Logging XC with practice en route.

[poadeleted20]

Leave home base, fly all the way across the U.S. stopping at airports less than 50 nm from each other on every leg and return. No XC time, right?

Well, that may be what your electronic logbook shows, but it would be wrong by the FAR's as interpreted by the FAA Chief Counsel. From a 61.1(b)(3) standpoint, the leg distances don't matter -- the only thing that does for PP/IR/CP purposes is how far from the original point of departure the furthest landing occurred. And that's why Dick Rutan couldn't log XC time for his nonstop round-the-world flight, but I can log XC time for PP/IR/CP jumping from one puddle to the next in 1 mile increments as long as one landing is over 50nm from the original point of departure.

 

[poadeleted20]

Boy, that would suck for the B-52, B-1, B-2, F-117 guys that flew from US bases to Iraq, etc. and returned to their original point of departure without landing. Maybe they should do a T&G at Tenerife to make them legal cross countries.

Although the F-117's didn't fly combat in Iraq from US bases (way too far for a lot of reasons), if you read 61.1(b)(3) completely, you'll see that for ATP purposes, it's all XC time for the bomber pilots, and since they all have (or can obtain) CP's already based on their Air Force wings, that's all the XC time they need.

 

[poadeleted20]

"Was each flight a flight, or a leg of a bigger flight?"

That was addressed many years ago by Flight Standards, when they 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." The Chief Counsel supported and clarified that concept in the Van Zanen letter a couple of years ago, specifically authorizing the "repositioning" flight as a means of turning shorter journeys into XC's which counted for PP/IR/CP.

 

[nddons]

Although the F-117's didn't fly combat in Iraq from US bases (way too far for a lot of reasons), if you read 61.1(b)(3) completely, you'll see that for ATP purposes, it's all XC time for the bomber pilots, and since they all have (or can obtain) CP's already based on their Air Force wings, that's all the XC time they need.

OK, Ron, here's a dumb question: Do military pilots log their flights in a log book similar to ours?

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Here are the cross country reqs for a rating..Note the ATP reqs. My logbook(s) were glanced over for about 3 mins at the ATP Oral....However they were looked at for over an hour at my last airline interview (by a review committee). I was very glad that I corrected my paper logbook to match my logbook pro.
Remember pens for the entries and PENCIL FOR THE TOTALS!


for the Private Pilot certificate (see FAR 61.109(b)(2)):
Dual cross-country: no restrictions. Solo cross-country: more than
50nm from the point of departure.

for the Instrument rating (see FAR 61.65(e)(1)):
more than 50nm from the point of departure.

for the Commercial certificate (see FAR 61.129(b)(3)(ii):
more than 50nm from the point of departure.

for the ATP certificate (see FAR 61.155(b)(2)):
no restrictions.

Well it doesn't matter now but this means when I did dual with my instructor he logged it wrong. We only logged our "real" cross countries (50+ miles to the landing, dual) and not the "fake" ones, of which there were between 3 and 5 total. I would plan and fly a "real" cross country with him, but then he'd divert me and I'd land somewhere in the middle, less than 50 nm from our starting point but DEFINITELY a dual cross country flight.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, Ron, here's a dumb question: Do military pilots log their flights in a log book similar to ours?

The Navy and Marines did back in my Navy days (1973-1978), but I don't know how they do it now. The USAF and ANG were already using computers when I put on a blue suit in 1978. And I've still got both, although I think my handwritten Navy log book (filled out by an ops admin clerk, not the crewmember who signed each page) has a lot more sentimental value than a stack of computer printouts.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well it doesn't matter now but this means when I did dual with my instructor he logged it wrong. We only logged our "real" cross countries (50+ miles to the landing, dual) and not the "fake" ones, of which there were between 3 and 5 total. I would plan and fly a "real" cross country with him, but then he'd divert me and I'd land somewhere in the middle, less than 50 nm from our starting point but DEFINITELY a dual cross country flight.

If you really wanted to do it so it was completely decipherable per all the clauses of 61.1(c)(3), you'd need seven XC columns in your logbook from Day 1. Not many folks do that.

 

[ajstoner21]

I make all of my instructors show me proof when I disagree. I don't hesitate to show them proof if I think they're full of sh*t either...

I had to print off a legal interpretation just so the CFI didn't throw a fit about logging PIC for high performance training....

I lose respect for CFI's when I know more than they do.

 

[nosehair]

We only logged our "real" cross countries (50+ miles to the landing, dual) and not the "fake" ones, of which there were between 3 and 5 total.

