"Solo" Flight Time definition

[Colonel Sanders]

You have to step back from the toys and realize that
all navigation is fundamentally based on heading and time.

For example, let's say you have a very nice autopilot but
it only does heading and altitude. You've got a panel full
of nav: VOR, ADF, LORAN, DME, GPS, etc, etc. You have
to distill all of the above down into a heading that you set
the autopilot bug to. You could even use a map to figure
out your heading.

Imagine a world with no wind. Your heading would always
be the same as your track, and your groundspeed would
always be the same as your airspeed. This would make
navigation and fuel planning pretty simple.

All the map wizardry and fancy electronics is simply helping
you scope out the wind, which you can break down into
crosswind component - which is where your heading comes
from - and headwind/tailwind component, which is where
you have to start thinking about groundspeed and whether
or not you have enough fuel to make it to your destination.

Whenever I use a GPS, I simply push on the rudder pedals
until the track and bearing (direct to destination) are the
same number, then I note the heading. And, I note the
time enroute. Let's say the heading is 273 degrees and
the time is 1:23 ETE which is 11:37 ETA.

If my GPS fails, I hold a heading of 273 and look down
at 11:37.

This really is not rocket science. Hold a heading that
compensates for the crosswind - doesn't matter how
you get it, either from GPS or map - and figure out
what your groundspeed is - either from GPS or map -
and make sure that you've got plenty of fuel to make
it to your destination. If not, time to re-plan the flight.

[Cat Driver]

E6B???

Isn't that back in the era of the abacus?

I would have to go back to school to relearn how to use an E6B.

[akoch]

Agree with the CS example, really nothing more to add.

[akoch]

E6B???

Isn't that back in the era of the abacus?

I would have to go back to school to relearn how to use an E6B.

Oh, they vehemently insist in it. It is rather something for a "new" guy.

[Colonel Sanders]

I admit that learning to use a slide rule these days -
either straight or circular - is a bit odd. I generally
just use mental arithmetic, or the calculator in my
phone.

[KK7]

I fly a large turboprop with some antiquated avionics, and the odd piece of modern technology. I still use a fair bit of mental math for some basic things as it's simply faster than plugging in numbers into the unit to get an answer. This strays a bit from basic navigation, but I flew with a guy once who insisted on using the GPS to tell him when to descend. Plugging in a target altitude and slope, it spat out a time when he should start his descent. Of course the simply GPS unit did calculations based on current ground speed, not the speed in the descent so it never worked out. Meanwhile I could do a more accurate calculation using basic math in my head in 5 seconds tops. Much faster than turning a bunch of knobs and pushing buttons to get an inaccurate figure.

Anyway, most aircraft have some amount of modern technology in it these days. It's important to learn how to use these properly. Even if all this fails, I am not going to pull out an E6B and do a bunch of calculations.

Why don't we teach pilots how to think instead of telling them to blindly plan flights as if they were going for a flight in the 1950s. Teach them to use the tools that we have available now, but make sure they understand how it all works. We can explain how a heading is calculated based on track, wind and speed, but do pilots needs to be able to calculate this stuff from scratch? They aren't writing the software. Teach them how to do rough mental math so they can recognize when something is not right. Teach them how to use all the NAVAIDs at their disposal, properly. Explain why it might be wise to use tools at your disposal as a back up.

[Shiny Side Up]

Why you would need anyone
else in the airplane mystifies me. If you don't like
flying, why are you getting your pilot licence?

Well, I believe it is you who likes to remind people that just because someone does it different, doesn't mean they're wrong, illegal or unsafe (each of which might have a different interpretation). When it comes to flying, I'm as anti social as you. I much prefer to fly by myself, passengers and students weight the airplane down and there's only so much small talk I can generate. I do understand though the like or want to take them, one might say its the whole reason we invented airplanes in the first place. So with that in mind I don't hold grudges about people who prefer to take someone along with them when they go, especially when theire PPL is fresh. You of all people can surely understand the want to show of pilot abilities, I even remember when I was a younger pilot that I would drag anyone along who would fill a seat. The novelty of it wore off after a while, the airplane is sort of my fortress of solitude when I can get it (that is besides my real fortress of solitude, but I use that more for storing my knicknacks) and only by sharing the confined space of a cockpit with too many people can one really appreciate the simple sound of an engine's drone.

Either way, I still realise that passengers are important, and the act of taking them extremely important for the survival of aviation. Against my better judgement I'm going to take a bunch of children as passengers next weekend mostly because I feel it is a duty of mine to promote flying activities of any sort.

Here's a secret for you: If the weather is good,
and the aircraft is running well, and you have lots
of gas, flying is actually quite pleasant. And boring.

