loggin cross country

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly enough, the definition of cross-country that applies to ATP aeronautical experience requirements does not require a landing, just a flight that is at least a straight line distance of more than 50 nm from the point of departure.

So in essence, for airplanes, there are 3 different types of cross-country definition.

[/ QUOTE ]Although the FAR talks about it in terms of definition, it may be easier to think in terms of only one - the basic one: A cross country flight is one in which you land at another airport that you didn't accidentally bump into.

The others become requirements for a cross country to "count" for certain things rather than a whole new definition.

In order to be "counted" toward the requirements for certificates or ratings other than an ATP, at least one of the places where you land during your cross country has to be more than 50 NM from where you started the flight. In addition, in order to "count" there are special cross countries for the private, instrument, and commercial that with specific time, distance, and task requirements.

The same >50 NM rule applies to the ATP, but the landing isn't required. (BTW, The lack of a landing in is a well-deserved tip of the hat to military pilots who will often fly some distance without landing. I hope no one is complaining about that one being silly)

 

[FL270]

As was said, remember this is the Federal government we're dealing with here. I think Steve Buscemi's character in "Armageddon" said it best ...

"We're sitting on top of a million pounds of rocket fuel, one nuclear weapon, and a thing that has three hundred thousand moving parts all put together by the lowest bidder. I feel better."

FL270

 

[xdashdriver]

Exactly

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]

The same >50 NM rule applies to the ATP, but the landing isn't required. (BTW, The lack of a landing in is a well-deserved tip of the hat to military pilots who will often fly some distance without landing. I hope no one is complaining about that one being silly)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you should research that statement, and come again. There is no requirement for a XC to be 50 miles for an ATP applicant.

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no requirement for a XC to be 50 miles for an ATP applicant.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is in my copy of the FAR's.

The landing at a point more than 50nm away, is not.



Now, it is a vintage 2003 FAR/AIM, so I could be wrong...

 

[Jeff_S_KDTW]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you should research that statement, and come again. There is no requirement for a XC to be 50 miles for an ATP applicant.

[/ QUOTE ]MTSU, if we're talking about an ATP Applicant, I believe Midlife was referring to 61.1(b)(3)(iv)[ QUOTE ]
Sec. 61.1 - Applicability and definitions.

(b) For the purpose of this part:

(3) Cross-country time means --

(iv) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight --

(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;

(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The same >50 NM rule applies to the ATP, but the landing isn't required. (BTW, The lack of a landing in is a well-deserved tip of the hat to military pilots who will often fly some distance without landing. I hope no one is complaining about that one being silly)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you should research that statement, and come again. There is no requirement for a XC to be 50 miles for an ATP applicant.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I think =you= should.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
As was said, remember this is the Federal government we're dealing with here.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but I disagree. I don't see anything particularly nonsensical about saying that pilot time has to meet different parameters to count for different things. "Oh it's the government, so how do you expect it to make sense?" is an intellectual cop-out. Similar breakdowns are done every single day by people and businesses in many different contexts. You probably do them also. Got a resume? Did you put down the lemonade stand you worked for 2 minutes before your friends asked you to join the softball game?

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The same >50 NM rule applies to the ATP, but the landing isn't required. (BTW, The lack of a landing in is a well-deserved tip of the hat to military pilots who will often fly some distance without landing. I hope no one is complaining about that one being silly)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you should research that statement, and come again. There is no requirement for a XC to be 50 miles for an ATP applicant.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I think =you= should.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, before I typed it.

Checking now...stand by....

And I stand corrected! Midlifeflyer gets the next round on me!

I stand behind the remaining portion of my interpretation, though...

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[quoteSorry, but I disagree. I don't see anything particularly nonsensical about saying that pilot time has to meet different parameters to count for different things. "Oh it's the government, so how do you expect it to make sense?" is an intellectual cop-out. Similar breakdowns are done every single day by people and businesses in many different contexts. You probably do them also. Got a resume? Did you put down the lemonade stand you worked for 2 minutes before your friends asked you to join the softball game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Relax, partner....the Federal Governmne tis pretty silly, and difficult to understand....

 

[FL270]

Lloyd, the Quizno's singing rat-thing as your new avatar???

Russ

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd, the Quizno's singing rat-thing as your new avatar???

Russ

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretty neat - in a nasty kind of a way, huh??