IFR cross country 50 NM

D

DaytonaLynn

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
697
Location
Sugar Land Texas
Display Name
Display name:
One who misses Daytona!
I have a question about the 50 NM straight line airports.

If one flies to the first airport and lands and it's 50nm, then take off and go to a second airport that is 50 nam is that 2 cross countries or not.
 
Why would it matter if it was 1 cross country or 2? I mean, what benefit would you get from it?
 
Once you reach the 50 nm what's the diff ? You need/log the hours.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
If one flies to the first airport and lands and it's 50nm, then take off and go to a second airport that is 50 nam is that 2 cross countries or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, you could call it 2 cross countries, or 1 cross country with an intermediate stop. You, the pilot, are the one who determines the character of the trips.

If you're asking about regulations, it doesn't matter whether you call it 1 or 2.
 
Aren't cross countries Greater than 50nm?
 
ja_user said:
Aren't cross countries Greater than 50nm?
Click to expand...
According to 61.1:

(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
B Conducted in an aircraft;

(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and

(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.

But pretty much for aeronautical experience requirements it needs to be over 50 miles.
 
Given that he mentioned 50 miles, I assumed he meant in furtherance of the ratings that have the greater than 50nm requirement.
 
It's all cross country time, the second and final(?) airport is 100nm from the first, assuming straight line. It matters not if he landed every 10-20 miles.
 
BillTIZ said:
It's all cross country time, the second and final(?) airport is 100nm from the first, assuming straight line. It matters not if he landed every 10-20 miles.
Click to expand...


As long as he logs it as one big flight.
 
I assume it's not exactly how it was intended but you could fly to an airport 50.1nm away, then come back to your home airport and fly circles until you're out of gas* and count the entire flight time as cross country.

* Don't forget the appropriate remaining fuel requirements.
 
Example. I fly to and stop at an airport 50nm away. On the way back I stop at an airport halfway between the two airports. I log that as one line/flight in the logbook and all of the flight time is logged as cross country time.

It is YOUR logbook. Log it however you want.
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
Yes, you could call it 2 cross countries, or 1 cross country with an intermediate stop. You, the pilot, are the one who determines the character of the trips.

If you're asking about regulations, it doesn't matter whether you call it 1 or 2.
Click to expand...

That

It's your call, log it as you see fit.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
If one flies to the first airport and lands and it's 50nm, then take off and go to a second airport that is 50 nam is that 2 cross countries or not.
Click to expand...
Since the FAA doesn't require for this purpose any particular number of cross-countries, only cross-country hours, there is no FAA issue and it really doesn't matter to them how many flights you consider it to be.
 
jordane93 said:
According to 61.1:

(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;
B Conducted in an aircraft;

(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and

(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.
Click to expand...
That's the first of seven different definitions of "cross country" the FAA has for various different purposes.

But pretty much for aeronautical experience requirements it needs to be over 50 miles.
Click to expand...
That's true for airplanes and PP/IR/CP/ATP purposes, but varies otherwise.
 
mjburian said:
I assume it's not exactly how it was intended but you could fly to an airport 50.1nm away, then come back to your home airport and fly circles until you're out of gas* and count the entire flight time as cross country.

* Don't forget the appropriate remaining fuel requirements.
Click to expand...
.......
§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;
........

Just for fun, let me pick this apart.

You note "remaining fuel requirements".
What "remaining fuel" are you referring to? As you will notice, the regulation says "May not begin a flight"; it does not say, "may not end a flight with less than 30 minutes", so you could circle the airport until you literally run out of gas.
Couldn't you?
 
nosehair said:
.......
§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;
........

Just for fun, let me pick this apart.

You note "remaining fuel requirements".
What "remaining fuel" are you referring to? As you will notice, the regulation says "May not begin a flight"; it does not say, "may not end a flight with less than 30 minutes", so you could circle the airport until you literally run out of gas.
Couldn't you?
Click to expand...

