Archie wrote:
It states that the person acting the controls (acting as a pilot) needs to be licensed and ‘medicalled’.
Article 7 talks about acting as a pilot. That this should mean that acting as pilot is the same as acting the controls is your conjecture presented without proof. And frankly, in my opinion, it makes no sense and is deeply flawed.
Commercial flights are most of the time flown by the autopilot, i.e. the autopilot “acts the controls” (strange english, but I’m not a native speaker…). Does that mean that on commercial flights there’s noone who acts as a pilot, most of the time? Also, the “Pilot Non-Flying” isn’t a pilot, in your logic. Same goes for the safety pilot.
tomjnx wrote:
Commercial flights are most of the time flown by the autopilot, i.e. the autopilot “acts the controls” (strange english, but I’m not a native speaker…). Does that mean that on commercial flights there’s noone who acts as a pilot, most of the time? Also, the “Pilot Non-Flying” isn’t a pilot, in your logic. Same goes for the safety pilot.
The autopilot definately is “licensed” (certified) 
You are reversing the logic, which doesn’t work to invalidate my point. On commercial flights, the PIC, in combination with the certified equipment on board of the aircraft acts as a pilot.
The Pilot Non-Flying has a defined role in multi-crew operations. He is licensed and ‘medicalled’, as is the Pilot Flying, and the PIC whichever of the two that is.
The safety pilot has a defined role. He is not PIC, but will maintain the lookout (assuming you’re talking about IFR practice), and only that. The PIC manipulates the controls and remains PIC. Be aware that the safety pilot needs to be qualified and seated in a control seat! Your wife cannot be the “safety pilot”.
Peter wrote:
The way I see it, the definition requirement would be met by deciding (on the ground) that X will be PIC for the first hour and Y will be PIC for the second hour.
Good point, but I still think that is stretching the interpretation too far. It talks about the “flight”, which means from take-off to landing. The roles for that “flight” must be defined and then it talks about the responsibility of the PIC as responsible person for the safety of the aircraft and it’s occupants. Certainly the intent of the law has to be that the roles for that “flight” are defined and will not change during the flight. The obvious way to make it work is to make an intermediate landing, and change roles for the next “flight”.
AlanB wrote:
In FAA land PIC can change – for example if one is doing instrument practice with a safety pilot. If the flight enters IMC and the safety pilot is IR’d and the “PIC” is not, then the safety pilot becomes PIC as clearly you cannot be PIC if you are not rated.
That’s a bit of a silly example. The safety pilot doesn’t have to be IR rated, so what if he isn’t. Then both cannot be PIC, so the aircraft has no PIC at all??? Obviously the original pilot can just remain PIC as it were. He just has made a mistake and has to deal with the consequences.
Having said that, the fact that it is potentially possible for a PIC to change during the flight under FAA regulations has nothing to do with the practice deemed safe and put into law by EASA.
It talks about the “flight”, which means from take-off to landing
Hmmm… There are those who would argue that a flight starts with brakes off. After all, that is what you, as a pilot, log.
Gosh that reminds me… It must be time for a thread asking if you can log time without getting airborne. It should be possible 
Many years ago I had a prop strike, with an instructor in the RHS (differences training, so I was not PIC at the time). Afterwards he claimed he was not PIC, because my license was sufficient for me to taxi the aircraft legally. The insurer did not agree, but did not pursue anybody, after he claimed he was not doing the training via the school but was doing it himself, as a free favour (obviously the training was never invoiced ). That, of course, would support your position!
So the pilot eats the fish for his dinner and the copilot eats the chicken. The pilot becomes incapacitated, I guess he is still PIC laying on the floor, passed out, in first class? Where does it say one’s wife can’t be the safety pilot. Seems sexist to me, she may hold an ATP.
On commercial flights, the PIC, in combination with the certified equipment on board of the aircraft acts as a pilot.
Are you serious?
AlanB wrote:
It is surely an EU thing whereby people love to discuss the intricacies of the law to such an extent that it becomes pointless.
Maybe more of an *EU*roGA thing In the old regulations, when I took my PPL, the only thing about this was (translated by memory): When two pilots of Captain’s rank fly an aircraft, only one of them can be PIC. Rather funny, but very easy to relate to as a pilot with a PPL.
It seems to me that some people automatically and probably subconsciously put their own restrictions of some kind into the meaning. I wonder why? Too many young and inexperienced instructors may be one cause. There is something fundamentally wrong when we as pilots start interpreting the regulations much stricter than the regulations themselves give reasons for.
Archie wrote:
The autopilot definately is “licensed” (certified)
Your arguments seem to get more hilarious during each post. While my autopilot has a STC, it most certainly doesn’t have neither a pilot license, nor a medical.
Your arguments seem to get more hilarious during each post
They don’t, though.
It’s an interesting discussion with good arguments on both sides and there cannot be absolute certainly simply because the regulations aren’t phrased very well and it IS open to interpretation and that is what’s happening here…
While my autopilot has a STC, it most certainly doesn’t have neither a pilot license, nor a medical.
Now this looks like you deliberately don’t WANT to understand the (fair) point Archie was making there and how about not letting the discussion become personal…
So far, I’d LIKE to see this according to tomjnx’s interpretation but (sadly) I find Archie’s more stringent interpretation more conclusive.
Patrick wrote:
It’s an interesting discussion with good arguments on both sides and there cannot be absolute certainly simply because the regulations aren’t phrased very well and it IS open to interpretation and that is what’s happening here…
That is what I don’t understand at all. The easiest way is to read them “as is”, with no interpretation either way. No assumptions, no extrapolations.
