PPRuNe Forums - Logbook - ATPL conditions

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Questions (https://www.pprune.org/questions-67/)

- - Logbook - ATPL conditions (https://www.pprune.org/questions/544062-logbook-atpl-conditions.html)

Artic Circle: Thanks. In the early '70s, as a result of the Oil Price shocks of 73(?) the forerunner of BA ( BOAC& BEA ) had a large surplus of cadet pilots that were redeployed in other non flying roles within the company. In some cases this was for more than 5 years which did, then raise the issue of their theory exam passes being declared void.
I guess with EASA all these old issues are now history?
So, to clarify, am I correct in thinking that your company's F/Os who do not have the P1 hours from outside, qualify for their hours requirement by logging P1CUS on their command course?

In most EASA countries,

PICUS is ONLY POSSIBLE when the Company has a proper programme for PICUS training, and APPROVED by the State of Licence.

For example, in Belgium,if you would write your PF as PIC(US) and they check your logbook, you can rewrite your whole book with the PROPER APPROPRIATE hours, meaning, if you are an FO, YOU ONLY LOG COPILOT TIME, you are NOT PIC!!!:ugh::ugh::=

You will also be told off very sternly and be considered a cheater by the authorities. beware.

If you ever change jobs, lots of airlines will just throw away you application when they see all your PF hours as FO written down as PIC.

Anybody trying this trick in my company is in serious trouble by the way...

Despegue: thanks for your post. That sounds exactly how it used to be done in SABENA according to what their ex-pilots told us when they came to Hong Kong.

Prior to my retirement, my most recent experience was with a well known orange operator and rightly or wrongly that protocol for logging of hours was definitely not followed!
I would be most surprised if the UK CAA were unaware of this practice.

This issue of PICUS seems to come up time and again.

The UK CAA have approved of the 'PF as PICUS' method of logging hours for the purpose of ATPL issue since time immemorial. It may not be technically correct, and other NAAs may well take a different view, but in the UK at least, it's a perfectly valid method of reaching the hours requirements for ATPL issue.

Yes, but ONLY with approved Captains and with an Approved Airline PICUS programme, and no further PICUS than required for ATPL issue.

I have seen FO's with 2000h. Total time, in their logbook, 1800 on Multi-pilot aircraft, of which... 1000 PIC!:ugh::=

Not in the UK. You can log as much PICUS as you like, with whoever you like. The CAA do not care.

Extraordinary, isn't it? The CAA will prosecute you viciously for some minor technical infringement that depends on lawyers pettifogging over the most esoteric of definitions, the Aviation Law ATPL paper is largely based on pedantic comprehension of the most convoluted punctuation, double negatives, multiple subordinate clauses and definitions perhaps derived from what was not written in the rule, yet the CAA themselves collude in blatant logbook fraud in direct contravention of an unmistakably clearly written rule, additionally ensuring that the poor FOs are shortchanged on airmanship training and experience.

Compliance? What a joke!

For the benefit of our European colleagues who are rightly astonished at all this, know that the FO booking PICUS time on the UK register does not have to tell the Captain that he is doing it (they never do in fact) nor even request a signature - he just writes it in his logbook! Thus, even if the Captain has had to intervene or override him for safety reasons there is no way for this to affect the recording of a successful PICUS sector! Neither does the FO ever demonstrate his Captaincy on a non handling sector.

Bizarre or what?

Quote:

ONLY with approved Captains and with an Approved Airline PICUS programme, and no further PICUS than required for ATPL issue.

That is most certainly not the case with UK CAA. If the orange outfit described by meikleleour has an "approved PICUS Training Programme" none of the Captains know anything about it - what they do have is effectively an exemption from the CAA to ignore the rule regarding the proper conduct of PICUS. A bit like an airline somewhere west of wales whose Flt Ops Director told me, without hint of irony, "We do not apply that paragraph in our Operations Manual".

It's also not my experience that this has been going on "since time immemorial"; when I was in the FO's seat needing P1 hours (in the mid - late '80s) the P1u/s protocol was rigidly applied and Flight Crew Licensing took great interest in seeing that you hadn't logged above your quota, and an equal interest in seeing the Captain's signatures were present and licence numbers legible.

Interestingly, the neutral part of the Orange company does have a full, approved PICUS programme, overseen by the training department, and consisting of supervised hours logging, written test, sim check and line check.

Intriguing!

1) is this procedure new? How long has it been in place? Must be since I left which is how I missed it.

2) Why does PICUS need a "programme" at all? What you describe sounds more like a pre-command training course which is hardly the same thing, surely?
3) What do you mean by "the neutral part of the Orange company"?

4) If this programme is "overseen" by the training dept how does it devolve to the line Captains that are flying with the FOs? How are they involved?

Clearly PICUS must (if done correctly) consist of supervised hours logged but how does "written test, sim check and line check" come into it? There is no provision or mention for any of this in the definition or description of PICUS.

Surely we must be talking at cross purposes? What is described above bears no resemblance to PICUS.