Co Pilot PICUS time
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC, I don't know which planet you inhabit, but according to your "logic" how the HELL could you log P1us as FO on a single sector with Captain handling? Equally, how would the Capt log P1 if the other guy is PF? What kind of twisted logic is this?
Why/how do you suppose that the regulations have given you some sort of bizarre weasel to pretend to be P1 when you are clearly nothing of the sort? Is this the way the regs usually work?
Hey! You do the maths!
I see nothing, anywhere that connects with who is Pf with who is P1. This is a myth. Dreamland. Because IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Prove me wrong, or back down. Publically.
Why/how do you suppose that the regulations have given you some sort of bizarre weasel to pretend to be P1 when you are clearly nothing of the sort? Is this the way the regs usually work?
Hey! You do the maths!
I see nothing, anywhere that connects with who is Pf with who is P1. This is a myth. Dreamland. Because IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Prove me wrong, or back down. Publically.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 12th Aug 2010 at 23:42.
LASORS Section A, Appendix B. Recording of Flight Time.
Co-Pilot
• The designated co-pilot of the aeroplane may log as
co-pilot all the time he acts as co-pilot whilst sitting
in a pilot’s seat.
• He may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.
• He may also log as pilot in command all the time
he is acting as pilot in command and substituting for
the designated commander of the aircraft when he
is taking rest.
• He may not log as flight time any periods during
which he does not occupy a pilot’s seat.
• The designated co-pilot of the aeroplane may log as
co-pilot all the time he acts as co-pilot whilst sitting
in a pilot’s seat.
• He may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.
• He may also log as pilot in command all the time
he is acting as pilot in command and substituting for
the designated commander of the aircraft when he
is taking rest.
• He may not log as flight time any periods during
which he does not occupy a pilot’s seat.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
• He may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.
pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the
supervision of the pilot in command or a cruise relief
pilot substituting for the pilot in command.
Look up the duties if P1, They begin at the start of pre-flight briefing and end when all post flight duties are completed. You can't cherry-pick which bits you do, you are either P1 or you are not. The same must therefore aply to a P2 acting as P1. If a P2 were to only act as P1us for "his" sectors then that would have to be discussed, organised and correctly briefed by the FO in the crew room preflight, but why bother when he can log it all?
Apart from that, what would be the point, what does it prove, if P2s log every sector as P1us without the Captain even knowing that the P2 considers himself in the Captain's seat that sector. It isnt logical, sensible or productive of anything. The PF system prvides the P2 with nothing but some Parker 51 time in his logbook, instead of the solid, essential hands-on coaching and Captaincy skills that he will needs in the future.
Also, the system used 20yrs ago under UK CAA rules was as I have stated. Please tell me when such a major shift in the concept, detail, purpose and execution of P1us was implemented?
We also know that many non eu nations laugh at the way our P2s think they are P1 when PF. Because it is simply laughable.
The last three paragraphs merely back up the logic of the facts in those above, but they must indicate to the logical mind that this change has not occurred by the advent of more recent regulatory systems.
It may also be a reflection of changes in attitude of FOs over the last couple of decades. Then every FO was gagging for knowledge, eagerly picking up every scrap of advice and suggestion from their Captains. P1us was very much a part of this process.
One sometimes wonders if the modern, integrated trained, £100,000 cadet FO isn't in the quite the same business because that eagerness for knowledge is very much less than it was. Often all but absent. Advice/suggestions are sometimes recieved as unwarrannted criticism, and sometimes treated with open scepticism. Maybe the integrated system teaches studes that they know the business so well from the start that they don't need the advice of some old curmudgeon who's been doing it for donkey's years. After all, they know the SOPs inside out and backwards. What else is required? The Command Course will come along in time and then they will be Captains too. Airmanship doesn't feature any more in some of the rigidly SOP driven companies, I suspect. It is a word neither heard nor uttered in mine.
It is easy to see how correctly applied P1us would not be popular or considered desireable under such conditions, which might explain its widespread dilution into the pointless modern parody accepted by many on this forum.
But that doesn't make it correct.
LASORS is an uncontrolled general advice document with no force in law. The (unknown) authors usually don't even bother to provide references for statements in the document.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, (Ladies too), It appears that I have been somewhat hasty, not to say incorrect re no mention of PF for which I apologise.
I know that LASORS is not the law too, merely guidance, and have not changed my view on the incorrect and inappropriate way that P1us is commonly (mis)applied in the UK.
I would be interested to see how those with a better grasp of JAA law than me interpret this minefield, with published references to the legal documents involved. Please!
