Logging Co-Pilot Time in SP Operation

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I know this is a bit of a dredge of an older topic, but considering;

5.105 What does a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?
(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence: (a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.

5.166 What does an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a 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.

How many of those logging co-pilot time here in somthing like a Chieftain or C400 series were sure their "Captain" held an ATPL?

[BleedingAir]

MIHC,

Does "multi-pilot aircraft" not refer to mandatory multi-crew aircraft? Not simply a single-pilot aircraft that happens to have two crew on the day, such as a PA31?

This has always been pretty simple to me, if you're crewing an aircraft you have to log something, and co-pilot time is pretty much by definition time logged when the other categories don't apply (ie. PIC, ICUS, Dual). It's ridiculous to suggest you can't have two pilots crewing a PA31, required or not - and the second pilot must log something.

[morno]

Question - To legitimately log co-pilot hours on something like a PA31, does the operator not have to have CASA approved multi-crew procedures?

morno

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Does "multi-pilot aircraft" not refer to mandatory multi-crew aircraft?

By certification or legislation, I would say yes. If a 172 had a second pilot you would legitimatly (read as credibly) class that as co-pilot time?

IMO you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for hours if you do.

The law is clear however that for CHTR and RPT (not that you would do the latter in a 172) if you did, the PIC would have to hold an ATPL.
Again I ask how many of those logging co-pilot time for their PA-31 types are sure their PIC had an ATPL?

[BleedingAir]

I can think of multiple operators who operate >5700kg turbine aircraft on CHTR ops, multi-crew, on occasion with 2 x CPLs crewing the aircraft. One logging PIC, one logging co-pilot, or possibly ICUS from time to time. I can think of another handful of operators that crew single-pilot aircraft (B200, C441, C404, PA31 etc.) with 2 crew to meet contract requirements. Not always an ATPL up front.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Look at it this way. A Citation 1/SP (501) only requires single pilot, but certification for the Citation 1 (500) requires 2. Rules here say multi-crew PIC must hold an ATPL. Does not say anything about weight. Nothing about ATPL does (common misconception).

If operators are contractually requiring multi-crew (ie. not required by certification) then either the PIC must hold an ATPL and the operators and pilots are operating illegally, or the 2nd pilot shouldn't be logging co-pilot time. Can't have it both ways. As I said, would it seem right to log co-pilot with two people flying a C172? It's laughable! When there is a co-pilot rating for a PA-31 or B200, then the conditions change.

If the aircraft is only certified single pilot operation, you can't "create" your own hours. I've flown multi-crew in Caravans, but haven't logged a single hour as co-pilot. ICUS would be a legal way to do it, but the PIC would need to have been approved under the company ops manual as at least a supervisory or equivalent qualification. Both pilots could count full hours toward total aeronautical experience then, not just the half co-pilot time.

[BleedingAir]

Well I'm not one to argue hard about things I'm not an expert on, and this is one of those areas. Maybe I'll learn something here.

Here's a real-life example... How does a Metro 23 on CHTR ops flown by 2x CPLs fit into the picture?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Pax or Freight?
I heard many years ago (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) that freight only requires single pilot. Any Metro drivers out there clarify this one?

Either way, CAR 5.166 is clear. CHTR or RPT multi-crew, the PIC requires an ATPL. If they don't require two pilots, then CPL as PIC is fine. CAO 40.1.0 App 1A Pt 4 lists a Metro Co-pilot endorsement so if not required (ie. ATPL not required) and they are flying 2 pilots by choice, this is debatably loggable as co-pilot time.

I fail to see co-pilot PA-31 endorsements on the list, though.

WRT the 2xCPLs, there may be a possibility of a CAR 217 organisation being given some kind of dispensation, however I don't think this big of a reduction on the CAR priviledges would be likely.

[Defenestrator]

Not withstanding the references mentioned above, CAO 40.1.0 para 10.5 details when co-pilot time can be logged.

The relief for the ATPL requirement for a single pilot certified aircraft ie. Metro comes from CAR 5.105. Then comes down to who can log what.

Dare say CAR 5.105 will receive an amendment at some point to stop CPL's flying aircraft heavier than 5700kg's in commercial pax carrying ops. Apparently CASA hate it.

D

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Agreed on those points, but the argument centres around legally logging time for a position that has been made up to satisfy a company requirement.

