Flight hours as a co pilot (PF) role B737

[Ted Nugent]

I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing. As an F/O I have a 20 knot cross wind limit (for reasons I will never understand). So sometimes I do the takeoff, only to have to hand over the landing to the skipper for the landing because the crosswind is greater than 20 knots. In this case I have to log the sector as co-pilot.

I find it hard to believe the QF Ops Manual would allow this for standard day to day line flying.

My current jet and previous turbo prop company OM's both clearly state the restrictions imposed on the use of ICUS and neither have or had the provision to log ICUS during standard line ops.

[compressor stall]

So in that regime, you could log ICUS in the RHS until the issue of your ATPL but then not thereafter?

[beaver_rotate]

From my experience in the QF group and the jet I fly, the QF jet AOCs (ops manuals) can log ICUS when PF. If the landing is relinquished you log it as CO.

Hi capacity AOC, CMD endo on aircraft (to which the group give FO's no exception except for SO's who get CO endo).

Don't see the morality in it? Means eff all to anyone but the QF group anyway! Those cadets had to get their 500 hours ME CMD some how! Another QF do, CASA says how high you want me to jump undoubetdly.

[404 Titan]

It ceases to amaze me the lack of understanding by Australian pilots of the regulatory framework for the logging of ICUS. Airlines like Qantas that employ cadets have a requirement that these pilots can log ICUS so as to qualify for an ATPL. Qantas isn’t the only airline to employ large numbers of cadets in this region. Most of the airlines in Asia and the Middle East also employ large numbers of cadets and have similar logging requirements.

In the Australian context a few lines in the companies Ops manual is all that is required to allow FO’s to log ICUS when PF. In most cases and to keep things simple the requirement will apply to all FO’s in the company irrespective of their background and licences held.

CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision

(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision only if:

(a) the person holds:

(i) a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; or (Minimum CPL)
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence; and

(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and (A Command Endoresment)
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight crew rating is required — the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned; and (MECIR)

(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and

(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and (Approval will be in the companies Ops manual)

(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft. (In plain English, the aircraft has a PIC appointed by the company)

(2) The operator of an aircraft may permit a person to fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command only if:

(a) the person holds:

(i) a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence, that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft; or (Minimum CPL)
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were such a licence; and

(b) the person holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and (A Command Endoresment)

(c) if the person carries out an activity for which a flight crew rating is required — the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned.(MECIR)

[Keg]

Oh well, I guess we hadn't had this argument for a couple of years so it was probably overdue anyway.

Personally I don't know what the big deal is. There is no law that says the PIC has to be in the LHS. Certainly a Checkie in the RHS for the purposes of training or recency means they are the PIC. So we've established that you CAN be in command in the RHS if suitably endorsed.

If I'm letting the F/O (with a command endorsement) operate the sector in command but under my supervision then is that not ICUS? If I have to take over and make the decisions then obviously the sector ceases to be ICUS. Thankfully the guys and gals I fly with tend to be pretty slick operators- in many cases much better than me- so it's not really a huge issue.

Illegal? No. Immoral? A matter of opinion I guess. My value system would suggest it isn't. Nothing I've read here convinces me otherwise either.

[smiling monkey]

Originally Posted by 404 Titan

In the Australian context a few lines in the companies Ops manual is all that is required to allow FO’s to log ICUS when PF. In most cases and to keep things simple the requirement will apply to all FO’s in the company irrespective of their background and licences held.

Going back to the original poster's question, and the above quote from 404 Titan, so if the original poster does not have anything in his/her ops manual with regards to logging ICUS, then I guess he/she can not log ICUS when PF and can only log it as co-pilot.

There are a number of Australian pilots in Asia flying as first-officers in various airlines and unless their airline have specifically allowed the logging of ICUS as written in their company's ops manual, then I guess all they can legally log is co-pilot PF time. Guys and girls in Asia are logging ICUS despite the company's Ops manual having no mention of ICUS and they seem to think it's ok to do that, because that's what happens at Qantas. (LOL)

I think the term ICUS is very much an Australian thing (happy to be corrected there) and unheard of in Asia.

