Flight hours as a co pilot (PF) role B737
PF and PNF time, while acting as 2IC is co-pilot time.
And for the original poster, AFAIK there is no "ICUS" provision in GCAA regs, and in any case, no additional command time requirements for ATPL or Upgrade, so no real need for them anyway.
And for the original poster, AFAIK there is no "ICUS" provision in GCAA regs, and in any case, no additional command time requirements for ATPL or Upgrade, so no real need for them anyway.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 7th Apr 2013 at 07:12.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time I've logged ICUS was for my PPL and CPL flight test and IR renewal. Didn't really concern me for the ATPL as I already had enough PIC time from instructing.
----- please point out in Annex 1 where it states the requirements of logging of flight time that is not for the purposes of attaining a higher rating.
I point out the interpretation of Annex 1 adopted by a very large majority of the world's National Aviation Authorities as my authority for the interpretation.
This included Australia until the dingbat I mentioned was let loose, and Australia (as in some many things aviation) departed from the rest of the world.
If you wish to interpret Annex 1 in another manner, and believe that Australia is the "only soldier in the battalion in step" that is your privilege, but the vote is against you.
In the old days no such thing as ICUS. That was introduced by Qantas when they discovered their ten year F/O's could not hold an ATPL despite thousands of hours on types because they did not have 500 hours in command time needed in those days for issue of an ATPL.
With the very greatest of respect ( see, Folks, I can be real nice) that is absolute rubbish.
Firstly, if you have been around that long, have a look at the inside front page of the old DCA logbooks.
Secondly, until about 1965, most QF F/Os has a full ATPL, and until the early '70's all QF F/Os as Pilot Flying flew in the LEFT seat, not the right, but QF got severely pissed of at F/O's with all that "command" time ( Cathay were more than happy to recognize ICUS as something of value) shooting through to Cathay in a small but steady stream.
Again, in the early '60's, DCA and Qantas did a dirty deal, and the old Flight Administration Manual required F/O's as pilot flying to log "dual" --- despite a load of passengers down the back, so that F/O's couldn't accumulate what Cathay wanted for direct entry Captains. The dirty deal included the invention of the "2nd Class ATPL endorsed to First Class Standard", and a notification to ICAO that this would satisfy the ICAO requirement for all international operations to be crewed by two pilots with an ATPL".
The logging hours part of the dirty deal was overturned when the company lawyers had a look at it, when it was brought to their attention ---- particularly the regs. not permitting carriage of passengers during "dual".
That is when QF reverted to logging time in accordance with the old DCA log books, ie; in compliance with ICAO Annex 1. It took a lot longer for the fiddled 2nd Class License to disappear, and to have both Captain and F/O with ICAO compliant licenses.
The HS 125, DC-3 and later, an Aztec and finally C-152 command time was all about factored time and nothing to do with cadets. Factored time was an internal QF piece of nonsense where you needed 4500 "factored" hours for command, 2000 for F/O, and whatever command time you had was "factored" (multiplied by), depending on the aircraft. Hours in command on a 4 engine aircraft over 12,500lb were factored by 2.5. Any twin was factored by 1.25 or 1.5, weight again, and so on. Qantas were thinking about ex-RAAF Herc. pilots, what they got was a bunch of ex-RAN pilots who had flown Heron 1Bs, said 4 engines and "over" 12,500 --- just ---- who got a big jump compared to their their seniority list position --- by up to 10 years.
You obviously have only a very limited grasp of the history, all those early cadet courses of the mid-60's on did up to 2 years in GA, didn't come back into the company until they had (usually) around 1500h PIC. There was only a handful of pilots who had been part of an earlier cadet scheme ( run in conjunction with TAA, if I recall correctly, at RACNSW) who ever had the hours problem you mention, and they were not the primary reason for the DC-3 or HS-125. In fact, the major reason for the -125s was S/O license renewals, to save B707 time, hence 2 -125s with the highest cycles by far of any of the type, mostly accumulated circuit bashing up to 8 hours per day at Narromine, occasionally Avalon.
Having been on the committee of the AFAP Overseas Branch for much of relevant time, I am well familiar with the whole period, and what went on.