That was correct. By the definition of 'cross-country' in 61.1, the '3 hrs cross-country' required by 61.109(a)(1) must include a landing more than 50nm from point of departure.
The "practice" x/cs which didn't get to a landing more than 50nm cannot be logged as x/c to meet that requirement. Yes, it is still definitely x/c training, but think of it as preparatory training.

3 hours x/c training is never enough.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

That was correct. By the definition of 'cross-country' in 61.1, the '3 hrs cross-country' required by 61.109(a)(1) must include a landing more than 50nm from point of departure.
The "practice" x/cs which didn't get to a landing more than 50nm cannot be logged as x/c to meet that requirement. Yes, it is still definitely x/c training, but think of it as preparatory training.

3 hours x/c training is never enough.

Agreed, and I had SEVEN dual lessons (one was night), some almost 3 hours logged, for a total of 13.1 dual (if you count the diversions too). A lot more than the min 3 hours. And I was mad at first but now I'm glad.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This fake scenario makes me want to go look at a wall chart and see if a no-XC crossing of the U.S. is even possible.

That'd be fun to have in your logbook.

"I crossed the United States from coast to coast and never logged one minute of XC time."

If you want to.

Although it does come from the orphaned and rejected FAQ, I think the "best" thing the FAA has ever said about what constitutes a single "flight" is

==============================
The 'original point of departure' does not change with a new day or delay
==============================

I think (NOT a legal opinion) to a large degree, what constitutes a single flight is in the eye of the beholder, at least to the point where it becomes ridiculous. So, if you limited your question to

"I crossed the United States from coast to coast and never logged one minute of XC time that was countable toward any Part 61 pilot certificates or ratings."

the answer would be that you could.

If you want, you are welcome to go no more than 45 on any leg and consider each of those legs a completely independent flight. And, other than a weird "what's the matter with this guy?" look if your logbook ever is examined, the FAA won't care at all that you want to count it as cross country time.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Okay, scenarios:

1. Joe flies his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

2. Joe files his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. During his stay, he logs PIC for a couple short hops in a Skylane. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

All of #1 is a "single flight" all loggable as XC. What about #2?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Okay, scenarios:

1. Joe flies his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

2. Joe files his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. During his stay, he logs PIC for a couple short hops in a Skylane. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

All of #1 is a "single flight" all loggable as XC. What about #2?

What does the distance have to do with logging it as Cross Country?

 

[denverpilot]

Well, that may be what your electronic logbook shows, but it would be wrong by the FAR's as interpreted by the FAA Chief Counsel. From a 61.1(b)(3) standpoint, the leg distances don't matter -- the only thing that does for PP/IR/CP purposes is how far from the original point of departure the furthest landing occurred. And that's why Dick Rutan couldn't log XC time for his nonstop round-the-world flight, but I can log XC time for PP/IR/CP jumping from one puddle to the next in 1 mile increments as long as one landing is over 50nm from the original point of departure.

Fair enough.

To be honest I haven't looked to see if the electronic is doing it right or not. It'll be easy to fix it for an 8710 when I need to. Otherwise it's a non-issue for me since I'm not building hours for anything in particular and the insurance company doesn't ask or care.

But thanks for the thread discussion. It'll come in handy whenever I decide to do a logbook audit.

 

[denverpilot]

2. Joe files his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. During his stay, he logs PIC for a couple short hops in a Skylane. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

All of #1 is a "single flight" all loggable as XC. What about #2?

Ooh twisted. I like it.

 

[TMetzinger]

Okay, scenarios:

1. Joe flies his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

2. Joe files his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. During his stay, he logs PIC for a couple short hops in a Skylane. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

All of #1 is a "single flight" all loggable as XC. What about #2?

Two different airplanes... in case two I'd log the A-B flight as X/C, then log the skylane flights (X/C depends on where they went), and then log the return B-C-A flight as a single flight and X/C.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, scenarios:

1. Joe flies his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

2. Joe files his Bonanza to an airport 75 miles and lands. During his stay, he logs PIC for a couple short hops in a Skylane. He returns a couple days later, stopping halfway for fuel.

All of #1 is a "single flight" all loggable as XC. What about #2?

What does it look like to you? Think "duck test," because that's pretty much what the FAA will do if they get involved, especially since they've said repeatedly that they'll evaluate stuff like this on a case-by-case basis.

 

[poadeleted20]

What does the distance have to do with logging it as Cross Country?

A lot, if it's for the purpose of meeting the experience requirements for a pilot certificate/rating. Hence, my "seven columns" comment, above.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Two different airplanes... in case two I'd log the A-B flight as X/C, then log the skylane flights (X/C depends on where they went), and then log the return B-C-A flight as a single flight and X/C.

Where I was coming from that, is did flying that second plane in the middle split the original flight in to two flights? Sequentially, the Skylane flight would be logged in between the original and return Bonanza flights.

In case 1, one could log the two (shorter than 50 NM) return flights as XC by virtue of having them as the same flight on which a longer than 50 NM leg occurred. Without that, the two short legs couldn't count, right?

 

[poadeleted20]

Where I was coming from that, is did flying that second plane in the middle split the original flight in to two flights? Sequentially, the Skylane flight would be logged in between the original and return Bonanza flights.

Who says your logbook has to be "sequential"? Like I said -- "duck test." Log it so it makes sense, and not to log the return trip to the original point of departure as XC if it was XC up to that point doesn't make sense to me.

 

[gprellwitz]

So what effect, if any, does having multiple pilots flying different legs make on this? For example, on our recent Windwood trip, I flew the first leg Friday. I then did a short repositioning leg of about 30NM for fuel on Sunday. Leslie then did two legs to return home. Using the "duck" test, I'd say that the repositioning flight would be logged as XC.

As another example, how about a flight down to Gaston's, with the poker run during the event. I think that all segments would count as XC.

I guess that part of this depends on what you consider to be the original point of departure. Is it where the trip originated, regardless of who was flying that leg, or is it where the pilot flying first took control of the aircraft? And how would you indicate that in the log, or would you even need to bother?

 

[poadeleted20]

So what effect, if any, does having multiple pilots flying different legs make on this? For example, on our recent Windwood trip, I flew the first leg Friday. I then did a short repositioning leg of about 30NM for fuel on Sunday. Leslie then did two legs to return home. Using the "duck" test, I'd say that the repositioning flight would be logged as XC.

I don't see how you hear that one quack. You flew one flight which landed only 30nm from the OPD -- no way that's XC for the PP/IR/CP purpose. I see Leslie's flight as an independent effort, and as long as she made a landing more than 50nm from where she started, she gets that XC credit for that whole flight. Of course, it's "basic" XC for each of you because you each landed somewhere other than where you took off, but I don't think that's the issue we're discussing.

As another example, how about a flight down to Gaston's, with the poker run during the event. I think that all segments would count as XC.

You can think that, but again, I think it's pretty obvious he FAA would consider that poker run a separate local flight.


I guess that part of this depends on what you consider to be the original point of departure. Is it where the trip originated, regardless of who was flying that leg, or is it where the pilot flying first took control of the aircraft? And how would you indicate that in the log, or would you even need to bother?

 

[poadeleted20]

Dang -- iPad won't show me the whole window...

To answer the last part, read both the AFS discussion in e old FAQ (which despite what Ed Guthrie says is still used as internal guidance for FAA personnel) and the Van Zanen letter mentioned above. The most important thing is that there is no way to develop a clear, precise statement of the standards for judging compliance, and at the end of the day, it will end up being a subjective decision based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, I.e., common sense.

However, as far as when two pilots are involved, unless it's a 121/135 operation or two pilots are required by the type certificate, the only pilot getting XC credit is the one making the takeoff and landing during the portion of the flight under consideration, and you don't get consideration for the portion of the flight you didn't fly.

 

[p1l0t]

I make all of my instructors show me proof when I disagree. I don't hesitate to show them proof if I think they're full of sh*t either...

I had to print off a legal interpretation just so the CFI didn't throw a fit about logging PIC for high performance training....

I lose respect for CFI's when I know more than they do.

^ THIS. ^

+1

If more pilots did this there would so many better instructors out there. I love it when my students challenge me. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not, but we always both learn something in the process. [And sometimes there is just more than one way to skin a cat]

<---<^>--->

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't see how you hear that one quack. You flew one flight which landed only 30nm from the OPD -- no way that's XC for the PP/IR/CP purpose. I see Leslie's flight as an independent effort, and as long as she made a landing more than 50nm from where she started, she gets that XC credit for that whole flight. Of course, it's "basic" XC for each of you because you each landed somewhere other than where you took off, but I don't think that's the issue we're discussing.

Hmmm...

I was thinking that if all the legs in 1C5-WV62-2G4-KTZR-1C5 qualify as XC if flown by pilot 1, even if some of them are <50nm, then all the legs in 1C5-WV62-2G4 should count. Both WV62 and 2G4 are >50NM from the point of original departure, and we've already agreed that a single flight can cross multiple days. And, of course, the 2G4-KTZR-1C5 would count as XC for pilot 2, because KTZR and 1C5 are more than 50NM from 2G4. Am I missing something here?

You can think that, but again, I think it's pretty obvious he FAA would consider that poker run a separate local flight.

So in SAC's case I took the short flight in the Skylane to be a different flight because it was in a different plane. Are you saying that it can be a different flight even if it's in the same plane? So getting to and from the starting location of a poker run that starts more than 50 miles away counts as one cross country flight, and the poker run itself is a separate flight, which needs itself to meet the 50 mile rule from the starting point of the run (Gastons, let us say) to be counted as XC for a commercial rating?

I guess that part of this depends on what you consider to be the original point of departure. Is it where the trip originated, regardless of who was flying that leg, or is it where the pilot flying first took control of the aircraft? And how would you indicate that in the log, or would you even need to bother?

These discussions are somewhat academic for me, since I have enough undisputed XC time for the commercial. However, they may not be academic for Leslie, and these are real-life situations.

 

[coflyer]

I'm surprised that this post generated so intensive discussion. Thanks for all comments. I really learn a lot.

Now the story from my instructor side. He is definitely aware of the FARs. Base on his previous experience in California, he said there were pilots who did lots lots of patterns/landings at an airport that is slightly more than 50 miles away, just to build up XC times for their ATP. Eventually, the DPE came in and couldn't agree with them to count that as XC.

Since I'm just working for IR, I've already amended my logbook.

 

[dmspilot]

In case 1, one could log the two (shorter than 50 NM) return flights as XC by virtue of having them as the same flight on which a longer than 50 NM leg occurred. Without that, the two short legs couldn't count, right?

No, it doesn't matter if they are two flights or one flight. The origin and destination are 75nm apart in both cases. There is no such thing as "a longer than 50 NM leg" requirement. Didn't you read the thread?

 

[Sac Arrow]

No, it doesn't matter if they are two flights or one flight. The origin and destination are 75nm apart in both cases. There is no such thing as "a longer than 50 NM leg" requirement. Didn't you read the thread?

If:

61.1(3)(ii)(B ) (Private, Commercial, Instrument): "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"

Means that you can stop in between, then that has always been a source of confusion to me. And a few former CFI's.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Just a point of order, which I think someone already mentioned. If it goes from point A to point B, it doesn't matter what the distance is, it is a cross country. It is just a matter of what it can be used for.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was thinking that if all the legs in 1C5-WV62-2G4-KTZR-1C5 qualify as XC if flown by pilot 1, even if some of them are <50nm, then all the legs in 1C5-WV62-2G4 should count. Both WV62 and 2G4 are >50NM from the point of original departure, and we've already agreed that a single flight can cross multiple days. And, of course, the 2G4-KTZR-1C5 would count as XC for pilot 2, because KTZR and 1C5 are more than 50NM from 2G4. Am I missing something here?

No -- I was missing the map you have of the route of flight. Since you seem to have it all sorted, it does not appear you need any further assistance figuring it out.

So in SAC's case I took the short flight in the Skylane to be a different flight because it was in a different plane. Are you saying that it can be a different flight even if it's in the same plane? So getting to and from the starting location of a poker run that starts more than 50 miles away counts as one cross country flight, and the poker run itself is a separate flight, which needs itself to meet the 50 mile rule from the starting point of the run (Gastons, let us say) to be counted as XC for a commercial rating?

Given everything available to indicate what the Flight Standards folks are being given as guidance, what do you think they would say? Personally, I'd say that for the poker run, the original point of departure is the point at which the run begins and ends, and if you never go more than 50nm from there, it's not XC time for PP/IR/CP purposes. OTOH, the trip from home to the poker run site and back is one big trip that's all XC. But if you really feel the need to be reassured about this, you know the Chief Counsel's address.

 

[poadeleted20]

Now the story from my instructor side. He is definitely aware of the FARs. Base on his previous experience in California, he said there were pilots who did lots lots of patterns/landings at an airport that is slightly more than 50 miles away, just to build up XC times for their ATP. Eventually, the DPE came in and couldn't agree with them to count that as XC.

That's easy -- you just ask the DPE to call his POI and check. Then, after the POI tells the DPE it counts, you move on with the checkride.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's easy -- you just ask the DPE to call his POI and check. Then, after the POI tells the DPE it counts, you move on with the checkride.

Watch that one:

did lots lots of patterns/landings at an airport that is slightly more than 50 miles away,

It could depend on how many. The POI might have said "fifty takeoffs and landings?! Stop the test. We'll be sending a letter to that guy to ask to examine that logbook."

 

[poadeleted20]

Watch that one:
It could depend on how many. The POI might have said "fifty takeoffs and landings?! Stop the test. We'll be sending a letter to that guy to ask to examine that logbook."

Short of demonstrating that the applicant had not actually flown what s/he certified s/he flew, there's little they could say or do but to allow the test to continue, since by the Chief Counsel's interpretation, it does count.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Short of demonstrating that the applicant had not actually flown what s/he certified s/he flew, there's little they could say or do but to allow the test to continue, since by the Chief Counsel's interpretation, it does count.

Is that interpretation mentioned in the thread somewhere? Are you saying that the FAA couldn't find certain conduct to be a sham?

 

[poadeleted20]

Is that interpretation mentioned in the thread somewhere?

Not sure, and not taking the time to check.

Are you saying that the FAA couldn't find certain conduct to be a sham?

Once the Chief Counsel has spoken (or rather, written), it's hard to go back on that. Short of alleging that the flight did not take place as logged, I just don't see any way not to allow it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Short of alleging that the flight did not take place as logged, I just don't see any way not to allow it.

I see ways. I've never seen anything from the Chief Counsel that would preclude a finding that the intentional accomplishment of a whole bunch of landings for no purpose other than to build cross country time was a sham with no purpose other than to get around the FAR cross country requirement.

It would have to be pretty extreme and obvious but I have little doubt it could be done.

I guess we'l both have to wait for the case where the FAA sees a reason for going that route.

 

[p1l0t]

I see ways. I've never seen anything from the Chief Counsel that would preclude a finding that the intentional accomplishment of a whole bunch of landings for no purpose other than to build cross country time was a sham with no purpose other than to get around the FAR cross country requirement.

It would have to be pretty extreme and obvious but I have little doubt it could be done.

I guess we'l both have to wait for the case where the FAA sees a reason for going that route.

I understand the point your making that they COULD do just about anything but I don't think they really care how many times you decide to land or not.

<---<^>--->

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand the point your making that they COULD do just about anything but I don't think they really care how many times you decide to land or not.

<---<^>--->

I agree. I don't think anyone really cares, unless...

The place these things generally come up is when there has been some incident - the FAA is already upset with you. I'd bet many aircraft revocation actions based on record falsification start in that way but I can see a particularly unpleasant checkride getting into it on a required cross country if most of the "cross country" flight consisted of takeoffs and landings in the pattern of a single airport.

Suddenly, the loose "there's no definition of a flight" suddenly becomes "Flight time means ...Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;" (FAR 1.1)

My own statutory construction rule that I've found helpful: The ruling body will interpret a rule in a way that avoids a result that abuses the rule or seeks to avoid the purpose of the rule.

 

[p1l0t]

Makes sense.

<---<^>--->

 

[SkyHog]

I make all of my instructors show me proof when I disagree. I don't hesitate to show them proof if I think they're full of sh*t either...

I had to print off a legal interpretation just so the CFI didn't throw a fit about logging PIC for high performance training....

I lose respect for CFI's when I know more than they do.

You, sir, are doing your duty as a student. This is the argument I've been trying to make for years:

1. A CFI is NOT an authority figure
2. Anything a CFI tells you should be able to be backed up by written fact somewhere. If its not, he's lying.
3. Just because your CFI told you something doesn't make it true - you should always back up what you're told with investigation to ensure that you were told the truth, and you should ALWAYS go back and let the CFI know if you told you a half-truth or a lie, lest he continue spreading false information to other pilots.

#3 is how we get stuck with stupid CFIs and stupid pilots that believe that flying the step actually works, or that you can NEVER slip a C172 with full flaps, or that you can't log cross country if you don't fly direct to the destination.

Note - the OP is not a "stupid pilot," because he asked. However, I would then challenge him to go back, get the facts, and confront the CFI with the truth. If the CFI balks at it, he should come back here and post the CFI's name, so we can get a crack at correcting him. Anything less is irresponsible, because God only knows what else that CFI is spreading as truth.