Logging of Cross-Country Time by Multiple Pilots, Draft Letter to Chief Counsel

[poadeleted20]

No, its not.

Well, if you want to make up your own rules, fine and dandy. Just don't present the resulting log to the FAA for the purpose of meeting aeronautical experience requirements for a pilot certificate or rating under 14 CFR Part 61.

But it does not rule out more than one training flight, one after the other, one not XC and the second an XC. And meeting the letter of the rule is my reading of the plane language, apparently the same reading as the CFI's I talked to. I am not arguing with you. Just saying it looks like it fits the rule. And until we see a ruling that says it does not, and the examiners (here) are accepting the time, I would be inclined to count it.

There are those who believe it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. My observation after 40 years dealing with the FAA is that with the FAA, that is not true. This is especially important since Administrator v. Merrell and NTSB, in which the US Court of Appeals said that the FAA need not announce its interpretation of a regulation in advance of enforcement action.

But, as you said, it would be simpler and safer to just go a little farther to an airport that leaves no doubt - a little more distance and a little more time and no chance of it being excluded by someone with your interpretation. But sometimes the situation just happens, not as any kind of manipulation of the rule.

Intent isn't of much interest to the FAA -- either you followed their interpretation of the reg or you didn't. Since they haven't announced their interpretation, and since they can interpret it in a more stringent manner than you when they discount your time and hit you with a violation, you might be more conservative in your approach. However, that is entirely your choice to make as long as you recognize the potential consequences.

I fly 20NM south to go to an airport with an avoinics shop to get some work done, or perhaps to get my VOR test done at a VOT. I then start a flight to an airport 60 NM north to meet a friend for lunch. Then about 40 NM south again back to the home drome. (it happens we use a shop about 20 NM south) Two or perhaps three flights, none a training flight. At least two distinct purposes for flying. But if I log the second and third legs as an XC going for lunch, it could be counted for XC as PIC time. If I log them all as one "flight" it is not XC at all. If I log them as three separate flights the second one could be a 60 NM XC. According to how the plane language of the rule reads anyway. The FAA seems to take into account the "purpose" of the flight when dealing with a common purpose issue regarding compensation.

You can log them any way you want. You would be rather bold to present them for inclusion on your 8710 to meet the XC requirements for PP, IR, or CP in an airplane.

If this situation comes up, I would likely log something as XC due to the 60 NM leg. Someone disputes that, fine. I don't need the XC time for anything. It is my log. I can't see how it violates any rules to log it that way.

The violation occurs when you claim the time to meet a Part 61 requirement. If you never do that, it's not an issue.

BTW, the question on "training time" arose over the issue of dual XC's required for PPL. I thought you were questioning that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just to point out the absurdity to those who do not parse the FARs for fun, it is perfectly legal to fly from your home drome to an airport 50.1+ miles from home, return, and spend the next three hours doing TnGs at home. All that time, including your home drome TnGs counts as x-c time.

Now the intent of the reg is to have students gain x-c experience and the last 3 hours of this flight as stated does nothing to fill that corner of your experience bag. But it is legal.

Yup -- go figure. And a from me, too.

 

[tlglenn]

For what it's worth, I am preparing a second draft of my letter to the Chief Counsel. Among other things I'm going to ask what is meant by original point-of-departure. This is an issue that should be addressed because I know my FSDO will disallow repositioning flights.

 

[SkyHog]

Seriously, I have to say again, y'all are trying to hard to be lawyerly. If you must know, here's what I'd write:

"Dear Mr. FSDO Guy,

I am trying to get an interpretation from your office. Can a pilot, acting as safety pilot for a pilot with a view limiting device, log cross country time at the same time as the pilot flying does?

Thank you for your time"

And that's the extent of it. You're not going to get a very accurate answer if your question is convoluted and complex. There's no joy in making yourself look smarter than the FAA if you can't get the answer you're trying to obtain. Please, for the sake of those of us that are not content with listening to the outdated FAQ file (I don't hear people reference outdated FARs, not sure why its kosher to reference outdated FAQs), lets get an answer that will work, and not one that makes us sound smart.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
A flight in which time is logged in the "training received" column, and which is planned to be used to meet the requirements for an FAA pilot certificate/rating. And I don't think that's a particularly obscure meaning.


Originally Posted by Dwight B. Van Zanen
No, its not. But it does not rule out more than one training flight, one after the other, one not XC and the second an XC.