And for those who wish to justify that LASORS lets you claim P1us willy-nilly on handling sectors (it does not) it also states that the Capt has to certify this with a signature. You can't have it both ways. No signature, no logbook entry. Plus quite a few other conditions too.
And why, why, why, if you've done the preparation, couldn't you log it on all sectors? What on earth is there about t/o and landing that makes you capable of acting as P1 but cannot when the other guy is flying? This is so irrational and idiotic it makes a complete nonsense of the whole idea!
What really is happening here is that a shoddily written and poorly defined CAA advice pamphlet (containng no references) is being quoted as "legislation" and is then being widely misapplied against professional standards, logic and the spirit of the law, if not the law itself and to the unfair and unreasonable advantage of certain people in order to gain a Professonal qualification (ie ATPL); yet the UK CAA seems, bizarrely, to be complicit in it.
This travesty as suggested by LASORS is a sad mockery of the real intention of the rules. But just what are those rules? Anyone with the time and effort to clarify?
Even so, as Professionals I think we all know what P1us is; it's purpose, it's rationale, it's value, what it is for, and how it should to be implemented. What is being proposed above is so far from that as to be unrecognisable.
Quite so!
It just ain't right!
I know that LASORS is not the law too, merely guidance, and have not changed my view on the incorrect and inappropriate way that P1us is commonly (mis)applied in the UK.
I would be interested to see how those with a better grasp of JAA law than me interpret this minefield, with published references to the legal documents involved. Please!
And for those who wish to justify that LASORS lets you claim P1us willy-nilly on handling sectors (it does not) it also states that the Capt has to certify this with a signature. You can't have it both ways. No signature, no logbook entry. Plus quite a few other conditions too.
And why, why, why, if you've done the preparation, couldn't you log it on all sectors? What on earth is there about t/o and landing that makes you capable of acting as P1 but cannot when the other guy is flying? This is so irrational and idiotic it makes a complete nonsense of the whole idea!
What really is happening here is that a shoddily written and poorly defined CAA advice pamphlet (containng no references) is being quoted as "legislation" and is then being widely misapplied against professional standards, logic and the spirit of the law, if not the law itself and to the unfair and unreasonable advantage of certain people in order to gain a Professonal qualification (ie ATPL); yet the UK CAA seems, bizarrely, to be complicit in it.
This travesty as suggested by LASORS is a sad mockery of the real intention of the rules. But just what are those rules? Anyone with the time and effort to clarify?
Even so, as Professionals I think we all know what P1us is; it's purpose, it's rationale, it's value, what it is for, and how it should to be implemented. What is being proposed above is so far from that as to be unrecognisable.
If find it rather amusing people will come up with any means to log "command time", when they are not actually in command!
It just ain't right!
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 14th Aug 2010 at 21:55.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crinkley Bottom
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'll bite.
First of all, LASORS. No, it isn't the law, but it does however 'bring together all the flight crew licensing information otherwise found in JAR-FCL, the UK ANO, AICs and the old CAPs 53/54' and is written and distributed by the CAA, the aviation authority in the UK, for the guidance of pilots. Thus, you could be forgiven for taking it as law or as close as you can get to it. If it is wrong then you should take that up with the CAA rather than berate the pilots who are guided by it - an intricate and detailed knowledge of JAR-FCL should not be required for the every day commercial pilot. For that matter, I don't believe that LASORS allows for an F/O to claim PICus or P1/S or whatever for every flight they are PF. There are specific requirements that LASORS say that should go along with that which 99% of flights as PF in the RHS don't' meet.
Secondly, it frustrates me no end when Agaricus bisporous implies that there has been some disasterous downtrend in the attitudes of F/Os in recent years and hark back to those golden years when every F/O had worked there way up ab intio and was always receptive, gagging for knowledge and took every captains word to heart. Granted the 18yr old P2F with dads mortgage is a relatively modern disease in the industry but that shouldn't be a reflection on those who've been fortunate to have been put through all their training by one way or other and moved straight into the RHS of a jet transport a/c because lets face it, thats been going on for decades under the likes of BA and other airlines who took a duty of care in helping people into the industry. And along the way every captain has bemoaned how standards have dropped and pilots just aren't the same any more, whether that was the RAF captain of the 40s who distrusted anyone who hadn't commanded a fast jet or the captain of today who has commendably worked his way through from instructing and towing to the LHS of a 744 and resents a new F/O who hasn't had to experience the same hardships.
