A couple of questions about IPC

On 02/10/06 15:20, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 02/10/06 14:48, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
Yes, I see that, and that certainly seems to be the consensus of
everyone
offering help here. So, I will conform ;-)

No need to change your view just because you're in the minority.

I just have a different interpretation of 61.51 (e) (1) (iii), because
in my opinion, the pilot not flying is required under the FARs due to
the fact that the pilot flying isn't current for IMC.

Yup, you're right about that. I don't see how that could be disputed.

The question is why you'd think that the regs require the *other* pilot
to be there. Remember, 61.51e1iii only applies if the regs require there
to be *more than one pilot* for the particular flight.

I'm not asserting that the pilot flying (PF) is required by regs to be
there.

Ok, good. No disagreement so far.

I think the regs entitle the PF to log PIC as per 61.51 (e)(1)(i).

No disagreement there either.

Where I'm getting lost is that if the pilot-not-flying (PNF) must act as
PIC (because someone must act as PIC, and the PF cannot due to IMC
currency),
why his time cannot be logged as PIC.

I think the answer is that acting as PIC doesn't mean you can also log
PIC.

Right. More specifically, 61.51e1iii says you can log PIC time *only* under
three specified conditions (and *being* PIC is *not* one of those
conditions).

But ... 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) seems to tell me that because the PNF is
required
to be there, he can log his time as PIC.

No, that's not what 61.51e1iii says. How do you interpret it that way?

Let me state 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) in a way that I think makes my point:

"is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one
pilot
is required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted."

Yes, that's what 61.51e1iii says. But how does that make your point?

Because 61.51 (e) is about logging pilot-in-command flight time.

It seems to me the PNF can log the time as PIC because he fits under
61.51 (e)(1)(iii).


But ... I think what you're saying is that only one crew member is
required
because if the PNF was alone, the flight would be legal (assuming he
started
flying).

Yes. The PIC is the only required pilot in the IMC/IFR scenario.

I guess I was getting hung up on the premise that the PF not being
IMC current caused the 2nd crew member to be required.

You're right that the second pilot is required. But the first one isn't!


Yeah ... I was presuming that the PNF could log the time because he was
required, and the PF could log the time because he was sole manipulator.



Do you see why I presumed the 2nd crew member was required?

Yes, and I agree with you on that. But 61.51e1iii only applies if the first
pilot is *also* required. That is, 61.51e1iii only applies if *more than
one* pilot is required for the flight.

Okay, I can't argue with that.

Thanks again.


--Gary




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

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.

Yes. But the pilot flying is not required.

OTOH, in VFR, the pilot flying (under the hood) =is= required, because
the whole point of the flight is to train =that= pilot. A reasonable
argument can be made that if the purpose of the IFR flight is also to
train the pilot flying, then the pilot flying =would= also be a required
crewmember, but this has not been addressd by chief counsel to my knowledge.

Yes, the rules don't make sense.

Yes, a different interpretation makes as much sense as this one.

That's the way it is.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes. But the pilot flying is not required.

OTOH, in VFR, the pilot flying (under the hood) =is= required, because the
whole point of the flight is to train =that= pilot. A reasonable argument
can be made that if the purpose of the IFR flight is also to train the
pilot flying, then the pilot flying =would= also be a required crewmember,
but this has not been addressd by chief counsel to my knowledge.

I think the FAA's rationale for allowing the PIC safety pilot (along with
the sole manipulator) to log PIC time under 61.51e1iii is that in order to
fly according to 91.109b, you need to have the two pilots mentioned by that
section; otherwise, you're flying according to some other regulation
instead. In contrast, there's no regulation that mentions both pilots in the
IMC/IFR training scenario. I agree that's a weak argument for letting the
safety pilot log PIC time; but at rate, it's stronger than any argument that
can be made for letting the IR-rated PIC log PIC time in the IMC/IFR
scenario.

--Gary

Not at all. Why do you say that? Being a required pilot does not entitle you
to log PIC time;

I'm using "required crew member" in the more standard sense, referring
to 61.51(e).iii "more than one pilot required". The term is also used
with reference to medicals being necessary (i.e. the safety pilot must
have a medical).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not at all. Why do you say that? Being a required pilot does not entitle
you
to log PIC time;

I'm using "required crew member" in the more standard sense, referring
to 61.51(e).iii "more than one pilot required".

That's not a different sense of "required pilot". It's the same sense but a
different *number*.

The instrument-rated PIC in the IFR scenario *is* a required pilot in the
sense of 61.51e1iii. But 61.51e1iii still does not entitle her to log PIC
time, because the flight in question does not require *more than one* pilot
(because the other pilot, the non-instrument-rated sole manipulator, is
*not* a required pilot for the flight).

--Gary

On 02/17/06 11:52, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not at all. Why do you say that? Being a required pilot does not entitle
you
to log PIC time;

I'm using "required crew member" in the more standard sense, referring
to 61.51(e).iii "more than one pilot required".

That's not a different sense of "required pilot". It's the same sense but a
different *number*.

The instrument-rated PIC in the IFR scenario *is* a required pilot in the
sense of 61.51e1iii. But 61.51e1iii still does not entitle her to log PIC
time, because the flight in question does not require *more than one* pilot
(because the other pilot, the non-instrument-rated sole manipulator, is
*not* a required pilot for the flight).

--Gary



I wasn't going to jump back in here, but ... I just don't buy this, and I
would really like to see something from the FAA on the subject. Something
more than just your interpretations of the FAR the way it's currently
written.

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.

With that, the pilot flying cannot act as PIC because his currency has
lapsed, so the pilot not flying is also required.

That is how I interpret 61.51 (e) (1) (iii).

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

"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.

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.

--Gary

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

"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

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