What's REX going to do?

[apache]

but for the F/O to log ICUS, he/she would HAVE to hold an ATPL.... which they won't! as they don't have the required hours in command!

Now Rex in their OPS manual may impose more restrictive requirements, that is their business, it would more likely linked to their insurance policy.

I don't think that REX would make it MORE restrictive, if it is going to hinder their grand plan.

I guess they could always go back to being instructors at the Academy for a year.

[KRUSTY 34]

Yeah apache!

The blind leading the blind.

You're right about one thing old mate, why would REX make it more restrictive if the ICUS proponents say it's so easy. Speaking of them, this debate has been done to death, and still no clear winner, so please guys! Some time ago I attempted to elicit an answer from the CP. All I got were words to the effect, "...it'll happen some day soon". That was well over a year ago!

For the majority of newish F/O's (ex-cadets) it's still rather academic, lots of hurdles to jump yet. For the people getting closer to the mins (sans ICUS), they are still as much in the dark as everyone else.

From what I can gather a major sticking point may be the inability of the candidate from performing all the duties of PIC (taxiing the aircraft being just one) whilst occupying the RHS on normal line ops? Another is that ICAO annex 1 clearly and continuously refers to the logging of ICUS on Normal line ops as being for the attainment of a "...higher catagory of pilot licence." Nothing about satisfying the requirements of the Low Cap AOC. Having said that, CASA recently changed the command requirements for the ATPL from 250 hours (of which 150 may be ICUS) to 500 hours with only 70 hours now required for (real) Command time. So there are forces at work, within the regulator at least, that are manipulating the system so as to benefit the crewing situation of some operators!

Whatever the reasons, I'm guessing there are still interested parties that may be a little nervous about signing off on such an unclear process.

Perhaps some training or checking types at REX could shed some light on the progress of this scheme?

[swh]

Originally Posted by apache

but for the F/O to log ICUS, he/she would HAVE to hold an ATPL.... which they won't! as they don't have the required hours in command!

Lets have a look at what the regulations actually say ....

Code:

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, 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; 
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.

So the licence requirement to conduct ICUS is either a CPL, ATPL, MPL, or a CoV that is in effect the same as a CPL, ATPL, or MPL.

The myth that an ATPL is required is rubbish. The person doing ICUS is not the PIC, they are only a co-pilot.

Originally Posted by apache

I don't think that REX would make it MORE restrictive, if it is going to hinder their grand plan.

Their grand plan is to make money, not to train pilots. If being more restrictive in their OPSs manual than the regulations, it may save them 5-10% off their insurance premium, then that makes them more money.

Flying a SF340 is not hard, flying in Australia is not hard (flat and good Wx). And all that will have come from the pilots in Rex that they cannot move with the times and embrace the way the industry is moving, Rex will just turn around and hire overseas pilots with experience on 457 visas.

The people in industry that will pay for this egotistical anti-ICUS stance that seems engrained in the people from Rex are the young pilots of Australia with little experience. They would be more than capable to be co-pilots on a slow light twin like the SF340.

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34

From what I can gather a major sticking point may be the inability of the candidate from performing all the duties of PIC (taxiing the aircraft being just one) whilst occupying the RHS on normal line ops?

CAR 5.01(3) does not say “all the duties of PIC”, and a number of operators in Australia authorise their pilots to conduct ICUS on aircraft without a tiller installed on the co-pilots side.

This is what 5.01(3) actually says....

Code:

(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.

Furthermore the SF340 flight manual does not say the PIC must seat in the LHS, nor does the flight manual, nor any CASA regulation state that the PIC must taxi the aircraft.

The PIC for any flight in Australia does not need to occupy any control seat, it is impractical on smaller aircraft without a jumpseat. On larger aircraft with jumpseats, the PIC may legally under CAR 225 (2) be in the jumpseat, or even in the bunk whilst still being in command.

Code:

(2) When, in accordance with these regulations, 2 or more pilots are 
required to be on board an aircraft, the pilot in command must ensure that 2 
pilots remain at the controls at all times when the aircraft is taking off, 
landing and during turbulent conditions in flight.

No regulation in Australia requires the PIC to occupy any control seat.

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34

Another is that ICAO annex 1 clearly and continuously refers to the logging of ICUS on Normal line ops as being for the attainment of a "...higher catagory of pilot licence."

ICAO recommendations in the various annexes are just that recommendations. They are not law in Australia unless adopted in the CARs/CAOs etc.

If we look at what ICAO actually say

Code:

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.

Then is goes on to talk about “2.1.9 Crediting of flight time”

Code:

2.1.9.4 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as pilot-in-command 
under supervision, 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.

Which is exactly what the Australian regulations state. When going for a higher grade of licence, ICUS is counted at the rate of 100% in Australia.

The standard international practice adopted by CAAs around the world is for F/Os to log P1 U/S on legs they operate, regardless if they have an ATPL or not without an upper limitation on the number of ICUS hours that can be logged.

If your interpretation was correct, which it is not, no pilot that has an ATPL would be able to log ICUS to meet the 25/50 hour ICUS requirement in CAO 40.1 8A.2 when transferring to a new type on aircraft above 5700 kg.

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34

Having said that, CASA recently changed the command requirements for the ATPL from 250 hours (of which 150 may be ICUS) to 500 hours with only 70 hours now required for (real) Command time.

Define recent, I have been through at least 2 cars and 20 women in that time.

[no one]

I just wander what will happen to GA (which gave me my career path) if all the airlines go towards cadet programmes.
While I have had many a fun (and hard) times and experiences in GA, my long term goal was always to get into an airline, if I was to go through it all again from the start and knowing that the cadetships are basically the only way to eventually become an airline pilot, then I wouldn't consider the traditional way.
Now if we start getting more and more people thinking like this will GA suffer as it is a very important and vital service in our remote areas of Australia.

And another topic, saw 10 Capt. positions advertised on internal website a few days ago.

no one