Commercial 250NM x-cntry

Just to add another point, a lot of pilots including instructors (I talked to one the other day that bet me $20 I was wrong) think that the 250NM "leg" has to be non-stop. It doesn't say that. It just says one point must be 250NM staight line distance from the original point of departure. It doesn't say anything about it having to be non-stop. You could land 10 times between the original departure point and the 250NM straight line point if you wanted to.
 
BrianNC....that is a true statement. You would win the 20 spot. You can land as many times as you want between your start point and 250 nm point. You would need a total of three landings anyhow. If it wanted non-stop, it would spell that out just like it spells out SOLO. I'm going back to that solo thing again...sorry. You brought up a good point about the non-stop thingy...thanks for adding to the discussion on the x-country
 
PacMan4x4 said:
<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.
Click to expand...

I am not taking offense... I'm pretty sure that you, midlife, and others may still misunderstand my post. Also, I didn't realize the frequency that this topic was discussed, and if had, trust me I would have kept my mouth shut.

I bolded your last sentence because I disagree with it. This is the CFI corner. Theoretically, CFIs and student s come to this area on JC to talk about CFI and student stuff. If you were talking about a waste of time arguing with the chief, then yes, you are right it would have been and I didn't. He was educating me, and I complied. However, it is not a waste of time talking about it here. In my mind, people who visit this forum are my peers, and in a sense, they are "internet friends" because we talk about everything on this forum from professional, personal, political, and religious topics. So I thought I'd throw at a thought about how one part of the FAR affected me, how I thought it sucked, and asked for thoughts. Big mistake. My bad. I guess I'm still fairly new here. To say "I think this reg is stupid" or "even if this reg makes sense I wish I didn't have to comply with it" is something I'd casually mention to friends. But to say that here is tantamount to admitting you 1. Don't know your info 2. Plan to or have already broken the FARs and/or 3. Are wasting everyone's time by posting your mindless drivel when we could be arguing about logging your students’ landings as a CFI or something equally more important.

My apologies to all.
 
ChinookDriver said:
I am not taking offense... I'm pretty sure that you, midlife, and others may still misunderstand my post.
Click to expand...
I think I understand it. You were asking (1) why the rule was written that way and (2) what benefit is there to it being solo? Reasonable question. I think between the FAA's stated reason and some of the training benefits people mentioned, you should at least have some idea of the answer.
 
ChinookDriver said:
Theoretically, CFIs and student s come to this area on JC to talk about and student stuff....it is not a waste of time talking about it here. In my mind, people who visit this forum are my peers, and in a sense, they are "internet friends" because we talk about everything on this forum from professional, personal, political, and religious topics.
Click to expand...

Chinook, don't worry about it, I thought the original intent of your post was perfectly reasonable. In order to develop as professionals, it's nice to have an open forum like this where anything can be asked.

That's one of the things I love about JC. I can come here and get a feel for what the generally accepted way of doing things in the industry is. It's not what my boss tells me to do, it's not what my college flight program tells me to do...it might not even be what other pilots in my local region tell me to do. I can find out what the norm is from CFIs of all experience levels, from all backgrounds, all across the country.

Keep asking whatever you want!
 
jrh said:
Chinook, don't worry about it, I thought the original intent of your post was perfectly reasonable. In order to develop as professionals, it's nice to have an open forum like this where anything can be asked.

That's one of the things I love about JC. I can come here and get a feel for what the generally accepted way of doing things in the industry is. It's not what my boss tells me to do, it's not what my college flight program tells me to do...it might not even be what other pilots in my local region tell me to do. I can find out what the norm is from CFIs of all experience levels, from all backgrounds, all across the country.

Keep asking whatever you want!
Click to expand...

Cool, man. Thanks.
 
