PIC Question
I love the confusion here, CASA must shake their heads ! Why do they have ICUS in a log book anyway? (You are in CMD making all the decisions but are under supervision, doesn't get simper than that!)For this very reason! No biggy just log ICUS, you should be proud of every minute you log!:-)
Because, unlike the rest of the (broadly) comparable word, Australia and Australian pilots have always had a very strange bee in their collective bonnets about "pilot in command", and seem to look for every opportunity to confuse "pilot in command" and "pilot in command under supervision".
The very simple fact that "pilot in command under supervision" IS NOT "pilot in command" is, apparently, (along with ICAO Annex II and many other countries equivalents AICUS/Command practice/P1-U/S etc) a concept that raises great anguish in Australia.
Starting with ICAO Annex II, how you log it and how it counts towards "command" and "total aeronautical experience" should be straight forward, and even was, in Australia, until the 1960s, when we started fiddling around with a range of non-ICAO pilot licenses --- all with the aim of making it bureaucratically difficult for pilots to quit Australian airline jobs and get much higher paid jobs, with vastly better promotion prospects, outside Australia.
This was the era of "Second Class ATPL endorsed to First Class Standard" and similar abominations ---- with the necessary "difference" notified to ICAO re. any AU aircraft engaged in international aviation.
The latest Part 61 nonsense is just the current chapter in a long and very un-meritorious sage, the like of which says a lot about Australia as an aviation Galapagos.
Once again (and just one of some many) we have a long thread on something that just would not happen anywhere else.
Tootle pip!!
Whilst I am in no way an apologist for CASA's abomination of legalese that is the current regulatory regime (nor previous licensing iterations) the question as posed by the OP and the ensuing replies are by no means unique to Australia. There are not dissimilar threads on pprune discussing the same topic in UK, FAA, JAR, EASA land....
Look at it this way: Only one pilot can log PIC. That will be usually be the instructor or examiner, who should fill in the 'specialist/instructor' logbook column as well as the appropriate 'command' column. Otherwise the totals won't match and come CASA audit time the training records won't agree either. There is an exception, where an examiner may log co-pilot, but that is more an airline thing and not what we are discussing here.
Even a humble flight review will have the instructor issuing certain commands e.g. "demonstrate a steep turn", and you can bet if the outcome of any manoeuvre is seriously in doubt, the instructor will take control regardless of who owns the aeroplane.
Also, otherwise, what does the examiner/instructor log? There is no 'along for the ride' column in the logbook. The old term 'supernumerary' came closest to that definition but does not adequately describe a supervisory function.
Whether the other (candidate) pilot logs dual, co-pilot or ICUS depends on the type of operation, candidate's role and training organisation policy - being checked or reviewed warrants ICUS if it goes well. If it does not go well, and there has been some intervention from the other seat, maybe dual would be more truthful.
Even a humble flight review will have the instructor issuing certain commands e.g. "demonstrate a steep turn", and you can bet if the outcome of any manoeuvre is seriously in doubt, the instructor will take control regardless of who owns the aeroplane.
Also, otherwise, what does the examiner/instructor log? There is no 'along for the ride' column in the logbook. The old term 'supernumerary' came closest to that definition but does not adequately describe a supervisory function.
Whether the other (candidate) pilot logs dual, co-pilot or ICUS depends on the type of operation, candidate's role and training organisation policy - being checked or reviewed warrants ICUS if it goes well. If it does not go well, and there has been some intervention from the other seat, maybe dual would be more truthful.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 8th Jul 2019 at 08:10.
Yes, but that still doesn't disguise the vexing issue of logging night when it turns dark enroute. Is it when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon as observed from the aircraft? Or at ground level some 39000 feet below? To get it wrong would surely be a 50 penalty unit offence against some part of Part 61 I can't pain myself to check?
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Leady. The CAAP is a bit silly. The criterion used by my outfit is "could you legally carry out this operation if the checkie were not there"? If the answer is yes, you're PIC. OTOH if your rating has expired, you're not recent etc, etc, then no, AICUS.
ICAO Annex II, Leaddie? You probably meant ICAO Annex I, which reveals all.
Here is the definition of “Pilot-in-command under supervision” from ICAO Annex I:
Here is the definition of “Pilot-in-command under supervision” from ICAO Annex I:
Pilot-in-command under supervision. Co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, in accordance with a method of supervision acceptable to the Licensing Authority.
radiodude: You were either the PIC from the start of and for the ensuing duration of the flight, or you weren’t. Subsequent events cannot change the objective facts at the start of the flight.
You say you were subject to a “flight test”. For what were you being “tested”? Were you allowed to conduct the flight as PIC, if the FE had not been there?
You say you were subject to a “flight test”. For what were you being “tested”? Were you allowed to conduct the flight as PIC, if the FE had not been there?
I suspect that some of the confusion in the thread above comes from reading about the US regulations where more than 1 person can log PIC time for a flight,
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...AND%20TIME.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...AND%20TIME.pdf
I suspect that some of the confusion in the thread above comes from reading about the US regulations where more than 1 person can log PIC time for a flight,
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...AND%20TIME.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...AND%20TIME.pdf
The "confusion" comes from Australia being out of step with the rest of the world, with which we compare ----- unless, like some, you believe Australia is the only one in step.
Having once been ICAO compliant, I know exactly who, when and why the present Australian "confusion" commenced, it was a truly confused (but very influential at the time) mind that started the rot.
The solution, revert to ICAO compliance in logging time.
Tootle pip!!
PS: For many years, more than one person in AU could log PIC --- and surprise, surprise, it didn't result in bodies raining from the skies.
