What is the "P1 under supervision" time stand for?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the way it works sometimes in Europe mainly the UK is that they log every sector they are PF as PICUS with usually no discussion with the PIC.
And they include it in the PIC totals.
OK what use is it apart from ATPL issue?
And they include it in the PIC totals.
OK what use is it apart from ATPL issue?
mad jock,
Could I suggest reading lessons.
I have already posted the very good reason for logging P1 U/S/ICUS whatever, go back, read, digest and understand.
Tootle pip!!
Could I suggest reading lessons.
I have already posted the very good reason for logging P1 U/S/ICUS whatever, go back, read, digest and understand.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nope read it again and still can't see the use of it apart from upgrade for those that don't have proper command time.
You honestly don't think company's take anything from quoting it on CV's do you?
Cv's I see with it go straight in the bucket.
What individuals put in the personal logbooks is up to them. But in the real world its meaningless only proper PIC time counts for anything.
You honestly don't think company's take anything from quoting it on CV's do you?
Cv's I see with it go straight in the bucket.
What individuals put in the personal logbooks is up to them. But in the real world its meaningless only proper PIC time counts for anything.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in the real world its meaningless
Rather like logging instrument flight time in your log book. That column is probably faked more than any other log book entries. Apart from initial instrument rating course where progress reports should be kept and audited, there is no way that a pilot's claims that he has been flying in IMC whether on autopilot or hand flying, can be verified (audited). Worse still we see the ridiculous situation where pilots log instrument flight time at any time they are on an IFR flight plan and flying CAVOK the whole way.. Even taxi time is logged as instrument flight time purely because the aircraft is about to depart on an IFR plan.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Tee, under EASA they have logging IFR time and don't even mention instrument time apart from some instructor ratings and 70 hours for ATPL.
They have a requirement for instrument time for ATPL but you get all but 10 hours of it by doing the minimum hours instrument training. So by the time you add in your sim time for type rating you have the min required.
We have had to change the way the FO's have been doing it since we had issues with 2 NAA's and the logging of it. One idiot had been claiming it from the day he started multi crew flying with 200 hours in his log book. Which as we all know they just about know they are sitting in an aircraft but 95% of the Captains job they don't even know exists.
Now there is a section in the part D training manual for it. The FO's as such don't log it but keep a secondary sheet which they record the sectors which they are claiming and get the Captain to sign off and record there license numbers details on. There is a certified copy included in the letter confirming all hours correct for the company flying. The original goes in their training file. The last 5 applications we have had zero problems with 3 different CAA's touch wood using this method. They have to apply to the head of training to start doing it and they have to have 500 hours on multicrew before they can start doing it.
Also now we have a defined day of PICUS so its not just rock up and do the job as normal and sign for it. They have to deal with ground handling and all that other good stuff which the PIC does.
Personally it was a whole heap easier getting the PIC time through instructing and not bothering with the PICUS side of things.
PICUS is of coursed logged during command line training and is in the log book more to prove that they have been line trained as a Captain. We give it a course complete stamp as well.
We have had some chancers that have tried to come in as a DEC claiming PICUS hours as PIC and when you go check the references and log books it turns out they have never been a Captain of a muticrew airliner.
In the real world it doesn't do anything apart from ATPL issue and I have seen it fudged/abused that often now its guilty until proven innocent. Some one comes in with a couple of 1000 co-pilot hours without a mention of PICUS and they go straight to interview with the boss after a tech session with me. Loads of time which the weighting of it doesn't match for muticrew operations and most of the time they have been on the fiddle. With experience I have learned that if its mentioned something is likely to be hooky. Do they think training departments and chief pilots are thick? And haven't been in the same situation themselves and seen the tricks form both sides of the fence.
What someone puts in their own log book is entirely up to them.
And it seems the NZ CAA is of the same mind set as me as well.
They have a requirement for instrument time for ATPL but you get all but 10 hours of it by doing the minimum hours instrument training. So by the time you add in your sim time for type rating you have the min required.
We have had to change the way the FO's have been doing it since we had issues with 2 NAA's and the logging of it. One idiot had been claiming it from the day he started multi crew flying with 200 hours in his log book. Which as we all know they just about know they are sitting in an aircraft but 95% of the Captains job they don't even know exists.
Now there is a section in the part D training manual for it. The FO's as such don't log it but keep a secondary sheet which they record the sectors which they are claiming and get the Captain to sign off and record there license numbers details on. There is a certified copy included in the letter confirming all hours correct for the company flying. The original goes in their training file. The last 5 applications we have had zero problems with 3 different CAA's touch wood using this method. They have to apply to the head of training to start doing it and they have to have 500 hours on multicrew before they can start doing it.
Also now we have a defined day of PICUS so its not just rock up and do the job as normal and sign for it. They have to deal with ground handling and all that other good stuff which the PIC does.
Personally it was a whole heap easier getting the PIC time through instructing and not bothering with the PICUS side of things.
PICUS is of coursed logged during command line training and is in the log book more to prove that they have been line trained as a Captain. We give it a course complete stamp as well.
We have had some chancers that have tried to come in as a DEC claiming PICUS hours as PIC and when you go check the references and log books it turns out they have never been a Captain of a muticrew airliner.
In the real world it doesn't do anything apart from ATPL issue and I have seen it fudged/abused that often now its guilty until proven innocent. Some one comes in with a couple of 1000 co-pilot hours without a mention of PICUS and they go straight to interview with the boss after a tech session with me. Loads of time which the weighting of it doesn't match for muticrew operations and most of the time they have been on the fiddle. With experience I have learned that if its mentioned something is likely to be hooky. Do they think training departments and chief pilots are thick? And haven't been in the same situation themselves and seen the tricks form both sides of the fence.
What someone puts in their own log book is entirely up to them.
And it seems the NZ CAA is of the same mind set as me as well.