CHINOOK.....perhaps my response was misunderstood. Oftentimes, it is hard to get the message someone is trying to make over a type written message. I have learned a butt load from this site and will continue to do so in the future. I'm not jumping down your throat cuz you posted your question....this just happened to be the post I replied to as I don't respond too often. You did the right thing by listening to your Chief Instructor...and I made mention of that in my post. You did learn from his intervention and that is good. You only picked one line out of my whole post to bold and comment on which is cool....It wasn't directed toward you in no way. If you were to go back and search other threads along the same lines as this topic, some folks have argued as to how ridiculous this particular rule is and that it shouldn't matter if you are solo on the flight or have a non-pilot person in the plane with you since the person in the left seat is the only qualified person that is flying the plane....anyway...enough of beating this horse. Please ask the questions that are on your mind and we will all gain insight. <high five> No hard feelins' bro......I was venting.
Now..JRH...you are correct about JC being a place to openly ask questions as that's what it was set up for--a group of professionals and upcoming pilots alike. We can all learn from questions that are asked and by no means was I indicating that Chinook couldn't ask a question that was important to him and one that he wanted opinions on...his was the post....well, nevermind. I'll stop here so the message doesn't get mixed again :-)
 
jrh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hey, a non-pilot pax could actually be more of a distraction! Talking when you're trying to listen to ATC, asking you to explain everything in the cockpit when you're supposed to be keeping your eyes outside the cockpit, vomiting from airsickness...the list could go on. If having a person there to fold and put away charts is the difference maker between a pilot making his destination or not, that pilot should stick to the local traffic pattern.

If this is truly a test of a pilot's abilities to qualify for a commercial rating, then there should be a non-pilot pax or at least cargo on board! The FAA should tell the pilot there departure time and they're expected arrival time. The pilot should then have to make the schedule, just as they would as a pilot getting paid to fly. If there is a problem with weather or ATC delays, as sometimes happens in the real world, then they can be evaluated on how they handle such situations.

ChinookDriver, question everything. Blind obedience to authority isn't one of the FAA's hazardous attitudes, but maybe it should be. Just because someone questions a rule, doesn't mean that they are anti-authority. That last sentence is actually more for MidlifeFlyer, moxiepilot, and the others who assumed you were looking for a way to break the rules. Something about it being ok to break the rules, and if you're willing to bend the rules here you'll be willing to bend them in other places. What a bunch of ...

I'm glad that you flew the flight as the FAA wants you too. Enjoy the freedoms that you have served to protect, which includes the right to free speach.

Stonefly
 
Stonefly said:
ChinookDriver, question everything. Blind obedience to authority isn't one of the FAA's hazardous attitudes, but maybe it should be. Just because someone questions a rule, doesn't mean that they are anti-authority. That last sentence is actually more for MidlifeFlyer, moxiepilot, and the others who assumed you were looking for a way to break the rules.
Click to expand...
No need. First, I didn't assume that he was (besides he in fact =didnt=). Like PacMan, I was not reacting to a common theme that shows up in the thread.

If it helps any, I was recently accused on another forum of having the anti-authority hazardous attitude because I simply argued that the FAA is not always right. The guy who accused me would probably vehemently disagree with your "blind obedience" comment, although I agree completely.

I will disagree with you on the "bend the here..bent them there" philosophy, though. Yes, we all bend rules - the question is what for. There is a difference between questioning a rule and arguing that it is wrong on the one hand and intentionally violating it on the other. By far, most (if not all) of the arguments for violating the solo in the solo cross country come down to "I want to because it's more convenient for me and I figure I can get away with it."

Sorry, but I think the commercial certificate is a =professional= certificate. Braking the rules that qualify you for that privilege just because you feel like it, while not the end of the world, is somewhat like cheating on a test - say the medical boards or the bar exam - questioning the professional ethics and competence of such a person is legitimate.
 
Pacman... no prob bro... I get it. It's all cool.

Stone... gotchya.

And to all, I think this thread was just a big communications goof-up. Like pacman said, it's hard to convey meaning through writing.

Now I'm off to practice some approaches below minimums without an alternate! :sarcasm: :)
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I will disagree with you on the "bend the here..bent them there" philosophy, though. Yes, we all bend rules - the question is what for. There is a difference between questioning a rule and arguing that it is wrong on the one hand and intentionally violating it on the other.
Click to expand...

I never condone deliberately breaking the rules! I was alluding to your "Isn't it okay if I start by breaking the rules before I even get the certificate" comment. ChinookDriver wasn't asking if he could break the rules, he was as you said above "questioning a rule." Good for him.

Stonefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top