Instrument rating requirements?

[ScottK]

I was flying with a friend of mine yesterday and the topic of my future instrument training came up. Somehow, we came to the subject of required cross country time for the rating. I had it in my head that only 50+ mile cross country trips as PIC counted toward the instrument rating, but he told me that was only for the Private pilot requirements. So, I looked it up. And according to 61.65, there is no mention of the 50 nm requirement. There is a 250 nm cross country required, but nothing about the PIC time. So basically, any cross country time as PIC counts toward the 50 hours?

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane; and
(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:
(i) Three hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane that is appropriate to the instrument-airplane rating within 2 calendar months before the date of the practical test; and
(ii) Instrument flight training on cross country flight procedures, including one cross country flight in an airplane with an authorized instructor, that is performed under instrument flight rules, when a flight plan has been filed with an air traffic control facility, and that involves—
(A) A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility;
(B) An instrument approach at each airport; and
(C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.

 

[Somedudeintn]

Must be more than 50nm. Look at 61.1

 

[Somedudeintn]

Less than 50nm point to point "cross country" only counts for meeting 135 minimums.

 

[ScottK]

Must be more than 50nm. Look at 61.1

Ahh, thanks. I thought I had seen that somewhere when I first started flying. Until yesterday, I hadn't really thought about it. I've been keeping my x-country time separate since I started my logbook, so I'm good to go.

Thanks.

 

[jordane93]

It needs to be more than 50 in furtherance of a rating.

 

[flyingron]

It needs to be more than 50 in furtherance of a rating.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but the cross country doesn't need to be "in furtherance of a rating."
The rules say that you need 50 hours for the rating (61.65) and then 61.1 says for the meeting the instrument rating requirements it must be:

(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That includes a point of landing that was 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 to navigate to the landing point.​

There's nothing that ties it to any particular purpose. (C) is a pretty spurious requirement as it's unclear how you get from airport to airport without employing one of those. I guess it precludes some humman in the right seat giving you turn-by-turn directions.

 

[EdFred]

Which means exactly what Jordan said.

 

[wrbix]

.....I think what he meant was:
in furtherance of a rating, it must be more than 50nm

 

[flyingron]

.....I think what he meant was:
in furtherance of a rating, it must be more than 50nm
View attachment 45075

OK, so I misunderstood, but it's still wrong. You have to look at what rating you are applying for. The requirements vary based on the rating or certificate being sought. Could be 15, 25, or 50.

 

[jordane93]

OK, so I misunderstood, but it's still wrong. You have to look at what rating you are applying for. The requirements vary based on the rating or certificate being sought. Could be 15, 25, or 50.

I think we all know what rating the OP is applying for and what rating my post related to. Stop nit picking.

 

[EdFred]

Well, it appears that since the other Ron left, this one feels the need to pick up the slack. And yeah, we all knew (except one person) since the OP actually quoted the regs for INSTRUMENT ******* AIRPLANE. Though I don't know if "IFA" is an official FAA acronym.

 

[Somedudeintn]

There's nothing that ties it to any particular purpose. (C) is a pretty spurious requirement as it's unclear how you get from airport to airport without employing one of those. I guess it precludes some humman in the right seat giving you turn-by-turn directions.

So if I just fly around for a few hours and have no idea where I am, but find an airport and land and discover it's more than 50nm away, I can't count it?

Well there goes all my cross country time!

 

[EdFred]

So if I just fly around for a few hours and have no idea where I am, but find an airport and land and discover it's more than 50nm away, I can't count it?

Well there goes all my cross country time!

I've actually had days like that. Just wander around the skies, and if no X's on the runway, pop in and see what's going on.

 

[iamtheari]

61.1(b)(ii) as quoted above, requiring a 50nm straight-line distance between the original point of departure and one point of landing, applies to all experience requirements for private pilot, commercial pilot, instrument rating, and exercising recreational pilot privileges in airplanes (and with various combinations of those certificates/ratings/privileges in other aircraft).

