not off topic, fair question!

however, REX issue all pilots with COMMAND ratings on the SAAB anyway, so the point, whilst valid, is answered.

This may help;

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

I think thats pretty clear.

Gidday 43"

I've read CAR 5.40 over quite a few times, and I think it's as clear as Mud! Your bolding highlights the type of aircraft endorsement required (REX do give "command" endorsements), but the definition of the catagory of licence I think is less clear.

CAR 5.40(2) (2 a i)

"The person holds:

A commercial pilots licence, or an Air Transport Pilots Licence that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft..."

So what does this mean?

What is the intent?

I believe, although poorly written, CASA know's exactly what it means and so do the operators! The licence required to Fly in command as well as ICUS on RPT aircraft with a MTOW > 5700kg is an ATPL. The reg also applies to ICUS on aircraft below 5700kg and that is where the minimum of a CPL applies.

If Cadets or Low time DE F/O's have insufficient command hours to qualify for an ATPL, then the logging of ICUS would only be permitted to satisfy that requirement. And may I say, only on an aircraft for which the candidate's current licence authorises him or her to fly in command!

The ATOG proposal attempts to circumvent this reg by envoking the ICAO annex 1, which permits the logging of ICUS to attain a higher Grade of licence! Unfortunately the logging of ICUS for the purpose of attaining a higher grade of licence (ATPL) has nothing to do with the 500 Multi-IFR requirement of the LCAOC!

The entire proposal is fundamentally flawed.

The lunatics have certainly taken over the assylum on this one!

apart from the legal issues, I cannot recall anywhere in the (now expired) REX EBA, which gives any scope for ICUS, un less it is done by C&T captains. Any line captain who agrees to supervise a lesser experienced pilot just to "build hours for an ATPL" needs his head read.
Not only are you helping the company out of a preventable predicament, you are placing your career and your licence in jeopardy should, heaven forbid, something go wrong.

Nothing against the cadets or not experienced enough drivers, but one must ALWAYS think about ones own self preservation at all times!

Probably better FO`s log icus and eventually get commands than the place goes nipples up! where will the skippers come from?

If a you feed a bird bread crumbs everyday I will come back and not go away and might even attack you if you don't feed it. If you keep on feeding Rex with Yes when they ask you to work a rosted day off they will come back and not go away and might even attack you!

If you don't want to have your eyes pecked out ... stop feeding!!!!

Gidday M.L.

The chances of REX going "nipples up" as you say is extremely remote. I say extremely remote because nothing in this world is certain, but as far as airlines go, REX are very stable financially. The Chairman has embarked upon a course of action that has seen good developement of the company halted and even reversed. The fundamentals however are sound. REX could shrink the business by a significant margin and not only survive, but still turn a profit, albeit a reduced one!

fritzandsauce,

good analogy mate, and you are absolutely correct. The time to stop accepting the crumbs has well and truely come. If all REX pilots refused to work on their days off it would have an imeadiate affect on the day to day operation of the business. Brutally the major initial impact would be on the hard working staff and long suffering public. But what else can you do in the face of such intransience. The EBA "negotiations are a joke, and the company continues to pour millions into bandaid solutions rather than be a part of the fix.

What's needed is a focus by the board on just how valuable and fragile the supply of professional aircrew have become. Maybe then they may start asking "what can we do to encourage you to stay", rather than, "have a nice life, don't slam the door on the way out!"

Worst thing is, one of the most vocal people against management in and around the crew room is one of the people who keeps coming in to do RDOs every second day.
Complains about terms and conditions, yet is cleaning up with 3-4 callouts every fortnight while every one else misses out while fighting for the future. :mad:
Struggling FOs with a family to raise who can't pay the rent and bills, fair enough... that's a different story.

I'd hardly call it "cleaning up",

what is it again for day off pay $350 ($220 after tax)...what a joke, don't these fools realise they are pharking it for the rest!!