If the aircraft (not the company) requires a co-pilot, then there will be a co-pilot rating associated with it and you are required to log it as per Para 10.5.

Para 8A already introduces a minimum time requirement for several types (including Metro 3) before they can be flown as PIC, regardless of license held, but can see CASA taking it further.

[BleedingAir]

MIHC, pax CHTR. Used that example as I can think of 2 operators I'm very familiar with that fly the Metro 23 on pax charter with CPL PICs. There are other operators doing the exact same with the B1900.

In all cases, they can check CPLs as "charter captains", and the requirement for an ATPL for RPT ops as PIC remains. They are obviously commuter class turboprops that are certified for SP operation, but are always operated multi-crew in commercial pax ops in Aust.

Thanks for the refs both of you, I'll have a read.

[LeadSled]

As far as the Qlink ICUS is concerned, well you can thank ICAO annex 1 for that. Personally I think it's a crock', and so much for world's best practice! It should be noted that under ICAO Annex 1, ICUS can only be logged up to meeting the min command hours (500) for the ATPL. After that, the logging of ICUS under ICAO Annex 1 is not legal

Krusty 34,
So you think it's a crock, but somehow most of the rest of the airline world logs per the rules in Annex 1.

Once again, Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step. I don't think so, I'll go with the democratic vote of most of the rest of the aviation world as to what Annex 1 means ---- and what Australia used to do, until one joker in DCA got a bee in his bonnet.

The one thing that it seems is impossible to get through the thick skulls of many Australian pilots is that ICUS is ICUS, it is NOT PIC. Is that so hard to understand. When you are logging ICUS, you are logging ICUS, period, full stop, end of story.

Just as a starter, look at what US/CA/NZ/SA/UK/SIN do, then tell me they are all wrong and Australia has it right.

By the way, how did you work out the that ICUS cuts out after you have reached the minimum requirements for an ATR/ALTP/ATPL/whatever. QANTAS ( not just QLink) doesn't think so. I will be fascinated with the answer.

As I have said many timed before, all the stupid Australian approach does is disadvantage young pilots looking for decent jobs in the international market. At least the QF group has got this one right.

Tootle pip!!

[Lynchpin]

The key term lies in the CAR's "multi pilot aeroplane" not "multi pilot operation". It's possible to have aircraft such as a Beech 1900 operated by 2 crew by virtue of its lack of autopilot, where neither pilot holds an ATPL, and the aircraft is conducting pax carrying charter. The aircraft is a single pilot certified aircraft but due to cao 20.18 requires a second pilot to be carried. This requirement does not automatically render the aircraft a "multi pilot aeroplane", however a "multi crew operation" is now under way. Most operators of the aircraft stipulate 2 crew in their operations manuals, and as the AC is >5700kgs a Casa approved CAR 217 check and training system is required. The crew including co pilots are trained under this system and checked under this system. If Legitimate 2 crew procedures are adhered to the co-pilot is performing a vital role in the operation, and is certainly entitled and required to log co pilot time. They are logging this regardless of whether they are poling or not as mentioned above. As for ICUS, the crew member logging it must be performing all functions of captain, under the supervision of a 217 approved training captain,(this is the case for this particular type of operation) again logged regardless of pole time. Other simpler operations may simply require a chief pilot approval for ICUS to be conducted.

Cheers

[Counter-rotation]

This all seems very confusing and open to interpretation...

Perhaps we should rewrite the CARs?

[Roger Greendeck]

Flight time works both ways. It is not an option to log it or not. You are either performing the duty and hence are required to log it or not performing a duty and hence there is nothing to log.

Suggestions such as 'a few hours as co-pilot in... aren't worth logging' are unhelpful as there is nothing in the act or orders to allows you not to log time because it wont look good on a CV.

As far as how the hours stack up. If you are trying to get a licence you need to meet the hours requirements. ).1 hours short is close but still stops you getting the licence. If you do not log hours you are entitled to you are seeing yourself off. There are plenty of arguments about the quality of different types of hours sometimes it works for you and some times it works against you.

If you believe that the duty you are performing meets the definition of co-pilot time then log it but be prepared to defend your position if challenged.

[ga_trojan]

Question - To legitimately log co-pilot hours on something like a PA31, does the operator not have to have CASA approved multi-crew procedures?