Originally Posted by Ron Levy
Well, if you want to make up your own rules, fine and dandy. Just don't present the resulting log to the FAA for the purpose of meeting aeronautical experience requirements for a pilot certificate or rating under 14 CFR Part 61.



Ron, I was agreeing with you that the definition of a traiining flight is not obscure. You reacted as if I was making up my own definition. The bottom line as I see it, is we have no official ruling on the question at all right now. Until we do, until you can point to a decision where this kind of XC time was actually disallowed, we have room for differing views. A violation? What are you expecting they would do when their rule is not clear? No more than disallow the time, I think. And have they done that? I have no idea. That would be worth looking up if they have a data base that can be searched. Got to go. Interesting discussion. If the question is asked and you get an answer, please post it.

 

[ejensen]

Now we get into what the meaning of "is" is. In this case, what is a "training flight"? I don't recall if I had any XC time like this in my book for the PP. I did not for the IR. I do know both the CFII's noted that the distance was for the flight, and to log accordingly. Two different flight schools that train a lot of folks, and the log book reviews seem to pass muster with the flight examiners. And it meets the letter of the regulation. If it was a problem I would have thought something would have changed years ago. Perhaps a different FSDO would have another interpretation? Or, the flight examiners have not noticed over these many years? I don't know. Not a question I want to ask, and get an answer I may not like. I have no plans to fly professionally, so at this point I am in the "no one cares" group for what I log or don't log.

It must vary by region. I know two pilots who had to fly additional XC when they had flights that were obviously avoiding the 50 NM rule. DE wouldn't accept the time. Neither appeal so don't know what the FSDO might think.

 

[poadeleted20]

The bottom line as I see it, is we have no official ruling on the question at all right now. Until we do, until you can point to a decision where this kind of XC time was actually disallowed, we have room for differing views. A violation? What are you expecting they would do when their rule is not clear? No more than disallow the time, I think. And have they done that? I have no idea. That would be worth looking up if they have a data base that can be searched. Got to go. Interesting discussion. If the question is asked and you get an answer, please post it.

I've already quoted AFS-800's abeit not-official position on the matter. If you think AGC-200 is going to come up with a less strict interpretation, you can feel free to bet your ticket on that.

As for your "What are you expecting they would do when their rule is not clear?" question, the answer lies in Administrator v. Merrell and NTSB -- they don't have to tell you how they interpret the rule before they write you up for violating it. That cost Capt. Merrell a lot of money and time on the ground. See Phil Kolczynski's article "A Dangerous New Precedent" for the details and link to the court's decision. In particular, note the following from that decision:

The FAA is not required to promulgate interpretations through rule making or the issuance of policy guidelines, but may instead do so through litigation before the NTSB .... The fact that this mode of regulatory interpretation necessarily is advanced through the litigation statements of counsel does not relieve the NTSB of its statutory obligation to accorded due deference. FAA v. Merrell at 577-578.

IOW, if you choose to act on any but the most conservative possible reading of a rule, you risk your ticket if the FAA later decides your reading is too liberal. Choose wisely.

 

[poadeleted20]

It must vary by region. I know two pilots who had to fly additional XC when they had flights that were obviously avoiding the 50 NM rule. DE wouldn't accept the time. Neither appeal so don't know what the FSDO might think.

I've seen it, too. DPE takes out a portable GPS, computes the distance from the student's home base where the flight started to the furthest destination at which a landing was logged. If that distance isn't more than 50nm, the checkride is off and the FSDO is notified. Then the instructor gets a phone call from the FSDO wondering what the heck s/he's doing signing the 8710 without first properly reviewing the student's logbook.

 

[etsisk]

Shoot - I just wrote this (said I would before, and am doing so now...) and have a call in to the counsel's office to see to whom I should send it...

I recently had a telephone conversation with the folks at the Greensboro, NC, FSDO concerning cross-country requirements for the Instrument Rating. It was their firm belief that for a flight to count towards cross-country time for the instrument rating, there MUST be a LEG of more than 50 nm in length, resulting in a landing at a point more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. The controlling regulation is:

14 CFR 61.1 (b)(3):
"(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements (except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate (except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c), time acquired during a flight—
"(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
"(B ) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
"(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point."

Reading this regulation, I note that while there is a requirement for a landing at a point more than 50 nm from the original point of departure, there is no mention of requiring flight legs of any distance, in direct contradiction to the opinion of the FSDO.

