Logging cross country +50NM between Depart Dest Airports FLYING Non Direct Route
- Thread starter fly4usa
- Start date
I generally don’t. If I fly someplace for lunch then back home, I log the flight there and back as a single flight.
I wouldn’t, for example, log the 300nm “one cross country flight” required by 61.129 as two or three just because I stopped to refuel. Nothing wrong with doing it either way, although the one-line method works better with (most?) electronic logbooks if they are being used to meet requirements like this one.
Pinecone
En-Route
I log that as two flights. My choice.
I may do that one as one flight to just make it easier to see for the DPE. But there is nothing in the regs that says it has to be flown as one flight or even over how many days.
See the link to the Sisk interpretation in post 33 above. Actually, don't just see it. Click the link and read the damn thing.
Nope. I do what the FAA says to do. My opinion on the FARs is not relevant. The facts are.
For private, instrument, and commercial, you need a landing at least 50nm away from the original point of departure. For ATP, you don't need a landing. For general logging purposes, any time you land at an airport different from the one you departed from is good, though I think this only matters when it comes to meeting Part 135 and Part 121 experience requirements.
But, we are talking about the same agency that has three different definitions of "night" too... And that's why my logbook has flights with night time but no night takeoffs or landings, and why I sometimes have to turn on all the lights on my airplane on a flight that only gets logged as Day.
I agree, my opinion doesn't matter. NEITHER DOES YOURS. The FAA's matters. The DPE's doesn't matter either, though getting into a ****ing match with a DPE isn't generally productive.
There's plenty of rulings in writing by the Administrator regarding logging cross country flight, and they don't all make sense, but they are the law and I'm not making them up. Let's look at a few:
1: You can legally log most of a triangle as XC even if you never go 50nm away from the first airport, if you just choose what to log on one line creatively. Van Zanen 2009 Glenn 2009
2: You can log XC even if you never make a 50nm leg, as long as there's at least one landing at least 50nm away from the original point of departure. Sisk 2008
3: You can log XC and PIC as a non-instrument-rated pilot when doing XC training flights for your IR. Haralson 2009
4: You canNOT log XC even if you are the acting PIC of a flight that would otherwise be XC unless two pilots are required for the entire flight. Gebhart 2009 Glenn 2009
5: You canNOT log XC of a flight no matter how long the distance is unless you are the one conducting the entire flight. Hilliard 2009
You're free to NOT log anything you don't want to log, as long as you are able to demonstrate that you have the necessary experience for any ratings, and currency for any flight operations you choose to undertake. However, you seem to have quite a fixation on not letting other people log things they want to log in a perfectly legal fashion for some reason.
If you think reading the FAA's own interpretations is a "Jedi Mind Trick" you're going to be amazed when I show you my garage door opener.
With all that experience, you must be trying really hard to be this wrong. Your opinion does not matter. Only the FAA's does.
You have made several incorrect and misleading statements. The REGS and INTENT of XC are clear. Adding words or making up appeal to authority logical fallacies', FAA SAYS SO, with no Ref, is wrong. I talked to the FAA and DPE. Over flight of airport to fly an approach to missed approach (not landing is OK) on an XC between two airports 50 nm apart or more. This was ans long ago. Why are you still arguing? I don't care, do as you like.
I will have my students log the following for their INST RATING
All airport pairs will be 50NM or more apart to log as XC.
Log each XC leg on separate lines, is best. If just a pair, one line is OK if both legs XC.
If you mix non XC (less then 50nm say for example positioning flight) with XC legs DO LOG on separate lines.
Position flights are fine, say a short 18 nm flight to nearby airport to START your XC, but the short leg(s) are not XC. Make separate line entry.
Once you get your rating PVT and seek no Adv rating, log as you like, every flight is XC, even T/G's at home base if you like. Don't care.
All your "interpretations", inserting words and your wishes and dreams of what you want is a rookie mistake. The one who counts is the Administrator (FAA) and their designees, DPE. To say "FAA SAYS SO" with no REFERENCE, in writing, is a red herring, strawman and non sequitur. I deny your self appointed authority. I went to the source.
