How I control the aircraft does not change, the procedures obviously will dependent on whether a visual approach or ILS is performed.

Good stuff. My point remains though, whether or not the VB cap gets his F/o to write down 2hrs IF or not doesn't change the amount of instrument flight time the captain has done, which effectively is much more than the minimum required. I'm not saying it's right to make up IF time , but I don't think it's a big deal or in any way dangerous if you are a 737 Captain in a country where you need many thousands of hours to reach that position.
If you've only got a couple thousand hours and you're flying a chieften it's a different story.
The recency of approaches is much more important. ie if you hadn't done a non precision approach in six months then had to do one for real it would be less than ideal.

Nice one but surely you are not serious? 737 takes off and rotates (QF or DJ) autopilot quickly engaged at flaps up speed. Time totally on instruments (with full peripheral reference if visual) while hand flying on autothrottle and flight director (say) four minutes. Rest of flight "scanning, scanning, scanning" chatting to F/O about latest union bitching, women, reading newspaper, scratching balls, looking outside in clear gin weather, fiddling with CDU and maybe even radar, making PA's, chatting up female or male flight attendants, depending on your personal preferences, and in between glancing at flight instruments out of nothing else to do - but always he says "scanning, scanning, scanning....!!" Rubbish.

On final - maybe two miles from touch down if you are daring, announce disconnecting autopilot but leave FD on and maybe deselect speed on AT and press stopwatch to time actual hands on flying. Lets be generous and say four minutes of half automatics and half hand flying. Total time of hands on flying for whole flight eight (8) gripping minutes when the life of your passengers are in your hands.

So who are you kidding when you say the captain/FO of a typical B737 airliner flight in Australia spends most of his flight scanning, scanning, scanning. And after landing he says to the data input processor in the right hand seat "Hey! Maaate - put me down for two hours I/F wilya?"

Having observed some of these aces in the simulator struggling to fly wings level hand flying raw data, then their hours and hours of "scanning, scanning, scanning" hasn't improved their "scanning".

Tee Emm -Spot on.

Thats why I only log .2 I.F for every sector I fly, figure the after a year the law of averages it works it self out. Some days 8/8s blue sky others never get out of the weather.

Oooh, very very no.

Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.

Totally serious.
Don't get too wound up about it though, I didn't realise you had a different log book, one with a "hand flown IMC" column and one with a "A/P engaged IMC" column.
I've not seen much of this go on without a scan going at the same time and have seen someone read a news paper in the cruise on only two or three occasions on the 737 in last 12 months. However when I was on a two crew turbo prop with no A/P we used to read the paper a fair bit....go figure. Have fun logging your IF time....make sure you get it just right:)

Cant say I ever read the paper 2crew no autopilot, but im definately update now with the news

I think what he means is, if he is a CPL IFR rated pilot endorsed on the C182, can his class mate; also CPL IFR endorsed on the 182 be next to him and have him log ICUS?

If that's not what he means, then I'm curious to know anyway :}

For ICUS you must be appointed by an operator. Two mates (without the blessing of an Operator) cannot just go log ICUS. I'm no instructor but I imagine that in Aus (not so in the US I believe) one cannot log Dual unless operating under the auspices of an approved flying school. Without an AOC holder it looks like you'll be stuck with doing 3 hours per 90 days.

FRQ CB

Dual = Training = Airwork = AOC required, except for a few exemptions.

One way to keep the cost down is too find a basic synthetic trainer approved for recency purposes, some can be cheap and you can use them for 2 of the 3 hours required, legal and no grey areas.

On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?

43"s

On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?


Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside

heh heh, thats way closer to the mark!
probably just c0cked it up and made the decision to go round and have another crack....what would you suggest? let me guess....never get in that position in the first place by being an ace pilot? Or maybe they should have logged their IF time more acurately to prevent such a situation? :hmm:

Maybe,

Or maybe they're just worn out from scanning, scanning, scanning,

I'm also now interested to know what the FO does as the captain is scanning 95% of the time, is he also scanning?

Why do you have to be an ace pilot to achieve this, especially if your monitoring your instruments constantly the whole flight, should be easy.

To answer your questions 43,
Yes.

Sometimes people make mistakes and/or errors in judgement. Sometimes ATC places a restriction on your descent, and a stage is reached where a stable approach is no longer achievable. If you fly for long enough one of these things will happen to you and you have two choices 1/ Carry out a go round, or 2/ carry out an unstable approach. Here in Australia we are pretty good at making the sometimes difficult decision to go-around.
Sorry if I was a bit short with you in earlier posts, I had assumed you were a commercial pilot. My bad. Have a good Christmas.
Framer.......Out.

If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;

1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...

2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach.

3. Be monitoring descent profile the entire descent, anticipate what ATC is doing with other traffic and position the aircraft to be flexible in case track shortening becomes available. This requires effective situational awarness generated by an good scan and management.

Of course a go-round is necessary in cases of an unstable approach or any other situation which requires it, but a go-round will cost a lot more than a few extra miles or minor profile adjustments to avoid it.

If the crew choose to ignore what their 'scan' is telling them and push on for a close approach to save time than this highlights another problem.

43 Inches,
You seem hell-bent on showing that QF/DJ 737 pilots don't scan enough and that it can sometimes be a safety issue. Fair enough i guess but you are not supporting your argument with any logic. Just a side-swipe comment about 'red 737's' having to do go-arounds. Are you reffering to DJ and QF 737's when you say 'red 737's' or have you narrowed the focus to just QF now?
When Framer said that ATC restrictions can cause a visual approach to become unstable if continued any further he/she was quite right, and often it is the result of an ATC error not a crew error. Or just a circumstance like a busy frequency meaning further descent does not become available soon enough.
You countered the statment by saying;

"If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;

1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...

2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach"

Most of the time what you say is carried out, no problem. What Framer means is that sometimes things just don't come together, for whatever reason, and then the correct action is to go-around.
Saying that the captains scan rate has a bearing on any of this is a long stretch of the bow. I'd go so ar as to say it's a bit silly really.
CJAM......ps, sometimes I make up my IF time which might explain why I had to go-around last week when someone decided to request an airways clearance on tower frequency with many ums and arrs to fill the pauses. If only I had scanned my way out of that one ha ha.

Instrument flying scan rate and situational awareness are two entirely different things.

Thanks for all your input guys. I finally found the references for my question. "CAR 157 and CAO 40.0 - 2.7".

Cheers:)

Just to clarify for anyone reading the thread, in order for you to be logging ICUS, both pilots MUST be employed by a company, operating under the company AOC, with the company dictating who is PIC and who is ICUS. There are a couple other rules as well, but the main point is that you CANNOT just fly ICUS with a classmate.

Although one that I'm interested in knowing, can one fly ICUS on a ME IFR flight (commercial flight, say a charter) if they hold a MECIR but are not IF recent (3hrs etc)? PIC is current on everything.

question
 

1. I am currently in the US flying a BE 200 and I was wondering under CASA regs if time is logged as dual recieved and given can it be logged as PIC by both if the captain is an instuctor or would it be UCIS for the right seat only. Both of them are Multi Enigine Rated and endorsed. Here in the US if you are both rated in the A/C and endorsed I.E. High Altitude and one of you is an instructor you can both log PIC if it is also logged as dual given and recieved

2. As well as if there are two pilots flying taking turns under the hood while the other is acting as saftey pilot can they both log PIC?

The reason why I ask I will be flying in Australia and I am trying to make my log books understandable by both FAA and CASA from training to present day