To suggest, as somebody did, that the fictional "changes" at the time resulted in a reduction in QF standards, I can only express myself in the same terms as the CEO of News Ltd., Kim Williams,(talking about the proposed media censorship rules) and say bollox.
Titan 404 has it right, what is it about some Australian pilots that the holy word "Command" cannot be used in conjunction with the words "Acting in" or just "in" and " under supervision".
Get real, chaps, and join the rest of the world.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Apr 2013 at 16:43.
Qantas logs its time in accordance with Annex 1
I point out the interpretation of Annex 1 adopted by a very large majority of the world's National Aviation Authorities as my authority for the interpretation.
.
If you wish to interpret Annex 1 in another manner
The NAAs have made their regulations and changed what they see fit (possibly as a result of Airlines needing piots with more command time for ATPL issue).
and believe that Australia is the "only soldier in the battalion in step" that is your privilege, but the vote is against you.
You may note that from my first post, I never queried the legality of the process. I was aware of it and the relevant regs when used for increase of command hours for ATPL. I was also aware that the CASA regulations don't explicitly prohibit logging of ICUS for a command endorsed line checked ATPL holding FO (for which my opinions still stand).
I was genuinely surprised to hear this was done in QF -and CX for that matter - for line checked command endorsement ATPL holding FOs.
One enduring questions remains - Why? What's the point?
Last edited by compressor stall; 7th Apr 2013 at 22:47.
All the above is from a fading recollection, so could be slightly inaccurate.
You obviously have only a very limited grasp of the history
Last edited by Centaurus; 8th Apr 2013 at 11:03.
Everyone wants to be the Captain!
ICUS = logging time as a captain, without actually taking the final responsibility of being the Captain!
What a cop out !!
ICUS = logging time as a captain, without actually taking the final responsibility of being the Captain!
What a cop out !!
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
Everyone wants to be the Captain!
ICUS = logging time as a captain, without actually taking the final responsibility of being the Captain!
Originally Posted by G Limit
This is ridiculous. Captain logs command, FO logs Co-pilot.
If you need command time for an ATPL then HTFU and go get command time.
What is ridiculous is the idea that command time in and of itself is of any value when compared to first officer time in the actual aircraft and operation that you will eventually be captain on.
If I have 5,000 hours as first officer flying a B737 around the Pacific, observing and assisting a multitude of different captains making a variety of command decisions in various different situations but fall short by 100 "command" hours to qualify for an ATPL, then I am unable to be upgraded to captain. If I go and hire a C152 and do a 100 hours flying around the city, I am suddenly qualified though?
If I am an FO on a Dash 8 flying low level surveillance flights below LSALT at night I can't be upgraded to captain on the same operation until I have 100 hours night command in addition to the usual ATPL. It doesn't matter if I have 300 night hours first officer time flying below LSALT on surveillance, none of that counts, that is apparently not relavent experience. If I go out and get those hours in the circuit in a C152 though, I'm golden. That is legally valid time that in addition to the ATPL will qualify me for a command upgrade to fly Dash 8s at night below LSALT.
These are the types of situations ICUS is being used for. It has nothing to do with pretending to be captain or anything like that. It is about enabling relavant FO time to be used to gain the necessary qualifications to be upgradable because that FO time is far more valid in real terms than time spent in command burning holes in the sky in a bug-smasher.
Logging ICUS beyond what is required to get a qualification is a bit pointless but ultimately harms no one. No one is under any illusions that it is real command time and I don't think anyone is trying to present it as such.
I think there is an attitude in the industry amongst those who feel they have "done the hard yards" that everyone else should have to go through the same process. That attitude could do with being stamped out.
I won't say I had to do the hard yards, I had my fair share of good fortune, but it certainly wasn't endless and there was plenty that didn't go my way. I spent a long time in GA and I had a few years of down time where it looked my flying career might be over. When I did get back into flying it was with a company that didn't have ICUS written into their ops manual. The ICUS time in my logbook is limited to time spent line training in the left seat. For a while a significant portion of my night command time was made up of hours spent flying a light twin on autopilot aimlessly around the sky at max endurance power settings.