Cross-country flight time can be logged for any flight that includes a landing at some point other than at the point of departure. If you take 10 hours to fly around and see the sights on your circuitous route and then land at a different airport than you started, it doesn't matter if they are across the street from each other, you can log the 10 hours of cross country. That's 61.1(b)(i). You do have to use dead reckoning, pilotage, etc. during the flight but it doesn't appear to be necessary that you employ navigation systems for the entire logged duration of the flight. But if you fly over some points of interest along the way that you planned to fly over and you found them by use of dead reckoning etc., it's pretty clear you can log the entire cross-country flight, unless you land at the same airport you started from. (Probably a lot of military pilots rack up a million hours of non-cross-country time as a result. I wonder if the fact that the aircraft carrier moved between your takeoff and landing makes it a cross-country flight when you get back.)

But you can't count those sight-seeing hours toward the aeronautical experience requirements to qualify for a PPL, CPL, or IR because of (b)(ii).

I read an article somewhere, probably from AOPA, that concluded you should keep track of your 50-plus-nautical-mile cross-country time separately so you know you have enough for the rating you are seeking, but you should definitely log all cross-country flying time no matter the distance. You are short-changing yourself if an insurance company asks for "total hours logged cross-country time" and you only count 61.1(b)(ii) hours.

 

[Caramon13]

I've actually had days like that. Just wander around the skies, and if no X's on the runway, pop in and see what's going on.

I'd like to hear that radio call!

"Somewhere traffic, Bugsmasher is here. Will be landing on..active..somewhere"

 

[MikeELP]

Well, it appears that since the other Ron left, this one feels the need to pick up the slack.

 

[EdFred]

I'd like to hear that radio call!

"Somewhere traffic, Bugsmasher is here. Will be landing on..active..somewhere"

I generally figure out where it is, but have said "landing east" or "landing west" rather than look for the runway number.

 

[Caramon13]

I generally figure out where it is, but have said "landing east" or "landing west" rather than look for the runway number.

I like mine better..it keeps em thinking ;P

 

[pilotian]

Had this same question a couple days ago as I was transferring time from paper to digital logbook. Yep, 50nm XC's required is what I came up with too!

 

[mulligan]

This 50nm XC thing confuses me. I guess I do not understand the logic behind it for the following reason. I am building my 50XC and simulated instrument time together with my instructor. We are doing this quickly by taking a few trips a week to new places an hour or two away and this is really knocking the hours out quickly, both XC and simulated instrument. Lets take yesterday for example. I did my long XC IFR flight yesterday. 4.7 hour on the hobbs, 4.0 in the hood with three different approaches at 3 different airports. Basically that equated to .7 minutes of experience in the pattern and practicing departures, approaches, holding patterns, missed approaches, etc... The other 4 hours counted just as much but it was basically monitoring the radio and instruments between way points. We took advantage of reviewing a bunch of stuff but I'm very comfortable with the in the air stuff, its the approaches, departures, and all that other stuff I need to work on.

My plan is to knock out the hours for the rating requirements and when that is done just stay local and do a bunch of repetitive work to get it down pat. In a couple hours I will get soooooo much more practice and experience then flying long XC.

 

[EdFred]

What's so confusing? They had to pick a distance. 50nm is what they picked. If they said any airport other than your ODP, you would have that yahoo that flies back and forth between 2 airports only 5nm apart logging it all as XC. Instrument rating isn't about pattern work. Also keep in mind the long instrument XC was developed before the magneta line of death. Go do the IR XC in a /U plane and you will find it's not just sitting like a lump on a log.

 

[iamtheari]

My thought is that the PIC XC hours required to be eligible for an instrument rating are because the FAA wants you to be comfortable enough with cross-country flight over significant distances that you will easily be able to divert your attention from basic navigation, fuel management, etc. so you can focus on instrument cross-check and interpretation while in IMC. The whole point is that you should already find basic cross-country flight to be completely old hat before you try to do it in the clouds.

