"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0500, Stan Prevost wrote:

parroting. My DE told me, the FAA wants people to believe that operator
somehow translates to pilot;

They *defined* it as such in FAR 1, as I quoted in my previous post and
present below. But only if we understand "operator" to be "one who
operates", and a pilot to be one who operates an aircraft by virtue of
piloting that aircraft.


§ 1.1 General definitions.
As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context
requires otherwise:

.......

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to
use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter)
of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the
right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

........

This is what our FSDO relies upon. Dunno about the FAA in general.

The issue is further confused by an apparent distinction in the FARs between
two undefined terms, "airworthy" and "condition for safe flight".

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining
whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command
shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or
structural conditions occur.