ICUS, a slightly different Question?
Guest
Posts: n/a
SWH have a Bex and a quiet lie down eh?
As a CPL I have conducted ICUS in accordance with the CAO's towards an approval, logged it (how else do you record it officially) and the testing ATO has accepted the hours logged (including ICUS) as valid. CASA has then issued the approval after receiving the appropriate paperwork from the ATO following the successful flight test.
I am responsible for logging flight time accurately and in accordance with the law and they (ATO & CASA) are responsible for validating and confirming same when issuing new ratings, approvals etc.
As far as I am concerned that's good enough for me.
We all know the CAO's and CAR's are in many areas inconsistant, contradictory and darn well hard to read, so what's new...
Get a life and don't worry so much about it.
As a CPL I have conducted ICUS in accordance with the CAO's towards an approval, logged it (how else do you record it officially) and the testing ATO has accepted the hours logged (including ICUS) as valid. CASA has then issued the approval after receiving the appropriate paperwork from the ATO following the successful flight test.
I am responsible for logging flight time accurately and in accordance with the law and they (ATO & CASA) are responsible for validating and confirming same when issuing new ratings, approvals etc.
As far as I am concerned that's good enough for me.
We all know the CAO's and CAR's are in many areas inconsistant, contradictory and darn well hard to read, so what's new...
Get a life and don't worry so much about it.
I'm with sancho on this one, Ato's and CASA regularly accept ICUS time logged for certain approvals and as far as I know, noone has been pulled up for it.....so obviously it must be ok.
As for the argument, CAR 5.40 says that a CPL holder can fly as ICUS with certain conditions of course.
CAO 40.1.10.5 says that CPL holder may log PIC or co-pilot
CAO 40.1.10.7 says ATPL holder must log PIC, ICUS, co-pilot
So here it is, the difference between may and must leaves a loophole because CAR 5.40 states that if you're acting as a co-pilot on a flight then it can be flown as ICUS if the operator allows it, appoints you as ICUS, and you hold the relevant PIC endorsement etc
And as for logging it, as above, you may log it as co-pilot but then again if you've flown it as ICUS there's nothing saying that logging ICUS can't be done.
Ask anyone out there logging ICUS and getting approvals, CASA ATO's check it off and in some cases so do the FOI's so it must be ok.
As for the argument, CAR 5.40 says that a CPL holder can fly as ICUS with certain conditions of course.
CAO 40.1.10.5 says that CPL holder may log PIC or co-pilot
CAO 40.1.10.7 says ATPL holder must log PIC, ICUS, co-pilot
So here it is, the difference between may and must leaves a loophole because CAR 5.40 states that if you're acting as a co-pilot on a flight then it can be flown as ICUS if the operator allows it, appoints you as ICUS, and you hold the relevant PIC endorsement etc
And as for logging it, as above, you may log it as co-pilot but then again if you've flown it as ICUS there's nothing saying that logging ICUS can't be done.
Ask anyone out there logging ICUS and getting approvals, CASA ATO's check it off and in some cases so do the FOI's so it must be ok.
Sancho,
If I recall correctly the “approval” you refer to was your twin training approval, which you are required to have 50 hrs multi PIC, of which not less than 25 hours may be conducted as ICUS (CAO 40.1.7 para 9.7).
You have been very generous with facts in your post, I am not aware of any requirement for an ATO or CASA to validate your log book, or indeed if they did, I am aware that you are required to “certify that the above particulars are true in every respect.”, and the examiner to sight your logbook, license, and training records on the test form.
If you look at the “Flight Crew Licensing Industry Delegates Handbook“ part 10.9 for Additional Instructing Privileges for the actual process that the ATO/delegate would have followed.
If I recall correctly another instructor and yourself each paid for the best part of 25 hrs in a light twin and did some local flying, one of you was logging PIC, the other ICUS, in a private operation.
Yes it may be very true that you had 50 hrs inside a multi-engine aircraft at the time of commencing the flight test, but you really only had about 25 hrs of "hands on" flying that was not dual.
I still don’t know today which of the two instructors at any stage was actually logging PIC, the one in the RHS, or the one in the LHS. If I also remember correctly one of the instructors used to turn up late, and not bringing along any charts.
If I also recall correctly the CP of the company you worked for had reservations about this process, and the you went to an ATO outside the company you worked for to gain the approval. If I also recall correctly the CFI of the company you worked for did not recommend you for the test, that was done by another CFI of a school you did not even work at. Once you had the approval the company you worked for “had” to recognize it as it was on your license.