 

[Caramon13]

My thought is that the PIC XC hours required to be eligible for an instrument rating are because the FAA wants you to be comfortable enough with cross-country flight over significant distances that you will easily be able to divert your attention from basic navigation, fuel management, etc. so you can focus on instrument cross-check and interpretation while in IMC. The whole point is that you should already find basic cross-country flight to be completely old hat before you try to do it in the clouds.

Except that these flights are not always conducted in IMC for the purpose of obtaining the rating. Yeah that'd be nice if people did the long IFR XC in actual IMC to get a sense for what it's like, but that's not always possible. I had about 30 minutes of actual on my long IFR XC. That wasn't my first actual time but it's different when you're on a flight plan going somewhere as opposed to just shooting approaches.

I think the instrument rating in some ways comes up short of preparing people for doing actual IMC flight. It's mostly ok, but if I had it to do again and I could, I would do as much in actual as possible. Hood work is nothing like the real thing.

I actually think even 50 nm is too short for a "loggable" cross country flight. Should be longer. They had to put a number on it though, so I guess 50 nm is it.

 

[azpilot]

I've actually had days like that. Just wander around the skies, and if no X's on the runway, pop in and see what's going on.

Ed, that actually sounds very terrifying!

Then again, I haven't even hit 100 hours yet, and I only have 26.5 hours of X-cntry time, so maybe I'll get there.

 

[azpilot]

...the magneta line of death.

GPS?

 

[iamtheari]

My post was solely in reference to the 50 hours of PIC cross-country time, any or all of which can be done VFR and which includes all your time back to your solo student cross-country. As a requirement, it has no relation whatsoever to flight in IMC or under IFR. So the only conceivable explanation is to ensure that you are good enough at cross country flight in general that you won't be overwhelmed the first time you try to combine it with the instrument flight skills you should have learned in the 15 hours of CFII time and solidified in completing your 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time.

I agree that the IFR cross-country probably comes up short. But it's up to your CFII to sign off that you're ready for the practical test and up to the DPE to sign off that you're ready for your rating. License to learn and all that. So it's just another arbitrary compromise between asking too much of some students and not enough of others. The same applies to the 50nm requirement for cross-country flight to count toward your 50 hours, but maybe that makes more sense as an encouragement to fly different routes to different places instead of finding just one airport that's 100nm, 250nm, or whatever you require away and going there and back a handful of times. Then again, maybe 90% of instrument students just pick an airport that's 50nm away and go back and forth until they have 50 hours.

I can definitely say thanks for the comment about actual vs. hood time, though. I'll be taking that to heart as I work on my instrument rating.

 

[azpilot]

I actually think even 50 nm is too short for a "loggable" cross country flight. Should be longer. They had to put a number on it though, so I guess 50 nm is it.

When I was wrapping up my private, I would tell people I had to complete a "cross country" flight. The next question I always got was, "Oh, that's cool, what state did you go to". Then I'd answer that I went from Chandler Arizona (KCHD) to just North of Tucson (KMZJ), then over to Gila Bend (E63), and the back home. People would look at me like I had just developed a birth defect growing out of my face. But ya, they have to put the number somewhere.

I think 50 nm is just far enough, that if you aren't terribly familiar with the area, you can't see the place where you're going from the place that you started at. Plus it's a nice round number.

 

[EdFred]

Ed, that actually sounds very terrifying!

Then again, I haven't even hit 100 hours yet, and I only have 26.5 hours of X-cntry time, so maybe I'll get there.

Why so scary? Then again, We have like 230 some odd public use airports in the state, so it's super easy to look down and find an airport.

 

[Caramon13]

I think 50 nm is just far enough, that if you aren't terribly familiar with the area, you can't see the place where you're going from the place that you started at. Plus it's a nice round number.

To some people it's enough. But then again to some people the bare minimums are enough as well (this was not directed at you @azpilot )

When I was doing my PPL solo XC, the instructor gave me a choice between three routes, all with the required amount of landings and all within the exact distance required. Or in other words, the cheapest, shortest routes to be legal.

Well, I opted for an over 300 NM round trip to the other side of the state to see my Uncle. Why? Because that's what I'd do when I got my license? I like applying real world experiences to flying as much as possible. So I took the little C162 up to 9500 ft across the state and man did I have fun .

