PIC time before the airlines

[noclue]

bagchucka;
"i described a situation where an operator is allowing the logging of icus purely to circumvent the hour requirement for an atpl and a command upgrade.

is that the intent of icus in your mind?"

You also wrote this;
"it's used purely to boost the co-pilots total aeronautical experience and it doesn't stop once they gain an atpl - it is used beyond that to gain the 2000 aeronautical experience required for a command.

icus was great in a chieftain, where the guy under supervision flew it from the left and gained experience all under a watchful eye. "
(my bolding)

So it's fine to do in a chieftain, to gain experience before you go out on your own, but to do the same thing in a dash is, "wank" I think you wrote.

[bagchucka]

difference is the guy in the chieftain isn't doing it to circumvent the requirements for an atpl and eventually a command upgrade.

[LeadSled]

If you weren't so ignorant yourself, you might have recommended JAR-FCL 1.080(c) para (5) for my further reading.

Checkboard,
My poor deluded chap, I suggest you do a bit of updating, yourself, .080, pages 2-A-33/34/35, which spells out EXACTLY what I said, even with a sample log book page, showing how to write up your log book page, when you are doing AICUS, and you are NOT the PIC.

This complies EXACTLY with ICAO Annex 1 ( and the old Australian rules)

My experience and licenses are not limited to Australia.

Tootle pip!!!

PS: What all those of you who actually think Australia has got it right, and the rest of the world is wrong, is the simple fact that you conflate logging IN COMMAND and AICUS (by whatever name) as being the same, when they are NOT THE SAME. There is nothing "cheating" about logging AICUS/P1 U/S etc., and whether is is for the purpose of application for a license, or for assessing a potential recruit, those who understand are not the least bit confused, and understand that the two are NOT the same.

[LeadSled]

---is that the intent of icus in your mind?

Bagchucka,
Are you as really as dim as you come across.

The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS/AICUS etc is to accurately record the flying of a co-pilot/first officer/or as may be the case, when they are pilot flying, acting in command under supervision.

Making it quite clear they are NOT the pilot in command, and they are not logging time as pilot in command.

Nothing more, nothing less. That the pilot time so recorded is then put to a number of quite legal and proper uses is quite straight forward ---- except to people like you.

Tootle pip!!

[ejet3]

LeadSled you sound like a of skygod! i am qantas i am the best im never wrong, don't look at me in the terminal either what about your job security

[bagchucka]

Are you as really as dim as you come across.

perhaps not as smart as a qantas skygod like yourself

but....

The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS/AICUS etc is to accurately record the flying of a co-pilot/first officer/or as may be the case, when they are pilot flying, acting in command under supervision.

so bloggs logs his icus for each sector he flies. unlike the logging of co-pilot time (which is halved) icus goes in the book one-for-one. therefore bloggs gains his atpl quicker than what he would have if he were only logging co-pilot time. he then continues logging his icus to reach the 2000hrs aeronautical experience required for a command. again, he reaches this quicker than if he were only logging co-pilot time.

doesn't quite sound the like the

The legal and proper purpose of logging ICUS.

[LeadSled]

bagchucka,
You obviously don't even understand how the hours are made up for the issue of an ATR/ATPL/ALTP/name of choice license.

It doesn't matter how many hours P2/co-pilot/ name of choice you have logged , it never adds to the command time needed for the license.

That required command time can be made up of actual command time and AICUS/ICUS/P1 U/S/name of choice. Please read and try and understand what the regulations say, it's not that hard.

Eject 3,

Isn't it interesting, that statements of fact are met with reactions like yours ---- sorry, but I come from a world of facts, and I have no time for those who are full of ill informed "opinions" ( actually I could put it in somewhat stronger language, but I don't want to upset the mods. or your obviously highly developed sensitivities) that are plainly contrary to clear, simple and black and white facts.

Tootle pip!!

[Checkboard]

Leadsled Now that you have managed to Google the reference I gave you (and well done for that ), let's have a look at your statement:

In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS, Command Practice/ description of choice where you happen to be.

Now, I said:

Yes, they do - and in doing so they are NOT compliant with the requirements to log ICUS/P! u/S etc.

