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