A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A couple of questions about IPC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 11th 06, 02:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A couple of questions about IPC

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.
  #2  
Old February 11th 06, 03:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A couple of questions about IPC

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OK, I'm off... Simon Robbins Rotorcraft 15 March 14th 05 12:44 AM
Does FAA respond to FAQ questions? Robert M. Gary Piloting 0 July 6th 04 10:22 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 1 January 2nd 04 09:02 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 2nd 03 03:07 AM
Accelerated spin questions John Harper Aerobatics 7 August 15th 03 07:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.