50 NM Cross Country

[Sidious]

Looking at 61.1 (3)(B) it says that for the purpose of getting your Private, Commercial or Instrument, that Cross country is a point of landing straight line that is GREATER than 50 NM.

Why then for the solo cross country requirments for private does it say "straight line distance at least 50 NM"

Which is it? Greater than 50 NM or EQUAL to 50 NM?

If I fly a 50 NM cross country, for, lets say getting my commercial certificate or even private, I dont think you could log it as Cross Country based on 61.1.

Thanks, ANY comments would be great

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Good question. Somebody must not have been paying attention.

61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B): "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."

61.109(a)(5)(ii): ". . . one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations . . . "

Since the private pilot experience requirements are for a "cross-country" that includes a segment of at least 50 NM, it would be necessary for the flight to include a point of landing "at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure."

So, more than 50 NM.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Sidious

Which is it? Greater than 50 NM or EQUAL to 50 NM?

The only place it uses "at least" is for the long cross country of the private. Yes, there is a discrepancy and the FAA knows about it, hence the following from the defunct FAQs:

==============================
QUESTION: Can the long cross-country requirement of § 61.109(a)(5)(ii) be met by landing at an airport 40 NM north of original point of departure, then over flying the original point of departure to land at an airport 40 NM miles south and then return to the original point of departure, thus acquiring (more than) the 150 NM flight with (more than) 50 NM between two points of landing and landing at three locations -- (without going beyond 50 NM of the original point of departure).

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.109(a)(5)(ii) and § 61.1(b)(3)(ii); On this specific rule and this rule only, yes a landing beyond 50 NM is not required. But we’re intending to change § 61.109 so it parallels with the distance requirements of § 61.1(b)(3)(ii).
==============================

Arguably, however, his answer is incorrect. While this particular requirement may be met by a flight of "at least 50 nm", the definition of cross country time isn't modified outside this paragraph (and maybe not in this paragraph), so the argument could be made that the flight didn't contribute to the totals required for any of the certificates of interest.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Arguably, however, his answer is incorrect. While this particular requirement may be met by a flight of "at least 50 nm", the definition of cross country time isn't modified outside this paragraph (and maybe not in this paragraph), so the argument could be made that the flight didn't contribute to the totals required for any of the certificates of interest.

Interesting. It would be contrary to normal rules of regulatory interpretation to assume that "cross-country", which has a specific defined meaning, somehow has a different meaning in connection with the private solo experience requirement in 61.109(a)(5)(ii) unless a different meaning clearly were indicated.

As 61.109(a)(5)(ii) refers to a "cross-country" flight and does not clearly indicate a different meaning, I think it most legally correct to say that the normal "cross-country" requirements (a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure) apply.

Obviously, their intention to change this was not particularly strong.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

It would be contrary to normal rules of regulatory interpretation to assume that "cross-country", which has a specific defined meaning, somehow has a different meaning in connection with the private solo experience requirement in 61.109(a)(5)(ii) unless a different meaning clearly were indicated.

I agree. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the FAQs were discontinued.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Sidious, the short summary answer to your question is that they all need to have at least one point of landing >50 NM from the "original point of departure" of the overall flight to count toward that group of certificate and rating requirements.

All 61.109 does is add a special solo cross country that, in addiiton to having at least one point of landing that is more than 50 NM from the origin of the flight, has 3 additional requirements:

1. total flight distance of 150 NM
2. 3 landing points
3. at least one leg that is at least 50 NM long.

None of those three are required by the 61.1 definition.

[ozziecat35]

Ok, so to straighten this out in my own (kinda mushy apparently) head, Say I'm leaving Glendale, AZ (KGEU) to Coolidge (P08). IIRC it's something like 53 or 54 nm. On my way there, I have to stay below PHX's Bravo, so I can't go straight as the crow flies over South Mountain, and instead make a turn around the Mountain over Gila Crossing.....Since I had to make a turn enroute to get there, am I still legal logging it as XC, even though it's more than 50nm straight line distance?

[Maurus]

As long as the straight line distance is 50 miles or more, you are good to go. If the curve causes the route to be 50 NM or longer, then you can not log it as cross country for your ratings and check rides as the staight line distance is less than 50 NM

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by ozziecat35

Ok, so to straighten this out in my own (kinda mushy apparently) head, Say I'm leaving Glendale, AZ (KGEU) to Coolidge (P08). IIRC it's something like 53 or 54 nm. On my way there, I have to stay below PHX's Bravo, so I can't go straight as the crow flies over South Mountain, and instead make a turn around the Mountain over Gila Crossing.....Since I had to make a turn enroute to get there, am I still legal logging it as XC, even though it's more than 50nm straight line distance?

I'm not sure what your question is. But if you are asking whether you have to fly in a straight line in order for it to count as a cross country,no you do not.

[Flyin_bryan]

Its open to interpretation, you could argue this all day.... I personally have seen it argued ALL DAY

theres an FAA side to everything... here it goes:

if somthing is required one place but not another, you gotta do it.

-straight line distance of at least 50nm, using an FAA approved sectional chart, using an FAA approved plotter, using the FAA approved scale on the sectional.

now, what we are looking for here is the definintion of a "straight line".

so could we have two straight lines(s) to the destination airport? NO

curved line counts as 50 nm or greater point to point? NO

its point to point at least 50 nm, with a single straight line.

if the airport is 49 miles this way, and you sign this guy off, technically you are misrepresenting that he has completed this requirement.



ozzie do you fly for the school at glendale?