The DEFINITION of and Rating Requirement for CROSS COUNTRY is in black and white. READ IT as it is and follow the strict interpterion and more over INETENT. The intent of Cross Country is Flight Planning, NAV, COM, Weather, landing and takeoff at new airports. I recalled someone argued T/G's are XC? Ha ha. I recall someone said hopscotching between airports, landing less than 50nm each time is cross country if you "eventually get there". Hard No! I don't know if it is the hubris of youth, inexperience or anti authority attitude? For sure you love to argue.
I am fine and my question about overflight (not landing) and doing an approach half way between a 50 nm XC pair is OK. Why? It meets the INTENT and LETTER of the LAW. The word STRAIGHT LINE distance doesn't mean you must fly straight flight path. I was 99.9% sure but ASKED other pilots who may have got input from DPE and FAA on overflight. Not really interested in your personal opinion. However circling for 2 hours may be OK by Reg but violation of INTENT, unless you are holding in actual IMC by ATC request. For training, assume 1 min leg, 5 circuits of the hold is 20 min. That is enough. You all seem to think INTENT means nothing. CORSS COUINTRY is in 61.1 definition. If you are not doing that, you are not following the INTENT. It is to build experience not pad your log book with meaningless time.
Fun fact 29 yrs flying as commercial airline pilot domestic and international I have only had to hold a handful of times. Every time was JFK and once I had to divert to Hartford CT. My student is getting random holds now which is a challenge without autopilot as it takes some button pushing and knob twirling on the "navigator". Going old school dial up VOR and use TSO196 GPS as DME or cross radial, is always a skill one should have. Programing the Garmin GNS430W is a handful for new students, as this plane is not TAA, some glass but no autopilot.
To close this out, I don't know why you feel a need to argue ad nauseum being so pedantic and petulant to convince me of something? Is it a hobby? I have NO clue at this point what you are talking about, because you have gone to the 3rd level of internet forum hell arguing about arguing. My question (which I already was 99.9% sure to start with) was answered long ago. I asked specifically for pilots who talked to FAA or DPE about this specific scenario. I got lots of opinions, some very wrong. That is OK. You do you.
I only reply because I don't want others to be mislead. I am 100% RIGHT in my conservative application of the REG in logging XC for INST RATING and my opinions are mine (like how to log XC in your log book) based on REGS and talking to FAA and DPE. Don't over think it. My back ground 9 FAA pilot and instructor certificates, 4 types and teaching both GA pilots (over 20 ratings completed) and Airline Pilots for over 3 decades might give me insight? That is not the only reason why I am right, my high time and many ratings, but it does give me perspective. I am conservative and want ZERO chance a DPE will deny logged time required for a rating. Sue me.
If there is a liberal interpretation that is OK with you and a DPE, go for it. Not going for any Adv ratings ever? Log T/G's at home airport as XC if you like. I and my students will pass on that and use the 50nm straight line distance and practicing XC skills as defined in Part 61.1 to not only LOG TIME but gain skills, experience and proficiency. As a professional instructor I don't bore holes in sky and waste ink. It has a purpose, INTENT. You arguing has no purposes. Accept you are not the boas of me. Ha ha. I am good. Bye.
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
You're actually 100% wrong, and, if you're serious about all this, my opinion is you're due for a 709 ride.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
What about a triangle, 50nm, 30 and 30? Are you saying that's only one XC between the 50nm pair?
Why then vs the other example. Cite a reference
Because?
Huh?
Thanks for allowing all of us to do that.
P.S. Spell check is your friend
PPS, you might also check how many ratings you have, seems to change with each post.
RussR
En-Route
You claim to want us to provide references, but when we do, you choose to ignore them. You clearly didn't read the FAA's own letter I posted a link to in Post 33. So I'll link it again:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/faa_migrate/interps/2008/Sisk_2008_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
You'll note it says EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. It comes direct from the FAA, and is a valid, legal reference.