I am requesting a written answer signed by the Regional Counsel (or the Chief Counsel's Office) which clarifies, once and for all, whether 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3)(ii) (quoted above) means "THE FLIGHT MUST INCLUDE ONE LEG OF MORE THAN 51nm LENGTH FROM THE ORIGINATING AIRPORT.”. Mistakes are costly in money, fuel and time and we would all appreciate some definitive guidance from your office in this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

[poadeleted20]

Shoot - I just wrote this (said I would before, and am doing so now...) and have a call in to the counsel's office to see to whom I should send it...

I can tell you that -- send it to the RC at Eastern Region (which owns the Greensboro FSDO) with a copy to the Chief Counsel's office.

Ms. Loretta Alkalay, Regional Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
Flight Standards Division, AEA-200
1 Aviation Plaza, Room 520
Jamaica, NY 11434-4809

Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel (Regulations)
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

And don't tell either one I sent you -- I bug them enough as it is.

 

[etsisk]

Ron, I figured it might be better to have it come out of the chief counsel's office, so that we didn't end up having one opinion in one region and a differing opinion in another - or do you think that wouldn't matter?

 

[Maxmosbey]

50nm from home" isn't enough -- overflights don't count. You must make a landing somewhere more than 50nm from the OPD for the flight to count for this purpose (the rules are different for ATP).

Yes, I understood that one has to land the aircraft at the airport that is located at least 50nm from the OPD. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

I've seen it, too. DPE takes out a portable GPS, computes the distance from the student's home base where the flight started to the furthest destination at which a landing was logged. If that distance isn't more than 50nm, the checkride is off and the FSDO is notified. Then the instructor gets a phone call from the FSDO wondering what the heck s/he's doing signing the 8710 without first properly reviewing the student's logbook.

I have no arguement with this. You said it. Calculates from where the FLIGHT started. Not sure that means anything in this discussion, where you have more than one flight in a day, one not an XC and one an XC. There is not even a rule that says you have to log every flight, so what happens if the repositioning flight is not in the book?

I am sure Ron is correct, that the safe choice is not use a repositioning flight. It just isn't stated that way in the plain language of the rule. Go figure. I note the draft letter is not asking this question. So the issue is not going to be addressed - at least not as a result of this thread and the letter under discussion.

I just don't see that the comment by "AFS-800" really deals with the issue. Not all XC flights are "round robin", which is what he was addressing. And his comment seems to be intended to permit a round robin flight to be interrupted. How does that help us concerning the meaning of "original" for non-round robin flights?

Well, since it was not asked in the letter generated by this thread I asked the question in my own letter:

Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel (Regulations)
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

VIA FAX (202) 267-3227

RE: Part 61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B )

Ms. MacPherson,

Please clarify the referenced requirement for us. The definition of a “cross country” flight for aeronautical experience is causing some problems of interpretation. The language of the regulation refers to, “time acquired during a flight”:

61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B ): “That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure.”

The clarification needed is concerning the meaning of “flight” in this context, and the meaning or intent of the word “original”. To complicate matters, I have been informed that the following guidance was issued at one point, but is not official and no longer applicable. Perhaps you could confirm that, and comment on whether and to what extent it has any bearing on the question:

AFS-800 is reported to have said:

“Departure for the purpose of conducting a “round robin” cross-country flight is a normal scenario where “original point of departure” and destination are the same. The “original point of departure” does not change with a new day or delay.”

Not all cross-country flights are “round robin” flights, however. Here is an example of how this issue comes up:

Lets suppose I fly 20NM south to go to an airport with an avoinics shop to get some work done, or perhaps to get my VOR test done at a VOT. I then start a flight to an airport 60 NM north to meet a friend for lunch. I then return home about 40 NM south again to the home airport. This can be logged as 1, 2 or 3 flights. I see at least two distinct purposes for flying. Based on the language of the rule, if I log the second and third legs as an XC going for lunch, it could be counted as XC experience as PIC time. If I log them all as one "flight" it is not XC at all because no airport is more than 50 NM from the original point of departure for that 3-leg flight. If I log them as three separate flights the second one could be a 60 NM XC. In each case, the way it is logged will meet the requirements of the rule, as I will explain below.

The language of the rule is you need to land somewhere at least 50 NM from the original point of origin for that flight. The rule DOES NOT specify a 50 NM leg. The rules do not limit the number of flights anyone may have in a day. They do not even require that every flight must be logged. The FAA knows how to required a minimum leg length when that is what they mean, as in the case of the long XC where a minimum leg length is very clearly specified. From that it seems reasonable to conclude you can have more than one leg as long as you land somewhere at least 50 NM from the point of origin of that flight, to count it as XC. And from the AFS-800 comment above, he seems to be allowing such a cross-country flight to include legs that may be separated by day or any other break in the cross-country flight. But the key, it seems to me, is how the legs are logged and that they are logged as one flight if it is to count as a cross-country flight. I believe that is also why the language includes the wording, "That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the ORIGINAL point of departure" Otherwise, if you have multiple short legs, you may never get more than 50 NM from the point of departure for each individual leg, and it could look like none of it would qualify. "Original" just allows building a 50 NM cross-country with legs less than 50 NM.

The problem that my example points out, is that apparently some DE’s see the “original” in the rule as restrictive, rather than permitting the assembly of a cross-country out of shorter legs. They also use it to combine flights that were properly logged separately. They view it as restrictive in two ways:

1. Some believe that to qualify as a cross county, the first point of landing after departure must be at least 50 NM from the point of departure, and/or

2. Some believe that the “original” point of departure for a flight is always the home base of the aircraft. In other words, a separate flight for another purpose or to reposition the aircraft can not be separated from the subsequent cross-country flight.

It seems clear to me that the AFS-800 comment was intended to permit a cross-country flight to be logged as XC, even if it was not a continuous airport to airport to airport string of uninterrupted legs. It seems that intent has been lost, and now some feel it is not possible to separate flights, except by return to the home airport. As a result, some flights that meet the requirements of Part 61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B ) have been disallowed by the DE, simply because the point of origin of a prior flight was interpreted to be the “original” point of origin of the subsequent cross-country flight.

I should, perhaps, make clear that I do not have any direct experience with this. The issue has been discussed at some length on the AOPA Forum. I have no cross-country time in my log book that would change in any way based on how you rule on this issue. My interest in presenting this to you is for clarification of the logging rules, and to prevent someone from having valid XC time disallowed based on the interpretation of the DE.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. You can respond by mail to:

 

[etsisk]

Just faxed it!

 

[poadeleted20]

I have no arguement with this. You said it. Calculates from where the FLIGHT started. Not sure that means anything in this discussion, where you have more than one flight in a day, one not an XC and one an XC. There is not even a rule that says you have to log every flight, so what happens if the repositioning flight is not in the book?

As I said earlier, the folks who wrote that rule said "the original point of departure does not change with a new day or delay." IOW, "original" really means "original." No, the Chief Counsel has not endorsed this interpretation, but the first thing AGC-200 does when researching for an interpretation is ask the office that wrote the rule what they intended it to say, and the number of times they have given an official legal interpretation that differs from that intent is very small.

I am sure Ron is correct, that the safe choice is not use a repositioning flight. It just isn't stated that way in the plane language of the rule.

Unfortunately, the "plane" reading of the rule isn't always the way the non-pilot lawyers read it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, I figured it might be better to have it come out of the chief counsel's office, so that we didn't end up having one opinion in one region and a differing opinion in another - or do you think that wouldn't matter?

The FAA Chief and Regional Counsels have their own internal system that is supposed to prevent that. Most of the time it works. In any event, you are supposed to ask your Regional Counsel, and the RC will kick it up to HQ if they feel it necessary. However, there's nothing wrong with cc'ing HQ on the original letter.

 

[etsisk]

That's what I did. Sent 'em by fax, though, instead of snail mail. I did send it to the SOUTHERN region - they say that they have control of NC matters, so ...

 

[tlglenn]

Here's my second draft:

I wrote the FAA Western Pacific regional counsel requesting an opinion on the logging of cross-country time (see attachment A).
The log number was GL-05-2-19. I received a response on March 28, 2006 from Monroe P. Balton (see attachment B ).
I posted my question and the legal opinion on the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) web forum. The resulting discussion prompted me to forward this to your office.

I did make an error in my question when I stated: "I've seen legal interpretations stating that safety pilots cannot log cross-country (x-c) time..." and Mr. Balton noted my error when he wrote: "I am not aware of any interpretation that precludes a safety pilot from logging cross-country time." I was thinking of John Lynch's withdrawn FAQs when I wrote my statement.

There were several statements on the web forum including:
1) The legal opinion stated: "There is no legal definition of 'cross-country time.'" A response was: "14 CFR 61.1(b)(3)."
2) The legal opinion stated: "Flight Standards requires a landing before the flight time can be logged as cross-country, except for the military rated pilot". A response was: "You'll find that exception in 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3)(vii). However, you'll also find it in 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3)(vi) for anyone logging the time to meet ATP XC experience requirements..."
3) One person was surprised at, "...a Regional Counsel deferring to Flight Standards on the application of a regulation!"

In addition, I'm aware of other scenarios involving two pilots on a flight i.e. two pilots taking turns manipulating the controls.

Therefore, I am requesting a formal opinion from the chief counsel's office to the following:

A question has arisen about the logging of Cross-Country time by a pilot acting as Second-in-Command (SIC). Previous guidance on this issue provided by AFS-800 in the Part 61 FAQ file has been declared "no longer official," leaving the question open at this time. Request a legal opinion on the following scenarios, all including a landing more than 50 nm from the original point of departure.
1) Two Private Pilots, both rated in the aircraft, are flying together. One is acting as Pilot-in-Command (PIC) and sole manipulator while wearing a vision restricting device. The other is acting as SIC safety pilot as required by 14 CFR 91.109(b). May the SIC safety pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), 61.129, or 61.159 as well as second-in-command flight time?
2) Two commercial pilots, both qualified in their positions, are acting as PIC and SIC as required by regulations for a flight made under Part 135. The PIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. May the SIC pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2) or 61.159 as well as second-in-command flight time?
3) An ATP and a commercial pilot, both qualified in their positions, are acting as PIC and SIC as required by regulations for a flight made under Part 121. The PIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. May the SIC pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2) as well as second-in-command flight time?

A question has arisen about the logging of Cross-Country time by a pilot acting as PIC, but is not the sole manipulator of the controls. Request a legal opinion on the following scenarios, all including a landing more than 50 nm from the original point of departure.
1) Two Private Pilots, both rated in the aircraft, are flying together. One is sole manipulator while wearing a vision restricting device. The other is acting as both the PIC and the safety pilot as required by 14 CFR 91.109(b). May the PIC safety pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), 61.65(d)(1), 61.129, or 61.159 as well as pilot-in-command flight time?
2) Two commercial pilots, both qualified in their positions, are acting as PIC and SIC as required by regulations for a flight made under Part 135. The SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. May the PIC pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), 61.65(d)(1), or 61.159 as well as pilot-in-command flight time?
3) An ATP and a commercial pilot, both qualified in their positions, are acting as PIC and SIC as required by regulations for a flight made under Part 121. The SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. May the PIC pilot log the time as "cross country" pilot time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2) as well as pilot-in-command flight time?
4) Two pilots, both rated in the aircraft, are flying together. The regulations and the type certificate do not require more than one pilot in the aircraft. They take turns as sole manipulator of the controls. May both pilots log the individual time each spends as sole manipulator as "cross country" time applicable under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), 61.65(d)(1), 61.129, or 61.159 as well as pilot-in-command flight time?

A question has arisen about the definition of, "Original point-of-departure." Is a, "Repositioning" flight acceptable to change the original point-of-departure? For example, a pilot wishes to fly A-B-A to log "cross-country" time applicable under 14 CFR 61.65(d)(1), 61.129, or 61.159. But, B is not more than 50 nm from A. So the pilot flies A to C (B is more than 50 nm from C), calls it a repositioning flight, and then flies C-B-A. May the pilot log C-B-A as a "cross-country" flight applicable under the aforementioned regulations?

It has been noted that some FSDOs are insisting that a flight cannot be considered a cross-country applicable under 14 CFR 61.65(d)(1) or 61.129 unless the first leg is more than 50 nm in length instead of merely requiring that at least one landing be more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. This seems contrary to the plain language of the regulation in 14 CFR 61.1(b)(3)(ii) and to the Chief Counsel opinion issued in response to Gareth Gordon's letter of January 19, 2006 which stated: "Namely, the flight must involve a landing at an airport at least 50 nautical miles straight-line distance from the original point of departure."

 

[etsisk]

Dude! You getting paid by the word? I almost believe I would submit those things as separate issues, but maybe it's better getting it all out there at the same time. Dunno!

I faxed my letters ... into the wind, apparently - but I reckon it can take a while for the slow machine to move. It's only been a couple of days.