IFR 250nm XC (Minimum Leg?)

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,524
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
Planning my 250nm XC for the dual requirement.

The current game plan is FGU-AHN-AND-CHA-FGU

Each of the three have different approaches, so I’ll get the RNAV, VOR and ILS between them. It’s 281nm in total, however, AHN to AND is only 44.8nm, is this okay or does each of the three legs have to be greater than 50nm?
 
None of the legs has to be over 50nm. One airport must be more than 50nm from the departure airport to meet 61.1 and the total distance must be at least 250nm to meet 61.65.
 
didn't we already answer this in your other thread? ;)
 
Assuming you are part 61, and assuming you are doing it in an airplane, then 61.65d does not specify a minimum leg length requirement. (Note - I'm assuming that, because I didn't want to look the others up, not that the answer matters or not.)

Do make sure you land at AHN or AND though for it to count as a XC though (not just do a missed approach).

There is a quirk, though, that I have heard of some DPEs being sticklers on. 61.65 requires:

(B) An instrument approach at each airport;

FGU has no approaches, so you can't comply with the literal reading of 61.65.

For the "record", I think this interpretation is stupid as a flight like yours clearly complies with the intent of the instrument XC. But it wouldn't hurt to run it by the DPE you plan to use.
 
He's based at FGU, hence the other 3 airports (and approaches I assume). If I am reading what you are saying, some DPEs won't let you get an instrument rating if you are based at a field with no IAPs?
 
RussR said:
FGU has no approaches, so you can't comply with the literal reading of 61.65.
Click to expand...
Right, but that’s not included in the three. AHN, AND and CHA are the three airports with approaches for this exercise.
 
RussR said:
Assuming you are part 61, and assuming you are doing it in an airplane, then 61.65d does not specify a minimum leg length requirement. (Note - I'm assuming that, because I didn't want to look the others up, not that the answer matters or not.)

Do make sure you land at AHN or AND though for it to count as a XC though (not just do a missed approach).

There is a quirk, though, that I have heard of some DPEs being sticklers on. 61.65 requires:

(B) An instrument approach at each airport;

FGU has no approaches, so you can't comply with the literal reading of 61.65.

For the "record", I think this interpretation is stupid as a flight like yours clearly complies with the intent of the instrument XC. But it wouldn't hurt to run it by the DPE you plan to use.
Click to expand...

Wow, I'd be floored if that had ever come up with any examiner. For years, our home base never had an approach, and every instrument student XC was logged just like the OPs plan, never had an issue. But, as you say some DPEs are sticklers. (a very polite term for what I would call any that might reject such a trip!)
 
EdFred said:
He's based at FGU, hence the other 3 airports (and approaches I assume). If I am reading what you are saying, some DPEs won't let you get an instrument rating if you are based at a field with no IAPs?
Click to expand...

Oh I get that. And I don't know of it happening to anyone I know, but I know the topic has come up before, FB groups and such. The "solution", as dumb as it is, is to log the "return" flight from CHA to FGU as a separate line in the logbook.

RyanB said:
Right, but that’s not included in the three. AHN, AND and CHA are the three airports with approaches for this exercise.
Click to expand...

I know. But, literally, you have four airports in your logbook, and only did approaches at 3 of them. Hence you didn't do an approach at "each" airport.

I already said, and will say again, that any DPE who doesn't accept your flight is being stupid. But I did hear of at least one DPE with that opinion, so... wouldn't hurt to ask the DPE.
 
RussR said:
I know. But, literally, you have four airports in your logbook, and only did approaches at 3 of them. Hence you didn't do an approach at "each" airport.

I already said, and will say again, that any DPE who doesn't accept your flight is being stupid. But I did hear of at least one DPE with that opinion, so...
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying now.

Geez, I dunno how else to comply with that, given the flight starts and ends at FGU which has no approaches. I can’t imagine it being a problem as the flight school has gone through this many times in the past.
 
RyanB said:
I see what you’re saying now.

Geez, I dunno how else to comply with that, given the flight starts and ends at FGU which has no approaches. I can’t imagine it being a problem as the flight school has gone through this many times in the past.
Click to expand...

pretty sure a teardrop pattern entry will suffice ;)
 
RyanB said:
I see what you’re saying now.

