Commercial long XC Q's

Dave Arata

Dave Arata

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
321
Location
Bend, OR
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
How many of you used the commercial long XC for a vacation/sight seeing trip? I'm just about to start working on my commercial and I was thinking of killing as many birds with one stone as possible. Do the long XC from Bend to Coeur d'Alene, dropping off the family in CDA and stopping by a "nearby" airport to satisfy the the 300NM requirement and the single 250NM leg. Shoot back over to CDA and enjoy the weekend with the fam. The trip there and back would probably tick away a little over four hours on the Hobbs in the rented 182RG, so that could eat up almost half of the complex requirement. There isn't a TAA available to rent locally, unfortunately. Thoughts?
 
Having read into the regs further, seems a tad odd that the regs basically specify that the "solo" flights can be performed with an instructor as long as you act as PIC. However, non-pilot passengers are not allowed.
 
Dave Arata said:
Having read into the regs further, seems a tad odd that the regs basically specify that the "solo" flights can be performed with an instructor as long as you act as PIC. However, non-pilot passengers are not allowed.
Click to expand...
It's just how it is. You'd be surprised how many pilots never fly solo beyond the requirements for the private. There is a provision to do the long XC as a supervised solo (a reg change to keep the insurance companies happy) but that's with an instructor, not your non-pilot family members.
 
I guess I can share pics of the lake with my girls when I get back! :D
 
darn it my pen slipped and i accidentally put that 7 hrs in the solo column. i guess i cant erase it now.
 
My long commercial was randomly selected consecutive leg(s) from a 4200nm cross country that spanned 18 states.
 
EdFred said:
My long commercial was randomly selected consecutive leg(s) from a 4200nm cross country that spanned 18 states.
Click to expand...

You sir still didn’t beat 1500nm solo XC before your PPL
 
Dave Arata said:
Having read into the regs further, seems a tad odd that the regs basically specify that the "solo" flights can be performed with an instructor as long as you act as PIC. However, non-pilot passengers are not allowed.
Click to expand...
I believe the with instructor part is due to possible insurance requirements for those in twins...But yeah I do not really agree with it having to be solo but I didn't make the rules. haha
 
unsafervguy said:
darn it my pen slipped and i accidentally put that 7 hrs in the solo column. i guess i cant erase it now.
Click to expand...
Honestly this. If you have an xc in your logbook that meets the distance requirements.
Alternatively you can do like i did and pick an airport 251nm away and run a 172 2700 rpm for 4.5 hours gps direct.
 
Back when I did my commercial qualifying cross country, there was no stipulation that it be solo...

That must have been added in the '80s.
 
Dave Arata said:
Having read into the regs further, seems a tad odd that the regs basically specify that the "solo" flights can be performed with an instructor as long as you act as PIC. However, non-pilot passengers are not allowed.
Click to expand...

unsafervguy said:
im sure the solo part is due to the certificate mills that were loading up an airplane and 4 guys logging the cross country at the same time......
Click to expand...

Yup. And the fact that it’s nearly impossible to get insurance for a twin to be flown by someone not-yet-multi-rated, solo. Your first Commercial rating can be in a multi, as mine was.

Instructor sat over there and pretended he wasn’t on board.

EdFred said:
I did my private in a 152. Not sure I could have completed that in 1 day!!
Click to expand...

Tsk. You know it doesn’t have to be in a single day. :)
 
As with most things pertaining to FAA, trying to apply your logic to their's will only leave one in frustration. Although, I've found this to be a good requirement. Many of the new CFIs, this will be the only time they leave the area around their home airport. Doing it solo opposed to bringing a pilot buddy friend who will do the legs on the way back gives them some experience.

