Not necessarily. Triangular flight where the two legs from home, and to home, are short but the long side of the triangle is just over 50 miles. That puts you over territory and into airports that you are likely to have visited during training, potentially many times. They want you to be out there on your own in (relatively) unfamiliar territory. At least that is my guess.
Because then B, not A, would be your "original point of departure," and because the person who wrote that rule said "Departure for the purpose of conducting a “round robin” cross-country flight is a normal scenario where “original point of departure” and destination are the same. The “original point of departure” does not change with a new day or delay."
Consider it like the difference between a /U pilot accepting a clearance "direct BUNGO intersection" and a vector to join V123 near BUNGO. You get the same result either way, but one's legal, and the other isn't, even though it only seems to be wordplay.
Because 50 nm would require pilotage and perhaps navaid. What's the difference between 50 nm from the PO and a 50nm leg? Wouldn't the same skill be involved? Was the initial rule written with the thought in mind that there would only be one destination? It seems to me that time and miles covered offer up the same, if not more, in the way of experience. The only argument is that "it is just the way it is written". It that's the final argument, then it is what it is, while not making much sense to this confused and annoyed PP.
What does the FAA want him to accomplish that flying an extra 10 miles prevents him from accomplishing?
Because he does not have on board and operational the "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown," specifically, an approved point-to-point nav system like GPS. And if you want to go any further on this issue (91.205(d), not the original 61.1(c) question), let's start a new thread.
You'd have to ask John Lynch, the guy who wrote the rule, at AFS-840 in FAA HQ.
That's right -- and that's why "fly heading 240 to join the airway" is legal, and "cleared direct BUNGO" is not.
Fine -- just don't get caught doing it.
Sorry to bring this up again, as I see it's been discussed quite a bit, but I have a different scenario that I couldn't find had been discussed. The scenario:
I do the following without a break other than to pick up a passenger;
1. take off at A and fly 10nm to B and land (or preferrably touch and go)
2. take off at B and fly 55nm to C, full stop, pick up passenger
3. take off at C and fly 45 nm back to A.
How do I (can I) log it in order to qualify for IFR training/rating reqs.? A, my original point of takeoff is only 45 nm "straight line" from my final destination, C. Only my second leg is 50+ nm:
1. Log all time as x-cntry
2. Log only B-C and return C-A as x-cntry, and A-B on sep. line(s)
3. Log only B-C as x-cntry, and other legs on sep. lines
4. Something different and that would be....
I'm thinking of doing this tomorrow, and probably many times in the future. I hoping the adding the initial 10nm, will qualify it for x-cntry. Direct fly is 5 nm short.....Unless, the total there and back (=90nm) would cut it, but I don't think it will. I'll be using pilotage and navaids.
I'm not saying that is the reason that the rule is written as it is. I'm saying that is how I interpret it for my own purposes. I'm not here to interpret the regs, that is Ron's job. I'm not going for any ratings, and I'll pretty much call a cross country whatever I want it to be. I've had that attitude for quite some time, and I'm committed to it, because that is how I have been logging things for a long time. I'm just saying that makes it a little more understandable to me for the purpose of discussion.