A couple of questions about IPC

- IMC conditions
- Pilot flying is not IMC current
- Pilot flying is sole manipulator of the controls, and thus logs PIC
- Pilot not flying is acting PIC (required because the pilot flying
is
not IMC current) and so logs PIC

There is no provision for the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC in this
case. Only the flying pilot would be able to log PIC. The only way you
can log PIC is per 61.51(e). In this case the guy serving as PIC does
not meet the requirements of a "required crew member" since the
aircraft is legal to fly IFR with just one pilot (the fact that that
pilot isn't qualified doesn't change that).

-Robert

On 02/10/06 14:10, Robert M. Gary wrote:
- IMC conditions
- Pilot flying is not IMC current
- Pilot flying is sole manipulator of the controls, and thus logs PIC
- Pilot not flying is acting PIC (required because the pilot flying
is
not IMC current) and so logs PIC

There is no provision for the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC in this
case. Only the flying pilot would be able to log PIC. The only way you
can log PIC is per 61.51(e). In this case the guy serving as PIC does
not meet the requirements of a "required crew member" since the
aircraft is legal to fly IFR with just one pilot (the fact that that
pilot isn't qualified doesn't change that).

-Robert


Yes, I see that, and that certainly seems to be the consensus of everyone
offering help here. So, I will conform ;-)

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.

I've tried pretty hard to make my case and no ones buying it, so I'll
concede that my interpretation is incorrect.

It was a lot of fun discussing it in any event ;-)

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
- IMC conditions
- Pilot flying is not IMC current
- Pilot flying is sole manipulator of the controls, and thus logs PIC
- Pilot not flying is acting PIC (required because the pilot flying
is
not IMC current) and so logs PIC

There is no provision for the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC in this
case. Only the flying pilot would be able to log PIC. The only way you
can log PIC is per 61.51(e). In this case the guy serving as PIC does
not meet the requirements of a "required crew member" since the
aircraft is legal to fly IFR with just one pilot (the fact that that
pilot isn't qualified doesn't change that).

Actually, the pilot serving as PIC *is* a "required pilot" under the
regulations that apply to the flight; and being required *by those
regulations* is what 61.51e1iii talks about. It's the *other* pilot (the
sole manipulator) who isn't required under the regulations that apply to the
flight in question.

--Gary

"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've tried pretty hard to make my case and no ones buying it, so I'll
concede that my interpretation is incorrect.

The fact that the handful of people who happened to chime in here disagree
with you is no reason to concede error! On the other hand, the *reasons*
we've put forth may well be grounds for you to do so.

--Gary

On 02/10/06 14:43, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
- IMC conditions
- Pilot flying is not IMC current
- Pilot flying is sole manipulator of the controls, and thus logs PIC
- Pilot not flying is acting PIC (required because the pilot flying
is
not IMC current) and so logs PIC

There is no provision for the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC in this
case. Only the flying pilot would be able to log PIC. The only way you
can log PIC is per 61.51(e). In this case the guy serving as PIC does
not meet the requirements of a "required crew member" since the
aircraft is legal to fly IFR with just one pilot (the fact that that
pilot isn't qualified doesn't change that).

Actually, the pilot serving as PIC *is* a "required pilot" under the
regulations that apply to the flight; and being required *by those
regulations* is what 61.51e1iii talks about. It's the *other* pilot (the
sole manipulator) who isn't required under the regulations that apply to the
flight in question.

But I guess the pilot not flying (in this case), although a required
crew member as per 61.51 (e)(1)(iii), cannot log his time as PIC *if*
the pilot flying logs his time as PIC as per 61.51 (e)(1)(i).

Is that right?




--Gary




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

Actually, the pilot serving as PIC *is* a "required pilot" under the regulations that apply to the flight;

If that were true with regard to 61.51(e) then this pilot would be able
to log PIC. However, I cannot see how you can say he meets that
requirement...

61.51(e)...
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of
an^M
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type^M
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is^M
conducted.^M

How can you say this operation requires multiple crew members??
-Robert

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.

Don't back down just because you're being bullied. However, the
question not, "is this pilot required" but "does this operation require
MORE THAN ONE pilot"

61.51(e)...
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of
an^M
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type^M
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is^M
conducted.^M

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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). 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.

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




I've tried pretty hard to make my case and no ones buying it, so I'll
concede that my interpretation is incorrect.

The fact that the handful of people who happened to chime in here disagree
with you is no reason to concede error! On the other hand, the *reasons*
we've put forth may well be grounds for you to do so.

And I know you're going to a lot of effort here, and I really appreciate
it.


--Gary




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

"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?

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!

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.

--Gary

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually, the pilot serving as PIC *is* a "required pilot" under the
regulations that apply to the flight;

If that were true with regard to 61.51(e) then this pilot would be able
to log PIC.

Not at all. Why do you say that? Being a required pilot does not entitle you
to log PIC time; that's not one of the three specified conditions in
61.51e1.

However, I cannot see how you can say he meets that
requirement...

61.51(e)...
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of
an^M
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type^M
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is^M
conducted.^M

How can you say this operation requires multiple crew members??

I *didn't* say that. In fact, I repeatedly said the opposite.

--Gary