[travelator]

At the end of the day, there is the PIC and everyone else regardless of what is logged.

[smiling monkey]

Originally Posted by travelator

At the end of the day, there is the PIC and everyone else regardless of what is logged.

The issue here is whether an F/O can log ICUS or not. Why is it a big issue may not be apparent for those who already have their ATPLs. Being able to log ICUS makes it easier and quicker to tick all the boxes for the issue of the ATPL.

For example, those F/O's with the minimal PIC time for the CPL (say around 70 hours) will still need to get 250 hours of PIC time of which 180 hours can be ICUS to qualify for the ATPL. If you're flying in an airline as F/O, then it's not easy getting an extra 180 hours PIC unless you can log 180 hours as ICUS.

Also for the 100 night hours requirement, it's 100 hours night excluding dual; so if not logging ICUS, then you'd be logging co-pilot which only counts for 50% and therefore will take twice as long.

And also at least 100 hours of the 200 hours cross-country for the issue of the ATPL can be ICUS if you don't have 100 hours cross-country as PIC.

So this is what's all the fuss about, with regards to ICUS or no ICUS.

[404 Titan]

smiling monkey

There are a number of Australian pilots in Asia flying as first-officers in various airlines and unless their airline have specifically allowed the logging of ICUS as written in their company's ops manual, then I guess all they can legally log is co-pilot PF time. Guys and girls in Asia are logging ICUS despite the company's Ops manual having no mention of ICUS and they seem to think it's ok to do that, because that's what happens at Qantas. (LOL)

Incorrect. In Hong Kong the HKCAD dictates how pilot hours are logged. They mandate all FO’s performing the duties of the PF log P1US (ICUS). FO’s performing the duties of PM (PNF) log P2 (Co-Pilot). There is no requirement for approval in our companies ops manual. My understanding is that Singapore, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain are the same.

We log hours this way because we are required to log our hours this way. How pilots at Qantas log their hours is as a results of Australian regulations and has absolutely no bearing how we go about it.

[romeocharlie]

Compressor stall, gobsmacked you will be. It's in the company FAM, and basically states that CAR 5.40 be adhered to and you will be involved in all the decision making processes including tech log, flight planning etc.

It's different I'll give you that!

[LeadSled]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pack2
To manipulate flight time to give the impression of command time while sitting in the P2 seat is both dishonest and delusional regardless of what your local authority may permit you to do in the interests of meeting the command hour requirement for the issue of an ATPL.

Agreed.

"I log ICUS when I fly the sector and co-pilot when I don't. The line in the sand is whether or not you do the take off and landing."

So let me understand this.

You are a line checked QF 767 FO not undergoing line training for command.
If you do the takeoff and landing, you call the whole flight ICUS?

Really? If this is true, is it just me on here that finds that alarming and immoral? I'm not disputing its 'legality'.

You and me both Claret.

If QF are doing this, I am gobsmacked.

Consider your gob smacked ---- and you probably need your brains brushed, as well, they seem thoroughly stalled.

Folks,
The original poster poster asked a question, with a perfectly legal answer, in fact it turned out to be pretty much ICAO Annex 1, which is what (unsurprisingly) most countries do, all that changes is just what various states call P1 U/S, AICUS, ICUS, Command practice etc., but frankly many of posts exhibited said Australian non standard (non-ICAO compliant) anal approach and a complete inability to understand P1 U/S by whatever name IS NOT "---- IN COMMAND" time, and is NOT logged as such.

Each and every one of you is under a legal obligation to log your time in accordance with the rules you are flying under, "opinion" or "morality" does not come into it.

As Keg and Co. have pointed out, Qantas logs time in accordance with Annex 1, and has done for many, many years. In fact, exactly as the inside front cover of the old DCA logs books required, until one dingbat got a bee in his bonnet, and the rules were changed to the non- ICAO compliant nonsense we have in the current rules.

