for that experience. Companies are now in favour of cheap inexperienced Pilots who are willing to ram a fist fill of cash to bypass a few years of hard work, locking them into the company with nowhere to go, while waiting hopefully for some ICUS. Pilots like myself (and others) went north and flew until the boxes were ticked for an ATPL. We then chased Turboprop jobs wherever we could, knowing a command was in reach when our number came up.
ICUS IMO really is a symbol of the rot in our industry. The sooner ICUS becomes what it was originally intended for, the sooner the experienced guys will be paid a fair wage for a fair days work.
mr flappy,
All REX pilots recieve a "Command" endorsement on the SAAB. A requirement for the logging of ICUS. The need for a command endorsement is refered to in ICAO annex 1, but ICAO annex 1 does not differentiate between RHS and LHS! Industry appolgists such as swh take this to mean that ICUS can be logged from either seat. The ATOG in CASA saw it this way as well, but that doesn't mean it's right. People without a pro operator agenda tend to see it differently.
CASA have been known to get it wrong, and IMHO they have got it spectacularily wrong this time.
All REX pilots recieve a "Command" endorsement on the SAAB. A requirement for the logging of ICUS. The need for a command endorsement is refered to in ICAO annex 1, but ICAO annex 1 does not differentiate between RHS and LHS! Industry appolgists such as swh take this to mean that ICUS can be logged from either seat. The ATOG in CASA saw it this way as well, but that doesn't mean it's right. People without a pro operator agenda tend to see it differently.
CASA have been known to get it wrong, and IMHO they have got it spectacularily wrong this time.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
ICUS in spirit was intended for a Chief Pilot or Check/Supervisory Captain to line train another Captain for the purpose of checking them to the line.
Most of the foreign carriers that operate into Australia would have Captains in their airlines that gained their ICUS while engaged in passenger RPT. It is also used extensively in Europe where you will find Captains with less than 3000 hrs total time being Captains in RPT operations in aircraft like A320s and 737s.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
ICUS only became a gray area when companies like Rex, employed cadets and low time (cheap) Pilots without the required experience for a command. When the companies needed to upgrade these (cheap) Copilots to Captains, they did/do not meet the minimum experience requirements. Due to this dilemma, ICUS has been pushed (and sold) as the magical solution (which also keeps them handing over money to be a (cheap) Pilot).
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
In reality modern interpretations (and demands) of ICUS are a new way of bypassing experienced Pilots who demand a fair days pay for that experience.
What is obvious to anyone who follows the number of pilots being trained and the forecast demand by airlines can see a clear supply issue looming for experienced pilots. To manage the supply, they invest in these cadet programs to guarantee supply.
Boeing projections in a recent Flight Global article indicated a requirement of 23,300 new pilots per year for the next 30 years to meet the current demand for aircraft. Obviously that cannot all be achieved by doing the "hard yards".
While this may disadvantage those who have done the "hard yards", it is no different to what organisations like CTC and Oxford have been doing in the UK successfully for years.
Originally Posted by mr flappy
If not, then the answer is pretty clear, command = LHS!
So Command = LHS is not true even in Rex.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Industry appolgists such as swh take this to mean that ICUS can be logged from either seat. The ATOG in CASA saw it this way as well, but that doesn't mean it's right. People without a pro operator agenda tend to see it differently.
I do not have an agenda either way. But I find a lot of people who "resist" what the actual rules say normally are doing so out of their own self interest or professional jealousy.
I think there are a number of industrial issues that the terms "cadet" and "ICUS" bring to the surface, but they should be addressed though the AFAP, not CASA.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
CASA have been known to get it wrong, and IMHO they have got it spectacularily wrong this time.
That is a clear endorsement of the Australian regulatory environment.
ICUS is not in any way shape or form "in command" or "command" time, it is co-pilot time, even when the person doing ICUS is in the LHS. Each flight only has one PIC, that is the one assigned by the operator under CAR 224, the one supervising the ICUS.
It is not NICUS = Not In Command Under Supervision, AKA: Co-Pilot
So using your logic I could delegate all decision making to the Captain.... Sounds a lot like just logging Co-Pilot time to me.