[ozziecat35]

Yeah, I'm one of the suckers that flies with Air Safety....not a CFI or anything, just working on the Commerical right now.

And yes, GEU - P08 is 56 nm straight line...My question was centered on the fact that I didn't fly a straight line. Looking back, it was a stupid question, but like I mentioned, my brain hurt at the time...lol

[Flyin_bryan]

Originally Posted by ozziecat35

Yeah, I'm one of the suckers that flies with Air Safety....not a CFI or anything, just working on the Commerical right now.

And yes, GEU - P08 is 56 nm straight line...My question was centered on the fact that I didn't fly a straight line. Looking back, it was a stupid question, but like I mentioned, my brain hurt at the time...lol

hahah I like you..

this straight line business can get pretty confusing actually....

"Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude"

"Except in mathematics, the shortest distance between point A and point B is seldom a straight line”

“The growth of understanding follows an ascending spiral rather than a straight line”

“Force never moves in a straight line, but always in a curve vast as the universe, and therefore eventually returns whence it issued forth, but upon a higher arc, for the universe has progressed since it started.”

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Flyin_bryan

hahah I like you..

this straight line business can get pretty confusing actually....

anything can get pretty confusing if you work hard enough at it

[ozziecat35]

Originally Posted by Flyin_bryan

hahah I like you..

I know right....what's not to like?

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by Flyin_bryan

Its open to interpretation, you could argue this all day.... I personally have seen it argued ALL DAY

theres an FAA side to everything... here it goes:

if somthing is required one place but not another, you gotta do it.

-straight line distance of at least 50nm, using an FAA approved sectional chart, using an FAA approved plotter, using the FAA approved scale on the sectional.

now, what we are looking for here is the definintion of a "straight line".

so could we have two straight lines(s) to the destination airport? NO

curved line counts as 50 nm or greater point to point? NO

its point to point at least 50 nm, with a single straight line.

if the airport is 49 miles this way, and you sign this guy off, technically you are misrepresenting that he has completed this requirement.



ozzie do you fly for the school at glendale?

I have several cross-countries from AKR to MFD. 49.7 miles I believe. We did
those cross countries till the FAA found out it was less than a mile short. Take a plotter out and it hits 50 NM perfectly. Put it into a GPS and get like 49.7 NM. It sucks.

[Flyin_bryan]

Originally Posted by Maurus

I have several cross-countries from AKR to MFD. 49.7 miles I believe. We did
those cross countries till the FAA found out it was less than a mile short. Take a plotter out and it hits 50 NM perfectly. Put it into a GPS and get like 49.7 NM. It sucks.

oh man... how did the faa find out about that?

it is that very reason why an "FAA APPROVED" plotter is nessesary. in all actuality I dont think the faa approves plotters....

it does say 49.3 miles on airnav...

however, were you navigating by sectional... or GPS? I think if the answer is sectional you could have argued your case!

also, the lat long for an airport on a GPS could be a couple hundred feet away from where you actually began.... at some big airports I bet we could come up with an extra mile!

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by Flyin_bryan

oh man... how did the faa find out about that?

it is that very reason why an "FAA APPROVED" plotter is nessesary. in all actuality I dont think the faa approves plotters....

it does say 49.3 miles on airnav...

however, were you navigating by sectional... or GPS? I think if the answer is sectional you could have argued your case!

also, the lat long for an airport on a GPS could be a couple hundred feet away from where you actually began.... at some big airports I bet we could come up with an extra mile!

People at AKR had been flying that for their 50 NM cross country for a long long time. All cross country flights were done with the sectional. The FSDO allowed us to keep our current X-country time but we couldn't use it any longer for a cross country.

Kinda sucks since by flying to MFD we would be flying into a nice airport with food on the field, approach control (class D) and a tower. Great place to take a student that hasn't landed at a towered airport since it is not very busy at all. I believe the only reason why it is towered and has radar on the field is because half the field is for the Air National Guard.

The plotter we used matched the key on the sectional. I think the FAA decided to look into it because of the school I went to for my private, instrument, and most of my commercial. The FSDO here doesn't like that certain school and does as much as it can to try and violate them, or at least hassle it as much as possible. When I switched schools, some of the FSDO guys hung out at my new school. They would help with teaching and such (go figure). When they would get together you would hear them reference about "a school in Akron" (there was only one school in Akron at the time) followed by talking about how bad they are.

When I was at the Akron school, the FAA would come in about once a month, if not more to the school to look through there files on all the students and always hassled them about other issues. The cross country happened to be one of the issues that came up. I don't blame the FSDO here for what they are doing now that I have experience at other schools and my final experiences at my original school.

About the extra distance you mentioned, I believe it. The regs don't say anywhere you have to use the middle of the airport like a GPS usually does. Using the furthest part of the runway (especially at MFD) will give you an extra mile.

[cfii2007]

Or maybe they want you to fly from Point A to Point B, in a straight line, which is 50NM on the chart, as opposed to flying between two points 10 NM apart back and forth 5 times and then landing. Technically, in the second example you travelled 50 NM, but not in a straight line, but rather zigzagging back and forth.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by cfii2007

Or maybe they want you to fly from Point A to Point B, in a straight line, which is 50NM on the chart, as opposed to flying between two points 10 NM apart back and forth 5 times and then landing. Technically, in the second example you travelled 50 NM, but not in a straight line, but rather zigzagging back and forth.

Huh?