Commercial dual crosscountry definition

"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

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.

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)

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

"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

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

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)

"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

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

"Hilton" wrote in message hlink.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