What can I log as XC time?

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:56 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The rules are quite clear. Take the 150 nm cross country for a private pilot
certificate, for example. This cross country flight has its own special
rules and definition. The total distance must be at least 150 nm, but only
one segment between airports must be at least 50 nm. You could meet this
particular cross country requirement by flying to an airport that is 10 nm
away, doing a touch and go, then to an airport 65 miles from that, do a
touch and go, and return to your original point of departure. Out and back
is 150 nm and two of the legs were over 50 nm. Or, you could fly 45 nm from
A to B, 64 nm from B to C, and 45 nm from C to A, for a total distance of
154 miles, one leg being over 50 nm, but none of the airports being more
than 50 nm from the airport of original departure.

Except that 61.109(a)(5)(ii) explicitly calls for full-stop landings
for the PPL long XC.

"(ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance
of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and"

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:56 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The rules are quite clear. Take the 150 nm cross country for a private
pilot
certificate, for example. This cross country flight has its own special
rules and definition. The total distance must be at least 150 nm, but
only
one segment between airports must be at least 50 nm. You could meet this
particular cross country requirement by flying to an airport that is 10
nm
away, doing a touch and go, then to an airport 65 miles from that, do a
touch and go, and return to your original point of departure. Out and
back
is 150 nm and two of the legs were over 50 nm. Or, you could fly 45 nm
from
A to B, 64 nm from B to C, and 45 nm from C to A, for a total distance of
154 miles, one leg being over 50 nm, but none of the airports being more
than 50 nm from the airport of original departure.

Except that 61.109(a)(5)(ii) explicitly calls for full-stop landings
for the PPL long XC.

"(ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance
of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and"


Yeah, and I was the one that pointed it out in a previous post.... Oh, well.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:40:51 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:56 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The rules are quite clear. Take the 150 nm cross country for a private
pilot
certificate, for example. This cross country flight has its own special
rules and definition. The total distance must be at least 150 nm, but
only
one segment between airports must be at least 50 nm. You could meet this
particular cross country requirement by flying to an airport that is 10
nm
away, doing a touch and go, then to an airport 65 miles from that, do a
touch and go, and return to your original point of departure. Out and
back
is 150 nm and two of the legs were over 50 nm. Or, you could fly 45 nm
from
A to B, 64 nm from B to C, and 45 nm from C to A, for a total distance of
154 miles, one leg being over 50 nm, but none of the airports being more
than 50 nm from the airport of original departure.

Except that 61.109(a)(5)(ii) explicitly calls for full-stop landings
for the PPL long XC.

"(ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance
of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and"


Yeah, and I was the one that pointed it out in a previous post.... Oh, well.

Yeah, and I was referring to the part of your post containing "You
could meet this particular cross country requirement by flying to an
airport that is 10 nm away, doing a touch and go..". Unless I read
your post incorrectly, you appear to be indicating that T&G on the
Private Solo Long XC was acceptable, or you meant to type stop and go
and did touch instead.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:40:51 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:56 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The rules are quite clear. Take the 150 nm cross country for a private
pilot
certificate, for example. This cross country flight has its own
special
rules and definition. The total distance must be at least 150 nm, but
only
one segment between airports must be at least 50 nm. You could meet
this
particular cross country requirement by flying to an airport that is
10
nm
away, doing a touch and go, then to an airport 65 miles from that, do
a
touch and go, and return to your original point of departure. Out and
back
is 150 nm and two of the legs were over 50 nm. Or, you could fly 45 nm
from
A to B, 64 nm from B to C, and 45 nm from C to A, for a total distance
of
154 miles, one leg being over 50 nm, but none of the airports being
more
than 50 nm from the airport of original departure.

Except that 61.109(a)(5)(ii) explicitly calls for full-stop landings
for the PPL long XC.

"(ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance
of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and"


Yeah, and I was the one that pointed it out in a previous post.... Oh,
well.

Yeah, and I was referring to the part of your post containing "You
could meet this particular cross country requirement by flying to an
airport that is 10 nm away, doing a touch and go..". Unless I read
your post incorrectly, you appear to be indicating that T&G on the
Private Solo Long XC was acceptable, or you meant to type stop and go
and did touch instead.

No, you read it right. It is just embarrassing to point out in one post that
a full stop is necessary and then go right ahead and forget that in the
next.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:56:45 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


No, you read it right. It is just embarrassing to point out in one post that
a full stop is necessary and then go right ahead and forget that in the
next.

Ah, OK, sorry - I misinterpreted where you were applying the irony.
But anyway, brainfarts happen to us all.

On to other things...
P