Geez, I dunno how else to comply with that, given the flight starts and ends at FGU which has no approaches. I can’t imagine it being a problem as the flight school has gone through this many times in the past.
Click to expand...

Fly to Cha - and start/stop your trip there - if this is a genuine worry.
 
RyanB said:
I see what you’re saying now.

Geez, I dunno how else to comply with that, given the flight starts and ends at FGU which has no approaches. I can’t imagine it being a problem as the flight school has gone through this many times in the past.
Click to expand...

I also highly doubt it will be a problem, especially if there is lots of other history with people doing this and the same examiner. But I've been really surprised at some of the oddball stuff coming from FSDOs and DPEs lately.
 
RussR said:
I also highly doubt it will be a problem, especially if there is lots of other history with people doing this and the same examiner. But I've been really surprised at some of the oddball stuff coming from FSDOs and DPEs lately.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He needs to write "meets the requirements of 61.65(d)(2)(ii)" in the log entry for this flight or else he will have to do another one!
 
How about "Approach, N12345 has the field in sight."
"N12345, cleared visual approach."
 
The FAA is perfectly capable of specifying a leg length when it wants to. Here's the student long cross country.
One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and​
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ha. Made me look mine up. 309nm direct, 315 via the airways we used and without adding the approach distances.
Click to expand...
Considering you regularly fly across the country just for fun, I'm not surprised.

Mine was 319 direct, I don't remember for sure, but I assume we filed airways that were longer. Cmi-spi-mdw-cmi because I wanted to get mdw in my logbook, and I was going to do my checkride at spi. It was good experience as we got put on a STAR and the approach was pretty busy. It was a long day in an Archer.
 
Jim K said:
I assume we filed airways that were longer.
Click to expand...
Is that a requirement or can you just go direct? I was looking in the reg to see if it requires flying along airways or not but I didn’t see anything.
 
EdFred said:
A visual approach is not an instrument approach.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. After I posted, I reviewed the pilot-controller glossary, it says a visual approach is "an approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) fight plan.....", but you're right, it never calls it an instrument approach.
 
RyanB said:
Is that a requirement or can you just go direct? I was looking in the reg to see if it requires flying along airways or not but I didn’t see anything.
Click to expand...
You can fly any route you choose. The measurement of distance for regulatory purposes is straight line distance, not distance flown.
 
RyanB said:
Is that a requirement or can you just go direct? I was looking in the reg to see if it requires flying along airways or not but I didn’t see anything.
Click to expand...
No more than you're required to file airways IRL. We always filed airways in training, but that went out pretty quickly after the checkride. I'm getting checked out in a 172 tomorrow (finally) that is IFR certified, but doesn't have a GPS, so I'm going to have to re-learn lol.
 
Jim K said:
No more than you're required to file airways IRL. We always filed airways in training, but that went out pretty quickly after the checkride. I'm getting checked out in a 172 tomorrow (finally) that is IFR certified, but doesn't have a GPS, so I'm going to have to re-learn lol.
Click to expand...
While we were flying mine the controller asked if I just wanted to go direct. :rofl: I said no.
 
RyanB said:
Is that a requirement or can you just go direct? I was looking in the reg to see if it requires flying along airways or not but I didn’t see anything.
Click to expand...

You have to go along airways or "ATC directed routing". I'm not exactly sure how you could fly IFR in any other manner than "ATC directed routing" since that would be your clearance. So if they clear you direct, that's okay.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
While we were flying mine the controller asked if I just wanted to go direct. :rofl: I said no.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good reason to use straight line distance than airway distance.

ATC: I can give you direct.
Pilot: No. no shortcuts. This is my IFR cross country. I wouldn't want it to be realistic.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sounds like a good reason to use straight line distance than airway distance.

ATC: I can give you direct.
Pilot: No. no shortcuts. This is my IFR cross country. I wouldn't want it to be realistic.
Click to expand...
I was headed to do the VOR approach and the airway took me right to it. Want to talk unrealistic? :D
 
As a side note, that VOR approach was 13 to KOTM (Ottumwa). There could be VOR approaches with lower but I haven't seen one. It is 300. We took that thing almost to minimums in actual. I quite enjoyed it.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
As a side note, that VOR approach was 13 to KOTM (Ottumwa). There could be VOR approaches with lower but I haven't seen one. It is 300. We took that thing almost to minimums in actual. I quite enjoyed it.
Click to expand...

