Commercial 250NM x-cntry

[Ian_J]

Back when I was getting my commercial and preping for the 250 NM c-cntry I ran into a snag. As we know, since the 250 is straight line distance, it turns into at least a 500. I wanted to make a trip out of it... visit family in FL, etc. And I wanted to bring my wife along, a non-pilot. The chief flight instructor caught wind of it and said, no, it had to be a solo, even though I was already a certified pilot and could fly passengers. According to the regs, he was right of course... a solo is a SOLO. But just wanted to get opinions to see if you all really think that matters. Does flying a non-pilot passenger really changethe intent of the requirement that much?

 

[averyrm]

I'd say it's safer to do the letter of the law rather then try to figure out the intent - especially with the FAA who the heck knows what they're thinking half the time.

Could you do it an not get caught? Probably. Is it worth it to do what's asked in the regs even though that means not having as much fun? IMO, yes. For some reason, it says solo 250NM x/c. Not 235NM x/c, not with a buddy, etc. Even though it might just be arbritrary, that's what's asked.

YMMV

 

[moxiepilot]

the regs are the regs, & solo is solo. If you bend the rules here you are bound to do it other places. I agree with your chief.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I can never understand why people have so much trouble with this one. "I want to be a professional pilot. Isn't it okay if I start by breaking the rules before I even get the certificate?"

 

[jrh]

Does flying a non-pilot passenger really changethe intent of the requirement that much?

Aside from what's already been said about following the letter of the law, I would say, yes, it does change the intent of the requirement.

I think the intent is to make sure you can handle things all by yourself on a somewhat long trip. Even if a passenger isn't a pilot, they can assist you and make a trip go smoother. They can help navigate to some degree, keep the cockpit organized (fold and put away charts, etc.), spot traffic, maybe remember a frequency change that ATC gives you, keep you from falling asleep out of boredom, and many other simple tasks. Having another person with you, even if they aren't a pilot, definitely changes the dynamics of a flight.

As has already been said several times before, do it solo--it matters.

 

[Ralgha]

There was a dude who ended his commercial checkride almost before it began when the DE discovered that he did his 250NM x/c with his two-year-old daughters in the back seat. Of course if he hadn't said anything, no one would have been the wiser, but that's not the point.

 

[jayllamas]

Hmm..does it really have to be solo?..or PIC?...Anyways, how do the ATP guys comply if it's a solo requirement when they never fly alone?...Just curious.

 

[Ian_J]

Oh yeah... I agree. I did it solo. It just kind of sucked going off to visit family on a long cross country without her.

And that was a good point about cockpit management... even though she's a non-pilot she can still help with maps and holding stuff. Solo is solo.

 

[Ian_J]

I can never understand why people have so much trouble with this one. "I want to be a professional pilot. Isn't it okay if I start by breaking the rules before I even get the certificate?"

And that's not exactly what I was getting at. I was asking what people thought of the rule versus asking if it was okay to break the rules. I wasn't going to break the rules. And the reason the chief pilot got involved last year when I was doing this was because at the time I didn't understand the rules.

 

[aloft]

Hmm..does it really have to be solo?..or PIC?...Anyways, how do the ATP guys comply if it's a solo requirement when they never fly alone?...Just curious.

There is an exception for multiengine aircraft; the FAA recognizes that many insurers won't allow low-timers to fly a twin solo, so the exemption allows time spent "performing the duties of PIC" in a twin to be counted as solo time for the purpose of satisfying that requirement.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Hmm..does it really have to be solo?..or PIC?...

Read 61.129(a)(4) and you tell me.

Anyways, how do the ATP guys comply if it's a solo requirement when they never fly alone?...Just curious.

The solo cross country we are talking about is a singe flight that is a requirement for the commercial pilot certificate. The "ATP guys" got their commercial certificates =before= their ATP.

 

[moxiepilot]

I was asking what people thought of the rule versus asking if it was okay to break the rules.

I think the rules are silly. lol

actually, i never thought about what i think about the rules. they're there; that's about as much as i thought about it. so, you're working the thing between my ears here.

i think this one was created to see if you can get from here to there since that's what commercial operators do. i think they tried to mimic that (imagine if it was a 500nm straight line distance instead!?!) But I also agree with the above - they make you do it on your own (thank god for XM radio right? or at least an ADF and local AM radio freq!) to build confidence, capability, and understanding.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

In this case the FAA 250 NM solo cross country rule is based on ICAO requirements for commercial pilots.

The requirement did not exist for commercial pilot until the FAR Part 61 revision in 1997. Before then, the "long" =student= cross country was much longer - 300 NM - long enough to meet the ICAO requirement. The FAA decided to shorten the student flight and added the pre-commercial flight to make up the difference (although they probably made it longer than they needed to.