I put to you that the majority of new F/Os these days are gagging for knowledge and feeding off the experience of their elders and betters at any opportunity, and just like years gone past there are a few who believe themselves above it all and know everything already. At the same time, I would say there is a fair number of Captains who are sitting in the lefthand seat who just don't have a clue, they don't know the systems or the SOPs. And nine times out of ten those very same captains don't have the airmanship to fly without the knowledge and SOPs. They are arrogant, ignorant and should have never made up to the position of commander and it pays for the F/O to sceptical, to treat the god given advice given by such line captains, and on occasion trainers, that contradicts most SOPs and received knowledge as BS. The command course will come along in time and they will have to show they know when to keep quiet and listen and when to speak up and question.
I'm sorry to diverge from the main topic here, but when those above feel the need to add extra barbs to their argument than the facts involved I feel the need to refute them. For every disinterested and arrogant F/O who's had a cushy intro into the industry theres a bitter and ignorant Captain who hasn't maintained his knowledge or skills.
With that said, I move on to the subject in hand.
Given that we have this situation of F/Os requiring a certain number of PIC hours in order to meet the requirements for an ATPL and for those who have moved straight from training to commercial multi-pilot flying - a reality of the industry here in the UK for many decades - without sending them back to blow holes in the clouds in a C152, how are they meant to gain the required PIC hours required?
The original solution envisaged was that the airline would implement a structured training program such that the F/O would be able to gain the required hours through acting as PIC under proper supervision, completing all the required duties of the PIC without intervention and being signed off as such by the actual commander at the end of the flight.
Show me an airline in the UK today that implements such a training program or could care less how their F/Os gained the required hours to meet the requirements for ATPL issue! I've been in the industry for the relatively short time span of two years, had three full time commercial airline jobs in that time and am facing moving on to my fourth and not one of those airlines has any program in place or any interest in how I meet the requirements for an ATPL.
I feel you do a large number of us an injustice implying that we will 'come up with any means to log command time,when they are not actually in command'. Trust me, I've met the bad eggs out there, those who fudge the numbers, log non-existant hours, heck, I've met a guy who logged all his observation/jump seat flights as P2 hours in order to get a job.
I have never done such thing, or ever will. When I apply for a job which asks for the number of PIC/command hours I wouldn't dream of putting down any of my time in the right seat, PF or PM - that all goes in the P2 column.
Yet I'm still faced with the requirement of license issue, with airlines that couldn't care less but with a CAA who does it seems, based on going reports and experience, be offering an alternative method even though it contradict their own documentation.
What am I meant to do? Sit forever with a blue book, pious in my knowledge that I am sticking the letter of the law and not take advantage of the way out provided. Or, be pragmatic about the situation take the route that pretty much every other F/O out there is taking and take advantage of an alternative reading of the rules which is tacitly approved by the CAA? Because lets face it, short of hiring out a SEP and throwing money out the DV I'm not going to gain the required hours otherwise.
First of all, LASORS. No, it isn't the law, but it does however 'bring together all the flight crew licensing information otherwise found in JAR-FCL, the UK ANO, AICs and the old CAPs 53/54' and is written and distributed by the CAA, the aviation authority in the UK, for the guidance of pilots. Thus, you could be forgiven for taking it as law or as close as you can get to it. If it is wrong then you should take that up with the CAA rather than berate the pilots who are guided by it - an intricate and detailed knowledge of JAR-FCL should not be required for the every day commercial pilot. For that matter, I don't believe that LASORS allows for an F/O to claim PICus or P1/S or whatever for every flight they are PF. There are specific requirements that LASORS say that should go along with that which 99% of flights as PF in the RHS don't' meet.
Secondly, it frustrates me no end when Agaricus bisporous implies that there has been some disasterous downtrend in the attitudes of F/Os in recent years and hark back to those golden years when every F/O had worked there way up ab intio and was always receptive, gagging for knowledge and took every captains word to heart. Granted the 18yr old P2F with dads mortgage is a relatively modern disease in the industry but that shouldn't be a reflection on those who've been fortunate to have been put through all their training by one way or other and moved straight into the RHS of a jet transport a/c because lets face it, thats been going on for decades under the likes of BA and other airlines who took a duty of care in helping people into the industry. And along the way every captain has bemoaned how standards have dropped and pilots just aren't the same any more, whether that was the RAF captain of the 40s who distrusted anyone who hadn't commanded a fast jet or the captain of today who has commendably worked his way through from instructing and towing to the LHS of a 744 and resents a new F/O who hasn't had to experience the same hardships.
