"Skidder" wrote in news:gw6Ih.2489$xh2.574
@newsfe14.lga:

On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
"Guillermo" wrote in
groups.com:

But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
current...

Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.

Absolutely and without question, there is always one and only one Pilot in
Command, even if more than one person has the right to log themselves as
Pilot In Command, only one person meets the definition of FAR Part 1.

61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not another
*pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just because the
aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two pilots.

By your definition, if the second "Pilot" is not a "passenger", a non-
current pilot could be allowed to carry him without violating 61.57.
However, section (2) clearly says that he cannot fly with anything in the
plane that is not necessary for the flight "for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" (ie: as sole manipulator of the controls
during take-off and landing).

The other pilot is not necessary for the flight. So he can FLY the plane
with a non-passenger entity, he just can't take off or land it as sole
manipulator of the controls. If he does, he is in violation of section (2).

If neither pilot can be sole manipulator of the controls during takeoff or
landing, they might be able to do it together, but then they wouldn't have
met the currency requirements. Alternatively, they could use a CAT III
autoland, but then neither pilot was sole manipulator of the controls
during takeoff and landing either - the plane landed itself.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see a way around this.

BTW: In addition to not seeing the definition of a "passenger", I don't see
the definition of a "pilot" in any of the FAA regs. I do see references to
"a person serving as a pilot" and "a person who holds a pilot certificate"
(61.3.j) But I simply cannot find anywhere where a pilot is defined, except
with respect to acting as Pilot in Command.

"(j) Age limitation for certain operations—(1) Age limitation. Except as
provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, no person who holds a pilot
certificate issued under this part shall serve as a pilot on a civil
airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has
reached his or her 60th birthday— "


Presumably, one can serve as a pilot by piloting a civil airplane of US
registry. But from this, I can deduce that one is not transformed into an
entity called a pilot just by holding a pilot certificate. You have to be
actually serving/acting as a pilot - ie: flying the plane or taking
responsibility for it.


If you have regs that say otherwise, I'd be interested to hear...