Definition of Cross Country is to change

Dazzler said:
the FAA is going to change the meaning of cross-country from "at least 50NM" to "more than 50NM".
Click to expand...

It's been defined as "more than" in 61.1 for as long as I've been flying. Perhaps you're referring to the PPL "long" cross country which has the anomalous definition of "at least 50 nm" ?
 
tgrayson said:
It's been defined as "more than" in 61.1 for as long as I've been flying. Perhaps you're referring to the PPL "long" cross country which has the anomalous definition of "at least 50 nm" ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the only thing it affects is the single leg length in the student pilot cross country. It's about as irrelevant a change as I can imagine.
 
And what two points constitute the 50 NM? Is it from the hangar where you park your plane to the end of the runway you land on? Center of airport to center of airport? Take two airports with 3,000 feet runways and you can easily add a nautical mile by defining the distance a little differently.
 
tonyw said:
And what two points constitute the 50 NM? Is it from the hangar where you park your plane to the end of the runway you land on? Center of airport to center of airport? Take two airports with 3,000 feet runways and you can easily add a nautical mile by defining the distance a little differently.
Click to expand...


Beat me to it.

I was just gunna say "taxi to the end."
 
My examiner for my private checkride made me re-do my night xc because it was something like .7 nm short. That was fantastic. :-/
 
ChasenSFO said:
Heh after my long XC I came up .2 hours short of the required solo XC time and had to go do another one.:(
Click to expand...
Maybe it'll come in handy that on all my cross countries in the 150 I got bored and started doing slow flight and stalls along the way. :D
 
No offense, but IMHO if you send your students on 50 (or 50.1) nm 'cross countries' just to satisfy the legal minimum, you're doing them a disservice. Why not pick relatively challenging airports (i.e. Class C airspace), after sufficient dual instruction, at sufficient distance to really develop the student's ability to fuel plan, utilize multiple navigational methods, keep up-to-date on the weather, etc. Sorry, 50nm is a joke. When I was a PPL student, you had to do a 300nm solo cross country; I got alot more out of that one than I would have by following the interstate 50nm up the road and back.
 
germb747 said:
. When I was a PPL student, you had to do a 300nm solo cross country; I got alot more out of that one than I would have by following the interstate 50nm up the road and back.
Click to expand...

Nobody does that anymore, now they just punch it in the GPS and go.
 
PGT said:
Nobody does that anymore, now they just punch it in the GPS and go.
Click to expand...
But what if the GPS is broken?
icon10.gif


germb747 said:
No offense, but IMHO if you send your students on 50 (or 50.1) nm 'cross countries' just to satisfy the legal minimum, you're doing them a disservice. Why not pick relatively challenging airports (i.e. Class C airspace), after sufficient dual instruction, at sufficient distance to really develop the student's ability to fuel plan, utilize multiple navigational methods, keep up-to-date on the weather, etc. Sorry, 50nm is a joke. When I was a PPL student, you had to do a 300nm solo cross country; I got alot more out of that one than I would have by following the interstate 50nm up the road and back.
Click to expand...
I did a 120nm flight (each way) for my long xc for my private a couple weeks ago and a lot of it was scanning for traffic, looking over all the gauges/instruments, and looking at my watch. I can't imagine doing a 300nm solo flight in a 172 (especially over central Maine).
 
TXTBOOK said:
Hahaha yes. :clap:

anyone know why they are making the "change"?
Click to expand...

Obama strolled into town.

germb747 said:
No offense, but IMHO if you send your students on 50 (or 50.1) nm 'cross countries' just to satisfy the legal minimum, you're doing them a disservice. Why not pick relatively challenging airports (i.e. Class C airspace), after sufficient dual instruction, at sufficient distance to really develop the student's ability to fuel plan, utilize multiple navigational methods, keep up-to-date on the weather, etc. Sorry, 50nm is a joke. When I was a PPL student, you had to do a 300nm solo cross country; I got alot more out of that one than I would have by following the interstate 50nm up the road and back.
Click to expand...

Well, I have an example as we have Class C right over out airport. They still get training in the Class C. We used to have an X-country that was used for 30+ years that was perfect for private pilot. Home airport to a towered airport with approach control (more of a TRSA). The x-country wasn't overly long, and there was good practice involved with ATC without worrying too much about breaking airspace.

One day the FSDO decided to plug the x-country into a GPS and found out the distance was not 50nm, but instead it was 49.7. Plotters all read 50 on the button. Now the good educational x-country is gone and we don't have many options for towered airports to send students to.
 
Maurus said:
Well, I have an example as we have Class C right over out airport. They still get training in the Class C. We used to have an X-country that was used for 30+ years that was perfect for private pilot. Home airport to a towered airport with approach control (more of a TRSA). The x-country wasn't overly long, and there was good practice involved with ATC without worrying too much about breaking airspace.

One day the FSDO decided to plug the x-country into a GPS and found out the distance was not 50nm, but instead it was 49.7. Plotters all read 50 on the button. Now the good educational x-country is gone and we don't have many options for towered airports to send students to.
Click to expand...

Is there another airport to the opposite direction that is more than .3 away? It was always my understanding that only one leg had to be more than 50. Then you could use that same cross country again, just in a different manor.
 
germb747 said:
No offense, but IMHO if you send your students on 50 (or 50.1) nm 'cross countries' just to satisfy the legal minimum, ...... Sorry, 50nm is a joke. When I was a PPL student, you had to do a 300nm solo cross country; I got alot more out of that one than I would have by following the interstate 50nm up the road and back.
Click to expand...

2 reasons:
Time, and money.

(which both happen to be 2 very cool Pink Floyd songs BTW!)
 
braunpilot said:
Is there another airport to the opposite direction that is more than .3 away? It was always my understanding that only one leg had to be more than 50. Then you could use that same cross country again, just in a different manor.
Click to expand...
Watch out for mixing apples (total straight line distance fro the origination point) with oranges (leg length).

The only cross country with a >50 NM required leg length is the long solo cross country required for the private certificate.

What I think Maurus is referring to is the basic cross country definition for the private, instrument and commercial that requires that you land somewhere >50 from the "original point of departure."

A flight from
KAAA - 49 NM-> KBBB -52 NM-> KCCC -3 NM> KAAA
may have a >50 NM leg but it does not include a landing >50 NM from KAAA so it wouldn't count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top