That is definitely low. I don't attempt to keep track, but I'm not sure I've seen one lower. The minimum clearance over obstacles or vegetation (trees) on final is 250 feet for a VOR like this. So for the MDA to be 296 feet above touchdown at OTM means one of several things:
- the runway is up on a mesa (doesn't seem to be the case here)
- there are no obstacles higher than 46 feet above the runway on final
- there is good survey data off that runway end proving it
 
MauleSkinner said:
The measurement of distance for regulatory purposes is straight line distance, not distance flown.
Click to expand...

Uh "250 nautical miles along airways" doesn't meant straight line distance unless the airway happens to go in a straight line from airport to airport.
 
dmspilot said:
Uh "250 nautical miles along airways" doesn't meant straight line distance unless the airway happens to go in a straight line from airport to airport.
Click to expand...
14 cfr 61.65 said:
A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility
Click to expand...

I suppose that's the case where you would have to say no, I need the airway. Its a lot easier just to pick airports with sufficient direct distance.
 
I did one with a student where the direct distance was 237.7. This was in a non-GPS airplane and once airways and approaches were added was well more than 250 nm. Perfectly in compliance with the reg.

Why not pick different airports? I picked these two because of very specific training opportunities. The first had a DME arc from an airway into a Localizer final, and the second was an ILS at a Class C airport. And a VOR back home.
 
That reminds me. My second approach on my long XC was a DME arc. Controller also asked if I wanted vectors instead. I said no (and it was the long arc at UIN if you want to look). When else would I actually get to do an arc under ATC control?
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
That reminds me. My second approach on my long XC was a DME arc. Controller also asked if I wanted vectors instead. I said no (and it was the long arc at UIN if you want to look). When else would I actually get to do an arc under ATC control?
Click to expand...
CMI VOR 22! Actually the last approach in my logbook back in Jan.
 
May be old news, but I got this email today:


Changes to Instrument Rating Cross Country Approach Requirement
Notice Number: NOTC2305

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently reviewed two legal interpretation and determined they were overly restrictive. The Glaser (2008) and Pratte (2012) legal interpretations focused on the requirements of an instrument rating under § 61.65. Specifically, the requirement to use three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems to meet the requirements of § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). These interpretations inaccurately concluded that an applicant for an instrument rating must use three different kinds of navigation systems to meet these requirements.

On February 28, 2022, the FAA rescinded both the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations, stating the regulation’s plain language requires three different types of approaches, not three different navigation systems. Certificated flight instructors (CFI) and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) should be aware that the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.

More information is available at: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2022/Mar/61.65_Recission_memo.pdf
 
RussR said:
I did one with a student where the direct distance was 237.7. This was in a non-GPS airplane and once airways and approaches were added was well more than 250 nm. Perfectly in compliance with the reg.

Why not pick different airports? I picked these two because of very specific training opportunities. The first had a DME arc from an airway into a Localizer final, and the second was an ILS at a Class C airport. And a VOR back home.
Click to expand...
So how does the examiner verify that I flew 250 miles if the straight line distance between the airports I used is only about, say, 50 miles for the entire flight?
 
Yeah, let me just cheat a little. :). Who really cares except maybe my future passengers.
 
Skyrys62 said:
May be old news, but I got this email today:


Changes to Instrument Rating Cross Country Approach Requirement
Notice Number: NOTC2305

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently reviewed two legal interpretation and determined they were overly restrictive. The Glaser (2008) and Pratte (2012) legal interpretations focused on the requirements of an instrument rating under § 61.65. Specifically, the requirement to use three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems to meet the requirements of § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). These interpretations inaccurately concluded that an applicant for an instrument rating must use three different kinds of navigation systems to meet these requirements.

On February 28, 2022, the FAA rescinded both the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations, stating the regulation’s plain language requires three different types of approaches, not three different navigation systems. Certificated flight instructors (CFI) and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) should be aware that the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.

More information is available at: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2022/Mar/61.65_Recission_memo.pdf
Click to expand...
Not that old. The Chief Counsel published it on their website yesterday. I did a write-up on it on my Facebook page this morning.

Link to the new Chief Counsel Carty interpretation.
Link to me rambling about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top