x-country solo

Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed, took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted, mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

That almost sounds like some of my flights :-).

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed,
took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR
on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make
excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation
to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to
XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted,
mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern
is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

Be glad it wasn't in far southern california. On the border of US and Mexico
are two similar airports right next to each other. It's not difficult to
mistake one for another. I almost did (while dodging clouds).

The kicker is that one is in the US, and the other is in Mexico.

Jose

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

I think that recognizing airports is one of the most difficult things
a student must do, especially grass fields. One time I was actually in
the pattern to land on a vacant lot, thinking it was my home field.
(Well, I was on the 45...) And always, it seemed to me, the instructor
was saying in a rather worried tone: "Do you see the airport?" and of
course I didn't.

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed,
took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR
on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make
excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation
to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to
XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted,
mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern
is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

I'm surprised student wasn't taught/required to use flight following, which
would have terminated with a vector to the airport.
Of course, it'd still be possible to pick out the wrong one if they were in
the same general direction from the flght path.
I will say, good catch that he noticed runways didn't match. It's hard,
especially for a student, to shed blinders once a course of action is
determined.

Eric

File the violation on a NASA report and forget about it. But remember it.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer

Joe Johnson wrote:

Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed, took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted, mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

On one of my first dual XC flights (to New Ulm, MN), we were close to the
field. The instructor asked me if I had found it yet. I answered that I
*think* so -- if there's a water tower in the pattern! "Yep. That's it", he
replied. In actuality, the tower is outside a 'normal' pattern, but the
first time you see it, it seems a bit odd.

Huron, SD (HON) has a water tower off the departure end of their southbound
rwy, also. It's painted in a big checkerboard pattern, and is at least a
mile away, but is weird to have in the windshield at takeoff.

Jon B.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I think that recognizing airports is one of the most difficult things
a student must do, especially grass fields. One time I was actually in
the pattern to land on a vacant lot, thinking it was my home field.
(Well, I was on the 45...) And always, it seemed to me, the instructor
was saying in a rather worried tone: "Do you see the airport?" and of
course I didn't.

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Easy to happen to students on solo's. Happens to a lot of students. Learn
to use vor's to figure out where you are.



"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed,
took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR
on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make
excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation
to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to
XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted,
mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern
is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC);
VOR on field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual
checkpoints. Instead, approached another class D field nearby (call
it XYZ). Not to make excuses, but ABC and XYZ actually have some
geographic similarities: distance & direction from towns of about the
same size, as well as similar relation to highways and bodies of
water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were also close to each
other. However, student ignored two key pieces of evidence that
wrong field was being approached:

Finding fields can be difficult - even with experienced pilots. Check out a
recent flight of my own:
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer/Flights.asp#031115 (Landing HGR)

Two pilots, me with about 300 hours (instrument rated) and the passenger
with at least 200 hours (instrument student), had difficulty picking out a
field with two intersecting asphalt runways. Both of us had been to that
field more than once in the relatively recent past.

I don't know any solid advice to offer the student. He obviously recognized
his error by realizing the different runways and that's the best method I
can suggest for recognizing *your* runway: Study the airport layout ahead of
time. I've done that on almost every flight to a new airport for just that
reason.

I'd also venture a guess that he'll be much more assertive in the future
when "his" tower tells him "negative contact".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Sounds like you learned from it and that's what is important.
Sometimes its easy to convince yourself that you are at the waypoint
(or destination) you are expecting to find, often times before you
should be there. That is the reason we include ETE in the flight
planning for students. If you think you're there but you've only flown
1/2 the time of your ETE, use an extra critical eye.