Here's the FAA's explanation of the rule change from the Federal Register (where they publish new rules, usually with some explanatory material):

==============================
In addition, the FAA has added language to the existing solo cross-country requirements to ensure pilots meet minimum standards specified under Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The additional language requires that an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate complete a solo cross-country flight of a total of not less than 300 nautical miles. The existing rule states that a cross-country flight must have landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least a straight line distance of 250 nautical miles from the original point of departure. All commercial pilot applicants with a private pilot certificate currently meet the total 300-nautical-mile requirement; however, private pilots certificated after the effective date of this rule will not, due to the decrease in the solo cross-country flight requirements for private pilots set forth in this rule. The FAA wants to ensure that the requirements under Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation are specifically met, to facilitate the acceptance of U.S. pilot certificates internationally.
==============================

 

[jayllamas]

Read 61.129(a)(4) and you tell me.

The solo cross country we are talking about is a singe flight that is a requirement for the commercial pilot certificate. The "ATP guys" got their commercial certificates =before= their ATP.

I meant ATP guys as the people attendting the school "ATP"...which by the way includes me.

 

[jayllamas]

There is an exception for multiengine aircraft; the FAA recognizes that many insurers won't allow low-timers to fly a twin solo, so the exemption allows time spent "performing the duties of PIC" in a twin to be counted as solo time for the purpose of satisfying that requirement.

OK...got it!..Thanks!

 

[Ian_J]

I think the rules are silly. lol

actually, i never thought about what i think about the rules. they're there; that's about as much as i thought about it. so, you're working the thing between my ears here.

i think this one was created to see if you can get from here to there since that's what commercial operators do. i think they tried to mimic that (imagine if it was a 500nm straight line distance instead!?!) But I also agree with the above - they make you do it on your own (thank god for XM radio right? or at least an ADF and local AM radio freq!) to build confidence, capability, and understanding.

Yeah, and I guess at the time I was irritated because I had been on zillions of long cross countries in helicopters, overseas in bad guy land, and was just bonked out of a good time with my wife because of the word "solo." (Well... a flying good time that is. ) To me a cross country was a cross country, whether it be helos or planes. All the same principles apply.

 

[Ralgha]

There is an exception for multiengine aircraft; the FAA recognizes that many insurers won't allow low-timers to fly a twin solo, so the exemption allows time spent "performing the duties of PIC" in a twin to be counted as solo time for the purpose of satisfying that requirement.

Which is a total cop-out on the part of the FAA, but I've gone off on that tirade in some other thread.

 

[Timbuff10]

That was interesting... I didn't know there was a difference between single and multi in that aspect. I did it in the twin so I didn't have to do the long solo. It does sound like fun though, I kinda wished I did one of the long ones in my training. Longest solo x/c leg I have ever flown was about 80 miles or so.

At any rate, this thread got me to dust off my FAR/AIM and flip through it tonight.

 

[PanJet]

That was interesting... I didn't know there was a difference between single and multi in that aspect. I did it in the twin so I didn't have to do the long solo. It does sound like fun though, I kinda wished I did one of the long ones in my training. Longest solo x/c leg I have ever flown was about 80 miles or so.

It is kinda fun. It's amazing how little people actually fly long distances solo, myself included. First time I flew a longer leg solo x/c (about 200 miles) was after I already had almost 150 TT.

 

[PacMan4x4]

<shaking head> I usually don't reply or get involved too much with entertaining questions of this nature about opinions...CHINOOK...please don't take my reply personally...but this topic seems to have come up a lot in the last month or so--about the 250 NM cross country and the requirements to do it solo or take a non-pilot buddy or kids...etc. I'm by no means the foremost expert at the FAR's, though someday I would like to have a fraction of the knowledge that MIDLIFEFLYER spits out on this site I'll get too my point in a moment...We can all agree or at least a mutual understanding that the FAR's are quite often vague and leave a little room for some interpretation and we could also agree that the FAR's don't always make since to us as pilots....BUT, the requirements for this particular cross country under 61.129 para 4 says you'll have 10 hours of solo flight...which includes: subpara (1) one cross country flight of not less than 300 nm total distance...blah blah blah; and subpara (2) 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and landings.
Why is there such a debate on this topic about whether the kids are in the plane, or the wife (non-pilot), or the neighbors dog. It says SOLO people, plain and simple. I won't bore you with all the specifics of what the FAA defines as SOLO...but perhaps sole occupant of the aircraft will help. I guess what really has ruffled my feathers is that I'm planning my cross country from Anchorage and will be heading up to Fairbanks to do it....unfortunately, it's only 220 something miles straight line distance so I'll have to come up with something else to achieve the 250 by flying further away. I've been told by a few folks to just fly around a little longer or take the longer route...<beating head against the wall>.....WHAT? are you kidding me...fly the longer route. It boggles my mind on what people say/think sometimes. Anyway....sorry about the rant...I just don't get the debate that has gone on in other threads on this same topic, nor do I understand why the confusion as to the meaning. CHINOOK...It's good to hear that your Chief Instructor intervened and that you acknowledged it was wrong to take your wife. Sometimes folks would rather waste time arguing about the silliness/sensibility of the regs rather than just simply comply.