I put to you that the majority of new F/Os these days are gagging for knowledge and feeding off the experience of their elders and betters at any opportunity, and just like years gone past there are a few who believe themselves above it all and know everything already. At the same time, I would say there is a fair number of Captains who are sitting in the lefthand seat who just don't have a clue, they don't know the systems or the SOPs. And nine times out of ten those very same captains don't have the airmanship to fly without the knowledge and SOPs. They are arrogant, ignorant and should have never made up to the position of commander and it pays for the F/O to sceptical, to treat the god given advice given by such line captains, and on occasion trainers, that contradicts most SOPs and received knowledge as BS. The command course will come along in time and they will have to show they know when to keep quiet and listen and when to speak up and question.
I'm sorry to diverge from the main topic here, but when those above feel the need to add extra barbs to their argument than the facts involved I feel the need to refute them. For every disinterested and arrogant F/O who's had a cushy intro into the industry theres a bitter and ignorant Captain who hasn't maintained his knowledge or skills.
With that said, I move on to the subject in hand.
Given that we have this situation of F/Os requiring a certain number of PIC hours in order to meet the requirements for an ATPL and for those who have moved straight from training to commercial multi-pilot flying - a reality of the industry here in the UK for many decades - without sending them back to blow holes in the clouds in a C152, how are they meant to gain the required PIC hours required?
The original solution envisaged was that the airline would implement a structured training program such that the F/O would be able to gain the required hours through acting as PIC under proper supervision, completing all the required duties of the PIC without intervention and being signed off as such by the actual commander at the end of the flight.
Show me an airline in the UK today that implements such a training program or could care less how their F/Os gained the required hours to meet the requirements for ATPL issue! I've been in the industry for the relatively short time span of two years, had three full time commercial airline jobs in that time and am facing moving on to my fourth and not one of those airlines has any program in place or any interest in how I meet the requirements for an ATPL.
I feel you do a large number of us an injustice implying that we will 'come up with any means to log command time,when they are not actually in command'. Trust me, I've met the bad eggs out there, those who fudge the numbers, log non-existant hours, heck, I've met a guy who logged all his observation/jump seat flights as P2 hours in order to get a job.
I have never done such thing, or ever will. When I apply for a job which asks for the number of PIC/command hours I wouldn't dream of putting down any of my time in the right seat, PF or PM - that all goes in the P2 column.
Yet I'm still faced with the requirement of license issue, with airlines that couldn't care less but with a CAA who does it seems, based on going reports and experience, be offering an alternative method even though it contradict their own documentation.
What am I meant to do? Sit forever with a blue book, pious in my knowledge that I am sticking the letter of the law and not take advantage of the way out provided. Or, be pragmatic about the situation take the route that pretty much every other F/O out there is taking and take advantage of an alternative reading of the rules which is tacitly approved by the CAA? Because lets face it, short of hiring out a SEP and throwing money out the DV I'm not going to gain the required hours otherwise.
heck, I've met a guy who logged all his observation/jump seat flights as P2 hours in order to get a job.
Wazzoo, excellent post.
I never was placed in your position as I (as most in Australia) had over 3000 hours on piston single and twins when I joined my first airline, and so never had to worry about it. On my command course here in the UK the training flights before my check (when I was still an FO) were briefed as ICUS, flown as ICUS, and each individual flight counter-signed by the training Captain each day.Here's the thing. FOs, even very experienced FOs, are always surprised when they are made up to Captain in that the job isn't what you expect it to be. I had 5000 hours as an FO (on top of the 3000 piston) before I became a Captain (it's an Australian thing), and I was surprised. It's not about flying the aircraft, not about deciding the fuel, not even about knowing the SOPs. It's about looking to the left when there is a problem, and seeing nothing but your reflection looking back at you.
Seeing someone logging PF sectors as ICUS isn't annoying because "you didn't do it the hard way as I did". It's annoying because you know that they don't know what ICUS really entails. You know that they think it's about touching the controls and suggesting a fuel load.
Were I in your position, I would simply state to the Captain of the day "I still need XXX hours ICUS for my ATPL. May I fly my sectors as ICUS?" and then get the signature in the log book at the end of the day. Once I had the required hours, everything would simply go into the Co-pilot column. I understand that no-one else does this, I understand the CAA turn a blind eye.
Originally, in the days when the DC3 was the amazing big aeroplane to aspire to, Co-pilots began their handling in the cruise (no autopilots), and gradually progressed to climb/descent/approach and finally landing depending on the Captain they were lucky or not to fly with. The regs were written for that situation, and haven't progressed. If the CAA were a pro-active organisation we would have legislation by now along the lines of "an ATPL requires X hrs in Command, or X ICUS, or X hrs Co-pilot (in a two-crew aircraft under an approved Check & Training system). It would solve the discrepancy.
Last edited by Checkboard; 15th Aug 2010 at 09:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's about looking to the left when there is a problem, and seeing nothing but your reflection looking back at you.