No because then you were planning to run out of gas BEFORE you started the flight. Therefore you planned to land with less than 30 minutes worth of gas left in the tanks.
 
nosehair said:
.......

§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—



(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;

........



Just for fun, let me pick this apart.



You note "remaining fuel requirements".

What "remaining fuel" are you referring to? As you will notice, the regulation says "May not begin a flight"; it does not say, "may not end a flight with less than 30 minutes", so you could circle the airport until you literally run out of gas.

Couldn't you?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting nit to pick. I guess, technically, if you planned to land with enough fuel on board you were legal to launch. And, as long as you made it down safely, I doubt anyone would ever question how much fuel you had in the tanks. But at my home field (a Class D), I'm guessing you'd have to answer some questions if they have to tow you off of the runway because you ran your tank(s) dry. Though I honestly don't know if that would be a violation based on a literal reading of *that* reg. (You're still open to a 91.13 citation, though.)
 
Gucci Pilot said:
No because then you were planning to run out of gas BEFORE you started the flight. Therefore you planned to land with less than 30 minutes worth of gas left in the tanks.
Click to expand...
No, I just got to my destination airport, and saw I had some extra fuel left, so decided to do a few touch-n-gos, and a practice "engine out".
Of course, I am always subject to a 91.13, if any actual such situation may occur. That's always out front in any practice situation.

I am pointing out that you don't have to have 30 minutes in the tank at landing.
What if the headwind was stronger than forecast?
That's why the reg is there, and worded as a "beginning the planning" requirement.
 
nosehair said:
No, I just got to my destination airport, and saw I had some extra fuel left, so decided to do a few touch-n-gos, and a practice "engine out".
Of course, I am always subject to a 91.13, if any actual such situation may occur. That's always out front in any practice situation.

I am pointing out that you don't have to have 30 minutes in the tank at landing.
What if the headwind was stronger than forecast?
That's why the reg is there, and worded as a "beginning the planning" requirement.
Click to expand...
As you point out, if the FAA discovers you flying around with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining, they are going to ask some very probing questions about how that came to pass, and the words "careless" and "reckless" won't be far from their minds. Even if you're just futzing around in the pattern, the question that will arise is, "What happens if the plane ahead crashes on the runway and airport is closed for the next hour?" You'd best have a good answer for that one, and "I'd land in the grass next to the runway" might not be considered a "good answer" at any particular airport.

Personally, I always like to have options, and in the air, fuel=options, which is why any time it appears I'll be landing with less than an hour of fuel remaining, I land and refuel.
 
Ron Levy said:
As you point out, if the FAA discovers you flying around with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining, they are going to ask some very probing questions about how that came to pass, and the words "careless" and "reckless" won't be far from their minds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the usual response, and I am not advocating any type of careless or reckless operation or actions.
I see instructors, much like yourself, who teach safe and responsible actions, such as having plenty of fuel, as if it were regulatory.
A majority of the pilot population actually believes that a violation has occurred if one lands with less than the required reserve.
This kind of mis-understanding of regulations can lead a pilot to take a more dangerous course of action to avoid a regulatory violation.
 
nosehair said:
Yeah, this is the usual response, and I am not advocating any type of careless or reckless operation or actions.
I see instructors, much like yourself, who teach safe and responsible actions, such as having plenty of fuel, as if it were regulatory.
A majority of the pilot population actually believes that a violation has occurred if one lands with less than the required reserve.
This kind of mis-understanding of regulations can lead a pilot to take a more dangerous course of action to avoid a regulatory violation.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what did you have in mind here?

One hour of fuel reserve may as well be a regulation in my case, because I'll stop for fuel before I'll land with less than an hour in the tanks. But I don't think making an unplanned fuel stop is more dangerous than continuing with the flight outside of my comfort zone. (I also understand that not everyone shares my conservative "land with at least one hour in the tanks" approach.)

