Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

What is the "P1 under supervision" time stand for?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

What is the "P1 under supervision" time stand for?

Old 27th Mar 2014, 16:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
What is the "P1 under supervision" time stand for?

Is there anyone can help me with the flight time calculation?

Recently I read the New Zealand Flight_Crew_Recognition_Info pages.
There is one paragraph

Please note that except where specifically provided for, P1 under supervision, command
practice, ICUS or similar time is not acceptable in lieu of the minimum flight experience
requirements laid down in AC61-1.7 for the ATPL (A).
I am not quite understand what's the
P1 under supervision, command
practice, ICUS or similar time
stand for? Is there anyone can help?
lookxian is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 16:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,823
Its European for pretend your the captain but your not really.

The Europeans use it so that the cadets that come out of school with as low as 165hours and go straight onto muticrew aircraft can build enough PIC time to be able to get an ATPL.

NZ has obviously decided that's a pile of poo and only want proper PIC time.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 16:56
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
How about I fly in the company like 7years then got like 3000hrs alrealy and then get the ATPL license. After that I fly with company check pilots to build my PIC hrs. We log this time with note PIC U/S. Could the PIC U/S consider to be PIC time when applying the NZ ATPL?
lookxian is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 16:56
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
thank you mad_jock
lookxian is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 20:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 68
Posts: 501
P1 u/s or ICUS has been around a long time. As mentioned in mad_jocks post it is used for low time pilots in multi crew ops so as to get enough hours for an ATPL.
I have P1 u/s hours from 40 years ago in the UK flying DC3s with 400hrs total. In those days the captain gave you the sector and if you flew it with little input, then he would sign your log book declaring it as a P1 u/s sector, half of those hours went towards that required for the ATPL.

BTW mad_jock I was also flying out of ABZ!
Offchocks is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 00:48
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
thank you Offchocks
lookxian is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 00:49
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
by the way
what is the P1 or ICUS stands for?
lookxian is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 01:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 525
mad_jock - I have to disagree and am in Offchocks' camp on this one. Any F/O flying in a commercial aircraft, with 165 hours with a fATPL or 2,500 hours with a full ATPL, cannot log any of their flying as PIC because they are not the PIC, so what's your alternative?

In my commercial logbook I have "Dual", "PIC", "P1 U/S" and "Co-Pilot" columns, so back in my F/O days, when I happened to be PF for a particular sector, I did as Offchocks did and logged the time as P1 U/S and asked the PIC to countersign the entry as per the logbook's instructions. When operating as PNF I logged the time as Co-Pilot, or P2 as in the case of some logbooks.

I couldn't log PF time as PIC because I wasn't the Pilot in Command and it would be misleading, nay dishonest, to log it as such, and as stated above Co-Pilot status applies to PNF sectors. Whilst PF I was P1 (not to be confused with PIC) under the supervision of the Pilot in Command, so logically the time was logged as P1 U/S and I'm happy with that.
RAFAT is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 02:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,878
Folks,
What RAFAT has to say is correct, and in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 for logging flight time.

Once again, those of you who make stupid remarks about about "pretend command time" and other similar derogatory remarks just air your ignorance.

P1U/S, ICUS, AICUS, Command Practice or however described is not command time, and nobody who knows what they are talking about pretends that it is.

It was not invented for modern cadet pilots to log in command to make up minimums for an ALTP/ATPL/ATR. It pre-dates any post WWII cadet schemes, of which I am aware.

Annex 1, little changed except for the MPL, goes back to the foundation of ICAO, and a deal of the technical detail predates ICAO, and goes back to ICAN.

P1U/S etc is a record of the sectors operated by an F/O as what we now call "pilot flying". No more and no less.

Australia used to comply with Annex 1, until some time in the 1970s, when Australia became non-compliant by introducing the present ratbag rules. I am alway ammused, and sometimes bemused at the common Australian pilot attitude, "we know better than the rest of the world", praising themselves as "the only soldier in the battalion in step".

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 07:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,513
I hear caterwauling again.

Of course another advantage of logging ICUS as an ATPL holding FO is you don't have to subtract 50% co-pilot time for your total aeronautical experience / grand total flying hours.