My problem with this is I do not believe a person could be competent with 25 hrs of "hands on" flying in a light twin to teach multi engine endorsements.
By paying for only 25 hrs each, you effectively only got 25 hrs of "hands on" flying the aircraft which was not dual, and 25 hrs of just sitting there fat dumb and happy/unhappy as the case may have been.
I was not aware that you fully disclosed the circumstances of logging the “ICUS” time to either the ATO or CASA, I was not aware that the ATO or CASA checked to see if the flight time was logged IAW CAR 1988 5.54 (2).
Also, out of interest did you approach CASA or the ATO and actually ask them “If I have over 50 hrs in a twin, and only 25 hrs of that was hands on flying that was not dual, does that meet the requirements of CAO 40.1.7 9.7 (a)”
As I indicated in the PM I sent you and you have decided not to reply to, if you were to have an accident now conducting twin training, would an insurance company deem that you actually gained a valid rating ?
Is it true you are advocating this ICUS angle for the issue of multi-engine training endorsements purely from a financial prospective ? or do you honestly believe the 25 hours of just sitting there doing nothing gave you the necessary exposure to multi-engine flying to competently teach ?
turbantime
You still with Sancho on this one now ? Do you agree with what they have done ?
If I recall correctly the “approval” you refer to was your twin training approval, which you are required to have 50 hrs multi PIC, of which not less than 25 hours may be conducted as ICUS (CAO 40.1.7 para 9.7).
You have been very generous with facts in your post, I am not aware of any requirement for an ATO or CASA to validate your log book, or indeed if they did, I am aware that you are required to “certify that the above particulars are true in every respect.”, and the examiner to sight your logbook, license, and training records on the test form.
If you look at the “Flight Crew Licensing Industry Delegates Handbook“ part 10.9 for Additional Instructing Privileges for the actual process that the ATO/delegate would have followed.
If I recall correctly another instructor and yourself each paid for the best part of 25 hrs in a light twin and did some local flying, one of you was logging PIC, the other ICUS, in a private operation.
Yes it may be very true that you had 50 hrs inside a multi-engine aircraft at the time of commencing the flight test, but you really only had about 25 hrs of "hands on" flying that was not dual.
I still don’t know today which of the two instructors at any stage was actually logging PIC, the one in the RHS, or the one in the LHS. If I also remember correctly one of the instructors used to turn up late, and not bringing along any charts.
If I also recall correctly the CP of the company you worked for had reservations about this process, and the you went to an ATO outside the company you worked for to gain the approval. If I also recall correctly the CFI of the company you worked for did not recommend you for the test, that was done by another CFI of a school you did not even work at. Once you had the approval the company you worked for “had” to recognize it as it was on your license.
My problem with this is I do not believe a person could be competent with 25 hrs of "hands on" flying in a light twin to teach multi engine endorsements.
By paying for only 25 hrs each, you effectively only got 25 hrs of "hands on" flying the aircraft which was not dual, and 25 hrs of just sitting there fat dumb and happy/unhappy as the case may have been.
I was not aware that you fully disclosed the circumstances of logging the “ICUS” time to either the ATO or CASA, I was not aware that the ATO or CASA checked to see if the flight time was logged IAW CAR 1988 5.54 (2).
Also, out of interest did you approach CASA or the ATO and actually ask them “If I have over 50 hrs in a twin, and only 25 hrs of that was hands on flying that was not dual, does that meet the requirements of CAO 40.1.7 9.7 (a)”
As I indicated in the PM I sent you and you have decided not to reply to, if you were to have an accident now conducting twin training, would an insurance company deem that you actually gained a valid rating ?
Is it true you are advocating this ICUS angle for the issue of multi-engine training endorsements purely from a financial prospective ? or do you honestly believe the 25 hours of just sitting there doing nothing gave you the necessary exposure to multi-engine flying to competently teach ?
turbantime
You still with Sancho on this one now ? Do you agree with what they have done ?
swh, so you did decide to read this thread again
Anyway everyone, I yesterday (finally) got my ATPL. As part of the process, CASA obviously had a look at my log book, which contains several hours ICUS which I flew and logged, including several night hours which I needed to make up my required 100.
The lovely lady at CASA didn't query it at all, so I guess there is no problem flying and logging ICUS on a CPL.
So there's the answer (was that even the question?)
Anyway everyone, I yesterday (finally) got my ATPL. As part of the process, CASA obviously had a look at my log book, which contains several hours ICUS which I flew and logged, including several night hours which I needed to make up my required 100.
The lovely lady at CASA didn't query it at all, so I guess there is no problem flying and logging ICUS on a CPL.