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
It is not NICUS = Not In Command Under Supervision, AKA: Co-Pilot
refer CAR 5.40 1 (d)
"the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft"
The person that is supervising the ICUS is the PIC, and has been appointed as the PIC by the operator. Only one PIC per flight, as per CAR 224.
swh
Under section 5.7 you will find sub section 1, you will then find subclass 2 with reference to 9.4. If you browse 9.4 you will find a reference to 82.3 which basically summarizes the original 5.7. In this summary it references subclass 2, paraphrases 9.4 and basically backs up the original assumption which indicates you're wrong........
If ICUS was COPILOT time, then COPILOTS would always log ICUS.
Can you see the sunlight from down there yet mate?
The ICAO precedent for ICUS has only come with the introduction of zero to hero type programs and pay for 500 hours line flying etc.
Cadet schemes and new hires traditionally (like Qantas) sat up the back of a long haul jet for a few years having a look before they got let loose in the right seat. They would then get ICUS training when it was time to upgrade to Captain once their slot came up. They also would be sitting in the LHS during this training with the Supervisory/Check Captain in the right.
ICUS as I said is a magic phenomenon encouraging user pays type scenarios and zero to hero packages. Real ICUS is to train a Captain by another approved Captain.
Under section 5.7 you will find sub section 1, you will then find subclass 2 with reference to 9.4. If you browse 9.4 you will find a reference to 82.3 which basically summarizes the original 5.7. In this summary it references subclass 2, paraphrases 9.4 and basically backs up the original assumption which indicates you're wrong........
If ICUS was COPILOT time, then COPILOTS would always log ICUS.
Can you see the sunlight from down there yet mate?
The ICAO precedent for ICUS has only come with the introduction of zero to hero type programs and pay for 500 hours line flying etc.
Cadet schemes and new hires traditionally (like Qantas) sat up the back of a long haul jet for a few years having a look before they got let loose in the right seat. They would then get ICUS training when it was time to upgrade to Captain once their slot came up. They also would be sitting in the LHS during this training with the Supervisory/Check Captain in the right.
ICUS as I said is a magic phenomenon encouraging user pays type scenarios and zero to hero packages. Real ICUS is to train a Captain by another approved Captain.
From the CASA general guidelines for logging flight time;
This is backed up by CAR 5.40 as swh has already pointed out. There can only be one PIC assigned for a flight. Everyone else is a co-pilot;
I think a lot of the arguments here are confusing duties assigned by an operator with the law. The regulator and aircraft manufacturers generally do not specify a command seat. SAAB refers to Left and Right pilot duties, not captain and first officer, which are company specific titles. The law and manufacturers leave it up to operators to sort out how many crew (the flight manual only specifies a minimum crew), where they will sit and who is boss.
Most of the real issue would be the approval of the company operations manual and in house procedures for handling ICUS. This is most likely where there is a sticking point with operator(s) and regulator. For instance if your operations manual states the PIC sits in the Left seat then a trainee PIC (ICUS candidate) should be seated there also.
In Command Under Supervision (ICUS)
Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
b) if the log book does not have an ICUS column then ICUS may be logged in the Pilot in Command column as long as it is clearly identified as ICUS and the pilot in command is also identified;
c) alternatively, another unused column may be used to log ICUS.
Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
b) if the log book does not have an ICUS column then ICUS may be logged in the Pilot in Command column as long as it is clearly identified as ICUS and the pilot in command is also identified;
c) alternatively, another unused column may be used to log ICUS.
Co-pilot - means all flight time while serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in command.
Most of the real issue would be the approval of the company operations manual and in house procedures for handling ICUS. This is most likely where there is a sticking point with operator(s) and regulator. For instance if your operations manual states the PIC sits in the Left seat then a trainee PIC (ICUS candidate) should be seated there also.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
Under section 5.7 you will find sub section 1, you will then find subclass 2 with reference to 9.4. If you browse 9.4 you will find a reference to 82.3 which basically summarizes the original 5.7. In this summary it references subclass 2, paraphrases 9.4 and basically backs up the original assumption which indicates you're wrong........