As someone who is about to become a 300 hour cfi, it's not like i have a lot of room talk. But, i have done some real xc flying fully loaded with my family. Those 20 hours making real life go/no-go decisions, being in the ifr system taught me more than any dual or solo xc ever could. But, the rule isn't for people like the op, its for people like the one i overheard respond to the following question at my flight school, "is class echo airspace controlled or uncontrolled airspace?" "Uncontrolled....i believe...." they responded. The next week they're doing their first lessons as a cfi.
 
The solo requirement for commercial certificates goes back to the beginning. See CAR 20.14 on page 13 of the attached 1940 regulation re-write. The solo requires were gone by 1972 but came back at some point thereafter. There wasn’t much documentation regarding why various provisions were changed, at least not on the official documents.
 

Attachments

  • car2060-1.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 4
  • AE8BD174-0404-4FCD-B641-3A4E62814034.jpeg
    AE8BD174-0404-4FCD-B641-3A4E62814034.jpeg
    171.9 KB · Views: 10
  • BC310224-A209-440C-8BCE-BD9AD3175639.jpeg
    BC310224-A209-440C-8BCE-BD9AD3175639.jpeg
    156.1 KB · Views: 10
Brad Z said:
The solo requirement for commercial certificates goes back to the beginning. See CAR 20.14 on page 13 of the attached 1940 regulation re-write. The solo requires were gone by 1972 but came back at some point thereafter. There wasn’t much documentation regarding why various provisions were changed, at least not on the official documents.
Click to expand...

I guess we were talking two things there really. The solo requirement kinda makes sense. Go far afield and learn about airports and weather and such on your own.

The allowing a CFI to ride along and pretend they’re not there is from the early 90s re-write isn’t it? Insurers made that happen. FAA wanted it to be true solo but folks said “we can’t. Not and be insured doing it.”

Not sure the insurers cared about singles though. No idea why FAA allows the CFI to be on board for that. Smells like a requirement of a certain couple of aviation schools to always send puppies out in pairs.
 
Brad Z said:
The solo requirement for commercial certificates goes back to the beginning. See CAR 20.14 on page 13 of the attached 1940 regulation re-write. The solo requires were gone by 1972 but came back at some point thereafter. There wasn’t much documentation regarding why various provisions were changed, at least not on the official documents.
Click to expand...

Yep. That 1972 regulation was what applied when I flew mine. Being in California, going East meant flying into Nevada. I started in Sacramento at about 8 pm went to Lovelock, NV.

From there, I flew to Rohnerville/Fortuna. That was the longest solid IFR in IMC leg I had ever flown. From there I flew down the coast along the airways and got some nice VFR-on-top as the sun came up north of San Francisco...

I think it was just short of eight hours, all IFR. I would not have been able to accomplish the flight without an instrument rating. The distance specific to the cross country was really insignificant compared to the training value I got from flying hard IFR and picking up ice and avoiding fatigue...
 
If I am remembering it correctly, the commercial solo cross country requirement is related to ICAO minimum standards requirements. There may have been some discussion of it in the Final Rule for the 1997 Part 61 revision.
 
I went from New Jersey to Florida on mine. Visited my sister for a few days and then flew back. I flew her to an airport near Cape Canaveral for lunch while I was down there, but the trips down and back were solo.
 
denverpilot said:
I guess we were talking two things there really. The solo requirement kinda makes sense. Go far afield and learn about airports and weather and such on your own.

The allowing a CFI to ride along and pretend they’re not there is from the early 90s re-write isn’t it? Insurers made that happen. FAA wanted it to be true solo but folks said “we can’t. Not and be insured doing it.”

Not sure the insurers cared about singles though. No idea why FAA allows the CFI to be on board for that. Smells like a requirement of a certain couple of aviation schools to always send puppies out in pairs.
Click to expand...

The original provision was part of the big August 4 1997 part 61 re-write. You can go back to the 1995 NPRM to read the FAA's philosophy on "supervised PIC." The "silent supervising pilot" allowance for single-engine was included in a later August 2009 Part 61 amendment. The justification was that many flight training operations had similar insurance provisions for single-engine airplane operations.
 