Tootle pip!!

PS: 404 titan, that about sums it up, looks like the whole world, except little Australian is thoroughly immoral and incompetent, but said whole world doesn't really give a toss about all the Australian aviation aberrations, of which this is but one.

[Centaurus]

in many cases much better than me

Now come on Keg - you know you don't really mean that - you are just being modest

[Eastern_Skyjets]

Centurus you must have something like 20,000 hours on the 73, what did you put down in your logbook in your co-pilot days?

[404 Titan]

Javadreaming

Logging ICUS time when not in the left seat is like logging time as a second officer....not much good!!!

Say who? You? What do you base this ignorant statement on?

airlines don't view such time as any good towards a command upgrade.

BS. If that was the case cadets in airlines all over the world would never achieve commands. This clearly isn’t the case.

If you were to go to another airline they won't be saying " oh great you have 500 hours ICUS; let's make you a captain".

No and they wouldn’t be giving me a direct entry command either with 6000+ hours command and 15000 hours total experience. If you want to change airlines most airlines will make you start at the bottom, irrespective of your experience.

But hey I'm sure it will be an interesting talking point at your next interview if you do log time in the right seat as ICUS...

Again total BS. You need to get out and see how most of the world works. You’re clearly demonstrating your ignorance with comments like that.

But seriously, if your in the right seat your a copilot. Don't let the ego or anyone's else's convince you otherwise.

No one is trying to convince the original poster of anything of the sought other than to log his “Co-Pilot” hours as in accordance with UAE regulations.

[Depone]

Same in the UK and Ireland.

[Keg]

Now come on Keg - you know you don't really mean that - you are just being modest

'Some' rather than 'most' then?

[compressor stall]

Probably the most interesting thing about this is how aggressively defensive people get over this one.

Leadsled, without lowering yourself to insults again, can you please point out in Annex 1 where it states the requirements of logging of flight time that is not for the purposes of attaining a higher rating. It could be that my copy is out of date.

Oh, and I am well aware that you need to log the flight time as required by your NAA and one's ops manual. I do this.

[Opinion]But I still think its a perverted interpretation of the ICAO regs for NAA's to allow logging ICUS (or whatever you want to call it) for line checked ATPL holders flying in the RHS not undergoing upgrade training. [\opinion]

[Centaurus]

Presumably if you log ICUS, the captain who is supervising you has a company and CASA approved training syllabus he should follow. This should include assessing the ICUS pilot right from the first meeting at briefing through to your flight planning, engine starting, take of technique and in fact everything until the engines are closed down. In other words the ICUS leg is fully documented and results kept on your training file.

After all, this is the process that takes place when a pilot undertakes command training in the left seat. ICUS should be no different.

[Centaurus]

you must have something like 20,000 hours on the 73, what did you put down in your logbook in your co-pilot days?

Goodness gracious, no. Much less than half that. During line training on type I logged the time as dual. All other RH seat flying logged as copilot regardless of being PF or PNF.

In the old days no such thing as ICUS. That was introduced by Qantas when they discovered their ten year F/O's could not hold an ATPL despite thousands of hours on types because they did not have 500 hours in command time needed in those days for issue of an ATPL.

Qantas then introduced a DC3 and HS 125 to allow F/O's to build real command hours up to the 500 command needed for the ATPL. I think they flew these aircraft around Australia to pick up command hours. That was expensive and so Qantas lobbied the then regulator to drop the requirement for 500 in command for an ATPL, by introducing the concept of ICUS to what it is today.

It meant a significant dilution of previous standards but that was ignored in the face of mounting costs of reaching 500 command hours especially for cadet pilots in Qantas. Inevitably ICAO followed suit and dropped the required command hours for an ATPL to what it is today. All the above is from a fading recollection, so could be slightly inaccurate.

[AvEnthusiast]

Sorry don't shout! When you are PNF, is that time logged in the logbook as well? or no only the other PF will log that time and you only log your PF time? it it's so then where does go the experience of pilot non flying?