The 50 NM bubble gets you just far enough to NOT be considered your own backyard, but IMO, is really not enough to be considered SO different as to warrant an "experience".

Think about it, 50 NM is what..30 minutes in the air? Maybe? Can you drive for more than 30 minutes and consider that "valuable"? Hell, my commute in the morning is more than that..

 

[azpilot]

To some people it's enough. But then again to some people the bare minimums are enough as well (this was not directed at you @azpilot )

No offense taken. I had no further aspirations of what I wanted to do after I earned my private other than just go flying. I was a little naive, and just wanted to get it done. I'll admit that I am paying for that a bit now. My cross country skills need some work. Actually, come to think of it, all of my piloting skills need some work.

 

[Caramon13]

No offense taken. I had no further aspirations of what I wanted to do after I earned my private other than just go flying. I was a little naive, and just wanted to get it done. I'll admit that I am paying for that a bit now. My cross country skills need some work. Actually, come to think of it, all of my piloting skills need some work.

Well that's what a PPL is for ain't it? License to learn...

Show me a pilot that thinks their skills are SO good and polished that they don't need any more work and that they are done and I'll show you a fool.

 

[Ravioli]

Show me a pilot that thinks their skills are SO good and polished that they don't need any more work and that they are done and I'll show you a fool.

That's not much of challenge on PoA Grab some popcorn and let the fool parade begin!

 

[Caramon13]

Wilco!

 

[BigBadLou]

No offense taken.

Wait ... what????
We can't have people NOT insulting each other here!!!! Especially with ubiquitous use of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!
This thread is going down the drain fast. I think I will barf ...

 

[EdFred]

Go home Lou, you're drunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BigBadLou]

Go home Lou, you're drunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was an instruction, not an insult.
Try again.

 

[azure]

When I was doing my PPL solo XC, the instructor gave me a choice between three routes, all with the required amount of landings and all within the exact distance required. Or in other words, the cheapest, shortest routes to be legal.

Well, I opted for an over 300 NM round trip to the other side of the state to see my Uncle. Why? Because that's what I'd do when I got my license? I like applying real world experiences to flying as much as possible. So I took the little C162 up to 9500 ft across the state and man did I have fun .

Good on you! I did something similar, did a grand tour of the Michigan LP, something like a 450 nm round trip. Probably the most fun I've had flying, except for some of my solo IMC runs.

No, even including them, come to think of it.

 

[BigBadLou]

When I was doing my PPL solo XC, the instructor gave me a choice between three routes, all with the required amount of landings and all within the exact distance required. Or in other words, the cheapest, shortest routes to be legal.

Well, I opted for an over 300 NM round trip to the other side of the state to see my Uncle. Why? Because that's what I'd do when I got my license? I like applying real world experiences to flying as much as possible. So I took the little C162 up to 9500 ft across the state and man did I have fun .

I concur, good idea. I hate it when students just pick the shortest possible XC route.
I told my instructor "I need to go to Houston, wanna go on a ****ty IMC night to do the long X/C? You gonna charge me for the ground time there? I'm buying dinner!" and he was perfectly okay with that. Again, real world scenario turned into training. j

Who says training can't be fun or useful, right?

 

[azpilot]

I hate it when students just pick the shortest possible XC route.

Hey, mine was only 22.3 nm over the limit, but it was sure cheap! Plus I was only paying $80/hr in a really... really.... really........ slow 150. Average ground speed was about 90.... MPH!!!! The winds were not favorable that day.

But hey, you get what you pay for.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

When I was wrapping up my private, I would tell people I had to complete a "cross country" flight. The next question I always got was, "Oh, that's cool, what state did you go to". Then I'd answer that I went from Chandler Arizona (KCHD) to just North of Tucson (KMZJ), then over to Gila Bend (E63), and the back home. People would look at me like I had just developed a birth defect growing out of my face.

Thanks for the literal laugh out loud! I totally related to this, remembering similar conversations and reactions from non-pilots.