I don't think anyone else should have to go through such a pointless process though. If you are flying B737s for an airline and wish to be a B737 captain, then lets recognise your FO time as an apprenticeship that counts entirely toward that goal. To not do that, to force someone to go and hire the cheapest piston aircraft they can find to meet some antiquated notion of the importance of "real" command time, that is what is ridiculous.
Last edited by AerocatS2A; 9th Apr 2013 at 01:42.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt some of you would be shocked by the total number of command hours some former cadets would have, despite checking out as Captains.
To imply that these pilots should be flying circuits in a 152 (or some equally irrelevant type of operation to what they're already doing) to get said hours is even more ridiculous than the ICUS system.
For King Air (etc) operators, obviously attitudes are different. It's a different type of operation in practice.
CS, as for why ICUS is continued to be logged on PF sectors - who knows? Maybe the system is too difficult to change? Maybe it's to meet pilot-on-watch implications in the ops manual? In the end, it doesn't really matter anyway... airliner ICUS time is pretty irrelevant.
To imply that these pilots should be flying circuits in a 152 (or some equally irrelevant type of operation to what they're already doing) to get said hours is even more ridiculous than the ICUS system.
For King Air (etc) operators, obviously attitudes are different. It's a different type of operation in practice.
CS, as for why ICUS is continued to be logged on PF sectors - who knows? Maybe the system is too difficult to change? Maybe it's to meet pilot-on-watch implications in the ops manual? In the end, it doesn't really matter anyway... airliner ICUS time is pretty irrelevant.
Folks,
This whole issue is peculiarly Australia, out in the real world, ICUS/AICUS/P1-U/S/Command Practice/Whatever It is Called by a local NAA just isn't an issue, with the widespread adoption of the MPL for airline cadet pilot training, it just isn't an issue.
But, in good old Australia the battle rages on, the Holy Word "Command" must not be used in conjunction with any other word, and certainly not with the intent of ICAO Annex 1, and "The Rest Of The Know World" (or most of it) has got it wrong.
Geeez, some of you bloke would be upset to know that, in most cases with US operators, the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.
Centaurus and like, how's that grab ya!! Straight unadorned, unvarnished, unqualified (and I mean the Holy Word is unqualified, not the pilot) command time. This is something FAA just does not get hot and bothered about.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Centaurus, I do and I was.
Tootle pip!!
This whole issue is peculiarly Australia, out in the real world, ICUS/AICUS/P1-U/S/Command Practice/Whatever It is Called by a local NAA just isn't an issue, with the widespread adoption of the MPL for airline cadet pilot training, it just isn't an issue.
But, in good old Australia the battle rages on, the Holy Word "Command" must not be used in conjunction with any other word, and certainly not with the intent of ICAO Annex 1, and "The Rest Of The Know World" (or most of it) has got it wrong.
Geeez, some of you bloke would be upset to know that, in most cases with US operators, the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.
Centaurus and like, how's that grab ya!! Straight unadorned, unvarnished, unqualified (and I mean the Holy Word is unqualified, not the pilot) command time. This is something FAA just does not get hot and bothered about.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Centaurus, I do and I was.
Tootle pip!!
Geeez, some of you bloke would be upset to know that, in most cases with US operators, the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.
I'm afraid that you are completely incorrect. Not only is that illegal under the U.S. FARs, it would also get you laughed out of any interview upon inspection of your logbook.
The First Officers (F.O.) in the majority of cases hold a SIC Type Rating for the aircraft they operate. Therefore, it is illegal for them to log the time as PIC or ICUS. That is certainly the case for the ATR example you used above. If the F.O. holds a PIC Type Rating in the aircraft type, it would still be illegal for them to log the time as PIC. Unless they are designated by the operator as the PIC they log the time as SIC.
Basically, if you signed for the aircraft and are listed as the Captain you may log PIC. This also applies to heavy crew operations with more than one F.O.
ICUS is not an issue in the U.S. since the cadet schemes haven't reared their ugly heads here ...... Yet.
Last edited by JPJP; 10th Apr 2013 at 20:20. Reason: Their/there .... again
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Second in Command ( there's that word again), know here as the F/O or co-pilot -- logs straight Command, when he/she is pilot flying, if he/she is an ATR, which is almost 100% of the time.