PS. I'm still trying to find where ICUS / P1US etc is talked about in ICAO Annex 1 for purposes other than a higher grade of licence issue.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 07:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,878
I'm still trying to find where ICUS / P1US etc is talked about in ICAO Annex 1 for purposes other than a higher grade of licence issue.
Comp Stall,
You are reading with an Australian mindset, not international English, the para. you refer to makes it clear that ICUS "counts", but does NOT say that logging ICUS is limited to the hours needed for upgrading licenses.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 08:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,513
but does NOT say that logging ICUS is limited to the hours needed for upgrading licenses.
Agreed.

It's our NAA (CASA) that says that it's not limited - tacitly. That's the Australian mindset, not the international one.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 11:08
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 35
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Pilot Log Books
lookxian is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 11:27
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,160
Re logging of flying hours in general. Here is an extract from a heavy landing accident report. The SE Asia operator (737 equipment) concerned has been in the past frequently the subject of PPRuNe comments. The operator is sufficiently concerned about past accidents attributed to low hour co-pilots, to limit what take off and landings they are permitted to do. .

Although these first officers are legally second in command (in some airlines in SE Asia first officers are sometimes referred to as second officers even though the crew consists of two pilots), they are not permitted to take off and land until they have 300 hours on type - even though they have a basic type rating gained in a simulator.


If the captain becomes incapacitated in that period, then best of luck to the passengers!
Even with more than 300 hours on type, landings are restricted to ILS runways only (Presumably because they will be on autopilot all the way to touchdown..

General


Chief Pilot/Fleet Manager on type must make sure that all pilots are aware of the
limitations of less experience pilots, and that policy must be understood by all Pilots..
1. Second In Command (SIC) is only allowed to become a Pilot Flying (PF) after
reaching a 300 flight hours on the aircraft type flown (on type)
2. SIC with more than 300 flight hours on type, may become the PF on takeoff,
but to become the PF for landing, he/she restricted to approach using an
instrument landing system (ILS).
3. Especially for Boeing 737-xxx, with the degree of difficulties because the
length of the aircraft, SIC may become a PF after reaching 500 flight hours on
type.
4. An extreme caution must be exercised anytime flying with less experienced
pilot. The PIC must be prepared to take over the flight control, especially
during takeoff and landing when the SIC is the PF. PIC must keep soft touch on
rudder pedal, control column and thrust levers.
5. When the PIC has less than 300 flight hours on type. The PIC is not allowed to entrust the control to the SIC, irrespective of the SIC total flight time on type..
SIC not permitted to do Approach and landing on Non Precision Approach (NPA) runway.


Tee Emm is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 13:00
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 134
THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

I had less than 300 hours on type on my last girlfriend.

I could never get a visual approach for landing and I always felt there was a soft touch on my thrust lever.
FokkerInYour12 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 19:24
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 525
LeadSled -
RAFAT is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2014, 21:38
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,823
Its pretend pic time don`t kid yourself its a paper work exercise to allow an atpl issued.

I don`t have a single hour of it logged.

The only people that look at it is the caa. Everyone else its co-pilot time.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2014, 05:40
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,878
Its pretend pic time don`t kid yourself its a paper work exercise to allow an atpl issued.
I don`t have a single hour of it logged.
The only people that look at it is the caa. Everyone else its co-pilot time
mad jock,

You are quite entitled to your prejudices and to air your ignorance of the subject, in fact in your case it seems to be: " Don't bother me with facts, my prejudices are made up".

As for never having logged an hour of P1U/S etc., either you have not been in a position, so to do, or quite possibly committed an/many offense(s) by not not keeping an accurate record of your flying times, as required by law.

Tootle pip!!
.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2014, 11:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,823
I am a line training captain, and didn't need to log any of it because I had 1000 hours PIC from being an instructor.

All you will end up having to do is strip it out from your totals when you get your command and start logging proper PIC time.

The only people even remotely interested in it is the CAA and that's only for ATPL issue.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2014, 11:46
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 1,545
Mad Jock,
ICUS never gets into the Command column so you don't have to "strip it out" when you get a Command. It is also used when under some checks, although dual could possibly be used.
If used correctly there is no issue, if abused it is a crick of s#%^
Tankengine is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.