But I notice that you choose to not recognize its existence at all, when it literally discusses the exact scenario here.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
Here's the relevant part from the letter RussR posted
"As noted above, cross-country flight time is defined as time acquired during a flight that includes a point of landing that is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure, not the original point of any flight leg. There is no requirement that any specific leg must be 50 nm. Moreover, a cross-country flight may include several legs that are less than a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. Nevertheless, at least one leg of the cross-country flight, 2 2 however long by itself, must include a point of landing that is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure (i.e. of the flight, not of that particular leg)."
This response was prepared by Adrianne Wojcik, an Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and has been coordinated with the General Aviation Division of Flight Standards Service.
"As noted above, cross-country flight time is defined as time acquired during a flight that includes a point of landing that is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure, not the original point of any flight leg. There is no requirement that any specific leg must be 50 nm. Moreover, a cross-country flight may include several legs that are less than a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. Nevertheless, at least one leg of the cross-country flight, 2 2 however long by itself, must include a point of landing that is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure (i.e. of the flight, not of that particular leg)."
This response was prepared by Adrianne Wojcik, an Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and has been coordinated with the General Aviation Division of Flight Standards Service.
Why bother? He is either a troll or honestly believes he is right. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the problem is that, like most beliefs, it automatically rejects any contrary information.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
As my BIL says about my wife’s ex…if he believed he was the Queen of England, all the evidence would support that in his mind.
RussR
En-Route
Call it a character flaw
, I wanted to make sure anybody reading this abysmal thread in the future doesn't think he's right, despite his assertions that he is 100% correct.Although if he's a troll, he's a pretty long-winded one.
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
I have a rebuttal:
ChatGPT, Generate a 500 word forum post about logging of cross-country flights in the voice of an arrogant airline pilot and flight instructor who is generally wrong about everything. Use mostly incomplete sentences and incorrect grammar. Use bold and italics randomly for emphasis.
ChatGPT, Generate a 500 word forum post about logging of cross-country flights in the voice of an arrogant airline pilot and flight instructor who is generally wrong about everything. Use mostly incomplete sentences and incorrect grammar. Use bold and italics randomly for emphasis.
I tried that prompt in Gemini and got an anti-GPS rant
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
Why do you expect us to waste our time trying to read your functionally illiterate rants?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I find it interesting that he continues to post here…I guess he just needs validation to feel that he’s he only one who’s correct.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Microsoft > GoogleI tried that prompt in Gemini and got an anti-GPS rant
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,933
- Location
- Chicago suburbs
- Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
I can nearly guarantee it's a troll.Call it a character flaw
Although if he's a troll, he's a pretty long-winded one.
My guess is that fly4usa, ImABird and ImAParrot are all the same troll PoA user. They all have a nearly identical trademark style: excruciatingly long posts questioning simple, basic logging rules in the FARs and then argue endlessly with everyone who posts a response.
The more coherent, sensible and accepted your answer -- the longer, more incoherent and snarky is their reply. Then they suddenly disappear until they do it again.
This is where a system like StackOverflow would come in handy because their non-sense would get downvoted into oblivion
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Prove one wrong, with references.
To the rest of us, yes. They must not be very clear to you since you get them so wrong.
Except I did provide references. You just ignored them.
Not landing is only OK for ATP.
So if you fly from Seattle to Miami but never fly a leg over 50nm, it's not cross country?
And yet you think everyone ELSE on the board is wrong. All righty then.
Just because you didn't read the references, doesn't mean I didn't provide them.
Brad Z
Final Approach
I look forward to chatting with you. We're in the big hangar next to the tower.
You forgot, “…and we’re here to help you.”
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
I probably shouldn't add to this, but... *sigh.*
Sir, Designated Pilot Examiners have an extremely narrow scope of authorizations to act on behalf of the Administrator. Providing legal interpretations is not one of them. That's the job of the FAA's Chief Counsel.