If you want to PM me those paragraphs in question I am more than happy to look at them for you. Please do not post excerpts on the open forum.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
If ICUS was COPILOT time, then COPILOTS would always log ICUS.
Many co-pilots do not have the qualifications required of CAR 5.40 (e.g. command endorsement on type and command instrument rating) to be able to conduct ICUS, nor does every operator permit every co-pilot to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
The ICAO precedent for ICUS has only come with the introduction of zero to hero type programs and pay for 500 hours line flying etc.
Most cadets that are trained in Australia are fully sponsored for their training, they actually receive a salary from their sponsoring airline while training. Airlines that I am aware of providing fully sponsored cadetships in Australia include Singapore, China Airlines, Korean, Eva, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, China Southern, Dragonair, JAL, Air China, Vietnam, Malaysian, and South African.
While the training is done in Australia, most of these cadetships are not open to Australians.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
Cadet schemes and new hires traditionally (like Qantas) sat up the back of a long haul jet for a few years having a look before they got let loose in the right seat.
Qantaslink just closed their latest application pool for their cadet entry program on September 19. Those cadets start in the RHS of a DHC8, and they do log ICUS time in the RHS to gain their ATPL.
Originally Posted by 43Inches
The regulator and aircraft manufacturers generally do not specify a command seat.
Originally Posted by 43Inches
The law and manufacturers leave it up to operators to sort out how many crew (the flight manual only specifies a minimum crew), where they will sit and who is boss.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thing is rediculous! To act as PIC it is necessary to hold an ATPL. To qualify for the issue of an ATPL it is necessary to have experience as PIC for a certain number of hours.
The whole purpose of ICUS is too often to accumulate the hours necessary for the issue of an ATPL. But an ATPL and a command endorsement is necessary before ICUS training can commence.
And around and around we go.
The rules are rubbery, and CASA seem to stretch and bend them as they wish.
I wonder how the stretching and bending can be justified.
This behaviour certainly does not generate trust and respect in our regulator.
The whole purpose of ICUS is too often to accumulate the hours necessary for the issue of an ATPL. But an ATPL and a command endorsement is necessary before ICUS training can commence.
And around and around we go.
The rules are rubbery, and CASA seem to stretch and bend them as they wish.
I wonder how the stretching and bending can be justified.
This behaviour certainly does not generate trust and respect in our regulator.
Last edited by bushy; 23rd Sep 2010 at 09:41.
Originally Posted by bushy
To act as PIC it is necessary to hold an ATPL.
ICUS is by no means command time, the person undergoing ICUS is not the PIC, they are a co-pilot.
CAR 5.40 1 "(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft;"
ICUS is not command time, and they are not In Command, they are not required to hold an ATPL.
Originally Posted by bushy
But an ATPL and a command endorsement is necessary before ICUS training can commence.
CAR 5.40 is clear that ICUS can be conducted with a person who holds a CPL, MPL, or a certificate of validation.
CAR 5.40 1 "(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence;"
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
I've agreed with quite a bit you've been saying but you're ignoring part (b) of CAR 5.40:
You can't log ICUS if you couldn't technically log command (ignorning in the high-capacity case the requirement of an ATPL).
Unfortunately (and I'm not saying this about you), these things are often based on what a more senior pilot thinks and is passed on through a company. I had someone tell me I couldn't log ICUS because the guy next to me wasn't a ME instructor!
But an ATPL and a command endorsement is necessary before ICUS training can commence.
(b) the person holds a command endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command.
Unfortunately (and I'm not saying this about you), these things are often based on what a more senior pilot thinks and is passed on through a company. I had someone tell me I couldn't log ICUS because the guy next to me wasn't a ME instructor!
Originally Posted by ConfigFull
You can't log ICUS if you couldn't technically log command (ignorning in the high-capacity case the requirement of an ATPL).
5.40 (1) is referring to the pilot undergoing ICUS, 5.40 (2) is referring to the pilot supervising the ICUS. Note the licence requirements 5.40 (1)(a) the pilot undergoing ICUS can have a MPL, CPL, or ATPL, but under CAR 5.40 (2)(a) the PIC must hold either a CPL or ATPL.