Word up, its not a secret, hence why a lot of them want to have some company. Not that you can blame them. You got to con someone into buying you food when you get to destination. I do agree that taking another pilot is pretty cheesy when you're supposed to be time building and doing some learning, but its also not without merit. Who cares though if someone has their five year old with them, or their elderly mother. Unless either of those holds a license, I'm pretty sure they're not much help and if anything a learning experience in their own right that a CPL neophyte should learn to handle.

If you don't enjoy the above, find something else to do.

Everyone enjoys it in their own way. I know guys who shoot approach after approach because that's what they think is "fun". I personally don't understand but if it gets people burning avgas and using small airstrips then let there be more of it.

[Beefitarian]

You got to con someone into buying you food when you get to destination.

That there's truth. I don't go to movies by myself and that's a sterile cockpit (no chit chat).

I can see the advantage of going with another pilot on long trips. You can switch off, one guy flys one leg, stop for fuel then the other guy flys. Extra eyes to look for traffic or find frequencies for the radio. You won't have to worry about what heading or altitude you'll be at after you ask them to hold the yoke for a minute so you can get your sunglasses or scratch your ankle.

I'd go on a long trip with fleet16b or any of his Oshkosh buddies. I know we'd be talking about airplanes the whole time and having a beer at the end. What's not to like about that?

[Beefitarian]

I would be fine with having to do a 300nm trip lone accupant to meet the requirement of the CPL, even though I did end up doing that after the guy I went with had to take the Greyhound home for work while I waited for VFR weather to get the plane back.

[Panama Jack]

Thanks for the valuable replies.

The issue is that some categories of aircraft are difficult (if not impossible) to rent solo because of liability concerns and insurance restrictions-- ie. Weight-Shift Control or Gyrocopters.

[BrandonWalker]

Hey everyone this thread is as close to an answer as I could find so I will bring it back from the dead. I am just looking for clarification on the PPL solo XC time (5hrs). My 150NM 3 point journey planned is going to take me 3-3.5 hours. I was speaking to the CFI and he was saying I would need to plan/fly another TC approved XC route to gain the additional 1.5-2 hours. (most of the routes around here are 2.5+ hours)

This was a surprise to me as I was lead to believe I could fly 1 or 2 shorter direct to and back flights gaining this time as long as it was beyond 25NM. This would be preferable as I think the money would be better spent towards getting my night rating.

Thanks to anyone that chimes in on this as I would hate to have issues when it comes time for TC giving me my license.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Division VI (PPL), Section 4.21.26.4.b.ii of the CARS says that your flight training has to include a minimum of "12 hours solo flight time, including 5 hours cross-country flight time with a flight of a minimum of 150 nautical miles which shall include 2 full stop landings at points other than the point of departure." Note this is the minimum; that said, there's nothing that stipulates that the routing has to be TC-approved, or that it has to be of a minimum length, other than one flight of a minimum of 150 NM (as you pointed out above).

However, as a practical matter, 4.21.14.3.a says that as a prerequisite of taking your flight test, you'll be required to produce a letter of recommendation from a qualified flight instructor certifying that you meet the competency standard for issue of your PPL. So: if your school takes the position that you'll need to build the balance of your X-country time by doing longer solo flights than the bare minimum of 25 NM from your aerodrome (which by the way I don't think is an unreasonable expectation), then you'll need to do it their way to get your letter of recommendation. No letter, no flight test.

[Shiny Side Up]

Note this is the minimum; that said, there's nothing that stipulates that the routing has to be TC-approved,

Actually there is.

Also, if the only thing you spent a little extra on during your PPL training was less than an hours worth of solo cross country time, you're doing pretty good.

edit: dammit the TC site is down and I can't access CARs to give a reference! will edit as soon as I can!

[BrandonWalker]

Thanks for the reply. That is how I interpreted the CARs as well. It sounded quite odd to me when the CFI brought it up. I am going the go the route of doing a direct to and back to an approved TC destination to play it on the safe side. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to plan file another full 150NM+ 2 stop landing and then revise it at the 1st destination due to "weather". As far as the letter I am ok as I have already completed the flight test portion but that is good info for anyone else in a similar situation.

It has been a very different path than what I expected to get to this point as I am extremely limited with a Student Pilot Permit and have been trying weekly since Oct 2012 to finish up the solo XC requirements.

Once again thanks for the help.

[Shiny Side Up]

Well there's also the possibility of submitting a request for a different solo route to be approved, but that might take some time. FTUs have their solo routes pre-approved usually when they get their OC, We have five in total, some longer, some shorter. Not all of them are the 150 nm distance, so students at least have to do one on the list that is that long, combined with one of the others depending on aircraft used to make sure 5 hours is completed.

edit: Had to dig out some paper, but reference CAR 406.55.

[BrandonWalker]

I just spoke to someone on the phone from TC and they were saying that it doesn't matter how long the 150NM 2 stop trip takes. And any time on top of that can be to any aerodrome as long as it is beyond 25NM. Although she did not seem to have the best grasp on what I was asking it seemed. I am going to dig into this deeper as well and see what I find. I'd hate to have to refly/deal with any problems getting my PPL from TC.