All evaluators (this includes designees and ASIs) are required to be subject matter experts on regulations and guidance pertaining to airman certification. In obvious terms this includes Part 61, Part 91, and Part 141 when applicable. But FAA Handbooks, FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, additional Parts under Title 14 and others (i.e. Title 49 which contains Part 830, 'Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents') and guidance disseminated directly to designees in the form of initial and recurrent DPE training all play a role, as well.
For example, scenarios in which applicants must be qualified are contained in my recurrent training which I take each alternating year. Qualifying cross-country flights is one of them. Although it's not my place to officially provide legal interpretations, I am expected by the FAA (and given oversight by my Managing Specialist when necessary) to correctly access the 'knowledge sphere' I described above (by the way, that's not a technical term, just how I think of it) and accurately determine an applicant's eligibility for a given practical test. In simple terms, sure, there are some 'gotchas' which instructors and applicants may not catch. It's the job of the designee to catch them. And generally speaking, thanks to the training and oversight we receive, not to mention our day-to-day experience with airman certification, we're pretty good at that.
So it is fair to expect and believe DPEs will accurately answer questions about eligibility based on the guidance I described. At least, it's fair on a case-by-case basis, i.e. an instructor wanting to ensure that his or her applicant will meet the experience requirements for the given certificate or rating. In that strict sense, the pilot examiner may have to apply the knowledge gained from aforementioned experience and training to determine eligibility. This certainly doesn't reflect 'policy' when the decision is made, it is a decision informed by policy. Though the Designee Standardization Branch provides excellent training and resources to our small group, we're not perfectly uniform in our application of this guidance, though we always strive to be.
With that preamble out of the way, I'd like to make it clear that I disagree with your conclusions (again) about qualifying cross-country flights. Your applicant must land ("overflight" of airport NOT acceptable) for the purpose of logging cross-country flight towards a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, or instrument rating. You're really not even straying into some of the more esoteric scenarios we entertain in our recurrent training - that's a simple binary "nope, doesn't qualify." Also, airport pairs do NOT need to be 50 nautical miles apart or further for each and every leg. Furthermore, however the flights are logged in the logbook, whether one leg per line or combined together into a logical group of flights, as would be the case in a multi-leg cross-country is up to the applicant. I would say it is far more common to group the legs together, but there's nothing preventing you from logging one leg per line if that is what you prefer. As my personal opinion only, as a flight instructor I'm generally loathe to "require" my learners to do it "my way" just because I "like it." I may recommend certain techniques, but if it's not a matter of regulation, policy, or safety, if they want to do it a different way, so long as it's not a bad habit or going to cause problems in the future, that's okay with me.
You've already been provided numerous correct answers to your questions (again) by various experienced flight instructors and pilots. You've already been provided one binding legal interpretation which came from the FAA. Now you have the opinion of a pilot examiner, informed by a great deal of experience in airman certification and backed up by the weight of established policy, also telling you that you're getting this wrong. I hope this helps.
Sir, Designated Pilot Examiners have an extremely narrow scope of authorizations to act on behalf of the Administrator. Providing legal interpretations is not one of them. That's the job of the FAA's Chief Counsel.
All evaluators (this includes designees and ASIs) are required to be subject matter experts on regulations and guidance pertaining to airman certification. In obvious terms this includes Part 61, Part 91, and Part 141 when applicable. But FAA Handbooks, FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, additional Parts under Title 14 and others (i.e. Title 49 which contains Part 830, 'Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents') and guidance disseminated directly to designees in the form of initial and recurrent DPE training all play a role, as well.
For example, scenarios in which applicants must be qualified are contained in my recurrent training which I take each alternating year. Qualifying cross-country flights is one of them. Although it's not my place to officially provide legal interpretations, I am expected by the FAA (and given oversight by my Managing Specialist when necessary) to correctly access the 'knowledge sphere' I described above (by the way, that's not a technical term, just how I think of it) and accurately determine an applicant's eligibility for a given practical test. In simple terms, sure, there are some 'gotchas' which instructors and applicants may not catch. It's the job of the designee to catch them. And generally speaking, thanks to the training and oversight we receive, not to mention our day-to-day experience with airman certification, we're pretty good at that.