Now, as I didn't bother to elucidate specifically in which way they were not compliant, you really don't have an argument - however, the requirement for ICUS logging is that the pilots needs to fulfil the duties of the PIC. That means that it needs to be agreed before the flight, and briefed to the crew that the flight will be conducted in that way (the duties of the PIC being so much more than having a fuel guess and wiggling the stick ). Once it is done correctly, then:

all time recorded as SPIC or PICUS must be countersigned by the aircraft commander/flight instructor in the Remarks (column 12).

It is my experience that those requirements are NEVER met by European FOs when they log P1 U/S - hence my post.

and I have no time for those who are full of ill informed "opinions"

... Lord knows how you put up with yourself, then.

[DeltaT]

A letter from the airline company is also acceptable in leiu of the signatures.
Who's to say they didn't brief beforehand?

If you want to get to the nitty gritty how about the one of some Qantas pilots logging scheduled time and not block to block

Who/what/how meters the IF actual logged in any flight?

People who have had to record time via different methods, Tacho, Airswitch and add a bit on, all inaccuracies.

Night hours

ZFT sim time used to be logged as actual, now they've done a 180 on that.

I am sure there is more

[Checkboard]

A letter from the airline company is also acceptable in leiu of the signatures.

That was the point of my initial post. It's not compliant with the letter of the law, however the UK CAA have run up against the same problem this thread is about - that cadets who join airlines never gain the command requirements of the ATPL. Instead of fixing the law, the CAA have decided to ignore it. That has lead to FOs in Europe logging "P1 U/S" for 50% of their total flight time as a matter of course. It's well known around the world (if you read the application websites for airlines about the world they all say - "Don't claim any FO time as command." or something similar.) but that doesn't make it right. ICUS is supposed to indicate "command training", if you log 50% of everything as ICUS then ICUS no longer has meaning.

Who's to say they didn't brief beforehand?

I say it.

[LeadSled]

Checkboard et al,
For goodness sake, can we get one very simple concept through you collective bonces ----- AICUS IS NOT IN COMMAND TIME ---- the Captain is always in command --- and will log the time for the sector as such.
A co-pilot/F/O, when flying AICUS (most good airlines work sector for sector, making allowances for the occasional management Captain, who needs all the practice he/she/it can, or Cat II/III conditions) should log 100% of the block to block sector time as AICUS.
Only in Australia are such simple concepts apparently controversial.

---that cadets who join airlines never gain the command requirements of the ATPL.

Izzatso??? I guess that means that a good proportion of the BA/KLM/Lufthansa ---- add a very long list of Asian airlines ---- present Captains have never gained the hours for an ATPL/ALTP/ATR ---- must be all dispensations ----- or, perhaps somewhat more likely, you just have no idea what you are talking about !!

At least the various NAAs and ICAO, (excepting Australia) understand the difference between IN COMMAND and AICUS ----- even if you and, apparently many of your colleagues, do not.

E(or should that be Re)ject 3,
Sorry, old chap, as I work for my own company, I guess my job security is entirely in my own hands.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Gee!! Thanks for the old JAR/FCL reference, and the wonderful world of Google ----- I guess that I would have had no idea, without your help!! I guess it must have been my imagination that I thought I spent years on an FCL working group
Pity you didn't have a closer read yourself, then you might have got your facts straight.

[Checkboard]

I guess that I would have had no idea, without your help!!

Yep - that's what I was implying. You understood one thing, at least.

[frigatebird]

When acting as the Chief Pilot in a nearby country, I couldn't get over the number of hours In-Command logged by some Kiwi Twin Otter copilots when checking their logbooks to confirm they weren't busting the max/p.a. That was the way they logged at home, so they freely logged Copilot time as Command so they could get the time up towards the ATPL requirement for an upgrade to the left seat. All without any input from the Captain of the day. If they did the alternate sector, they logged Command.
I would not sign or stamp their logbooks without confirmation from the Captain that on that sector they had complied to the standard definition of Command ICUS ! Must have upset a few, as I wasn't kept in the position for long....

[27/09]

frigatebird

I couldn't get over the number of hours In-Command logged by some Kiwi Twin Otter copilots when checking their logbooks to confirm they weren't busting the max/p.a. That was the way they logged at home, so they freely logged Copilot time as Command so they could get the time up towards the ATPL requirement for an upgrade to the left seat. All without any input from the Captain of the day. If they did the alternate sector, they logged Command.

Interesting comment, if I understand you correctly then these pilots weren't filling their logbook correctly, in other words forging their hours and should have been reported to the authorities. What you allude to is most certainly not the accepted practice in New Zealand. As a Co-pilot in NZ you can log either Co-pilot time or Command Practice time, the Command practice entry must be signed by the Captain or noted in company records. The only time you can log Command Time is to have your name in the P in C column.