Geez Rex get your act together, even we get $550 for call in on an RDO, and I am in 'GA'!;)

Vast number of Aeroplanes does not make an airline they are still GA or at least pay like GA of a few years ago.

Krusty, having a CPL rather than ATPL does not restrict ICUS on these aircraft, but, having said that the candidate should be undergoing some sort of formal monitoring/assessment which would require the supervision of at least a training captain, i can't see how that could be changed.

Icus was introduced primarily because of this CAO requirement;

8A Conditions on aircraft endorsements

8A.1 For the purposes of regulation 5.25, it is a condition of each command endorsement that authorises the holder of the endorsement to fly an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5 700 kg that the holder of the endorsement must not act as pilot in command of such an aeroplane if:

Civil Aviation Order 40.1.0

Note

It was never intended as an hour building exercise rather than another arm of LOFT to be conducted to monitor a command candidate in commercial operations. It has now been extended to a lot of other applications and has been abused in the past by GA operators as a means of supplemental income, hence why the hours are discounted by most operators.

CAR 5.40 is actually pretty clear, its just that it doesn't support what have been long held views / operating mthods in Oz Aviation. However it is interpreted by various CASA FOIs and airlines, the fact remains that a Supervisory position is a company appointment and is not required for the logging of ICUS as per CAR 5.40.

The PIC of the aircraft must be an ATPL holder, however the PICUS must have a Command Endorsement, CPL (or ATPL) and have a valid MECIR. The reality is that the biggest prohibition to this is industrial (ie the point made re the REX EBA) and not regulatory.

I don't see a problem with FOs logging their sectors as ICUS, providing that they meet the requirements of CAR 5.40. What is the difference between this and the P1 / P2 system that seems to work so well in other parts of the world? If a C & T system is good enough, standards aren't a problem. I also don't think its neccessarily a big problem industrially. It will still take approx 2-3 years for a cadet to attain enough experience to meet the requirements for an ATPL and command. This means quicker commands for everyone else.

Cadet programs are never the whole solution to a problem for this reason.

“I don't see a problem with FOs logging their sectors as ICUS, providing that they meet the requirements of CAR 5.40.”

This statement, IMHFO is missing the point. ICUS is exactly that, In Command (under supervision).There is more to command than simply poling (or providing AP input) on a particular sector.

Being in command is being responsible for the conduct of the entire flight, including subordinate crew.

Therefore the ICUS argument requires a complete structured environment, where the Supervisory (or whatever terminology may be used) Captain, has received appropriate training and certification in the role, i.e. early error detection, correction and communication to his trainee. The trainee is briefed preflight on what is expected, monitored, mentored, tested (orally) during the flight and then properly debriefed and the progress recorded.

Most FOs after several months line flying will or have reached a good standard of line flying, but can they adequately Command a flight?



P.S.Both Airlink and Pelair AOC authorise RPT, therefore, their regulatory minimas reference flight crew are the same as Rex

Thanks Capt' et, al.

Am I drawing a long bow with regard to the definition of "fly the aircraft" as a Co-pilot or as a Captain, because the reg apparently doesn't specify. Some have taken the definition as irrespective to what seat, others have taken the view that a catagory of licence be applicable to "command" be it ICUS or otherwise. My interpretation (as well as at least one FOI I know) is that the intent of the reg be applicable to at least an ATPL holder for Aircraft above 5700kg and CPL for aircraft below 5700kg.

If you read the ATOG proposal, the author attempts to validate the logging of ICUS by invoking ICAO annex 1 which permits this activity for the attainment of a "Higher Grade of Licence". If there is no barrier to a CPL holder logging ICUS on aircraft above 5700kg as "defined" in CAR 5.40, then why does the ATOG proposal attempt to redefine the Reg in this manner? My only conclusion is that the author has recognised the prohibition to logging ICUS in aircraft above 5700kg by anyone other than the holder of an ATPL!

