Dumb Reg question

Here's the relevant part of 61.31(g):

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized
aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may...

It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
*defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

That's not the way I read it. There are pressurized aircraft capable of
water landings, and there are pressurized aircraft not capable of water
landings. The phrase "pressurized aircraft capable of water landings"
does not define a pressurized aircraft as one capable of water landings.

Similarly there are pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high
altitudes, and there are pressurized aircraft not capable of operating
at high altitudes.

The additional training in 61.31(g) would apply to pressurized aircraft
that are (also) capable of operating at high altitudes.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

BTIZ wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in message

That is absolutely not true. If I ask my kid to hold onto the wheel while
I find the extra batteries, that does NOT make her the PIC. PIC is not
only a state of mind, it is a legal definition. If you are a certificated
pilot and I ask you to fly along with me as the PIC, I can ask you to fly
the airplane from Sacramento to Salt Lake while I sleep and I am still the
PIC. No matter that you flew the whole route, I am the PIC and am
responsible for the flight. When the fit hits the shan, the determination
will be made as to who was the PIC. It is NOT necessarily the person with
their hands on the controls.


please re read 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator in an aircraft that he is
rated in.. may log PIC.. even if you think he is not ACTING PIC.. because
you, the PIC, is sleeping and think you are in charge.

Your confusion is between "being the PIC" and "logging PIC time". They
aren't synonymous. You can log PIC during times that you aren't the
pilot in command of the flight.


Matt

Nor I with you. We will have to agree to disagree. I thrashed this out
with my (then) GADO, now FSDO in San Diego when I got my CFI and my CGI, and
I've asked again when it came up about five years ago with my SAC FSDO.

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only BE
one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

The Swiss have their cheese; we have FARs.

Jim





I'm not gonna get in a ****ing contest any further with ya. I asked
specifically about this when I got my ground instructor certs at the FSDO
and the FSDO was able to show me in the FAQ's where the safety pilot AND
the pilot-flying were able to both LOG PIC.

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only BE
one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

If only the FARs were (intended to be) that simple.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can
only BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

That's right. And the reason it is right is THE (SINGLE, ONE) PIC is
the guy that gets sued when something goes wrong. 91.3 says he is the
ultimate authority for the safe conduct of the flight. It has nothing
to do with who is flying or who is logging.

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can
only BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

That's right.

No, that's wrong (ignoring for the moment your messed-up attribution, which
is also wrong).

And the reason it is right is THE (SINGLE, ONE) PIC is the guy that gets
sued when something goes wrong.

What does that have to do with logging?

91.3 says he is the ultimate authority for the safe conduct of the flight.
It has nothing to do with who is flying or who is logging.

That's true. But again, what does that have to do with logging?

Pete

They are not defining anything. They are saying, if you want to fly an
aircraft that is pressurized AND is capable of flight above 25,000 ft, you
need additional training and an endorsement. Don't try to make it
complicated, it really isn't.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
*defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

This is a Federal regulation; having a "pressurized aircraft" defined
in a way that has nothing to do with controlling the pressure within
the aircraft body is about par for the course, isn't it?

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Sonny, I was altitude rated while you were still in liquid form.

Jim


Jim... there is no altitude rating or endorsement..

maybe that's your problem...

BT

isn't amazing when different FSDOs give different opinions.. and it appears
that the SanDiego FSDO disagrees with Washington, FAA HQ

BT

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Nor I with you. We will have to agree to disagree. I thrashed this out
with my (then) GADO, now FSDO in San Diego when I got my CFI and my CGI,
and I've asked again when it came up about five years ago with my SAC
FSDO.

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only
BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

The Swiss have their cheese; we have FARs.

Jim





I'm not gonna get in a ****ing contest any further with ya. I asked
specifically about this when I got my ground instructor certs at the FSDO
and the FSDO was able to show me in the FAQ's where the safety pilot AND
the pilot-flying were able to both LOG PIC.

[top-posting fixed]

"Mike W." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
*defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

They are not defining anything. They are saying, if you want to fly an
aircraft that is pressurized AND is capable of flight above 25,000 ft, you
need additional training and an endorsement. Don't try to make it
complicated, it really isn't.


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.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/