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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dumb Reg question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 3rd 05, 04:02 AM
Mike W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
The regulations says:

no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft
(an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating
altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)

I don't see any way to read that parenthetical as anything other than
a *definition* of "pressurized aircraft". I don't understand what you
think it means.

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable
of
operating at high altitudes.

They are defining the conditions under which you must acquire additional
training. If you wanted to operate a
pressuized aircraft that had a service ceiling of 20,000 ft, then no
additional training is needed.


  #62  
Old May 3rd 05, 04:17 AM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't have opinions. I just quote from the FAA's web site. They get
to have an opinion too.

  #63  
Old May 3rd 05, 04:45 AM
Charles O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RST Engineering wrote:
Well, when you DO, come back and entertain us with them. Until then,
opinions are like assholes and sex ... everybody has one, and most of them
smell.

However, there are Chief Council decisions based on these, I just don't
have access to them in front of me.


Here is the Chief Counsel decision on the matter:

---
October 30, l992


Mr. David M. Reid


Dear Mr. Reid:

Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR).

In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the
flight is conducted. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
experience.

Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
time simultaneously. PIC flight time may be logged by both the
PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.

In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots
log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for
simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety
pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log
PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator
of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that
aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently
log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is
acting as safety pilot.

The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight
that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the
operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this
is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC
time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may
log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the
sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with
FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
interpretation will be of further assistance to you.

In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In-
Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument
time, when that pilot is...A)...under the hood? B)...in actual
instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument
conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of
the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR
61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of
an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the
pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during
which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight
conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
"actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
you.

Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and
(4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e)
provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument
flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the
minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed
please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time
and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further
assist you.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,



Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

Enclosures
  #64  
Old May 3rd 05, 05:39 AM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now THAT does it for me unless somebody has a later CCO opinion or court
ruling.

Jim


  #65  
Old May 3rd 05, 08:40 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RST Engineering wrote:
Does anybody have a definitive link to an opinion out of the Chief

Counsel's
office on the matter?


As a matter of fact, yes.
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal3.html

  #66  
Old May 4th 05, 12:59 AM
BTIZ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gee.. that sounds like the answer I gave... with the exception on SIC and
the discussion of who is PIC while under the hood.. I brief my "safety"
pilot.. that for periods of time when I am under the hood.. he is PIC.. and
he can log it as such... when I'm not under the hood.. I am PIC and he is a
pax...

BT

wrote in message
oups.com...
RST Engineering wrote:
Does anybody have a definitive link to an opinion out of the Chief

Counsel's
office on the matter?


As a matter of fact, yes.
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal3.html



  #67  
Old May 4th 05, 03:34 AM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And the answer you gave was the simple opinion of another pilot. Had you
given a OCC opinion for the rest of us to read (admittedly written AFTER my
last briefing on the matter) you could have saved us a lot of time and
trouble. You are NOT the definitive answer to a legal question in and of
yourself.

Jim




"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:AfUde.9759$fI.7297@fed1read05...
Gee.. that sounds like the answer I gave



  #68  
Old May 4th 05, 04:54 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...] You are NOT the definitive answer to a legal question in and of
yourself.


Nor are you. And yet, you claimed to be, just as you refused to accept
other's informed statements on the matter. I guess that makes you both a
hypocrite and a chicken.


 




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
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Excelsior Home Built 0 April 22nd 05 01:11 AM
Dumb Transponder Question! John P Owning 2 March 30th 04 01:26 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 02:26 AM
Dumb Canard Question. Russell Kent Home Built 39 October 19th 03 03:25 PM
Special Flight Setup Question (COF) Dudley Henriques Simulators 4 October 11th 03 12:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.