As it stands I will plan to fly to and back from the 1st destination on one of the TC approved routes. I guess the main thing to know is if I should file a plan for there and back or "plan" to do another full 150NM journey which I may encounter a situation that I may decide it is best to just go back to base. I know I may be worrying over nothing here but I know there are often several ways some of these CARs can be interpreted. Perhaps this is just a FTU policy?

[Shiny Side Up]

Let me get this straight so I understand. You have 3 hours of cross country time at this moment, correct? You need another 2 hours. You are currently trying to avoid doing a 2.5 hour trip to fulfill that 2 hours?

[YYZSaabGuy]

Well there's also the possibility of submitting a request for a different solo route to be approved, but that might take some time. FTUs have their solo routes pre-approved usually when they get their OC, We have five in total, some longer, some shorter. Not all of them are the 150 nm distance, so students at least have to do one on the list that is that long, combined with one of the others depending on aircraft used to make sure 5 hours is completed.

edit: Had to dig out some paper, but reference CAR 406.55.

Shiny, I could nitpick and point out that 406.55 requires only that TC be "notified in writing" regarding the route, not that the route be "approved" by TC. However: I wasn't aware of 406.55 at all, so you win this one. I should've known better than to jump into a discussion regarding FTU rules before letting you weigh in first!

[Shiny Side Up]

Approved I guess is a bad word, It seems like a strange CAR to me though, one assumes that if they have a requirement to be notified about the activity that they are reserving the judgement on whether on can do said activity. Someone must read and file these routes after all. Not the first time the CARs are a bit redundant. I've never heard about them ever refusing a submitted route or holding up a proposed FTUOC application over it, but its possible its happened. I'd like to think they're keeping track of such things and maybe correlating the data say against how well maybe students are doing on the navigation portions of flight tests, but that's probably overestimating their vigilance.

[Colonel Sanders]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement

Micromanagement also frequently involves requests for unnecessary and overly detailed reports ("reportomania"). A micromanager tends to require constant and detailed performance feedback and to focus excessively on procedural trivia (often in detail greater than they can actually process) rather than on overall performance, quality and results. This focus on "low-level" trivia often delays decisions, clouds overall goals and objectives, restricts the flow of information between employees, and guides the various aspects of a project in different and often opposed directions. Many micromanagers accept such inefficiencies as less important than their retention of control or of the appearance of control.

Although micromanagement is often easily recognized by employees, micromanagers rarely view themselves as such. In a form of denial similar to that found in addictive behavior, micromanagers will often rebut allegations of micromanagement by offering a competing characterization of their management style as, e.g., "structured", "organized", or "perfectionistic".

[Shiny Side Up]

Just be quiet Colonel and make sure you get those TPS reports done.

[BrandonWalker]

Thanks for the input everyone. The weather cleared up and I was able to do a solo from CYKF-CYGD-CYKF giving me 1.9 solo XC today.
I now just need to do my 150NM 2 point for 3.1 more hours and I can get my PPL.

I wasn't fretting over and an hour or two of extra flying (it all counts towards actually learning right) its more the weather/my schedule to get another full route in. Like I had mentioned I have been ready to get it done 7 months ago.

More than anything though is pure curiosity I have been told 2 or 3 different things so far. I was hoping speaking to someone at TC would have given me a definitive answer.

Regardless I don't think I will have any problems going forward but this thread has lots of good info for someone learning/ thinking about doing an RPL/PPL.

Thanks

[Aviatard]

This was a surprise to me as I was lead to believe I could fly 1 or 2 shorter direct to and back flights gaining this time as long as it was beyond 25NM.

I've heard this 25 nm requirement lots of times but try as I might I can't find a CARS reference for it. Cross country flight doesn't seem to be defined. Anyone have a reference for it?

Edit: never mind. I think I found the answer by searching on here. Seems it was defined in the old air navigation orders but never included when the CARS came into being.

[Colonel Sanders]

This is how it's done:





We all need another copy of that memo!

[New_PIC]

This was a surprise to me as I was lead to believe I could fly 1 or 2 shorter direct to and back flights gaining this time as long as it was beyond 25NM.

I've heard this 25 nm requirement lots of times but try as I might I can't find a CARS reference for it. Cross country flight doesn't seem to be defined. Anyone have a reference for it?

Edit: never mind. I think I found the answer by searching on here. Seems it was defined in the old air navigation orders but never included when the CARS came into being.

So is there currently a 25 nm minimum to call a flight 'cross country'? I may have misunderstood my instructor but I thought he recently told me that it was x-country as long as I landed somewhere else during the flight. He didn't mention any distance minimums. I've been looking through the CARs too and, so far, I'm not seeing a definition of cross-country anywhere.