The FAA will say that the pilot needing to get his IFR
currency can do it in VMC and does not need IMC with a
current IFR pilot, if they go out on a VMC day, the IFR
pilot is just a safety pilot.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"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.
|
|
|
| If instead the criterion were just that more than one
pilot is required *for
| the purpose of the flight*, then the criterion that more
than one pilot is
| required could be met on *any* flight--because if the
purpose of a
| particular flight is to allow the sole-manipulator and
the acting-PIC both
| to log PIC time simultaneously (therefore at half the
cost to each), then of
| course both pilots are indeed required *for that
purpose*! But then the
| multiple-pilots-required criterion would be meaningless.
Therefore, the
| multiple-pilots-required criterion couldn't reasonably
be interpreted to
| mean that the multiple pilots are merely required *for
the flight's
| purpose*. (And again, the regulation explicitly says
that multiple pilots
| must be required *by the regulations under which the
flight is conducted*.)
|
| I would really like to see something from the FAA on
the subject.
|
| That's certainly appropriate. I'm only addressing what
the FARs can
| reasonably be intepreted to mean, which is something we
can analyze on our
| own. But how the FAA actually interprets the FARs is a
separate question
| that requires additional evidence to answer.
|
| I agree.
|
|
| --Gary
|
|
|
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
| Sacramento, CA