On 02/17/06 11:52, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not at all. Why do you say that? Being a required pilot does not entitle
you
to log PIC time;

I'm using "required crew member" in the more standard sense, referring
to 61.51(e).iii "more than one pilot required".

That's not a different sense of "required pilot". It's the same sense but a
different *number*.

The instrument-rated PIC in the IFR scenario *is* a required pilot in the
sense of 61.51e1iii. But 61.51e1iii still does not entitle her to log PIC
time, because the flight in question does not require *more than one* pilot
(because the other pilot, the non-instrument-rated sole manipulator, is
*not* a required pilot for the flight).

--Gary



I wasn't going to jump back in here, but ... I just don't buy this, and I
would really like to see something from the FAA on the subject. Something
more than just your interpretations of the FAR the way it's currently
written.

This flight is for regaining currency on the part of the pilot flying.
Without the pilot flying, there is no purpose for the flight. For this
flight, the pilot flying is required - as you must have a pilot flying.

With that, the pilot flying cannot act as PIC because his currency has
lapsed, so the pilot not flying is also required.

That is how I interpret 61.51 (e) (1) (iii).

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA