Logging/counting cross-country through

RotorAndWing said:
Well, 8900.2 says
As a special emphasis item , the examiner must review the applicant’s
aeronautical experience recorded on FAA Form 8710-1 and in the applicant’s logbook/training
record to ensure compliance with the appropriate aeronautical experience requirements for the​
certificate and/or rating sought.

Then you added "and has even directed examiners to check the ground training portion of the pilot logbooks for logged ground training in all aeronautical knowledge areas (e.g., the 13 areas in 61.105(b) for PP) along with an appropriate amount of time logged for each ground training session.

However I asked one of the Inspectors I use to work with if there was a requirement for the DPE's to "check for the appropriate amount of time logged for each ground training session" and he said he was unaware of such a requirement. He did mention the 8900.2 special emphasis item.



Inspectors who oversee DPE's are required to attend the DPE refresher courses just as well.
Click to expand...
I was just on the phone with an Inspector from the Houston FSDO yesterday discussing a DPE's conduct of a practical test, and the Inspector brought this up to me. I've been briefed on it by the BAL FSDO, too, as well as two examiners. All you instructors out there can ignore this if you choose based on one former Inspector's comments here, or you can do what the regs require and log things IAW 61.51. Choose wisely. If you are uncertain, check with your local FSDO.
 
Ron Levy said:
All you instructors out there can ignore this if you choose based on one former Inspector's comments here, or you can do what the regs require and log things IAW 61.51. Choose wisely. If you are uncertain, check with your local FSDO.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in my post I stated anywhere to ignore a regulation as you're trying to imply. I do know the FAA doesn't do anything based upon verbal communication and I stated one of my former colleagues confirmed he has not seen any official communication based upon your claims. Since you seem to be in constant communication with so many Inspectors perhaps you can ask one of them for the reference to what you are alleging. :dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I don't believe in my post I stated anywhere to ignore a regulation as you're trying to imply. I do know the FAA doesn't do anything based upon verbal communication and I stated one of my former colleagues confirmed he has not seen any official communication based upon your claims. Since you seem to be in constant communication with so many Inspectors perhaps you can ask one of them for the reference to what you are alleging. :dunno:
Click to expand...
As I said, y'all can do what you want. If one of your students gets turned back because you chose to bank on what R&W is saying and ignored what I posted, don't blame me. And as I said, you need only call your FSDO to confirm this.
 
Ron Levy said:
As I said, y'all can do what you want. If one of your students gets turned back because you chose to bank on what R&W is saying and ignored what I posted, don't blame me.
Click to expand...

Now what a minute Ron. All I asked here is where the reference to your claim was. Never, ever did I state not to follow a regulation (as you implied). The ONLY thing I asked:

Can you show the reference for this?
Click to expand...
Ron Levy said:
And as I said, you need only call your FSDO to confirm this.
Click to expand...

I did, and you won't accept it. :dunno:

So why won't all these Inspectors and DPE's let you see the supposed memo??? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Would that be like calling one FSDO where they say GPS can't be used in lieu of an NDB, and then calling another one and they say it can? Or where one FSDO will issue a field approval for a modification and another one won't? Or where you call one FSDO to ask about a regulation question and they get it completely wrong, and then you call another one and they get it wrong in a different manner?

Yeah, sounds like great advice.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Now what a minute Ron. All I asked here is where the reference to your claim was. Never, ever did I state not to follow a regulation (as you implied). The ONLY thing I asked:



I did, and you won't accept it. :dunno:

So why won't all these Inspectors and DPE's let you see the supposed memo??? :dunno:
Click to expand...
Assumes facts not in evidence -- I haven't asked to see it. But since it's so important to you and Ed, I just called AFS-640, and they confirmed that such guidance was sent out some time ago and that this is being covered in the roving DPE seminars. I should have a copy of that guidance early next week, and I'll share it when I get it. They also said an Inspector "just ripped an examiner" over this recently.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Would that be like calling one FSDO where they say GPS can't be used in lieu of an NDB, and then calling another one and they say it can? Or where one FSDO will issue a field approval for a modification and another one won't? Or where you call one FSDO to ask about a regulation question and they get it completely wrong, and then you call another one and they get it wrong in a different manner?

Yeah, sounds like great advice.
Click to expand...
Every examiner and Inspector with whom I've spoken is in lock step on this one. Only one who doesn't seem to agree is R&W's old pal. In any event, if you want it from the horse's mouth, you can always call Examiner Standardization in AFS-600, as they disseminate this to the DPE's in the field. I'm quite certain they'll tell that what I wrote is consistent with their guidance to DPE's.
 
"Every" could be a total of 1. Or it could be 500. Even so, "some guy(s) said" doesn't really carry much weight until it is explicitly written down on official letterhead.
 
Ron Levy said:
Assumes facts not in evidence -- I haven't asked to see it. Maybe it was covered in their training at the Academy, as you always say when the book says something other than what you claim.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I attended DPE initial and refresher and don't recall what you are inferring. I asked a current Inspector who oversees DPE's and has attended the refresher and he's unaware of your claim also. :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
The question was, I thought, what the regulation says and how that affects your application for a pilot certificate/rating including the required logbook review by the examiner giving you the practical test. In the interest of ensuring that the person asking that question does not get turned back from the practical test for not meeting the prerequisites for that test, I provided an answer which guarantees the applicant will not have a problem on this issue.

If the applicant shows up with some of the required XC hours being on a flight where the landing farthest from the original point of departure was at an airport only 49.7nm away, the examiner is required by regulation and order to refuse the application and send the applicant home to complete the experience requirements of the governing regulations. If the FAA finds out after the fact that an examiner cheated on this and granted a certificate/rating to someone who did not actually meed the experience requirements for that certificate/rating at the time of the issuance, the examiner can be in serious trouble.

You may feel the spirit of the regulation should be observed rather than the letter of the law, but the FAA doesn't normally work that way, and in this instance, the letter of the law is a clear, objective standard which examiners do not have the discretion to waive. Further, if we're talking about the "spirit of the regulation", then where would you draw the line? 49.7? 49.5, which rounds up to 50 with two significant digits? 46, which rounds up on one significant digit? 40? 30? Just where does it stop, and what happens when one examiner allows "spirit" but another examiner requires "letter", or the examiners allows less for one applicant but not another on some subjective basis of the "quality" of the sub-50nm flight?
:dunno:
Click to expand...
You are missing my point completely. I realize that the FAA needs to make arbritary cutoffs and I do not have a problem with the cut off of 50 nm for calling something a cross country(not that what I think really matters), what my issue is that there is a reason for needing cross country experience, and the spirit of the regulation as far as I see it is not so much to say you flew your plane 50 nm from airport A to airport B, but is to have the experience of flying a distance and learning about the requirements of planning, and executing such a flight. For me it is more important to get the learning experience and the technical ability, than worrying about whether I can check off this box or not. Then again when I did my IF flight I had close to 100 hrs of cross country, the shortest of which was about 75NM.

If you are as good an instructor as you purport to be, I would think this you would be instilling in your students, the importance of the rationale behind the training requirement, as opposed to the importance of just checking a box. Doing something just to check a box, and not getting the educational value out of the process, and execution of the activity, removes the whole value of the requirement, and you might as well not do it. To me it comes down to the question of currency and profiency. If you want to value currency over proficiency, that is your right, I would rather get my training from an instructor that values and emphasizes proficiency. Too many in the mixed up world of us suffers because of the inability of people to separate the value of proficiency(which is harder to attain) over currency(which is usually easy to obtain).
 
Last edited:
douglas393 said:
You are missing my point completely. I do not have a problem with the cut off of 50 nm for calling something a cross country, what my issue is that there is a reason for needing cross country experience, and the spirit of the regulation as far as I see it is not so much to say you flew your plane 50 nm from airport A to airport B, but is to have the experience of flying a distance and learning about the requirements of planning, and executing such a flight. For me it is more important to get the learning experience and the technical ability, than worrying about whether I can check off this box or not.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. That's one reason I did not like the reduction for Private from 20 solo to 10, and from 10 solo XC to 5 back in 1997. I think that the solo XC flying is probably the most important experience you get as a Student Pilot.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Let's see, I attended DPE initial and refresher and don't recall what you are inferring. I asked a current Inspector who oversees DPE's and has attended the refresher and he's unaware of your claim also. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Like I said, AFS-640 confirmed it verbally and is providing a copy of the guidance by Monday. There's also this in 8900.2:
e. Airman Records/Logbooks. An applicant for a certificate or rating for which there
are aeronautical training and experience requirements must present a reliable record to the
examiner which clearly shows the accomplishment of those requirements. The examiner must
verify that the applicant meets all eligibility and experience requirements for the certificate or
rating sought.
(1) Where required by the rules in part 61, an authorized instructor’s endorsement is required in the applicant’s logbook or training record.
(2) An authorized instructor’s endorsement is required to show the training time
accomplished for each session.
Click to expand...
If you need the name of the person in 640 to whom I spoke, send me a PM.
 
