x-country solo

Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed, took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted, mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

That almost sounds like some of my flights :-).

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed,
took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR
on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make
excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation
to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to
XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted,
mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern
is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

Be glad it wasn't in far southern california. On the border of US and Mexico
are two similar airports right next to each other. It's not difficult to
mistake one for another. I almost did (while dodging clouds).

The kicker is that one is in the US, and the other is in Mexico.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

I think that recognizing airports is one of the most difficult things
a student must do, especially grass fields. One time I was actually in
the pattern to land on a vacant lot, thinking it was my home field.
(Well, I was on the 45...) And always, it seemed to me, the instructor
was saying in a rather worried tone: "Do you see the airport?" and of
course I didn't.

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On one of my first dual XC flights (to New Ulm, MN), we were close to the
field. The instructor asked me if I had found it yet. I answered that I
*think* so -- if there's a water tower in the pattern! "Yep. That's it", he
replied. In actuality, the tower is outside a 'normal' pattern, but the
first time you see it, it seems a bit odd.

Huron, SD (HON) has a water tower off the departure end of their southbound
rwy, also. It's painted in a big checkerboard pattern, and is at least a
mile away, but is weird to have in the windshield at takeoff.

Jon B.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I think that recognizing airports is one of the most difficult things
a student must do, especially grass fields. One time I was actually in
the pattern to land on a vacant lot, thinking it was my home field.
(Well, I was on the 45...) And always, it seemed to me, the instructor
was saying in a rather worried tone: "Do you see the airport?" and of
course I didn't.

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

I just wish that time would come for traffic too. I still have times
when ATC calls out traffic that I never see. Makes you wonder about
the ones they don't call.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
Cub Driver wrote in message
. ..

Then there comes the day when airports are the most obvious part of
the landscape. They just leap out at you, especially asphalt runways.

I just wish that time would come for traffic too. I still have times
when ATC calls out traffic that I never see. Makes you wonder about
the ones they don't call.

here in the UK the normal practice is to join the airfield overhead, descend
on the dead side and join the pattern via a cross wind leg over the runway
in use. There is nothing worse than hearing 4 or 5 pilots all calling in
about 5 miles out coming from different directions and all reaching the
overhead about the same time. Me, I just do a couple of orbits until I have
heard the last call "overhead, descending deadside" before entering the
fray.

Even worse, use of the radio is optional and we have a number of aircraft
using the airfield with no radio and they can anywhere and when you think
you are number 3 to land you find out by counting ahead that you are number
5. There is a certain adrenaline rush. The Mk1 eyeball become your best
piece of kit, I can assure you of that.

Dave

Politicians never lie, they only tell their truths.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

here in the UK the normal practice is to join the airfield overhead,
descend
on the dead side and join the pattern via a cross wind leg over the runway
in use.

I was just wondering something about that practice: it means basically that
the (little, noisy) airplanes are flying parallel to both sides of the
runway, although admittedly those on the dead side (flying upwind, right?)
are a little higher than those on downwind.

Around here I've noticed a lot of airfields have one-sided patterns,
presumably because there is something more noise-sensitive on the other
side. Bremerton recently converted from left pattern to east pattern,
although I don't know whether the reason was actually to keep the west side
quieter or because of some hazard. With planes descending on the dead side,
you don't have the option of keeping one side quiet all the time, right?

-- David Brooks

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Scenario: student pilot on x-country solo. About 50hrs.

Planning went fine. One long outbound leg (to satisfy the FARs) and two
shorter inbound legs to fulfill the three landings requirement.

Outbound leg: went great. Course maintained and all visual landmarks
nailed, within a minute of expected time. Landed, got logbook signed,
took
off on 1st inbound leg.

First inbound leg was to a class D field close to home (call it ABC); VOR
on
field. Dialed in the ABC VOR and looked for visual checkpoints. Instead,
approached another class D field nearby (call it XYZ). Not to make
excuses,
but ABC and XYZ actually have some geographic similarities: distance &
direction from towns of about the same size, as well as similar relation
to
highways and bodies of water, etc). The visual checkpoints enroute were
also close to each other. However, student ignored two key pieces of
evidence that wrong field was being approached:

--ABC tower reported no radar contact (why student continued approach to
XYZ
is therefore unfathomable).
--VOR indicated progressive deviation from course (also not surprising).

Mistake discovered near XYZ pattern (runways obviously didn't match). ABC
tower (still in radio contact) notified. Then XYZ tower contacted,
mistake
acknowledged, and profuse apologies offered. (No mention either way of
violation for busting the XYZ class D airspace. Student's main concern
is
actually to learn from this error, violation or no).

Trip continued to ABC as planned and on to home. Congratulations offered
for completing x-country solo. No mention of error by student or
instructor.

Suggestions solicited & greatly appreciated...

I'm surprised student wasn't taught/required to use flight following, which
would have terminated with a vector to the airport.
Of course, it'd still be possible to pick out the wrong one if they were in
the same general direction from the flght path.
I will say, good catch that he noticed runways didn't match. It's hard,
especially for a student, to shed blinders once a course of action is
determined.

Eric

It's hard,
especially for a student, to shed blinders once a course of action is
determined.

Three of us sailed into New London (or perhaps it was New Haven) one
dark night in the days when cans were painted black, and we had a weak
flashlight. With one guy on the bow, we'd inch up to a nun or a can
and read it off, and in the cockpit a second guy would determine where
we were and where away we should head, and the third guy made it so.
After much sweating and swearing we got ourselves safe in the
anchorage.

Next morning we woke up to find ourselves in New Haven (or perhaps it
was New London).

After that exercise in making the world fit one's mental pattern, I
have tried to be more skeptical of the evidence.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com