Brad Z said:
The original provision was part of the big August 4 1997 part 61 re-write. You can go back to the 1995 NPRM to read the FAA's philosophy on "supervised PIC." The "silent supervising pilot" allowance for single-engine was included in a later August 2009 Part 61 amendment. The justification was that many flight training operations had similar insurance provisions for single-engine airplane operations.
Click to expand...
Although there are certainly singles which might have similar issues, personally, I think it was just about leveling the playing field. Once they allowed a solo substitute for one commercial rating, just makes sense to allow it for another. I wonder how often it is actually used for singles. Like, how many folks transition to a Malibu and use their transition training as part of the process of meeting commercial solo requirements?
 
I've heard conflicting reports on whether one can log dual or not with a "supervised solo." I can only imagine one is robbing themselves of experience by doing that. And if you're comfortable, why pay for an instructor to sit there. I doubt anyone is really "screwing the system" in a single. The multi thing is kind of silly...pilots who own a multi get a private add on. Most people on the career track are doing a commercial add on. There really is no reason for anyone to need the supervised solo. Yes, there are outliers. Probably just about as many who "cheat" a supervised solo in a single.

Totally complete conjecture about numbers above, and jmo.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Although there are certainly singles which might have similar issues, personally, I think it was just about leveling the playing field. Once they allowed a solo substitute for one commercial rating, just makes sense to allow it for another. I wonder how often it is actually used for singles. Like, how many folks transition to a Malibu and use their transition training as part of the process of meeting commercial solo requirements?
Click to expand...
Depending on the flight school/history/how much they want to pay for insurance, an Arrow or Lance could be insured for “dual only” as well.

Way back when my Dad did his training at Spartan in the late ‘60s, the instructor or examiner actually made all takeoffs and landings in the Comanches they used for instruction.
 
Cici said:
The multi thing is kind of silly...pilots who own a multi get a private add on. Most people on the career track are doing a commercial add on. There really is no reason for anyone to need the supervised solo. Yes, there are outliers. Probably just about as many who "cheat" a supervised solo in a single.

Totally complete conjecture about numbers above, and jmo.
Click to expand...

I needed it. Did the Commercial on the CFI track in the multi first because no retract was available other than the multi.

That has changed now for the kids with fancy panels but still would apply at the school I used.

And the insurance issue hasn’t changed. Nobody will insure a new twin pilot to fly solo anywhere, really, unless they own it... and even then, plan on having a colonoscopy to find the extra cash for a while until you have the magic number of hours in type.
 
To the OP, yes, I made a vacation out of it. A fishing trip up in Canada. Flew myself 362 miles to International Falls, fished a few days and stopped at 2 extra airports on the way home. Two birds, one cross country. :)

*Edit - FYI, it's a great experience to get out and actually go somewhere you're not familiar with. Especially dealing with weather as a VFR pilot.
 
lancie00 said:
To the OP, yes, I made a vacation out of it. A fishing trip up in Canada. Flew myself 362 miles to International Falls, fished a few days and stopped at 2 extra airports on the way home. Two birds, one cross country. :)

*Edit - FYI, it's a great experience to get out and actually go somewhere you're not familiar with. Especially dealing with weather as a VFR pilot.
Click to expand...
I am instrument rated, but I agree, it will be fun getting out to an unfamiliar area.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Conflicting reports" is typical, even when there is a clear answer from the FAA.

The solo substitute is not logged as dual.

2014 Kuhn Interpretation
Click to expand...

Clear, but not always exactly easy to find.

That’s a good one.

It’d be really cool if FAA would file those in some fashion that links to the FAR they interpret or change, instead of all of us having to keep a folder of them ourselves marked as to what each one we magically found on their website is about.

I keep wondering how they expect anyone to know those letters even exist, let alone find one on any particular topic on their crap-tacular official website that houses them.

