On 02/10/06 10:59, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 02/10/06 10:09, Gary Drescher wrote:
Close--61.51e1iii is one of the three clauses of 61.51e1.

I'm reading from a form of the online regs that shows this as
61.51 (e) (iii) ... not 61.51 (e) (1) (iii).

No, if you look closely, you'll see there's a '1' between the 'e' and the
'iii', although it's obscured by the confusing formatting. (But there's
always an Arabic numeral between the letter and the Roman numeral.)
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl

Oh, I see. Here's how it looks in the view I'm looking at:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational,
private...

The (1) is on the same line as the (e) ;-\


That's correct. The PIC (the pilot not flying) is indeed required. It's
the other pilot (the sole manipulator) who's not required in that
scenario.

Right, so the pilot not flying is required, so he can log PIC.

No. Being a required pilot is not one of the three specific conditions that
allow you to log PIC time.

I'm interpreting it differently (and, I guess, incorrectly)...


Given that you're flying in IMC conditions, the pilot in command is
required to be IMC current. Because the pilot-flying is not, the
IMC-current pilot-not-flying is required, and must act as pilot in
command

So far, so good.

(and, I think, should be allowed to log PIC).

No, that's the part that's wrong. Neither being a required pilot nor being
PIC allows you to log PIC time (unless multiple crew members are required).
According to 61.51e1, the three specified conditions are the *only*
conditions that allow you to log PIC time.

And I think you're saying that 61.51(e)(1)(iii) is referring to aircraft
which require multiple crew members, and not the case we're discussing
here. The way I (incorrectly) interpreted it, it could apply to our case
as well - but I hear you saying that it does not ... and I believe you,
even if I don't agree with it ;-)

By the way, if the pilot-not-flying was an active CFI, they *would*
be able to log PIC in this case, due to 61.51(e)(3), right? Even if
the pilot-flying was logging PIC due to 61.51(e)(1)(i).


What the FAA calls "logging PIC time" is simply a misnomer, since it has
little to do with the concept of PIC. The terminology is needlessly
confusing. The FAA should just call it something else, such as "logging
primary-pilot time".

I realize the difference between acting and logging PIC - in fact, it
is that different that I *thought* made it possible for both pilots
in this situation to log PIC.


I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative. I'm really enjoying
the discussion ;-)

Not argumentative at all--at least, not in a bad way. Informative
discussions are always fun.

Thanks. I definitely learned something new today!


--Gary




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA