Commercial dual crosscountry definition

[David Brooks]

With apologies for my somewhat silly previous question picking on the
wording of the Commercial aeronautical experience requirements, this one
really is a call for others' experience / opinion.

Saturday afternoon I met my new instructor; Plan A was to do the day and
night VFR duals back to back, and plan B was just to do the day. Due to the
interesting weather, we came up with this: Paine to Tacoma (repositioning
flight), start the clock and a new line in the logbook, Tacoma to Blaine
(103nm), back to Paine (2.2 hours from Tacoma to Paine).

Then I checked the regs again and it says "at least 2 hours...*consisting
of* a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the
original point of departure". This is significantly different from the more
detailed wording in the Private syllabus. Literally, it says you have to
consume the 2 hours traveling the 100 miles straight line, but in 2 hours I
traveled the 40nm from TIW to PAE.

Did anyone else do a 2-leg flight like that for the Commercial VFR, and was
it OK with the examiner?

[Interesting weather means that visibility was down to 5 miles in snow and
mist (the controller kept nagging me to report Tacoma in sight) although it
was mostly 10-15, I was cruising at 1200ft and once I went down to 700 to
get into class G and stay legal. We stayed close to beaches for pilotage and
landing sites, and hopped airport to airport using the GPS. We were about 0
degrees all the way and the only other GA plane on frequency, IFR, was
trying to get lower. I'm sure this is old hat to some more seasoned VFR
pilots, but it did give me new respect for the 3 miles minimum.]

-- David Brooks

[Peter Duniho]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Saturday afternoon I met my new instructor; Plan A was to do the day and
> night VFR duals back to back, and plan B was just to do the day. Due to
the
> interesting weather, we came up with this: Paine to Tacoma (repositioning
> flight), start the clock and a new line in the logbook, Tacoma to Blaine
> (103nm), back to Paine (2.2 hours from Tacoma to Paine).

Do you mean to do the PAE-TIW-Blaine-PAE flight twice, once for each of the
day and night requirements? Or are you expecting that doing it once will
satisfy both? If the latter, I think you're mistaken. :)

If the former, seems to me that as long as you make sure that the
TIW-Blaine-PAE portion of the flight is 2 hours, then you can call the TIW
point of departure your "original" point of departure and you're fine.
Otherwise, I don't think the flight would qualify, since you never wind up
100 NM from PAE (which would otherwise be your "original" point of
departure).

If you wanted to fly VERY slowly, you could fly PAE-TIW-Blaine-TIW-PAE,
using each leg between TIW and Blaine for the actual XC. Or fly kind of
slow and add another stop, like Port Angeles.

All that said, seems to me that if you're reasonably patient, a plain
vanilla PAE-PDX-PAE flight would work fine. You'd only need ceilings in the
neighborhood of 6000-10000' for that to be practical, which we'll get at
some point. You just need a small break in the weather, with a warm front
after to keep the clouds ahead of the front up high. All that water between
TIW and Blaine is good for allowing you to fly low, but it's not so good in
terms of random fog and low-level clouds.

> Did anyone else do a 2-leg flight like that for the Commercial VFR, and
was
> it OK with the examiner?

Can you be more specific? When you say "for the Commercial VFR", do you
mean for one or the other of the day and night requirements, or do you mean
for both of them together?

Pete

[David Brooks]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Saturday afternoon I met my new instructor; Plan A was to do the day and
> > night VFR duals back to back, and plan B was just to do the day. Due to
> the
> > interesting weather, we came up with this: Paine to Tacoma
(repositioning
> > flight), start the clock and a new line in the logbook, Tacoma to Blaine
> > (103nm), back to Paine (2.2 hours from Tacoma to Paine).
>
> Do you mean to do the PAE-TIW-Blaine-PAE flight twice, once for each of
the
> day and night requirements? Or are you expecting that doing it once will
> satisfy both? If the latter, I think you're mistaken. :)

I meant to imply that we settled for the day VFR only. We landed before
civil dusk. Trying to make the same mileage satisfy both would be bending
the regs to beyond the breaking point.

> If the former, seems to me that as long as you make sure that the
> TIW-Blaine-PAE portion of the flight is 2 hours, then you can call the TIW
> point of departure your "original" point of departure and you're fine.

That's what I was saying. Blaine is 4W6 incidentally (Seattle Approach had
to ask). With a long enough final your base leg is in Canada and, yes, I had
been talking to Victoria Terminal.

> All that said, seems to me that if you're reasonably patient, a plain
> vanilla PAE-PDX-PAE flight would work fine. You'd only need ceilings in
the
> neighborhood of 6000-10000' for that to be practical, which we'll get at
> some point. You just need a small break in the weather, with a warm front
> after to keep the clouds ahead of the front up high.

As it turns out, Kelso (KLS) is far enough. It depends whether you just just
want to put the qualifying flight in your logbook, or actually learn
something (say, how to operate in a busy Class C).

> All that water between
> TIW and Blaine is good for allowing you to fly low, but it's not so good
in
> terms of random fog and low-level clouds.

That was part of the point. The instructor recently left NAS Whidbey, so he
knew the terrain well. It was a good exercise in conditions that you
probably wouldn't refuse to your employer (which is a purely theoretical
entity in my case).

-- David Brooks

[John Gaquin]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
....
> ...Literally, it says you have to
> consume the 2 hours traveling the 100 miles straight line, but in 2 hours
I
> traveled the 40nm from TIW to PAE.

Seems to me that the expanded requirements for a Commercial certificate
address the likelihood that when paid to fly, you may well find yourself
flying some rather lengthy distance, with all the concomitant potential for
compounding errors, etc.

It repeatedly amuses me how so many here will invest quantities of time in
figuring a way to meet the absolute minimum requirements of the FAR, while
never really leaving their familiar home territory.

If your objective is to enhance and expand your skills, for God's sake, why
don't you take a real trip? Pick a destination where you might actually
have to refold your sectional enroute!! My God! Can you do that? :-)

[Peter Duniho]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> > If the former, seems to me that as long as you make sure that the
> > TIW-Blaine-PAE portion of the flight is 2 hours, then you can call the
TIW
> > point of departure your "original" point of departure and you're fine.
>
> That's what I was saying. Blaine is 4W6 incidentally (Seattle Approach had
> to ask). With a long enough final your base leg is in Canada and, yes, I
had
> been talking to Victoria Terminal.

Then I'd say you're *probably* good to go for the day VFR dual XC
requirement. Just log the PAE-TIW leg separately so that the logbook is
unambiguous. Of course, I'm far from the final authority here...you really
ought to just ask the examiner, if you know who you're going to do the
checkride with already. They aren't the last word either, but they are the
only real barrier between you and the certificate. :)

For what it's worth, the Part 61 FAQ specifically mentions the idea of
repositioning an airplane for the purpose of preparing for a XC flight to
meet the regulatory requirements for a certificate, which is what you did
when flying to TIW before commencing on your XC flight. With the usual
caveat that even the FAQ is not legally binding, it does provide a strong
suggestion that you have completed the day VFR dual XC requirement at this
point.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> If your objective is to enhance and expand your skills, for God's sake,
why
> don't you take a real trip? Pick a destination where you might actually
> have to refold your sectional enroute!! My God! Can you do that? :-)

You obviously have never flown around here (the Pacific Northwest) in the
winter. Two hour, 100 NM VFR flights are doable, but for someone who wants
to finish up their Commercial certificate, it may not be worth waiting for
the weather to clear enough to do so. Especially for the night flight.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >
> You obviously have never flown around here (the Pacific Northwest) in the
> winter.

Actually, I flew the mail for about eight months over one winter,
SEA-PDX-OAK and return, six nights a week. I don't think I recall ever
landing at PDX when it wasn't raining :-), but I also remember lots and lots
and lots of VMC.

JG

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I flew the mail for about eight months over one winter,

I know it seems like it, but our winters don't last eight months. An eight
month job would have been mostly in months with better weather.

> SEA-PDX-OAK and return, six nights a week. I don't think I recall ever
> landing at PDX when it wasn't raining :-), but I also remember lots and
lots
> and lots of VMC.

Flew all of those flights under VFR, did you? Being in the clear doesn't
necessarily mean the conditions are safe for a VFR flight. The fact that
you did it does not necessarily mean you should have, or that someone else
should. Just ask all the dead bush pilots.

I respectfully suggest your memory is failing you if you think that there's
no justification for just coming up with a XC plan that will finish up the
requirement, especially this time of the year. Sure, it'd be great if all
commercial candidates had to fly a brand new, challenging destination for
their XC requirements, but practicality often dictates otherwise.

In any case, eight months over a single season doesn't give you any
justification to question a decision to make a "XC" relatively "local".
David asked a perfectly reasonable question, and didn't deserve your tirade.

Pete

[Hilton]

David Brooks wrote:
> With apologies for my somewhat silly previous question picking on the
> wording of the Commercial aeronautical experience requirements, this one
> really is a call for others' experience / opinion.
>
> Saturday afternoon I met my new instructor; Plan A was to do the day and
> night VFR duals back to back, and plan B was just to do the day. Due to
the
> interesting weather, we came up with this: Paine to Tacoma (repositioning
> flight), start the clock and a new line in the logbook, Tacoma to Blaine
> (103nm), back to Paine (2.2 hours from Tacoma to Paine).

Your "original point of departure" remains Paine - the way you log it makes
no difference. Your CFI should know better. I'm sure it was a fun flight
though.

Hilton

[David Brooks]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ...Literally, it says you have to
> > consume the 2 hours traveling the 100 miles straight line, but in 2
hours
> I
> > traveled the 40nm from TIW to PAE.
>
> Seems to me that the expanded requirements for a Commercial certificate
> address the likelihood that when paid to fly, you may well find yourself
> flying some rather lengthy distance, with all the concomitant potential
for
> compounding errors, etc.
>
> It repeatedly amuses me how so many here will invest quantities of time in
> figuring a way to meet the absolute minimum requirements of the FAR, while
> never really leaving their familiar home territory.
>
> If your objective is to enhance and expand your skills, for God's sake,
why
> don't you take a real trip? Pick a destination where you might actually
> have to refold your sectional enroute!! My God! Can you do that? :-)

Of course I can. It just so happens you can go from TIW to 4W6 with the
sectional tightly folded. And, yes, I see the smiley. And of course I have
traveled more than 100nm in a flight that lasted more than 2 hours - just
not with an instructor in a Commercial frame of mind.

Well, OK. I could have waited for the spring and droned along on Victor
airways precisely at my planned odd-500 altitude, followed the magenta line,
and, wow, figured out the landing pattern for a field somewhere down the
Oregon coast. What I did was learn a lot about not-terribly-low scud
running, with constantly shifting decisions about the best compromises for
altitude and direction, and how Victoria Terminal gets cut out by Lummi
Island when you have to go behind it, and how a 172's carb will ice up at
2400rpm. And I figured out the landing pattern for a field on the Canadian
border with trees at the south end.

So I think I packed a lot into those minimum requirements that might have
eluded me if I had merely gone for distance, no?

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> David Brooks wrote:

> > Saturday afternoon I met my new instructor; Plan A was to do the day and
> > night VFR duals back to back, and plan B was just to do the day. Due to
> the
> > interesting weather, we came up with this: Paine to Tacoma
(repositioning
> > flight), start the clock and a new line in the logbook, Tacoma to Blaine
> > (103nm), back to Paine (2.2 hours from Tacoma to Paine).
>
> Your "original point of departure" remains Paine - the way you log it
makes
> no difference. Your CFI should know better. I'm sure it was a fun flight
> though.

Hmmm - Lynch's FAQ does seem to permit the interpretation of a separate
repositioning flight, although the wording is a little truncated (see around
page 8 of the latest update). In practice the repositioning leg was a
specifically useful part of the whole training experience.

-- David Brooks

[Dennis O'Connor]

The 5 P rule...
ya know, it isn't like there are tens of thousands of FAA inspectors and you
have no idea who will do your check ride... The vast majority of the
inspectors want the applicant to pass the check ride...Why not dial up the
fsdo ahead of time and talk to the man and sketch your plans for the various
required items and see if he agrees with your intent...
denny

Your "original point of departure" remains Paine - the way you log it
> makes
> > no difference. Your CFI should know better. I'm sure it was a fun
flight
> > though.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Your "original point of departure" remains Paine - the way you log it makes
no difference.
<<

Your "original point of departure" is whatever you want it to be. There are no
rules as to which legs must correspond to which flight, nor even as to how long
one can remain at an intermediate point and still have both legs be the same
"flight". The FAQ even lists cases of remaining overnight on one flight, and
using separate legs to reposition the flight "for the purpose of starting a
cross country from X to Y".

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Hilton]

David Brooks wrote:
> Hmmm - Lynch's FAQ does seem to permit the interpretation of a separate
> repositioning flight, although the wording is a little truncated (see
around
> page 8 of the latest update). In practice the repositioning leg was a
> specifically useful part of the whole training experience.

Me thinks your 'repositioning leg' was a way to get around an FAR
requirement. :) Most people look for a reason to go get a $100 hamburger -
I'm giving you a great reason to go flying! I was shown an FAA doc
describing just this issue during my Instrument Checkride by the DE. Prior
to the checkride, I had (correctly) corrected my logbook to *not* count XCs
I had logged where I did SJC-PAO-MRY-SJC (SJC-MRY < 50nm, and PAO-MRY >
50nm) - these are NOT >50nm XCs. I went and did a little more XC flying to
satisfy the FAR. I'll try find the doc on the web.

Hilton

[Peter Duniho]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me thinks your 'repositioning leg' was a way to get around an FAR
> requirement.

Did you read the FAQ he is referring to? It specifically calls out a
repositioning leg as a valid way to alter the "original point of departure".

> I'm giving you a great reason to go flying!

He flew farther *with* the repositioning leg than he would have had he just
flown 100 NM from PAE.

> [...] Prior
> to the checkride, I had (correctly) corrected my logbook to *not* count
XCs
> I had logged where I did SJC-PAO-MRY-SJC (SJC-MRY < 50nm, and PAO-MRY >
> 50nm) - these are NOT >50nm XCs.

If you logged those as single flights, then you were right to remove them
from your XC total. However, it would have been perfectly legitimate to log
the PAE-MRY leg as an individual flight, and count it as a XC flight. Per
the Part 61 FAQ, the SJC-PAO leg could have been considered a
"repositioning" leg and would not have invalidated the qualification of the
next leg as a XC.

Pete

[Hilton]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
> > Me thinks your 'repositioning leg' was a way to get around an FAR
> > requirement.
>
> Did you read the FAQ he is referring to? It specifically calls out a
> repositioning leg as a valid way to alter the "original point of
departure".

You refering to the FAQ that has more errors than Janet Jackson's clothing?
:)


> If you logged those as single flights, then you were right to remove them
> from your XC total. However, it would have been perfectly legitimate to
log
> the PAE-MRY leg as an individual flight, and count it as a XC flight. Per
> the Part 61 FAQ, the SJC-PAO leg could have been considered a
> "repositioning" leg and would not have invalidated the qualification of
the
> next leg as a XC.

The intent was a round-robbin flight. The start and ending point was the
same - it was not a repositioning flight unless I was specifically tring to
get around the FARs. For example, if the FAA wants me to go on a long 100nm
XC, the intent is that I go far away from my 'home base' to gain additional
experience in weather, flight planning, etc etc etc. To first fly 49nm
north, then 51nm is not at all what the FAA intended, nor does it give you
the aeronatical experience required by the FAA. Moreover, it makes a
mockery of every mention of "original point of departure" in the FARs.

That's just my opinion. I do believe we need some official FAA document
stating one or the other, and no, the SuperBowl-FAQ doesn't cut it. ;)

Hilton

[Teacherjh]

>> The intent was a round-robbin flight.

The pilot gets to determine intent. If the intent was a round robin flight,
then maybe is't not cross country even if you go three thousand miles. But
then, almost every flight is round robin, no? You eventually come home.

You can collect and assemble contiguous legs any way you like. Sort of like
seven card poker - you make the best hand by picking five out of the seven you
have.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[David Brooks]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> The intent was a round-robbin flight. The start and ending point was the
> same - it was not a repositioning flight unless I was specifically tring
to
> get around the FARs. For example, if the FAA wants me to go on a long
100nm
> XC, the intent is that I go far away from my 'home base' to gain
additional
> experience in weather, flight planning, etc etc etc. To first fly 49nm
> north, then 51nm is not at all what the FAA intended, nor does it give you
> the aeronatical experience required by the FAA. Moreover, it makes a
> mockery of every mention of "original point of departure" in the FARs.

But I did gain additional experience in weather and flight planning - it was
unusually low VFR for me, I minimized exposure to water and to towers, and I
was using a GPS model I'd never met before.

The legs were 40, 103, 67.

-- David Brooks

[Hilton]

David Brooks wrote:
> But I did gain additional experience in weather and flight planning - it
was
> unusually low VFR for me, I minimized exposure to water and to towers, and
I
> was using a GPS model I'd never met before.
>
> The legs were 40, 103, 67.

With all due respect David, you asked the question, but don't seem willing
to accept any answers other than what you want to hear.

So... I would suggest calling the DE directly. If he says it's OK, then
it's OK for your checkride.

Hilton

[gross_arrow]

"Hilton" > wrote in message . net>...
> David Brooks wrote:
> > But I did gain additional experience in weather and flight planning - it
> was
> > unusually low VFR for me, I minimized exposure to water and to towers, and
> I
> > was using a GPS model I'd never met before.
> >
> > The legs were 40, 103, 67.
>
> With all due respect David, you asked the question, but don't seem willing
> to accept any answers other than what you want to hear.

actually, with all due respect hilton, you seem to be the one who continues
to push your own interpretation of the reg in spite of numerous others
pointing out the alternative interpretation (which is supported by the part
61 faq). now, i know you have pooh-pooh'ed the faq, but most of the
errors on it have been cleaned up, and in this instance i would surely
take it's word over yours -- especially since i have had many students do
this and no d.e. has ever called them on it. in fact, i did a similar thing
back when i got my private, and the long x/c had to be 300 nm with
landings at 3 points, at least one of which was 100nm away from the
original point of departure -- i flew to an airport ~70 nm away (repositioning),
then started my long x/c from there with legs of about 130, 110, and 80,
winding up back at my home airport. so i actually flew 390, but all of
the airports were within 100nm from my _home_base_, which was no
longer my original point of departure (after the repositioning.) that was
in 1978, and the faa didn't have any problem with it then, neither do they
have any problem with it now.


>
> So... I would suggest calling the DE directly. If he says it's OK, then
> it's OK for your checkride.

that's not a bad idea. probably unnecessary, but never hurts to double-
check.


>
> Hilton

[David Brooks]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
link.net...

> So... I would suggest calling the DE directly. If he says it's OK, then
> it's OK for your checkride.

Well, my instructor asked the DE (they happen to work for the same FBO, and
I figured he would be a good advocate) and he said it was cool. Thanks, all,
for the advice and the useful analysis.

-- David Brooks