Not even a useful index, let alone references back to the CFR number they modify in any searchable format.

Oh wait. Google for Government will be along soon hahaha. I forgot. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Clear, but not always exactly easy to find.

That’s a good one.

It’d be really cool if FAA would file those in some fashion that links to the FAR they interpret or change, instead of all of us having to keep a folder of them ourselves marked as to what each one we magically found on their website is about.

I keep wondering how they expect anyone to know those letters even exist, let alone find one on any particular topic on their crap-tacular official website that houses them.

Not even a useful index, let alone references back to the CFR number they modify in any searchable format.

Oh wait. Google for Government will be along soon hahaha. I forgot. :)
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the search engine isn't that great either. But heck, considering the FAA's budget and manpower issues, we're lucky there is a publicly -available way to get to them at all.

Besides there is always Google to the rescue, if one understands its site search capability and find a way to save the site string. Want everything in the Chief Counsel database on 61.129? Try:

61.129 site:https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...gc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations

(Yes, even that is a pain; No, that's not how I do it.)
 
Cici said:
I've found the legal interps to be pretty easy to search. You just need a lot of parenthesis if searching a specific FAR.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...c/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/

Pop in 61.129(a)(4)

But I generally agree, just write it into the FARS.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Don't forget that the search engine isn't that great either. But heck, considering the FAA's budget and manpower issues, we're lucky there is a publicly -available way to get to them at all.

Besides there is always Google to the rescue, if one understands its site search capability and find a way to save the site string. Want everything in the Chief Counsel database on 61.129? Try:

61.129 site:https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...gc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations

(Yes, even that is a pain; No, that's not how I do it.)
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed. I’ve spent lots of time forking around with both ways. If you’re really trying to keep up on it, you can get email alerts which go great into a Google tag and never to the Inbox and those can be searched wonderfully in Gmail, but you can’t get email notifications for the chief counsel stuff, and definitely not with a summary in the email text.

It’s really annoying they don’t just assign the chief counsel letters back to someone to re-write the FAR exactly as intended — or how the lawyer interpreted it — either way.

Most good DPEs are at least thankful when you back something with the FAR and the interpretation though. Written is better than old wive’s tales for sure.

And then there’s Advisory Circulars... LOL. Unnnngggghhhh.
 
@Dave Arata - similar to @lancie00 I made mine a have a dual purpose. I flew (solo) way up north to visit a friend in the hospital and also flew over my grandparents farmland. I took a day off work and it was a great day. I'm not even training for Commerical but its done and no big deal.
 
denverpilot said:
It’s really annoying they don’t just assign the chief counsel letters back to someone to re-write the FAR exactly as intended — or how the lawyer interpreted it — either way.
Click to expand...
Not gonna happen. Laws, whether statutory or regulatory, ultimately end up being interpreted in some way. It's the nature of the imperfect beast. People raise questions - in writing or by taking action - regardless of clarity. Watch for the next logging PIC question that was answered 40 years ago, asked by someone who has already heard the answer discussed multiple times.

Plus, we tend to look at a very small subset of the interpretations. Start rewriting the regs to include all of them and, aside from the near impossibility of the task from legal, political, and manpower perspectives, we'd all be complaining about how long, convoluted, and impossible the FAR is to read.

Annotation makes a little more sense. But you'd have to take a look at what legal publishing giants like Westlaw and Lexis have for staffs solely to read new cases to create annotations to the statutes and regulations they interpret to get some idea of the task even on a much smaller scale.

Yeah, the answer to all that is the whole process sucks. So?
 
Sinistar said:
@Dave Arata - similar to @lancie00 I made mine a have a dual purpose. I flew (solo) way up north to visit a friend in the hospital and also flew over my grandparents farmland. I took a day off work and it was a great day. I'm not even training for Commerical but its done and no big deal.
Click to expand...
Mine was a business trip. 4 days, 3 of them totalling 12 hours of flight time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top