Ted> I was told that the regs are iron-clad. There is no exception
  Ted> since there is no reason for a second person to be needed in
  Ted> a single engine airplane as a "required crew member" for any
  Ted> purpose.

Probably preachin' to the choir, but I don't get this.

My wife and I are both instrument rated, and we've invested a fair
amount of effort in learning to work as a "crew".  Typically one
of us flies the airplane -- period, full stop -- while the other
does everything else: radios, nav, talking to ATC, handling charts,
briefing approaches, etc, etc, etc.  On the return trip, we reverse
roles.

If something goes wrong whoever is flying the airplane continues to
do *just* that: fly the airplane.  The other "works the problem".

This just seems good, standard practice recommended by NASA *and* the
FAA.

And all the reasons that make this sort of arrangement desirable seem
to apply -- in spades -- during the test phase of a new, experimental
airplane where glitches, small and large, are virtually certain.  This
brain-dead FAA policy seems to guarantee that the sole pilot is going
to have to split his/her attention just when the ca-ca hits the fan.
How can this possibly do anything but *decrease* safety?

Bureaucrats.

Not to mention the desirability of having another set of eyes/ brain
to monitor/record data.

So what's the down-side of ignoring the regs and doing what I think
is the prudent thing -- flying as a crew?  What's the worst the FAA
could do and under what circumstances might that happen (short of a
crash)?

-------------------
Bella horrida bella
Wars, horrid wars
Arguments are repl Aviation/Lancair/List /home/pdavis/Mail/drafts/332