Ron Levy said:
Like I said, AFS-640 confirmed it verbally and is providing a copy of the guidance by Monday. There's also this in 8900.2:
If you need the name of the person in 640 to whom I spoke, send me a PM.
Click to expand...

e. Airman Records/Logbooks. An applicant for a certificate or rating for which there
are aeronautical training and experience requirements must present a reliable record to the
examiner which clearly shows the accomplishment of those requirements. The examiner must
verify that the applicant meets all eligibility and experience requirements for the certificate or
rating sought.
(1) Where required by the rules in part 61, an authorized instructor’s endorsement is required in the applicant’s logbook or training record.
(2) An authorized instructor’s endorsement is required to show the training time
accomplished for each session[/QUOTE]

Well, of course #2 says "each session", but you've strayed away from the claim:
directed examiners to check the ground training portion of the pilot logbooks for logged ground training in all aeronautical knowledge areas (e.g., the 13 areas in 61.105(b) for PP) along with an appropriate amount of time logged for each ground training session.
Click to expand...


From the way I am reading this you are implying that the CFI has to list each of the 13 areas in 61.105(b) individually and list the time spent on each section thereof.

AC 61-65E states the recommended signoff as:

37. Aeronautical knowledge test: sections 61.35(a)(1), 61.103(d), and 61.105.
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the required training in accordance with section 61.105. I have determined he/she is prepared for the (
name the knowledge test).


/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05


Ron Levy said:
Like I said, AFS-640 confirmed it verbally and is providing a copy of the guidance by Monday.
Click to expand...

Good! Scan it and post it here.

The ONLY question I asked back in my original post was

Can you show the reference for this?
Click to expand...
:dunno:
Click to expand...
 
RussR said:
But are you telling me that examiners actually sit there and calculate the distance of each XC?
Click to expand...

One thing I will say. In my experience, the DPEs have good knowledge of the common airport pairs instructors use for cross country training, and already know which one people use that are "good" (because they see them all the time).

So around here, they know from experience that KFTG -> KLIC is 50.7nm and a valid pair, and probably know that KFTG -> KFNL or KFMM are short at 47nm each.
If I saw a pair I wasn't familiar with, I'm going to wonder if no one uses it because it's too short.
 
Well, wow. I should have mentioned that i flew the trip from home base to visit some family and flew back. Only when I went to log it did I wonder how far it actually is and what the requirement were. I erred on the side the would FAA look unkindly on my lack of 0.3 nm but wondered if that we the right choice. Seems fairly clear now :)
 
I used my 4400nm XC for my commercial. The DPE laughed when he saw the distances.
 
masloki said:
Out of curiosity, would you all log 49.7 nm as cross country? No other stops. Did have a 10nm bonus for dodging class B.
Click to expand...

Cross country is cross country. I log it no matter what the distance.

It may or may not count towards some rating or another, but it's still cross country.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Apropos the 49.7 NM cross country while measuring the runway length to try to make it 50.1, it always strikes me as curious that people who want to learn to fly try to come up with all sorts of ways to not fly. "Let's see how close I can get to a teeny bit over 50 NM" instead of flying a little further to the next airport always seemed a little weird to me.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I have a couple of "close" airports I use for XC time building that are ~55nm, spread out in different directions for weather. It isn't that I'm trying to fly less - more that I want preplanned options to fit my schedule and the current weather. I mean, I'm going to fly 50 hours XC before getting IR no matter what, and I'm not going to stop flying once I'm done, so....

I suspect that sometimes primary students are treating hitting the minimums like a sort of game achievement (weather the achievement is financial or simply based on time).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top