Qualifying cross country question

[jimmydacraw]

Can anyone give any opinions on this scenario?

(JAR)PPL Student does qualifying cross country flight of over 150nm. Doesn't manage to land at first aerodrome as fog covers half the runway but he overflies it and continues on to the 2nd aerodrome where a full stop landing is made and the relevant person signs the ticket to say that he landed well. etc.. the student waits at the aerodrome for a while to see if the weather at the first aerodrome clears at all, but unfortunately it doesnt. Said student returns to home field feeling a bit miffed!

Some people seem to think that you have 24hrs to attempt another landing at the missed out aerodrome, some think that you would have to do the entire route again. I can't find anything in LASORS about this and a call to the CAA will have to wait until tomorrow.

Can anyone shed any light as this must happen every now and again!

Best regards
Jimmydacraw

[Keygrip]

My view - start again.

Form should say, at the top, that flight must be made to those two airfields in that order, as briefed.

Any other scenario means 'endex'. Repeat.

BTW - who the **** signed them off to do the trip if half the destination is fogbound - and why didn't student turn back??

<<edit: typo>>

[BEagle]

Indeed - how did the student remain 'in sight of the surface' if the aerodrome was fogbound....??

Perhaps the CAA should take an interest in this thread.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It seems to me that, regardless of the formalities of the regulations, making a sensible go/no go decision on the basis of the available weather information is part of the qualifying cross country test.

So flying to somewhere you can't land might (one doesn't know the details of the particular case so this is a general comment) sound like a failure to do that, and hence quite reasonably a failure of the entire test.

A student who finds him/herself in this situation might reflect that on this occasion failing to get/interpret/make good judgements on correct weather information cost them some money; on a future occasion they might be less lucky.

[Dan Winterland]

Sounds a bit like poor supervision to me. What was the weather like when he set off? Did the instructor who oversaw the flight check the weather? Too many questions!

A student on a QXC landed at an unlicenced airfield at which I kept an aircraft I had a part share in many years ago. He thought it was another airfield some 25 miles away. When informed it wasn't, he asked if we could sign his form anyway. the answer was no as we weren't licenced. He said never mind, he would set off to the planned airfield anyway. We said no he couldn't - we weren't licenced. So he phoned his club, whereupon the CFI asked to speak to one of us and subjected us to a long tirade demanding who we thought we were telling his student he couldn't take off again.

We just pointed out that what he was suggesting was illegal and we looked forward to seeing a qualified pilot arriving to fly his aircraft out, or we would fly it back for an appropriate fee!

It was at our airfield for some time, during which it accrued parking fees. :E

[READY MESSAGE]

I have a feeling it stated in the old CAP53 that the QXC had to be a flight totalling 150nm landing at least two intermediate airfields.

That was certainly how it was worded for the 300nm XC trip for the CPL. Had to look into it then as we ended up making it to a third airfield for some fuel!

I haven't had chance to go through LASORS but personally would say the student would have to go through the trip again.

[jimmydacraw]

Interesting comments.

The weather was fine when the student departed from the home field at both of the airfields intended to be used for the trip. Both airfields were phoned and both reported normal operations, albeit the one that was subsequently fogbound reported slight haze but "we are still flying with no problems".
The route took the student along the edge of the fog layer so he was still perfectly in sight of the surface but could see that the fog was getting worse. The airfield in question had patchy fog and so quite rightly the student made a decision to divert to the next airfield (in the opposite direction to the fog!).
It seems to just be bad luck, the initial leg of the journey had the student flying northbound and on the next leg (to the first airfield) he was flying southbound and could see that the fog was getting worse.

So, no I don't think it was bad supervision or bad judgement on the part of either the instructor or the student, it was just one of those things that happens. The entire flight was carried out both safely and legally, and I may add in full sight of the ground at all times!

Back to the original question though! What is this that some people say about 24hrs??!?

Best regards
Jimmydacraw

[StrateandLevel]

So who authorised the second flight? the student has deviated from his planned route and should now be reauthorised by a FI at the school!

Was he briefed in accordance with the AOPA Certificate? clearly he didn't follow the brief if he was.

Even if there was no fog on departure, was it forecast? The very fact the student could see it should have given him a clue. What are the weather minima for a QXC?

