"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 02/18/06 09:48, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
This flight is for regaining currency on the part of the pilot flying.
Without the pilot flying, there is no purpose for the flight. For this
flight, the pilot flying is required - as you must have a pilot flying.

You're right that the sole-manipulator pilot is required for the purpose
of that flight. And since the instrument-rated PIC is required too (to be
legal for IFR), you're right that that does add up to more than one pilot
required for the purpose of the flight.

Nonetheless, there is not more than one pilot required *by the
regulations under which the flight is conducted* (as opposed to being
required by the purpose of the flight). And requirement *by the
regulations under which the flight is conducted* is the criterion set
forth by 61.51e1iii.

I think that more than one pilot is required, by regulation. As per the
currency regulation (I don't have the number handy) the pilot flying
cannot fly in IMC without a second qualified and current pilot acting
as PIC. Therefore, the regulations require that for this flight, the
second pilot is required.

Yes, but we're back to the same point again: the *regulations* do require
the second pilot but don't require the first pilot! (Therefore, the
regulations don't require more than one pilot.) The *purpose of the flight*
requires the first pilot too, but 61.51e1iii only refers to who's required
by the *regulations of the flight*, not who's required by the *purpose of
the flight*. (Otherwise, as I noted earlier, you could *always* say that two
pilots are required as long as the "purpose of the flight" is to have both
logging PIC simultaneously!)

--Gary