–  
Drafting the definition to account for the fact that the commander will, usually, also be the pilot-in-command is not the point. The text should concentrate on the issue that the commander is designated, and is responsible for the safe operation of the flight; that he/she is a pilot is co-incidental. The same is true for the pilot-in-command; he/she is obviously a pilot.

Others disagreed, and insisted that the definition of commander must include a statement to the effect that the commander is qualified and current in the aircraft being flown. One commentor wanted to avoid the use of retired pilots in a non-flying role.

–  
Some commentors believed that the commander’s authority and responsibility could be transferred in flight, whilst others felt that the commander was the commander for the whole flight, even if resting. Others saw the other view, and that if the pilot-in-command of an enlarged crew was flying, the commander of the resting crew was no longer responsible.

–  
One proposal, supported by a number of commentors, implied that the commander was responsible for the safety of the flight, but the pilot-in-command was in charge of the piloting. This allows the commander and Pilot-in-command to be the same person, and lets him/her delegate the flying to another, but not for the commander to be relieved of the overall responsibility for the safety of the flight.

–  
Another alternative proposed that a new term relief commander be drafted to allow for delegation of the overall safety function.

–  
The phrase ‘for the time being’ is too imprecise. Substitute with ‘for a certain period of time or a certain part of the route.

–  
New terms, relief co-pilot and pilot under supervision, are needed to complete the picture.

From the above combinations of ideas, the DEFWG discussed, in great detail, a possible way forward.