A couple of questions about IPC

On 02/10/06 09:47, three-eight-hotel wrote:
I think I'm clear now, but wanted to clarify a point from the last post

- Pilot not flying is acting PIC (required because the pilot flying is
not IMC current) and so logs PIC

Was meant to be posted as a question to the Chief Counsel and not as a
statement of understanding, right?

Yes, this is the question I'm trying to get clear on myself.


Acting PIC (not flying) may NOT log PIC, based on what I'm hearing and
reading in other searches... From the following link
(http://www.propilot.com/doc/logging2.html) I snipped a section
regarding this specific situation...

========= Begin Snip ==========
A non-instrument-rated private pilot (but rated in the aircraft
category and class) flies with another private pilot who is instrument
rated, on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions. The non-IFR pilot
manipulates the flight controls for the entire flight. The IFR pilot
acts as PIC, and is required to be the PIC since he/she is the only
pilot appropriately rated to act as PIC under IFR, but logs no flight
time. Why?
The instrument-rated pilot did not manipulate the flight controls and
is not acting as PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

The non-IFR pilot may log PIC time for the entire flight since he/she
was the sole manipulator of the flight controlsof an aircraft for whih
he/she is rated. See legal opinion # 5 for details.

This legal opinion is written to answer a question involving a CFII as
the PIC, but the opinion later states "The other pilot must be the PIC,
...", and does not impose a requirement to hold an instructor
certificate.

Also, see legal opinion # 6 , under "TAB AERO Question # 2" which
further clarifies the fact that a non-rated pilot can manipulate the
controls under IFR.

How do you find opinion #5 and #6? When I go to the FAA web site,
I can search by keyword, and the results don't provide the opinion
number.

Thanks for digging this up, Todd. I've saved it off, and will read
the complete article when I get a few minutes.


This represents no change from the old rules.
========= End Snip ==========

Best Regards,
Todd



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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
Nope, 61.51e1 clearly states the contrary (even though it's partially
contradicted by the FAA's "interpretations").

61.51(e)(iii) (what I think you meant above)

Close--61.51e1iii is one of the three clauses of 61.51e1.

states:

"Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is conducted."

It would be possible for someone to interpret "... the regulations under
which the flight is conducted" to indicate that because the pilot flying
cannot legally fly in IMC, due to currency, that the pilot not flying is
required.

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.

Now, you might reasonably ask why the hooded pilot flying with a safety
pilot is considered a required pilot. And the FAA's answer is apparently
that the specific regulations that pertain to flying with a safety pilot do
mention two distinct pilots, so you need two pilots to conduct a flight
*under those regulations* (otherwise, you'd be flying under different
regulations instead). Whatever the merits of that interpretation may be, it
doesn't carry over to the IMC/IFR scenario, since there is no particular
regulation that speaks of two distinct pilots in that scenario.

--Gary

How do you find opinion #5 and #6? When I go to the FAA web site,
I can search by keyword, and the results don't provide the opinion
number.

You can search for IMC, and it takes you right to the topic we are
discussing... Here are the links, to save you time. (I haven't read
them yet)

http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal5.html
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal6.html

Best Regards,
Todd

On 02/10/06 10:09, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
Nope, 61.51e1 clearly states the contrary (even though it's partially
contradicted by the FAA's "interpretations").

61.51(e)(iii) (what I think you meant above)

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).



states:

"Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is conducted."

It would be possible for someone to interpret "... the regulations under
which the flight is conducted" to indicate that because the pilot flying
cannot legally fly in IMC, due to currency, that the pilot not flying is
required.

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.
The pilot flying is sole manipulator, so he can log PIC.

See where I'm coming from?


Now, you might reasonably ask why the hooded pilot flying with a safety
pilot is considered a required pilot. And the FAA's answer is apparently
that the specific regulations that pertain to flying with a safety pilot do
mention two distinct pilots, so you need two pilots to conduct a flight
*under those regulations* (otherwise, you'd be flying under different
regulations instead). Whatever the merits of that interpretation may be, it
doesn't carry over to the IMC/IFR scenario, since there is no particular
regulation that speaks of two distinct pilots in that scenario.

Except for the one I stated above... ;-)

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

However, the non-IMC-current pilot-flying is sole manipulator of the
controls, and thus is entitled to log PIC according to 61.51 (e) (i).

The stuff posted by Todd seems to indicate that the Chief Counsel
did offer an opinion on this specific case, and states that the
pilot-not-flying would not be entitled to log PIC even when acting
as Pilot in Command if the pilot-flying is logging PIC as a result of
61.51 (e) (i). That just doesn't seem fair to me, and I would sure
like to see those Chief Counsel opinions (#5 and #6).

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


--Gary




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

"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

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.

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.

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 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.

--Gary

"three-eight-hotel" wrote in message
oups.com...
How do you find opinion #5 and #6? When I go to the FAA web site,
I can search by keyword, and the results don't provide the opinion
number.

You can search for IMC, and it takes you right to the topic we are
discussing... Here are the links, to save you time. (I haven't read
them yet)

http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal5.html
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal6.html

I think what Mark was seeking is an official source of those opinions on the
FAA's own web site; otherwise, it's just Internet chain mail. But
unfortunately, the FAA doesn't publish the opinions, as far as I know.

--Gary

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

On 02/10/06 10:27, three-eight-hotel wrote:
How do you find opinion #5 and #6? When I go to the FAA web site,
I can search by keyword, and the results don't provide the opinion
number.

You can search for IMC, and it takes you right to the topic we are
discussing... Here are the links, to save you time. (I haven't read
them yet)

http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal5.html
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal6.html

Great, Thanks. In fact, in looking at these, they don't seem to specifically
say that the pilot acting as pilot in command cannot log the flight time as
PIC during the time that the pilot flying is sole manipulator of the
controls. They clearly say that the instrument-rated pilot is required to
act as pilot in command. Here is an excerpt:

An instrument student who holds at least a private pilot certificate
and who is rated for the aircraft flown may log as pilot in command flight
time under Section 61.51 (c)(2)(i), the time spent as sole manipulator of
the controls regardless of the meteorological conditions of the flight.
In situations where actual IFR meteorological conditions exist, as in the
case presented in the above example, the safety pilot or flight instructor,
as the case may be, must be pilot in command, as that term is defined under
1.1 of the FAR.


However, I think the issue that's been confusing me, is that I was under the
impression that if you acted as pilot in command, that gave you the right
to log PIC. ... but I guess not.



Best Regards,
Todd



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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
And I think you're saying that 61.51(e)(1)(iii) is referring to aircraft
which require multiple crew members,

Yes, at least for a particular flight. FAR 61.51e1iii refers explicitly to
"an aircraft on which *more than one pilot is required* under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is
conducted". The regulations that pertain to the IMC/IFR scenario do not
require the plane to have "more than one pilot" for that flight.

--Gary

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
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).

Yup, the rules are different for a CFI giving instruction.

--Gary