Now if I'm wrong (and it certainly won't be the first time), then why all the effort to augment the Reg. Why not simply give the green light for operators to do it. For that matter, why don't operators just do it if the Reg is so clear? The reason; No one wants to stick their necks out. And frankly who could blame them.

As I said, I believe CAR 50.4 is as clear as mud!

p.s. Marauder.

Agree totally. The ATOG proposal also makes mention of due governance by the operator when assigning "Supervisory" Captains for ICUS flights. An obvious attempt to aportion responsibility. The problem is, the due governance it refers to only makes referance to the "Supervisory" Captain as being qualified to fly with a junior albeit qualified First Officer! In other words, no requirement whatsoever above the normal qualification of line Captain.

What a joke!

And thats the problem Krusty. Not that you have an opinion, but that the FOI has his/hers and seeks to impose it on operators. This is where the whole regulatory system breaks down, it has human beings in it :}

I believe this is the reason for the ATOG clarification.

As to why it isn't done more often; I'd suggest that its mainly because operator's haven't needed to in the past because the established practices worked.

In accordance with CAR 5.40 an FO can log ICUS as long as they meet the requirements of the CAR and as long as the operator approves it. The fact that operators are unlikely to approve it in most cases due to CASA pressure or industrial pressure doesn't undermine the reg. I'd like to see CASA try to take action against an individual or company for doing it, the reg is clear.

Quote;

"I believe this is the reason for the ATOG clarification."

Fair enough JetA_OK, and far from argueing with you on that point, it is quite possible you are right. If this is the intention of the ATOG submission then it is possibly the most p!ss poor attempt at such that I think I have ever seen. The Author justifies the proposal by using some fairly spurious references to say the least.

Firstly He/She declares that the dramatic fall in airline recruits with the required Multi-Command hours is due to the emergence of single engine turbine equipment, effectively replaceing the traditional multi piston aircraft in G/A. CRAP!

Secondly, He/She quotes that ICAO annex 1 allows for the logging of ICUS in this situation for the purpose of attaining a "Higher Grade of Pilot Licence". D!CKHEAD! The proposal is aimed at allowing the candidate to log ICUS so they may qualify for the Multi-IFR requirement of the AOC. The term of a "Higher Grade of Pilot Licence" can only mean for an upgrade to ATPL, and as we all know, you don't require any Multi time for that!

Finally, He/She proposes that for a candidate to qualify to log ICUS, they must be able to satifactorily perform all the duties of the Pilot in Command (except taxiing) from the right seat. I love the way this sidesteps taxiing. I guess the skills required during this operational phase, along with the short term decision processes are not deemed to have any value. If that is the case, then why do we log block time, and not just wheels up/down? As well, does this mean that candidates will now be

• Starting engines
• Shutting down engines
• Performing the Captains cockpit setup
• Performing the Captains pre-flight duties
• Performing the Captains post-flight duties
• Making decisions and being responsible for the provisions of the MEL
• Signing the NOTOCS
• Etc, etc, etc....

Don't get me wrong guys, I want to see people advance as much as the next person, but this whole exercise is nothing short of bullsh!t! And not very good bullsh!t at that. Irrespective of what interpretation people have of a poorly written Reg'.

Our Tax dollars at work!

Ok Guys, Jet OK in particular, the point that I was trying to make (amongst others) is that there is more to being in Command than poling the aircraft. Often, the PNF sectors are more demanding than the flying ones.

I think, to regard yourself as ICUS, simply because you re flying the sector takes you back to the DC 3 days, where the FO closed the door, operated the radios, had a ‘drive’ in the cruise, and hoped one day, the grumpy old basket next to him might give him a landing.

CRM for better or worse has come a long way

As a matter of fact on a normal line flight, when it starts to get untidy, I prefer to be PNF, with the FO concentrating on the flying, whilst I can devote most effort to sorting out fuel remaining, wx,alternates, LTD etc, whilst monitoring the conduct of the flight.


Simply put, holding the controls does not necessarily mean in Command

Well said MARAUDER.

I doubt many here would disagree with you :ok: