Danos
Line Up and Wait
This is a question for C.F.I.'s. or anyone else who might know. I have a load of 100mn x-countries to do for my commercial. Can I log a round trip as 2 x-countries (one for each way), or does the whole thing only count as one?
Logging X-countries
- Thread starter Danos
- Start date
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
If you're talking about these, it's not uncommon for them to be a round trip, one in the day, followed by dinner, followed by the return at night.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e5e5a9e3c95432c630e0b9c19542d307&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.6.1.5&idno=14 said:
K
KennyFlys
Guest
I did exactly as Grant describes. KGVL to KCRG at day time, got a bite and came back that night. Only, I got a prize on the way back at 1.30AM... logged an ILS 8L ATL. Sweet entry to the log! 
Other than that flight, I had done quite a bit of other flights both day and night. So, XC time was not much of an issue.
Other than that flight, I had done quite a bit of other flights both day and night. So, XC time was not much of an issue.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
I did exactly as Grant describes. KGVL to KCRG at day time, got a bite and came back that night. Only, I got a prize on the way back at 1.30AM... logged an ILS 8L ATL. Sweet entry to the log!
You did that under VFR???
K
KennyFlys
Guest
We were filed IFR for the tracking but it was VMC.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
The existing rules suggest (but do not state explicitly) that the flight must be made under VFR using pilotage/DR navigation -- at least, that's AFS-800's position, although the FAA Chief Counsel has never ruled on the matter. The new Part 61 changes currently out for comment would change that to say those flights may be either VFR or IFR, with nothing about the weather conditions or nav systems used.
Ed Guthrie
Cleared for Takeoff
Current (not retracted by AFS-800) source for this claim?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Gee, Ed, it took you five days to find this? You're slowing down. At any rate, AFS-800 never "retracted" the FAQ file, they just said it's no longer "official policy guidance." Anyway, if you don't like it, call (202) 267-3844 or (202) 267-7922 and take it up with them.
Last edited:
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Well, if it ain't official guidance anymore, then it doesn't count, even though I agree with the thought that the long X/Cs for the Commercial are best done VFR, great learning experience.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
We hadn't gone through my log very well at the time. It turned out I really had all the requirements. I had a ton of night time but one thing I had never documented was all the night landings I had done years ago. My original log was lost. I created a summary using the private check ride's 8710 as a basis before having it signed off by the FSDO.
I was doing those night flights out of Navy Jax, obviously a controlled field. The Christmas prior I'd done a long XC night flight that covered the two hour, 100 mile requirement. I did another just before my Comm ride.
So, the IFR filing was nothing more than glorified flight following given how clear it was. But, I'm glad I had filed. I might not have seen that big chunk of concrete at ATL. I remember the controller jokingly asking "How many options would you like on this approach?" I was used to half of 5500 feet. This time, I had 9000 feet available.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense (and, remember that, according to Ed, it never counted to begin with since it was written by John Lynch and not FAA Legal).
Let's forget that the FAQ ever existed. Instead, let's suppose you have a series of memos that contain a hundred or so descriptions of how some person or, even worse, a committee within a FAA department responsible for the consistent administration of the FARs that deal with pilot qualification and testing thinks the requirements should be applied. As questions come up from designees, they send around memos that answer those questions. The folks answering those questions don't check with Legal; heck Legal has (I hope) more important things to do than tell us whether a cross country flight in "VFR conditions" means under VFR and without a hood, or whether you can take your dog with you on a "solo" flight, or whether the 3 hours of "not instrument training" for the private can count toward the 15 hours of instrument training needed for the rating or whether you have to do the AIM-recommended hold entries to pass the instrument checkride.
The memos have no official standing; they're not cross-checked by Legal; they even have a logo that declaims any intent to officially interpret any regulation. In fact, if you examine them closely, you'll find that some of them fly in the face of what FAA Legal =has= said in the past about what some of the regs mean, some are internally inconsistent, some are inconsistent with others, and some just make no sense whatsoever.
The memos get leaked. The department sends out a public announcement that says, in effect, "Don't use these as guidance."
Sorry, if I had those leaked memos, I'd still be using them to give me some inkling as to what the FAA (or at least some potentially influential elements within the FAA) was thinking. Absent a good reason and a strong conviction that what they said was just wrong - strong enough to be willing to risk my =student's= ticket on it - I'd likely follow those that were more restrictive than I thought the rules were. You, of course, are more than welcome to feel that =your= personal interpretation of the requirements counts more than theirs, and act accordingly.
I disagree from time to time with the degree of Ron's reliance on the old FAQ, but the idea that they simply don't count and any mention of them as should be suppressed is, frankly, ridiculous.
Last edited:
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
oh goodie we havent had an Ed and Ron FAQ rumble in a few months...
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Thanks, Mark -- you've said just what I think about that file. Not legally binding, but good insight into what the folks who wrote those rules wanted when the wrote them, even if the lawyers later say the rules don't say that.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Can anyone tell me what the prequisites for entering a Class II TCA is? I want to make sure I'm legal, I spend most of my time flying into ARSAs.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
TMetzinger
Final Approach
What's ridiculous is that you took what I SAID (that it doesn't count), and then attributed something I didn't say (should be suppressed) and combined them into a single idea. Are you sure you're not a newspaper or tv "journalist"?
What I meant by "doesn't count" is that nobody can take official action against someone who doesn't comply with the "spirit" of the regulation as expressed in the FAQ if they do comply with the letter of the regulation as expressed in official opinions of FAA counsel.
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd have seen that I actually do agree with the "spirit" of this particular regulation - that doing a long X/C at night under VFR is a good learning experience that is diminished by doing it under IFR.
Now, I'm not going to assume malice on your part, but I'd appreciate it in the future if you wouldn't merge my words and your thoughts and attribute them both to me.
Best wishes,
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
No question. But when there is no FAA Counsel interpretation on point (and the number of official interpretations is miniscule compared to the number of questions that arise from Part 61), and you're facing an examiner or inspector who says s/he's going by what it says in the FAQ file (official or not), you have no recourse that will be availing in less than the four to six months it will take to get an FAA Counsel interpretation that supports your position (and the FAA Counsels agree with the FAQ file a lot more than they disagree). This is significant if you're an instructor or applicant trying to get said inspector/examiner to accept what's in your log for a prerequisite for practical test today.
My apologies. I read
and just thought that, in the context of the discussion and prior ones on the subject of the FAQ, the words meant what they said. I take it then that if the words
"and any mention of them as should be suppressed"
were removed from my post (and my English corrected), we'd agree on the rest?
...and I'm not that sure about the "official action" part either. After all, at least according to the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals, not only does FAA Legal have the right to interpret the regs, they also have the right to interpret and apply them the first time during the trial of a certificate action. So, if one of these questions were indeed serious enough to be part of a certificate action...
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Is interpretation left strictly up to FAA Legal (meaning experienced attorneys) or is there something left to inspectors charged with enforcing the statutes? I ask because of the "letter" versus the "spirit" of the law and how it can be interpreted by different authorities with different results.
The nice thing about the FAQ at the time was it provided some guidance to those in the field. What is there now but a wait and see while information is now passed up to those above? During which time, someone's ticket and livelihood may be on the line.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I understand why so many people like using the FAQ, but there are problems with it, and here's what I've found:
The document begins with "Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it."
So even when it was still current, it was not a legally binding document, and if you used it incorrectly, I would assume that disclaimer would work against ya in court.
My other problems are better off consolidated into one, which is to say that some of the answers are now outdated, and its only going to get worse. By having someone of Ron's caliber referring to the document, I'd hate to see someone thinking the explanations in it are better than the new FARs.
Edit: also - I forgot, the FAQ specifically says, in Q&A 457 that it is very far down the list in reliable documents to use.
The document begins with "Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it."
So even when it was still current, it was not a legally binding document, and if you used it incorrectly, I would assume that disclaimer would work against ya in court.
My other problems are better off consolidated into one, which is to say that some of the answers are now outdated, and its only going to get worse. By having someone of Ron's caliber referring to the document, I'd hate to see someone thinking the explanations in it are better than the new FARs.
Edit: also - I forgot, the FAQ specifically says, in Q&A 457 that it is very far down the list in reliable documents to use.
You may get some differing opinions on this (so what's new?) but here's my take.
Ultimately it's the job of Legal to make the interpretations - whether by letter opinion or by pushing for an interpretation when representing the FAA in a certificate or civil penalty action - assuming it's not in one of those special and narrow categories ("arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law") where the NTSB can substitute its own view.
But Legal is not the only source or even the only official source of how to apply the FAR (application necessarily involves some interpretation). Find an Order, AC, an AIM provision or some other similar FAA-published source to support your view in a certificate action and you have a pretty good argument that a contrary interpretation being pushed by the FAA should be disregarded.
But even outside of that, I think that anyone who thinks that Legal just looks at the words on the paper and makes stuff up without input is mistaken (even though some of the opinions do sound that way). When it comes to requirements for certificates and ratings, I'm with Ron that Legal will try to defer to Flight Standards - they, not Legal are the experts in that area. And that will hold true for a lot of stuff.
I think inspectors are in a different category altogether - they are police officers - specialized police officers, but police officers nevertheless. If an inspector wants to start a certificate action against a pilot using an FAR that the inspector interprets in a certain way, I'm sure the attorney assigned to the case will look at it closely, but will ultimately see how it fits with the rest of the rules, existing interpretations, etc. I wouldn't want a FSDO inspector given the power to make the rules read the way he wants to any more than I'd want the cop on the beat deciding what constitutional rights a protester has. The relation between the inspectors and Legal is probably a lot like the relationship between the police force and the DA's office.
I like to think that part of the role of Legal is to filter those things. In addition to being contrary to existing interpretations, one of the problems I saw in the FAQ was that it tended to be very result-oriented. Lynch would decide what he wanted the FAR to mean, and then twisted things around so it would (usually adding that there was no "regulation, reason, or common sense behind an opposite view). The problem was that if you applied his "reasoning" to other situations, it broke down. I like to think that Legal has a broader view of the "fit" of interpretations. That's part of what they should be doing, although sometimes you wonder...
It would be interesting to know what the history behind the recent "known icing" debacle was. Was this a case where the Eastern Region just made something up based on existing cases without a clue about flying? Was there input from an inspector who figure it would make his job easier and was looking for a result instead of the consequences of the decision? Was it some combination? Or something completely different?
Beats me.
My guess is just the opposite - that one of the reasons it was taken away was because it was being successfully used to defend pilots. I know of one case where that happened, or at least this was part of it. Even with disclaimers, it's not an easy thing to take action against a pilot who does what the FAA publicly says it's okay to do.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I believe it happened because of the Rochester FSDO's dealings with Bob "On the Airwaves" Miller in response to his writings about flights into icing conditions that he published on line. When the FSDO Safety Program Manager counseled him on the illegality of his ways as perceived by the FSDO, Mr. Miller demanded an official legal definition of the term "known icing conditions" to support the SPM's position -- and he got one. Of course, nobody outside the FAA Legal world liked the answer he got, but if one cannot stand the answer, one should not ask the question.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Yes we do - the FAQ was a good insight into the intentions (both good - the ones we agreed with, and bad - the ones we disagreed with
).As Ron noted, a student trying to get a ride done doesn't have the luxury of making the arguments against an "interpretation".
Oh I know why it happened; no doubt it was in response to Miller's question. I'm more interested in the how in terms of what input, if any, the Eastern Regional Counsel sought or used.
Ed Guthrie
Cleared for Takeoff
What I don't like is a CFI who states something is AFS-800 policy when indeed AFS-800 has clearly stated that CFIs should check with AFS-800 before making such a statement. I doubt calling AFS-800 will solve that issue. Frankly, I doubt pointing out that you aren't much for accuracy will solve much of anything except alert folks as to your tendancy towards bogus advice.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
What I don't like is someone who misquotes me, since I did not say it was AFS-800 policy. I said it was their "position," not policy, and if, as I suggested, you ask them today, I believe they will still say that their intent for that reg was as they said in the FAQ file -- VFR using DR/pilotage. Whether the reg actually requires what they intended is, as I said, a matter for FAA Legal, and currently both unasked and unanswered, and so undetermined.
Last edited:
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I love these threads, because it takes someone with clout like Ed Guthrie to show that Ron doesn't know what he's talking about sometimes.
That said - I've got the Dr. Pepper, edfred, y'all bring the popcorn.
That said - I've got the Dr. Pepper, edfred, y'all bring the popcorn.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Tony -
You making the popcorn or should I?
Nah I've got the Mike and Ikes. You bring the popcorn Ed
Attachments
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Ron,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new NPRM change it so that the commercial XCs with instructors can be done either VFR or IFR? If so, does that indicate that they've changed their intent?
From the NPRM:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new NPRM change it so that the commercial XCs with instructors can be done either VFR or IFR? If so, does that indicate that they've changed their intent?
From the NPRM:
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
yep looks like thats what Ron said.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Yeah, the first part of my question was kind of rhetorical, wasn't it? I think the bigger question, and I'm not taking any stand on this, is does this mean that they've changed their mind on what's desirable, or are two different groups saying these contradictory things?
Note that I'm interpolating here, and not quoting anyone specifically, but my impression is that AFS-800, through the FAQ, implied that the Comm XCs should be flown VFR w/pilotage. Yet, the new NPRM explicitly says that IFR is acceptable. So did the FAA change their collective mind, or are the two coming out of different groups, or does something else account for the discrepancy?
And, (I know I'm going to regret asking this
), what's the big deal about taking a FAQ as just one more piece of data suggesting what the intent of the Administrator is? I know full well that the Administrator can change her mind at any time and that each case is liable to set a new precedent. OTOH, there aren't that many precedents out there, and anything that gives us an inkling cannot be a bad thing.
Ed/Ron, PLEASE don't flame me (or each other) over this!
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Grant - its time for bed. I can tell, because you are trying to figure out what the FAA is thinking.
You can't be sure, but the commentary to the proposed rule suggests to me that it's a change of mind rather than a "clarification." (It might suggest something completely different to someone else.)
First, the chart of changes describes this one as:
==============================
Allow the day cross-country flight for 61.129(a)(3)(iii). commercial pilot certification single-engine airplane rating to be performed under visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR).
==============================
If you compare it with some of the others, they tend to use the word "clarify" when they mean "clarify."
Second, here's the general description for the change.
==============================
Proposal to allow cross-country training flights to be performed under VFR or IFR. The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(iii) and (iv), (b)(3)(iii) and (iv), (c)(3)(ii) and (iii), (d)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(ii) and (iii), (g)(4)(ii) and (iii) to allow the required cross-country flights for commercial pilot certification to be performed under VFR or IFR. Currently, Sec. 61.129 requires one cross-country flight in day VFR conditions and one cross-country flight in night VFR conditions. Since establishing these cross-country training requirements, the FAA has received comments from training schools requesting that we allow flights to be performed under IFR. According to the schools, most applicants for commercial pilot certification--airplane rating and some applicants for the helicopter rating are enrolled in an instrument rating course at the same time they are undergoing their commercial pilot certification training. Thus, it would make sense to allow the cross-country training requirements under Sec. 61.129 to be performed under IFR. The FAA agrees and is proposing to allow the cross-country training requirements under Sec. 61.129 for commercial pilot certification for the airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, and airship ratings to be performed under VFR or IFR.
==============================
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I agree with Mark -- the discussion in the NPRM makes it clear that they've told folks how they want the flights flown, and IFR isn't it, but that they have reconsidered and changed their minds, as reflected in the proposed change. If they felt that the rule allowed those flights to be done under IFR, there would be no need to change the rule.
BTW, it also seems to make pretty clear that, if the proposed rule becomes final, you can combine the IR and Commercial dual cross countries (and I don't see any reason that you'd have to be enrolled in both at the same time as the example indicates).
That answers (for this combination anyway) one those recurring questions about "double-dipping" requirements for different certificates and ratings. And a pretty nice potential cost savings. I can see a lot of CFIIs suggesting a day/night IR that also meets the commercial requirement, even if the student has no current intention to going further.
That answers (for this combination anyway) one those recurring questions about "double-dipping" requirements for different certificates and ratings. And a pretty nice potential cost savings. I can see a lot of CFIIs suggesting a day/night IR that also meets the commercial requirement, even if the student has no current intention to going further.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
For the two (day/night) 100nm dual XC's for commercial, yes I can see that, but the long solo XC for commercial is still going to be a solo, and the long IFR XC for IR requires an instrument instructor to be along as PIC.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Note that the NPRM says:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John D. Lynch,
Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810,
General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591;
Telephone No. (202) 267–3844;
e-mail john.d.lynch@faa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John D. Lynch,
Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810,
General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591;
Telephone No. (202) 267–3844;
e-mail john.d.lynch@faa.gov.