So there's the answer (was that even the question?)
grrowler,
Unfortunately most of the licensing delegates across the country are unable to tell the difference between a C310 and a C340....they are not pilots, generally don’t have any requirement to sit air law exams etc...
They go by the paperwork presented to them, copy the last page, check to see if the numbers on the form match the numbers in your book....and go by your deleleration that everything is true and correct....but as to knowing where to find inconsistencies...enter the data into LARP and issue you with a new license. As per the delegates handbook ....
If you were to ask them if a CP(A)L holder could log ICUS in an aeroplane, they more than likely would not know, might refer you to an FOI or Canberra. Then the answer you get will depend on who you talk to, and exactly what question you ask...can a CPL holder conduct ICUS IAW CAR 5.40 or can a CP(A)L holder log ICUS IAW CAR 5.54 (2) ....
More than likely the copy of the page of your logbook will be thrown out, as very few people actually have files in CASA, normally only delegates, approval holders, people with non compliance history.
What you have just highlighted is an inability of the delegates behind the counter to actually know if the information presented to them is valid. How do they know you actually flew TF??
Guess this means you might to across to the LHS seat now …
PS : The locals in FRV still miss you.
Unfortunately most of the licensing delegates across the country are unable to tell the difference between a C310 and a C340....they are not pilots, generally don’t have any requirement to sit air law exams etc...
They go by the paperwork presented to them, copy the last page, check to see if the numbers on the form match the numbers in your book....and go by your deleleration that everything is true and correct....but as to knowing where to find inconsistencies...enter the data into LARP and issue you with a new license. As per the delegates handbook ....
If you were to ask them if a CP(A)L holder could log ICUS in an aeroplane, they more than likely would not know, might refer you to an FOI or Canberra. Then the answer you get will depend on who you talk to, and exactly what question you ask...can a CPL holder conduct ICUS IAW CAR 5.40 or can a CP(A)L holder log ICUS IAW CAR 5.54 (2) ....
More than likely the copy of the page of your logbook will be thrown out, as very few people actually have files in CASA, normally only delegates, approval holders, people with non compliance history.
What you have just highlighted is an inability of the delegates behind the counter to actually know if the information presented to them is valid. How do they know you actually flew TF??
Guess this means you might to across to the LHS seat now …
PS : The locals in FRV still miss you.
swh, what point are you trying to make? Are you trying to point out the inadequacies in the laws and how they are written, which we already know, are you trying to launch personal accusations and inappropriate suggestions about people, or are you actually trying to answer the question with some practibility and commonsense?
Surely if a CPL can't count ICUS towards his/ her ATPL requirements, this would be listed in the so-called "delegates handbook", along with all the other hour requirements, such as halving copilot time, etc, etc.
Now I don't, unlike some others, pretend to be any authority on the regs, etc, however having followed through this thread and looked up the references, I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense.
Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct?
Surely if a CPL can't count ICUS towards his/ her ATPL requirements, this would be listed in the so-called "delegates handbook", along with all the other hour requirements, such as halving copilot time, etc, etc.
Now I don't, unlike some others, pretend to be any authority on the regs, etc, however having followed through this thread and looked up the references, I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense.
Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct?
Last edited by grrowler; 15th Mar 2004 at 07:01.
You still with Sancho on this one now ? Do you agree with what they have done ?
What about all the operators that charge for ICUS time in their various twins? It's advertised on websites etc. Their respective CASA FOI's surely know about the operation yet they do not say anything against it.
And the question by grrowler is also quite a good one.
Nowhere in the regs/orders can I see the fact that CPL holders cannot log ICUS....but as usual, a grey area with the law.
grrowler,
More than happy to answer questions ...
"I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense."
In CAR 5.52 (2) it says that CASA may give directions in the CAOs for the logging of flight time. For aeroplanes they have done so in CAO 40.1.0 para 10.
CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a CP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command.
CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a ATP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command, or ICUS.
It is an offence IAW CAR 5.52 (5A) not to follow a direction issued in CAR 5.52 (2), ie not to log flight time IAW CAO 40.1.0 para 10.
CAR 5.52 does not refer to logging of flight time in CAR 5.40.
Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct?
Okay, firstly its not the roles of the pilots to decide what a person logs, or where they are seated in the aircraft, its the operator, refer CAR 224 & CAR 5.40.
The person who is nominated as the PIC by the operator, logs command.
If the operator nominates the other person to do the exercise as ICUS, what that person logs depends on their licence.
