PIC vs Command Practice
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
CAR 5.105 is telling you when a CPL can log "Command". It makes absolutely no reference to ICUS. Again ICUS isn't Command.
CAR5.167/8 isn't really relavent to the debate about ICUS. It is just stating what an ATPL can fly and what is required to fly it.
So in conclusion, a CPL holder can log ICUS in a multi-crew aircraft above 5700kg. CAR 5.40 is the only relavent reg that deals with this situation. Airlines like Qantas use this reg to allow their F/O's to log ICUS espesially those that were cadets that came to the airline with very little experience, in paricular command. It allows them to obtain the required hours to be issued an ATPL and to eventually a command of a heavy jet in RPT OPS. If this wasn't the case being a cadet would be a dead end job with no possibility of ever getting to be a Captain.
CAR 5.105 is telling you when a CPL can log "Command". It makes absolutely no reference to ICUS. Again ICUS isn't Command.
5.105 What does a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence
authorise a person to do?
(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of
the licence:
(a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a
charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is
engaged in any operation.
authorise a person to do?
(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of
the licence:
(a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a
charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is
engaged in any operation.
CAR5.167/8 isn't really relavent to the debate about ICUS. It is just stating what an ATPL can fly and what is required to fly it.
5.167 What kind of aeroplane may an air transport (aeroplane) pilot
fly?
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, unless the holder also holds:
(a) a type endorsement or class endorsement; and
(b) if the aeroplane has a special design feature—a special design
feature endorsement;that authorises the holder to fly the aeroplane in that capacity
and,
5.168 Air transport (aeroplane) pilot: rating required
(1) Subject to subregulations (2) and (3), an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence, in the course of flying an aeroplane, to carry out any activity for which a flight crew
rating is required:
(a) as pilot in command, or co-pilot—unless the holder also holds a
flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that authorises
him or her to carry out the activity in that capacity in the
aeroplane
fly?
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, unless the holder also holds:
(a) a type endorsement or class endorsement; and
(b) if the aeroplane has a special design feature—a special design
feature endorsement;that authorises the holder to fly the aeroplane in that capacity
and,
5.168 Air transport (aeroplane) pilot: rating required
(1) Subject to subregulations (2) and (3), an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence does not authorise the holder of the licence, in the course of flying an aeroplane, to carry out any activity for which a flight crew
rating is required:
(a) as pilot in command, or co-pilot—unless the holder also holds a
flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that authorises
him or her to carry out the activity in that capacity in the
aeroplane
Folks,
To not put too fine a point on it, Mr. Titan has got it correct, and the opposition ain't.
But isn't it a farcical situation that something in ICAO Annex 1, which is quite simple and straightforward (and was, here, once) when translated into the typical complex gobbledegook, bordering on the impenetrable, that is Australia bureaucratese of recent years, can generate such an argument.
And --- as I have pointed out several times, ie; every time this subject comes up, the only practical effect of this Australian obsession is to internationally disadvantage Australian pilots at the beginning of their career. Why??
This peculiarly Australian obsession, that never, except in the narrowest of circumstances, should a pilot log anything with "command" in the description.
And---- the rules are the same for everybody, it does not depend on what is in an operator's manuals, lawful logging of hours is a pilot responsibility.
Go find a copy of the ANRs pre CAA/CASA, and see how simple they are, and most of the rest of the world's aviation regulations still are ---- only since the Civil Aviation Act 1988, has Australia shown a clean pair of heals to the world in generating new aviation law. New ways of tying the industry into a legal straitjacket.
Tootle pip!!
To not put too fine a point on it, Mr. Titan has got it correct, and the opposition ain't.
But isn't it a farcical situation that something in ICAO Annex 1, which is quite simple and straightforward (and was, here, once) when translated into the typical complex gobbledegook, bordering on the impenetrable, that is Australia bureaucratese of recent years, can generate such an argument.
And --- as I have pointed out several times, ie; every time this subject comes up, the only practical effect of this Australian obsession is to internationally disadvantage Australian pilots at the beginning of their career. Why??
This peculiarly Australian obsession, that never, except in the narrowest of circumstances, should a pilot log anything with "command" in the description.
And---- the rules are the same for everybody, it does not depend on what is in an operator's manuals, lawful logging of hours is a pilot responsibility.
Go find a copy of the ANRs pre CAA/CASA, and see how simple they are, and most of the rest of the world's aviation regulations still are ---- only since the Civil Aviation Act 1988, has Australia shown a clean pair of heals to the world in generating new aviation law. New ways of tying the industry into a legal straitjacket.
Tootle pip!!