But I'm wondering what the "more dangerous course of action" is that you mentioned above.
 
nosehair said:
Yeah, this is the usual response, and I am not advocating any type of careless or reckless operation or actions.
I see instructors, much like yourself, who teach safe and responsible actions, such as having plenty of fuel, as if it were regulatory.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a fair statement, since I don't think I've ever said that having more than the amounts of fuel specified in the regulation under discussion was explicitly "regulatory" (even if I have said that landing with less than 30/45 minutes of fuel as applicable might be pretty bad judgment and possibly, depending on circumstances, considered by the FAA to be a violation of 91.13).
A majority of the pilot population actually believes that a violation has occurred if one lands with less than the required reserve.
Click to expand...
Even if that's true, I don't think you can blame that on me. However, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, since the record suggests that a lot of pilots will do something stupid merely because it wasn't explicitly prohibited by the regulations. In that regard, if the only reason they avoid doing that stupid thing is that they think it would be a violation (even if it isn't), as a safety guy, I'm OK with the situation as it is -- whatever it takes to motivate them to do the smart/safe thing. :D

This kind of mis-understanding of regulations can lead a pilot to take a more dangerous course of action to avoid a regulatory violation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what "more dangerous course of action" a pilot might take to avoid landing with less than 30 minutes of fuel just because the pilot thought that was a black-letter violation of the regulations -- got an example?
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
No, I just got to my destination airport, and saw I had some extra fuel left, so decided to do a few touch-n-gos, and a practice "engine out".
Of course, I am always subject to a 91.13, if any actual such situation may occur. That's always out front in any practice situation.

I am pointing out that you don't have to have 30 minutes in the tank at landing.
What if the headwind was stronger than forecast?
That's why the reg is there, and worded as a "beginning the planning" requirement.
Click to expand...

Have fun explaining that to the FAA or NTSB judge.

The reg says "considering headwinds and forecast weather conditions". I take that as meaning you need to take into account the worst possible headwinds and weather conditions you are likely to encounter on the flight. I believe the VFR fuel requirement should be written more like the IFR fuel requirement reg.

But anyways...dipping into your reserves because of a stronger than planned headwind and going around the pattern to run the tanks dry are two completely different things.

nosehair said:
This kind of mis-understanding of regulations can lead a pilot to take a more dangerous course of action to avoid a regulatory violation.
Click to expand...

Like Ron said, feel free to elaborate on that one...
 
mjburian said:
Out of curiosity, what did you have in mind here?
Click to expand...
Oh, well, if you can imagine it, it will happen, sooner or later. ..and everyone's response here is exactly what I was hoping for...an actual discussion on the regulation rather than the "one-size-fits-all" approach we tend to develop. In the interest of safety, of course.:)

But if someone believes he/she may be violated, meaning losing their license, which is a career stopper, perhaps, they may elect to land short of the intended familiar well lit destination at a remote closed not well lighted unfamiliar airport 20 miles short, and crash or otherwise be damaged.

We can go on and on about what the possibilities might be, and yes it is remote, but so are engine failures and unintentional stalls, yet we discuss these issues to a fine line, and that was the intent of my OP. :wink2:
 
nosehair said:
Oh, well, if you can imagine it, it will happen, sooner or later. ..and everyone's response here is exactly what I was hoping for...an actual discussion on the regulation rather than the "one-size-fits-all" approach we tend to develop. In the interest of safety, of course.:)

But if someone believes he/she may be violated, meaning losing their license, which is a career stopper, perhaps, they may elect to land short of the intended familiar well lit destination at a remote closed not well lighted unfamiliar airport 20 miles short, and crash or otherwise be damaged.
Click to expand...
Your imagination is a lot better than mine. I'm not going to worry enough about that possibility to start a campaign to put big posters in FBO's reminding pilots that the regulatory fuel requirement for VFR does not apply to actual landing fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top