Who cares, all I ask can I fuel while enroute 250nm cx.
Well that question has been answered, now we're all wondering (including me) why your plane only holds 18 gallons. And you should care too, since that's not how it came from the factory, what's been done to it? Why won't it hold more fuel? Some kind of modification?
 
Well that question has been answered, now we're all wondering (including me) why your plane only holds 18 gallons. And you should care too, since that's not how it came from the factory, what's been done to it? Why won't it hold more fuel? Some kind of modification?
? Or confusing U S and Imperial?
22 US gallons usable or 18 imperial gallons usable.
 
C150 and C152 both have two 13 gallon tanks; the useful fuel is 22.5 gallons for the C150 and 24.5 gallons for C152 per the TCDS. The wording of 61.129 is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the 250 nm minimum leg must be non-stop:

"One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles; and"

Under many conditions a C150 can fly 250 nm with VFR reserves, but doesn't take much of a headwind to make it not possible. A C150 with an O-320 as noted somewhere above would be best served by the long range tanks, though rarely see those.
 
The main sentence is not ambiguous, but the problem I have heard people point to is the use of the word “segment“ in the second half of the paragraph. Makes it sound like the Hawaii 150 is a leg length. And if it is, so is the 250 or the Hawaii exception is meaningless.

One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles;​
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with LAL, go to the southside FBO self serve for best price. They got the VOR back up and running too.
 
The main sentence is not ambiguous, but the problem I have heard people point to is the use of the word “segment“ in the second half of the paragraph. Makes it sound like the Hawaii 150 is a leg length. And if it is, so is the 250 or the Hawaii exception is meaningless.

One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles;​

It reads the same, but the issue is Honolulu to Hilo is only 214 miles straight line, making it hard to hit a place 250 NM away. The next longest leg would be to LAX. :D
 
It reads the same, but the issue is Honolulu to Hilo is only 214 miles straight line, making it hard to hit a place 250 NM away. The next longest leg would be to LAX. :D
Lihue to Hilo is 276 nm. But I think it's good not to require people flying beat-up trainers to fly the 70-mile open water leg between Oahu and Kauai.

But the problem is the phrase "longest segment" in the Hawaii part of the rule. I don't know how the Honolulu FSDO treats it. But it creates ambiguity in the requirement when you read it as a whole, which is the default rule for interpreting legal documents.

One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles;
This requirement has 5 sub-requirements:
1. Cross-country flight
2. Not less than 300 nm total distance
3. Landings at a minimum of three points
4. One point of landing must be a straight-line distance of at least 250 nm from the original departure point
5. If meeting this requirement in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nm

There are at least four ways to read the requirements together:
(i) In Hawaii, you have to meet #4 and fly at least one 150 nm segment. That can't be right because it does not make sense for pilots in Hawaii to have to meet a requirement that mainlanders do not. While the airports in Hawaii are clustered together closer than most of us use for cross-country training requirements, they are not more so than you can find in, say, Florida.
(ii) In Hawaii, you do not have to meet #4 and must instead fly one 150 nm segment. That can't be right because that is not how the requirement is worded and because it requires pilots in Hawaii to meet a drastically different requirement than mainlanders, that being flying a 150-mile segment instead of having the option to fly five 50-mile segments or similar.
(iii) In Hawaii, requirement #4 is simply reduced to 150 nm instead of 250 nm. But that can't be right because it requires us to ignore the word "segment" in the regulation.
(iv) On the mainland, the 250-mile requirement is actually a single segment. That can't be right because it is not how the requirement is worded and it's not how anyone who matters (CFI, DPE, FSDO) seems to understand it.

@midlifeflyer is right. They need to fix the wording of the Hawaii exception, and apologize to everyone who flew all the way from Honolulu to Hilo without stopping at Hana or Kona.
 
the issue is Honolulu to Hilo is only 214 miles straight line, making it hard to hit a place 250 NM away. The next longest leg would be to LAX. :D
I agree. That's all it means. I'm just saying "segment" is an unfortunate choice of phrase since it suggests a leg rather than just the required distance from the original point of departure. Which in turn leads some to think the 250 is "ambiguous." Fortunately, when the FAA really wants a leg length, it is very specific about it, like in 61.109, the language of which is also telling us that it's not using "segment" to mean "leg."

One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations;​
 
Last edited:
Hmm…

I’m thinking I’ll go to HI on vacation and do the shorter xc there, then come back home to the mainland for the rest. Not exactly cost effective, though.
 
Hmm…

I’m thinking I’ll go to HI on vacation and do the shorter xc there, then come back home to the mainland for the rest. Not exactly cost effective, though.
You’ll also need to learn how to pronounce places like Kaunakakai and Laupahoehoe.
 
The DPE for my son's commercial, would not accept a flight from Denver, Co. To Orlando Fl. Made over 2 1/2 days. And 20.1 hours of flying time. His longest leg nonstop was only 235 miles. Although Denver to Orlando is way over a 1000.
 
Lihue to Hilo is 276 nm. But I think it's good not to require people flying beat-up trainers to fly the 70-mile open water leg between Oahu and Kauai.

But the problem is the phrase "longest segment" in the Hawaii part of the rule. I don't know how the Honolulu FSDO treats it. But it creates ambiguity in the requirement when you read it as a whole, which is the default rule for interpreting legal documents.


This requirement has 5 sub-requirements:
1. Cross-country flight
2. Not less than 300 nm total distance
3. Landings at a minimum of three points
4. One point of landing must be a straight-line distance of at least 250 nm from the original departure point
5. If meeting this requirement in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nm

There are at least four ways to read the requirements together:
(i) In Hawaii, you have to meet #4 and fly at least one 150 nm segment. That can't be right because it does not make sense for pilots in Hawaii to have to meet a requirement that mainlanders do not. While the airports in Hawaii are clustered together closer than most of us use for cross-country training requirements, they are not more so than you can find in, say, Florida.
(ii) In Hawaii, you do not have to meet #4 and must instead fly one 150 nm segment. That can't be right because that is not how the requirement is worded and because it requires pilots in Hawaii to meet a drastically different requirement than mainlanders, that being flying a 150-mile segment instead of having the option to fly five 50-mile segments or similar.
(iii) In Hawaii, requirement #4 is simply reduced to 150 nm instead of 250 nm. But that can't be right because it requires us to ignore the word "segment" in the regulation.
(iv) On the mainland, the 250-mile requirement is actually a single segment. That can't be right because it is not how the requirement is worded and it's not how anyone who matters (CFI, DPE, FSDO) seems to understand it.

@midlifeflyer is right. They need to fix the wording of the Hawaii exception, and apologize to everyone who flew all the way from Honolulu to Hilo without stopping at Hana or Kona.
I think the actual wording is due to cut and paste from the older regs. The old regs required a minimum distance for one of the legs. So that language got left in the wording.

It makes no sense that in Hawaii you would have to fly a non-stop leg of 150 NM, when there is no minimum leg distance for the mainland.
 
The DPE for my son's commercial, would not accept a flight from Denver, Co. To Orlando Fl. Made over 2 1/2 days. And 20.1 hours of flying time. His longest leg nonstop was only 235 miles. Although Denver to Orlando is way over a 1000.
I would call the FSDO over that. The DPE doesn't understand the requirement.

Or someone should ask the FAA for a LOI on the requirement.
 
I think the actual wording is due to cut and paste from the older regs. The old regs required a minimum distance for one of the legs. So that language got left in the wording.
Gotta go pretty far back for that... This is the 1973 rule (it wasn't a solo requirement).

50 hours of cross-country flights...including a flight with landings at three points each of which is more than 200 nautical miles from the other two points, except that those flights conducted In Hawaii may be made with landings at points which are 100 nautical miles apart;​

So yeah, at that point we are talking a 200 NM leg. There were a few amendments after that and in 1996, just before the big 1997 rewrite it was:

One flight must have landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least 150 nautical miles from the original departure point if the flight is conducted in Hawaii, or at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point if it is conducted elsewhere.​

Pretty clear it's not a leg length in either case. Also, it's still not a solo requirement. The current language and the requirement it be solo appears in the 1997 rewrite.

Why solo? It was to meet ICAO requirements for a 300 NM solo cross country. Before 1997, it was taken care of in the long solo cross country requirement for the private certificate. Here's the FAA's explanation:

In addition, the FAA has added language to the existing solo crosscountry 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 crosscountry flight requirements for private pilots set forth in this rule.​
 
Previously a question about joining patterns, now one about xc fuel.

It’s kinda concerning, these question from someone after a commercial rating.

Understanding the rules isn’t that a rather important part of being a pilot?
 
Previously a question about joining patterns, now one about xc fuel.

It’s kinda concerning, these question from someone after a commercial rating.

Understanding the rules isn’t that a rather important part of being a pilot?

Yet many differing opinions on the meaning of the regulations. The courts are full of cases because the same written words mean different things based on the lawyers experience.
 
Never mind I wrapped my XC- Country

KHWO_KBOW_KLCQ_KLAL

It was a nightmare xxxxxOff the recordxxxx

I have to never do this requirement again... Period
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20240211_233449170.jpg
    PXL_20240211_233449170.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 34
Ouch, that's an expensive 150.
 
Yet many differing opinions on the meaning of the regulations. The courts are full of cases because the same written words mean different things based on the lawyers experience.
Far less than many think.
 
Gotta go pretty far back for that... This is the 1973 rule (it wasn't a solo requirement).

50 hours of cross-country flights...including a flight with landings at three points each of which is more than 200 nautical miles from the other two points, except that those flights conducted In Hawaii may be made with landings at points which are 100 nautical miles apart;​

So yeah, at that point we are talking a 200 NM leg. There were a few amendments after that and in 1996, just before the big 1997 rewrite it was:

One flight must have landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least 150 nautical miles from the original departure point if the flight is conducted in Hawaii, or at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point if it is conducted elsewhere.​

Pretty clear it's not a leg length in either case. Also, it's still not a solo requirement. The current language and the requirement it be solo appears in the 1997 rewrite.

Why solo? It was to meet ICAO requirements for a 300 NM solo cross country. Before 1997, it was taken care of in the long solo cross country requirement for the private certificate. Here's the FAA's explanation:

In addition, the FAA has added language to the existing solo crosscountry 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 crosscountry flight requirements for private pilots set forth in this rule.​
It is pretty clear from your post that the 250 (150 in Hawaii) is NOT a non-stop segment.

IIRC, when I did my PP (1979) the requirement was for at least one long XC of not less than 100 nm per leg, with 3 legs. Which seems to be the case from the change in the Commercial requirement that was previously covered by the PP requirements.
 
Question I did a long XC with inst. do I also need to do with inst. 5 hr night vfr 10 TO/Lnd or I can do SOLO?
 
What does 14 CFR § 61.129 say?
 
Question I did a long XC with inst. do I also need to do with inst. 5 hr night vfr 10 TO/Lnd or I can do SOLO?
They are both a part of one set of tasks you must do under 61.129(a)(4) therefore they have to be consistent.
 
I did my commercial long XC in a rentel C150M. Each leg was 2 hrs and I refueled each stop. It was a fun day for sure. College Station TX to Pauls Valley OK to Majors then home.
 
I would call the FSDO over that. The DPE doesn't understand the requirement.

Or someone should ask the FAA for a LOI on the requirement.
Why would someone want a "Letter of Investigation" (LOI) for this? ;)

Also, the FSDO would not be the place to get a interpretation of the regulation either unless the FSDO runs it through Region Legal.
 
It makes no sense that in Hawaii you would have to fly a non-stop leg of 150 NM, when there is no minimum leg distance for the mainland.
Sure it does.

Since you can't meet the requirement for a point more than 250nm away, they replace it with a requirement that you fly a leg of at least 150nm. They lower the distance but add the requirement for it to be a single segment.
 
I see our commercial applicant seriously misunderstanding fuel capacity and not open to questions. This isn't good.
The OP is evidently also an advanced ground instructor. I don’t know the hierarchy well. Is an AGI authorized to give ground instruction on private pilot tasks?
 
Back
Top