So it is fair to expect and believe DPEs will accurately answer questions about eligibility based on the guidance I described. At least, it's fair on a case-by-case basis, i.e. an instructor wanting to ensure that his or her applicant will meet the experience requirements for the given certificate or rating. In that strict sense, the pilot examiner may have to apply the knowledge gained from aforementioned experience and training to determine eligibility. This certainly doesn't reflect 'policy' when the decision is made, it is a decision informed by policy. Though the Designee Standardization Branch provides excellent training and resources to our small group, we're not perfectly uniform in our application of this guidance, though we always strive to be.
With that preamble out of the way, I'd like to make it clear that I disagree with your conclusions (again) about qualifying cross-country flights. Your applicant must land ("overflight" of airport NOT acceptable) for the purpose of logging cross-country flight towards a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, or instrument rating. You're really not even straying into some of the more esoteric scenarios we entertain in our recurrent training - that's a simple binary "nope, doesn't qualify." Also, airport pairs do NOT need to be 50 nautical miles apart or further for each and every leg. Furthermore, however the flights are logged in the logbook, whether one leg per line or combined together into a logical group of flights, as would be the case in a multi-leg cross-country is up to the applicant. I would say it is far more common to group the legs together, but there's nothing preventing you from logging one leg per line if that is what you prefer. As my personal opinion only, as a flight instructor I'm generally loathe to "require" my learners to do it "my way" just because I "like it." I may recommend certain techniques, but if it's not a matter of regulation, policy, or safety, if they want to do it a different way, so long as it's not a bad habit or going to cause problems in the future, that's okay with me.
You've already been provided numerous correct answers to your questions (again) by various experienced flight instructors and pilots. You've already been provided one binding legal interpretation which came from the FAA. Now you have the opinion of a pilot examiner, informed by a great deal of experience in airman certification and backed up by the weight of established policy, also telling you that you're getting this wrong. I hope this helps.
Last edited:
Your personal opinion is my First Commandment of Flight Instruction:
Thou shalt not try to change someone's technique that works just because you like another better.
I was a victim of a violation of that commandment shortly after I got my instrument rating. Screwed me up for years. It took getting my CFII to overcome it. MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I had a Chief Pilot years ago who decided I needed to change the way I did my mag checks because he thought the way I did it was more likely to result in taking off on one mag. I never took off on one mag (before or after that,) but I can’t count the number of times I almost shut the engine down on the mag check while I was trying to do it his way. What saved me was actually the part of my mag check that he apparently didn’t do-watch for the rise in RPM going back to BOTH.
I bet a number of us have stories like ours.
And it's really something we who are instructors need to monitor about ourselves. We all have our favorites and it's really easy to fall into the trap of forcing changes. My big bug-a-boo in the instrument world is loading VTF as the transition for an instrument approach. I just don't. But I've trained myself on that one. All I do with someone who loads VTF is create a scenario where it causes a problem. Pilot solves the problem, I'm very happy. Pilot gets stuck, we discuss alternatives, including how to handle it if they want to continue to load the VTF transition.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup…and do the same thing with the same pilot every time, because they’ve “never seen that before.”
Nah. I have a list of real-world GPS tasks pilots have trouble with, and if it's a repeat customer, my notes usually tell me which I've done (on purpose) with them already. If it's a "get stuck," I'll may do it again or a variation or ground question to check, but the "get stuck" is often enough of a memory link for the lesson to stick. Otherwise, it may or may not come up in the ordinary course.Yup…and do the same thing with the same pilot every time, because they’ve “never seen that before.”
I don't do training for certificates and ratings any more but I was asked to do a few flights with an instrument applicant shortly before their checkride. I did one of these to them (not the VTF one). After the checkride, the successful applicant contacted me to say they had a task which required the same technique we discussed. They remembered and even correlated it!