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.