But, in good old Australia the battle rages on, the Holy Word "Command" must not be used in conjunction with any other word, and certainly not with the intent of ICAO Annex 1, and "The Rest Of The Know World" (or most of it) has got it wrong.
You might like to consult the hiring pages for every Legacy/Major carrier in the U.S. They strictly define what Command time means. No, Command time is not sitting beside the Captain, it's not just handling the controls, it's not being a second officer sitting in a seat when the Captains in the bunk, and it's not attending an MPL course.
The point is - in some parts of the "world", some companies require significant turbine command time to even be hired as an F.O. Some of them require a minimum of 1000 hours in command of a jet in RPT. As a result, the definition of command time remains important long after another airline scams its second officers into an ATP with an ICUS exception.
The real question is this; why should a nations flag carrier have to hire a pilot that isn't even able to hold an ATP ? Why would you support this practice as a Check Airmen ?
Last edited by JPJP; 11th Apr 2013 at 05:44.
Folks,
Re. current F/O practice, it must have changed quite recently, and having checked with the son of an old mate, who is currently a United "F/O", neither he, nor anyone he knew, had a "SIC rating", they all had a B747 rating, period, on their ATPs. Maybe that varies with carriers. Maybe he is going to have to change what he logs ---- or his colleagues.
Certainly, when he flies, he flies as the designated SIC.
JPJP,
Large numbers of the world's airline are substantially crewed by pilots who started off as cadets. Countries like AU, CA,US are the exceptions. In many cases, these cadet schemes (BA/LH/JA/SQ etc) date back to the early 1960s.
There is absolutely no evidence that airlines hiring pilots that do not already have an ATR/ATPL or be qualified to hold same are any less safe than pilots who have had a few years to develop or consolidate bad habits in GA or third level carriers.
Tootle pip!!
Re. current F/O practice, it must have changed quite recently, and having checked with the son of an old mate, who is currently a United "F/O", neither he, nor anyone he knew, had a "SIC rating", they all had a B747 rating, period, on their ATPs. Maybe that varies with carriers. Maybe he is going to have to change what he logs ---- or his colleagues.
Certainly, when he flies, he flies as the designated SIC.
JPJP,
Large numbers of the world's airline are substantially crewed by pilots who started off as cadets. Countries like AU, CA,US are the exceptions. In many cases, these cadet schemes (BA/LH/JA/SQ etc) date back to the early 1960s.
There is absolutely no evidence that airlines hiring pilots that do not already have an ATR/ATPL or be qualified to hold same are any less safe than pilots who have had a few years to develop or consolidate bad habits in GA or third level carriers.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled,
You are absolutely correct regarding a United 747 F.O. That's why I used the word "generally" with regard to the SIC Type Rating. In order to fly international routes from the U.S, pilots are required to have a PIC Type Rating. This may allow a pilot to log Command time if an augmented crew has 3 F.Os and 1 Captain as opposed to 2 Captains and 2 F.O.s
You are also correct that the 'SIC Type Rating' is recent. It was the FAAs response to ICAO. What has not changed is the fact that an SIC, other than in the circumstances mentioned above, cannot log Command time.
I will defer to your experience and QANTAS excellent safety record on the subject of Cadets. Although, two QANTAS pilots I have known for many years seem to disagree with your opinion. Lufthansa is another positive example whilst Air France seems to have some issues with regard to training.
Cheers.
You are absolutely correct regarding a United 747 F.O. That's why I used the word "generally" with regard to the SIC Type Rating. In order to fly international routes from the U.S, pilots are required to have a PIC Type Rating. This may allow a pilot to log Command time if an augmented crew has 3 F.Os and 1 Captain as opposed to 2 Captains and 2 F.O.s
You are also correct that the 'SIC Type Rating' is recent. It was the FAAs response to ICAO. What has not changed is the fact that an SIC, other than in the circumstances mentioned above, cannot log Command time.
I will defer to your experience and QANTAS excellent safety record on the subject of Cadets. Although, two QANTAS pilots I have known for many years seem to disagree with your opinion. Lufthansa is another positive example whilst Air France seems to have some issues with regard to training.
Cheers.