CAR 5.40 (1)(b) and (2)(b) are referring to an "aircraft endorsement", i.e. either a SF340 or CO-PILOT SF340 issued under 40.1.0. Unless the holder has a SF340 endorsement (i.e. command endorsement), they cannot log ICUS.
A PPL holder could technically have a SF340 endorsement on their licence, and "that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command". You do not need a ATPL to have an "aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command".
From previous comments on this thread, all Rex pilots have SF340 command endorsements, they therefore meet the requirement of CAR 5.40 (1)(b).
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 36
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex are currently working with casa to establish a low hour building scheme for which basically cadets can enrol by the end of 2010 and recieve up to 500 hours picus Saab. don't ask me to quote cars, just what I herd from senior pilots within the ranks.
Well according to "swh" catas', there's nothing stopping REX from doing it right now.
If what you're suggesting however is some sort of program where by "Cadets" as opposed to already checked to line F/O's recieve the PICUS, then that would bring this whole situation down to a new level of farce! The liberties already taken by CASA with the Aussie ATPL in facilitating the desires of airline management, along with this sort of stunt, would simply begger belief.
Probably just "Chinese Wispers", but I'll see what I can find out.
If what you're suggesting however is some sort of program where by "Cadets" as opposed to already checked to line F/O's recieve the PICUS, then that would bring this whole situation down to a new level of farce! The liberties already taken by CASA with the Aussie ATPL in facilitating the desires of airline management, along with this sort of stunt, would simply begger belief.
Probably just "Chinese Wispers", but I'll see what I can find out.
Out of interest Krusty, has rex management indicated that they are willing to reduce the company 2000hr TT experience requirement for command to basic ATPL experience? Because with this new ATPL rule change, CASA are effectively saying they have no issue whatsoever with a cadet with only 70hrs PIC in their 1500hrs needed to qualify for an ATPL to be in command of an RPT >5700kg aeroplane.
As ICUS counts for 1:1 in terms of Aeronautical Experience, cadets would potentially only need 1700 hours of co-pilot time to qualify for the ATPL (and a command) if 500 hours ICUS and 150hours for the CPL were used. (650 + 1700/2)
As ICUS counts for 1:1 in terms of Aeronautical Experience, cadets would potentially only need 1700 hours of co-pilot time to qualify for the ATPL (and a command) if 500 hours ICUS and 150hours for the CPL were used. (650 + 1700/2)
Gidday Chadzat.
The requirement for 2000 hours Total aeronautical experience is a minimum under the Low Cap AOC, so REX have no authority to waive that! If ICUS from the RHS is allowed Carte Blanch', then the "Candidate" will reach his/her 2000 hours Total aeronautical experience approx 25% sooner. I reckon the increase to 500 hours command for the ATPL is CASA's way of giving the green light for the logging of ICUS (under ICAO Annex 1) from the RHS, effectively without the supervision of a Check/Training Captain. This part of the debate has been done to death though, and people such as "swh" see it differently.
It's possible desmotronic that the advertisment on SEEK may have something to do with the expansion of the AAPA and the increase in foreign students. Although on second thought I can't see how that would be advertised on SEEK?
On the subject of AAPA, it appears the investment (well over $12 Mil) is going to pay off hansomely. I've heard up to 200 foreign airline cadets are about to descend on Wagga Wagga!
The requirement for 2000 hours Total aeronautical experience is a minimum under the Low Cap AOC, so REX have no authority to waive that! If ICUS from the RHS is allowed Carte Blanch', then the "Candidate" will reach his/her 2000 hours Total aeronautical experience approx 25% sooner. I reckon the increase to 500 hours command for the ATPL is CASA's way of giving the green light for the logging of ICUS (under ICAO Annex 1) from the RHS, effectively without the supervision of a Check/Training Captain. This part of the debate has been done to death though, and people such as "swh" see it differently.
It's possible desmotronic that the advertisment on SEEK may have something to do with the expansion of the AAPA and the increase in foreign students. Although on second thought I can't see how that would be advertised on SEEK?
On the subject of AAPA, it appears the investment (well over $12 Mil) is going to pay off hansomely. I've heard up to 200 foreign airline cadets are about to descend on Wagga Wagga!