Nope. We had single pilot ops but if the autopilot was u/s then you could carry a copilot and then fly IFR. That was in the DDG a CASA approved document. The copilot had to have a minimum of a current IR and a endo on the aircraft.

Some mining companies also stipulate two crew at all times. How are you going to log that?

[BleedingAir]

ga_trojan,

You have illustrated my point exactly. I was part of a couple of these operations (although for the record have not personally logged co-pilot time in anything <5700kg). Lots of PA31/C404 ops that are 2-crew operated, charter cat, under companies/ops manuals with no formal multi-crew procedures. The second pilot may do nothing more than hand fly in the cruise to give P1 a break, and radios at other times. What are they supposed to log? It cannot be argued that they're not allowed to fly the aircraft at times (assuming they're current and endorsed, of course), even if the aeroplane has no formal co-pilot rating.

It's not PIC, dual, or ICUS. So they don't log anything?

[MyNameIsIs]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.106

What kind of aeroplane may a commercial (aeroplane) pilot fly?
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, unless the holder also holds:
(a) a type endorsement or class endorsement; and
(b) if the aeroplane has a special design feature -- a special design feature endorsement;

There's why you can fly a PA31 etc as Co-Pilot without there being a seperate co-pilot rating in the CAOs, MIHC.


Lynchpin has it correct. "Multi-Pilot Aeroplane" is whether or not the plane requires 1, or more than 1 pilot, according to the certification in the flight manual.

If the aircraft says you need one pilot, then that's how the rule is applied. Further bits like client requirements, u/s a/p etc does not then change the flight manual certification to multi-pilot! You are still flying a single-pilot aeroplane because nothing has changed, just flying it with multiple pilots.

If needing an ATPL was the case, how come so many things like Metros and B1900s can get around with CPL drivers on pax chtr for all these years?


Think of this extreme.
How would the Chief Pilot of a VFR piston company (who is NOT required to hold an ATPL) ICUS any of their pilots on a charter run if all of a sudden the C210 became a "multi pilot aeroplane" with the two of them onboard??????

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

That's why??
Completely irrelevant, MNII.
Actually, CAR 5.106 explains that to fly an aircraft like a C421 (or C414), you not only need to hold a C402/421 endorsement, but a Pressurisation DFE as well. Works for Malibus too. It might fall under the SE<5700kg category, but you can't fly it unless you have Px in your logbook. (You CANNOT fly it if you don't use the pressurisation system either. Would be like flying a C206 without a CSU and leaving the prop in fine!)

How would the Chief Pilot of a VFR piston company (who is NOT required to hold an ATPL) ICUS any of their pilots on a charter run if all of a sudden the C210 became a "multi pilot aeroplane" with the two of them onboard??????

Your ICUS quote has no relevance whatsoever to multi-crew operation. You are refering to a training & checking procedure.

Lynchpin seems to provide the best explanation so far, but if Metros and B-1900s are only single pilot certifiied for all ops, then why are there co-pilot endorsements for these types?

From another point of view, there are co-pilot endos for Kingairs and Twotters too. What are the categories of operation where 2 pilots are required?
Is the existance of this endorsement purely to satisfy the autopilot scenario?
I'm not inflexible. This would seem to support the case for co-pilot time if it is the sole purpose.

If not, then again I'm asking if there is some CAR217 dispensation, because CAR 5.105 seems to be pretty straight forward.
A CPL may fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as PIC in any operation other than CHTR or RPT.
If there is a reason the CAR's don't apply (defence of hours listed in your logbook notwithstanding), I do want to hear it!

I think everyone will agree the rules need to be amended to remove any confusion. Second Counter-Rotation's motion.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

I believe this was an AIC some time ago but for now all I can find is this info taken directly from the CASA website:

Co-pilot means all flight time while serving in any piloting capacity other than as pilot in command. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Pilot Log Books


Seems pretty clear cut to me. It doesn't really matter how 'meaningful' you think sitting in the right hand seat of a SP aeroplane operating the radio or giving the PIC a break in the cruise is, I can't see how it would be anything other than legally logable co-pilot time (possibly illegal not to log it?).


It's just as correct logging co-pilot time in a C172 as it is in an A380 (despite the slight workload difference) if that's what you're doing as far as I can see.


Also lynchpin/MNII have it correct re: single/multi pilot aeroplane. That one is clearly defined.