Peter wrote:
The Q is whether the flight is legal.

That's a bad question. It implies that FAR's are absolute, like the
laws of physics, or at least interpreted by some reasonably objective
and independent agency, like criminal law. However, that's not how it
is. The FAA interprets its own rules as it sees fit, and the courts
are required to defer to it. There is not even a requirement for
consistency. That's the legal precedent. Thus the only reasonable
question is - if I admit this (such as by logging it) will I get in
trouble. I would say probably not - though there are no guarantees.

Having said that, the flight should be legal because there is no rule
that says it is not. That's how Part 91 ops work. The rules are by
nature permissive - anyhting that is not forbidden is permitted.

P2 would be acting as PIC. P1 would be sole manipulator of the
controls.

Note that logging PIC and being PIC are not the same thing at all.

P1 logs PIC because he is sole manipulator of the controls in an
aircraft for which he is rated. He can't act as PIC.

P2 logs nothing. He is not sole manipulator, and he is not PIC in an
operation where more than one crew member is required.

There is a twist to this that may allow P2 to also log PIC. It won't
work if the weather is solid IMC, but if only a relativelyt small
portion of the flight is spent in IMC and P1 wears a hood, then we can
consider this flight to exist for the purpose of gaining instrument
experience via simulated instrument flight. Now the flight requires
two crew members, and P2 has to be PIC, so he can log it. It is not
true that he can only log the time that P1 is under the hood. He logs
PIC for the flight. That is how the FAA has trditionally seen it.

However, you need to be sensible about it. If the flight is 2 hours of
which 1.5 hours is hood time, .3 is IMC time, and .2 is
taxi/takeoff/landing time, then your argument that this is primarily a
simulated instrument flight and the IMC time is incidental (forced on
you by conditions) is reasonable, and P2 can legitimately log 2 hours
of flight time since he served as PIC for the entire flight.

If it's more like .3 hours hood time and 1.5 hours IMC time, then
you're going to have a tough time convincing someone that the flight
was primarily an instrument training flight.

I'm not saying this is gospel, but based on the converations I've had
with the FAA inspectors I've met, I think this is probably how an FAA
inspector would look at it - assuming he wasn't out to get you for
something, in which case there's no point in worrying because he will
get you anyway.

Michael