CAR 5.40 (d) states "the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft"
IAW with CAO 40.1.0 ....
CP(A)L holder : the ICUS person is not the PIC then they must be "co-pilot", they can still make a notation in the details sections stating it was done as ICUS.
ATP(A)L : the person logs it as ICUS.
More than happy to answer questions ...
"I did notice inconsistencies with the wording, but nowhere does it say that a CPL cannot log ICUS. Your suggestion that a CPL can fly ICUS, but not log it (or log it as co-pilot/ dual?) obviously doesn't make sense."
CAR 5.52 (2) "CASA may give directions in Civil Aviation Orders setting out the information about each flight undertaken by the holder of a flight crew licence, a special pilot licence or a certificate of validation that the holder must record in his or her personal log book."
CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a CP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command.
CAO 40.1.0 para 10 states what a ATP(A)L holder may log in an aeroplane, which is either co-pilot or command, or ICUS.
CAR 5.52 (4) A person must not contravene a direction under subregulation (2).
CAR 5.52 (5A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Could you answer this question for me? A piston SE charter company gets a new CPL pilot and needs to check him/ her out before letting him/ her loose on jobs. The CPL CP is not an instructor. What should each pilot log on the circuits and route checks they conduct?
Okay, firstly its not the roles of the pilots to decide what a person logs, or where they are seated in the aircraft, its the operator, refer CAR 224 & CAR 5.40.
The person who is nominated as the PIC by the operator, logs command.
If the operator nominates the other person to do the exercise as ICUS, what that person logs depends on their licence.
CAR 5.40 (d) states "the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft"
IAW with CAO 40.1.0 ....
CP(A)L holder : the ICUS person is not the PIC then they must be "co-pilot", they can still make a notation in the details sections stating it was done as ICUS.
ATP(A)L : the person logs it as ICUS.
Yes, you have quoted those regs many times, yes I understand what you're saying. However, logic and past experiences from many pilots would suggest that a CPL can log ICUS.
I feel you are getting caught up on the wordings of a couple of regs, rather than opening your eyes and looking at the big picture. The orders and regs are there primarily for air safety (at least that is the intention). What about the fact it says in 40.1.0 that a CPL must log..., while an ATPL may log.... ON your next crusade are you going to argue that ATPL's don't actually have to log flights because it only says "may", not "must"?
Earlier 4dogs posted on this thread saying he had been involved in the writing of these regs and orders, and what the intention of them was. Rather than taking that on board, you chose rather to blame him/ her personally for any inconsistencies that exist.
You seem to have what I've seen in most ex-instructors I know, an inability to look at things practically, and an inability to accept when they are wrong.
I feel you are getting caught up on the wordings of a couple of regs, rather than opening your eyes and looking at the big picture. The orders and regs are there primarily for air safety (at least that is the intention). What about the fact it says in 40.1.0 that a CPL must log..., while an ATPL may log.... ON your next crusade are you going to argue that ATPL's don't actually have to log flights because it only says "may", not "must"?
Earlier 4dogs posted on this thread saying he had been involved in the writing of these regs and orders, and what the intention of them was. Rather than taking that on board, you chose rather to blame him/ her personally for any inconsistencies that exist.
You seem to have what I've seen in most ex-instructors I know, an inability to look at things practically, and an inability to accept when they are wrong.
grrowler,
So your basically saying what I have I have said is correct, but because your perception differs you can choose to do what you will, where do you draw the line ..... Which rules do you choose to follow? Just the ones you agree with?
4dogs may have had the best intentions in his days and for all I know his intentions were implemented on CAO 40.1.0, however I do hot have access to the amendment history as to why paragraph 10.6 has been removed from CAO 40.1.0.
This (CAO 40.1.0 Para 10.6) would be the most logical/sequential place for the inclusion of logging of ICUS by CPLs, however in the present amendment I have it is not included.
It may very well have been included in the past in para 10.6, removed for a reason (possibly abuse) however people continue practices unaware of the change.
I don’t know, all I can say it’s not there now.
PS : I think you have your may and must the wrong way around for cpl and atpl.
.
So your basically saying what I have I have said is correct, but because your perception differs you can choose to do what you will, where do you draw the line ..... Which rules do you choose to follow? Just the ones you agree with?
4dogs may have had the best intentions in his days and for all I know his intentions were implemented on CAO 40.1.0, however I do hot have access to the amendment history as to why paragraph 10.6 has been removed from CAO 40.1.0.
This (CAO 40.1.0 Para 10.6) would be the most logical/sequential place for the inclusion of logging of ICUS by CPLs, however in the present amendment I have it is not included.
