JAR-OPS 3.940(3)(b), (i) AND (ii)
So, if,:
"The qualification of the requirement for two pilots (MAPSC 19+) implies
single pilot in the alternative case(MAPSC 19or less).".......
......would you then suggest that the second and equal part of this paragraph, namely the one that states a requirement for a commander to hold an ATPL, implies that no ATPL is required in "the alternative case", ( which would be ANY aircraft with MAPSC of 19 or less)?
The logic would be the same.
I believe that the paragraph we're debating defines a set of two spesific requirements for aircraft with MAPSC of more , not less, than 19.
I'm not so sure that you can single out just one of its two requiements, and define that the opposite, by exclusion, is valid for another size or class.
I do however, thank you for the reminder of 3.940(a)(1), which is clear enough.
s61n