Who's name were they showing in the P in C column and the Co-Pilot column?

[frigatebird]

Can't say I remember seeing any signature by the designated Captain-of-the-Day against the entry in the Copilots logbook, as I would have expected. My interpretation of ICUS is that first the Co- being upgraded has to have Command training in the left seat to learn to handle the tiller and get used to operations from there, with the different checklist responses etc., then be rostered with a Training Captain (not just any Line Captain) who acts as a normal F.O. from the right seat for the purposes of the normal Line decision making, and is only prepared to offer Command advice (or take over), if he is unhappy. They didn't swap seats, as we used to do single-engine turnarounds in the Otter at the outports, so when they logged Command ICUS from the right seat for a sector, it fell short in my opinion. Took over as C.P. just before a busy time, from a fellow who hadn't been checking the logbook entries very thoroughly, some pilots were understating their hours on company returns so they could be rostered for more flights, while at the same time those on an hourly contract rate were still submitting their excessive actual hours flown to the Paymaster to be remunerated for the flying performed. At $100 an hour, an extra 100 or 150 hours a year was worth a bit to the people concerned. The aircraft engineering and daily flight records were used as a crosscheck of hours flown as well.
The FO's concerned in the upgrades bluffed the local CAA, 'This is allowable in NZ' so there wasn't much support from that quarter. But they complained to management so sides were taken, and when it wasn't so busy I was put off without being given a reason..

[27/09]

Frigatebird

I guess this type of thing happens where there are differing names for similar things and the different logbooks from various administrations don't have the same names for things and don't have the same columns.

There is Command Practice (no ICUS or any other similar thing) in NZ which is similar to ICUS though I couldn't be sure they're the same thing by exact definition. Command Practice is done in the RH seat while flying the line with a line Captain though in many cases there are some limitations on when a Co-pilot can log Command Practice and which Captains may give it. For the Co-Pilot to be in the LH seat he/she must fly with a Training Captain. This normally occurs when doing the line training for a command upgrade, however is still only logged as Command Practice at best, it cannot be logged as P in C.

I still fail to see how they could log P in C and expect anyone to accept that they were P in C.

[LeadSled]

27/09
In NZ, Command Practice IS the local version of ICUS/AICUS/P1 U/S etc., and NZ rules for logging flight time comply with ICAO Annex 1.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

Checkboard,
You really are a supercilious twit, aren't you.

I will back my knowledge of JAR-FCL rules, TGLs etc., and the transitions from 2012 through 2017, and interpretations of same, against you any time --- based simply on your proven inability (as your previous posts so amply demonstrate) to even read and understand the current rules, and how they are applied.

Tootle pip!!

At least I now save a lot of money, not having to pay huge amounts of money to keep a paper ICAO etc. regulatory library up to date, a necessity in my particular job.

[bagchucka]

Originally Posted by LeadSled

At least I now save a lot of money, not having to pay huge amounts of money to keep a paper ICAO etc. regulatory library up to date, a necessity in my particular job.

just think of all that extra cash you'll be able to invest in stroking your ego now...

[LeadSled]

You really are a supercilious twit, aren't you.

Bagchucka,
And, one again, you confirm what a twit you really are.
If knowing what I am talking about, and having my facts straight, and being able to save a bit of dough, compared to the cost of paper amendments is ego stroking, so be it. It sure beats the hell out of being wrong!!
But it really says more about the attitude of twits like you, than anything else ---- that facts get up so far up your nose, they collide with your prejudices !!
Stick to chucking bags, preferably at the local busport.
Tootle pip!!

PS: As an old mate of mine used to say, every organisation needs to employe someone (like you??) who is always wrong, when it comes to decision time, ask them (you) and whatever the answer, that's one possibility that can safely be discarded.

[B747ERNG]

Just out of my curiosity, on a given long-haul flight there's a Captain, senior FO and a FO. During the cruise, the captain takes 3 hours schedule break in the bunk while the senior FO occupied the left hand seat along with the FO on the right hand seat. During this 3 hours period, does the senior FO log command time or co-pilot time given he/she is making decisions without the presence of the captain in the cockpit? Can the captain log 3 hours flight time in his/her logbook while he/she is actually resting in the bunk?

thanks