It may very well have been included in the past in para 10.6, removed for a reason (possibly abuse) however people continue practices unaware of the change.
I don’t know, all I can say it’s not there now.
PS : I think you have your may and must the wrong way around for cpl and atpl.
.
And I guess you're choosing to do the same, interpretting the rules to suit your position. Perception is an amazing thing, it can never be wrong!
Yes, that's right, I (and many others apparently) have a different perception to you, swh!! And no, your stating and restating that you are correct hasn't convinced me that you are(I'm not one of your former students!!). I draw my answer from my ( and others) experience with CASA dealing with this problem. Are you now saying CASA is wrong?
Ok, I made a mistake with the ATPL/ CPL thing, but do you see my point? There is no apparent reason for a difference in the english used, so why is there? ICUS has very valid uses for CPL's, and just because you suggest it's reference has been removed because of abuse doesn't mean it's so, it could just as likely have been a typo that's been carried through (you yourself suggesting (in different words) that CASA wouldn't pick up a mistake if they made one...)
If your point is that the Regs and Orders should be rewritten in normal and practical english, I agree 100%!
Yes, that's right, I (and many others apparently) have a different perception to you, swh!! And no, your stating and restating that you are correct hasn't convinced me that you are(I'm not one of your former students!!). I draw my answer from my ( and others) experience with CASA dealing with this problem. Are you now saying CASA is wrong?
Ok, I made a mistake with the ATPL/ CPL thing, but do you see my point? There is no apparent reason for a difference in the english used, so why is there? ICUS has very valid uses for CPL's, and just because you suggest it's reference has been removed because of abuse doesn't mean it's so, it could just as likely have been a typo that's been carried through (you yourself suggesting (in different words) that CASA wouldn't pick up a mistake if they made one...)
If your point is that the Regs and Orders should be rewritten in normal and practical english, I agree 100%!
CPL's and ICUS
Everyone,
I have found the answer you have all been debating. A CPL can log ICUS. See,
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/flight_time.htm
swh,
I couldn't find your post about the first person to find the words CPL, logging and ICUS in the same sentence for $50, but here it is.
I believe you now owe me.
Enjoy.
I have found the answer you have all been debating. A CPL can log ICUS. See,
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/flight_time.htm
swh,
I couldn't find your post about the first person to find the words CPL, logging and ICUS in the same sentence for $50, but here it is.
I believe you now owe me.
Enjoy.
No cigar
Tell me why do they have on that page ......
"Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged. "
There is a time and place for everything, ICUS is a type of co-pilot time (CAR5.40 (d)).
And tell me why they say "(ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following: "
When CAR 5.40 is "REG 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision” and does not mention the word log, and is not referred to by CAR 5.52. Applying the literal, mischief, or golden rules to CAR 5.52 still provides no answer to the logging of ICUS by a CP(A)L holder in an aeroplane.
At the end of the day it's CASAs role to create the delegated legislation, that web page does not form part of it, so they can not use it to prosecute, nor can you use it as a defence.
"Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged. "
There is a time and place for everything, ICUS is a type of co-pilot time (CAR5.40 (d)).
And tell me why they say "(ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following: "
When CAR 5.40 is "REG 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision” and does not mention the word log, and is not referred to by CAR 5.52. Applying the literal, mischief, or golden rules to CAR 5.52 still provides no answer to the logging of ICUS by a CP(A)L holder in an aeroplane.
At the end of the day it's CASAs role to create the delegated legislation, that web page does not form part of it, so they can not use it to prosecute, nor can you use it as a defence.
????
The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following
Co-Pilot Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged
Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
So it starts again...
I'd forgotten all about those CASA guidelines for logging, etc (I do try to remember the advisory / guidelines they have on fuel reserves, etc).
Now, bearing in mind of course that CASA apparently doesn't know what it's talking about except some times when it suits;
ICUS:
blah, blah blah
As already highlighted, it also states a CPL can log ICUS, and it is logged as ICUS... pretty clear to me.
swh, serious question; are the CAAP's also only advisory, therefore not proscecutable (if that's a word)?
I'd forgotten all about those CASA guidelines for logging, etc (I do try to remember the advisory / guidelines they have on fuel reserves, etc).
Now, bearing in mind of course that CASA apparently doesn't know what it's talking about
except some times when it suits;ICUS:
Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
As already highlighted, it also states a CPL can log ICUS, and it is logged as ICUS... pretty clear to me.
swh, serious question; are the CAAP's also only advisory, therefore not proscecutable (if that's a word)?
