On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:34:13 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

You have so many faulty assumptions here it is difficult to know where to
begin
First of all, the aircraft does not have to require more than one crewmember
in order for the sole manipulator of the controls to act as PIC.

I agree completely. I think you misread my statement about this. I
stated the inverse scenario.

Secondly, the non-flying pilot may act as PIC without being able to log it,
as in this case. What makes you think he is not able to act as PIC?

Because the aircraft does not require more than one crew member, and
it was not an instructional flight.

The current and rated pilot remains PIC throughout the flight whether he is
logging PIC or not.

While this does not necessarily make logical sense, I can see the
point in being a loophole.

The FAA has made it clear in numerous rulings and in the regulations
themselves that logging PIC and acting PIC are two different things. Their
own test materials give numerous questions pertaining to this matter. I know
of one FAA question that asks whether an instructor that has no medical can
log PIC and whether he is acting as PIC. The correct answer is that the
instructor may log PIC any time that he is giving instruction, but he may
not act as PIC because he has no medical. Therefore he can only give
instruction to pilots who can act as PIC even though he himself logs the
time as PIC.

Agreed. As previously stated, instructional flights are a completely
different animal. I'd like to see what has been determined for
non-instructional flights. If you know of any please share, I have
not seen any.

The last lengthy thread you refer to shows you obstinately holding to this
opinion of yours despite the fact that everyone who has any knowledge of the
matter disagrees with you. You are a minority of one. You are flat-out
wrong. And you are beginning to sound pretty stupid as well.

Don't know that I've ever been "obstinate" in any news group.
Vehement maybe, but not obstinate. I also only remember posting two
replies to that thread, so I'm not sure how that could be construed as
obstinateness, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I also seem
to remember others questioning the validity in that thread (I have not
gone back to study it). I guess those people (if my memory is
correct) are not part of the group "who has any knowledge of the
matter."

Stupid, or not I'll be on the safe side of what is recorded in my
permanent record.


z