Source: http://bladeslapper.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12905&p=76325&sid=71e1ba96e3e528d4a10b200a6114177e
Timestamp: 2018-08-16 06:36:01
Document Index: 662601076

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 142', 'art 61']

Instructor required for ICUS under Part 61? - Bladeslapper
It is currently Thu Aug 16 2018, 06:36
Instructor required for ICUS under Part 61?
Postby Arm out the window » Sat Aug 27 2016, 06:27
I've searched for this topic but as with all things Part 61, the more I read the less I think I know about it, so if anyone's pretty full bottle on this particular topic I'd be grateful for your input:
As per 61.095 below, it seems to me that for smaller organisations without a CAR 217 style checking and training setup, subregulation (3) says you can only have a pilot undergoing ICUS (e.g. they're qualified on type, properly licenced etc but going out with another pilot to learn some aspect of the company's operation - say power line survey, for example) if that supervising pilot is an instructor. Is this correct, or is there some exemption or other way round it so a chief pilot can send an experienced company pilot who isn't an instructor out with a newcomer to show them the ropes on a particular operation?
CASR 61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
Re: Instructor required for ICUS under Part 61?
Postby Yankee » Sat Aug 27 2016, 16:38
Reading this stuff makes my head hurt.
Postby Master Cylinder » Sat Aug 27 2016, 23:10
The regulation seems to (in a roundabout way) state that your command pilot needs to be either an instructor/examiner or a company pilot with authorisation to supervise. The question is, what constitutes a qualified pilot to supervise an ICUS pilot and what gives the organisation (Chief Pilot) the ability to authorise that person to supervise. If you're not a 217 operation or a training organisation then you're not clearly in one camp or the other.
There is no reason that a qualified pilot within the organisation can't take the new guy out and show him/her the ropes...but that isn't the same as ICUS. If you, as the captain, take the noob out for a famil of the job, well and good...but it can't be logged by the new guy as ICUS.
What I'd suggest is that you put together a proposal from your company to CASA suggesting that it is your intention to nominate a particular pilot within the organisation as a supervisory pilot for conduct of ICUS within the organisation. Be as specific as you can on the level of qualification of the supervisory captain, what will be the limits of this authority within the organisation, and what you've done within the organisation to address risks associated with any supervisory flying. Cite any relevant regulations and how you will be in compliance. Be as thorough as possible in addressing any forseeable issues and submit it to CASA either as a statement of intent or as a request for approval. I'd also suggest that it'd be in your best interest to nominate a reasonable deadline with your proposal so that you can hope to get an answer within a reasonable timeframe.
Hope this helps in some way. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.
Postby Arm out the window » Sun Aug 28 2016, 08:09
It would be good to know the reasoning behind the wording of the quoted regulation - it seems restrictive for the smaller operator who takes on a new pilot and wants to do some company induction. They wouldn't have a CAR 217 system, and probably wouldn't have a suitably experienced instructor available for certain types of tasks. However, they would be experienced in the work themselves and would probably have pilots employed by the company who were too - the issue is, how to pass that knowledge on under the new regs.
Previously a CP could nominate a company pilot to supervise a newcomer, who would log it as ICUS and get the benefit of the PIC's experience (hopefully). Under the new regs, as I read them, the new pilot can't fly ICUS unless: a) there's a CAR 217 type setup, or b) the PIC is an instructor.
On a similar subject, how does a non-instructor CP now take a prospective new employee out for a check flight to see if they're any good? It's not training, it's not CAR 217 type checking, it's not dual because that would require an instructor, what is it? I will ask these questions of CASA and see what they say, but I'm sure many will have been down this same path since Sep 2014 and I don't want to have to re-invent the wheel if I can help it.