boscomantico wrote:
It does not say above that FIs and FE may log PIC time even if they are not PIC.
How, then, do you interpret this:
AMC1 to FCL.050, item (b)(1)(iii-iv)
(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;
(iv) the holder of an examiner’s certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as an examiner in an aircraft
It doesn’t say that the FI/FE has to be PIC. Indeed, if that was the case, these paragraphs would be entirely superfluous.
Some scenarios:
IR Proficiency Check for IR revalidation of a PPL IR.
Candidate is current and can act as PIC.
Examiner can override this and elect to act as PIC.
Operator of airliner defines a PIC (left seat) and SIC (right seat) for a line check with an examiner on the jump seat.
Examiner briefs crew he will be PIC during the examination.
There’s another PIC absurdity with EASA. In the case of augmented crew ops, while the PIC is in the bunk sleeping, he is still the PIC. The other guys upfront can’t log any PIC time. Strictly speaking, they could only log time at controls, while the PIC can log the entire flight (including the rest time in the bunk).
I cannot see a court declaring someone „in command“ and responsible for someone else’s actions while not even on the flight deck.
Why can someone not be responsible when not in the flight deck? A ships captain is also still the captain when he is asleep. Just have to make sure the first officer is briefed on when to wake the captain.
Similar for the CEO of a company or a general in the army. Both are in the end responsible for what the people “under their command” do even when they are not physically in the room while it’s done.
I cannot see a court declaring someone „in command“ and responsible for someone else’s actions while not even on the flight deck
The idea of PIC is to nominate someone who the courts go after by default if something goes bad with the flight…it does not matter if they are planing or flying or sleeping as long as they are onboard 
altough, in the case of Sala accident, the flight organiser who was not even in the aircraft end up being charged as PIC or PAX by “endangering aircraft and it’s occupants” while sitting 500nm away, historically that kind of charge was only reserved for POB onboard including the PIC who was dead and judged by fish…apparently, illegal charter or dealing was hard to throw at the organiser !
Ibra wrote:
The idea of PIC is to nominate someone who the courts go after by default if something goes bad with the flight
While that is certainly a consequence, I don’t think that’s the “idea” of PIC.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t think that’s the “idea” of PIC
The idea is to have it crystal clear who has the last word in case of urgency.
It’s a concept from boating. If something with a crew of several people has to be done fast and efficient someone has to have the saying. Because if not, there may be several brilliant ideas on board to solve the problem, each and any one absolutely good enough, but affording totally different control inputs. That’ll lead nowhere.
Snoopy wrote:
I cannot see a court declaring someone „in command“ and responsible for someone else’s actions while not even on the flight deck.
The Captain of Air France 447 was in his bunk, I believe, when the accident sequence began.
He was PIC and held ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft throughout the flight, even while away from the flight deck.
