Commercial dual crosscountry definition

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

"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

"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

"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? :-)

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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