JAR-FCL 1.125 (b) states: ... at least one cross-country flight of at least 270Km (150nm) during which full stop landings at two different aerodromes to the point of departure shall be made.

He did not meet this requirement so the flight does not count. If the candidate had contacted the school as he should have done to be rebriefed, the FI could have advised him that he would have to make another full stop landing on return or it would not count.

The only time 24 hours comes into it, is if the student is stranded at one of the two airfields due to unserviceability etc, provided the flight is completed within a day (24 hour) it is usually accepted. You don't get a second attempt at going back again if you fail to meet the requiremnents.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Exactly as StrateandLevel and other say. If you deviate from the briefed and planned route (for whatever reason) therefore it must be done again in full.

[jimmydacraw]

Ok, points taken, the student will have to part with more money and do the route again.

StrateandLevel -
A couple of points; What second flight? The student did not deviate from the planned route at all, merely didn't land at the first airfield. The cross country had been authorised including the return flight before the student left the home airfield.

The fog was forecast to clear during the day, not get worse as it did.

Was he briefed in accordance with the AOPA Certificate? clearly he didn't follow the brief if he was. Could you explain this one? I am neither the Instructor nor Student concerned so am not familiar with an AOPA Certificate!

Best regards
Jimmydacraw

[StrateandLevel]

1. What second flight?

The student was briefed to fly three legs, from A to B then C and back to A.

He did not land at B but diverted to C therefore, he has deviated from the briefed and authorised route. Before continuing, he should have been briefed to contact the briefing instructor before taking off again on the second flight. (Otherwise, the authorisation sheet /Tech Log will be incorrect). As the weather was clearly not as expected, the instructor should check that the weather is suitable for the return flight.

2. The fog was forecast to clear during the day!

That implies there was fog when he departed! Fog has a habit of not clearing! What published minima does the school use for permitting such flights to depart? They appear to be inadequate.

3. The only recognised PPL syllabus in the UK that complies with the JAA requirement is the AOPA syllabus. That includes student briefing certificates for all solo cross country exercises and a specific briefing certificate for the Solo X-Ctry flight. The AOPA syllabus lists all of the the items that the instructor should brief the student on, prior to the flight. If that had been followed this situation would not have arisen. The AOPA X-Ctry certificate is submitted with the licence application.

[DB6]

Jimmy, talk to the CAA and get their opinion. We had a similar situation not long ago in which a student got delayed along the route and couldn't get back before our airfield became unlicenced, so we had to fly out and bring him back. We all assumed he'd have to do it again but the CAA said that he'd complied with the spirit of the QXC and it could stand. Not saying they'll say the same in your situation but it's worth a try.

[BEagle]

If you do contact the CAA, there might be some fast-talking required about the level of supervision exhibited during this event....

[DFC]

A detailed examination of the information available on the day would be required before commenting on the Go/Nogo decision made by the student and confirmed by the instructor. Consequently, I will not comment on that.

The authorisation was to complete a triangular route from A to B to C and back to A. Furthermore, the student was authorised during the flight to make a full stop landing at B, C and A.

I would not consider, the act of overflying B without landing a breach of the authorisation. To take such as a breach of the authorisation, would be akin to making a case where the student deviated by more than 1 or 2 miles from the planned track to be a breach of the authorisation.

Had the flight been planned with X as an alternate for B, and the aircraft have diverted to X or any field other than C or A then the student should have been told to contact the instructor before making a further flight. This is because X was not on the expected normal route.

Having said that, the student should not have considered the option of flying from C to B without discussing the flight with an instructor as this clearly was not authorised.

As instructors we have to balance safety with the unsafe practice of placing extra perceived pressure on students to complete the exact plan because diverting from the plan is clearly wrong regardless!!!!

The requirement is to complete a triangular route with two intermediate landings. Unless this is done then the requirement has not been met. Bending the rules.....either by the training organisation or by the CAA gives a clear message to a student that it is OK to bend the rules in certain situations........Is that really the message that the CAA wants to pass on?

To use extra hassle and expense as a reason for bending the rules clearly gives the wrong signal to a new pilot who may make a similar decision later in life with fatal consequences.

The mesage must be loud and clear......diverting because of poor weather was and always will be a good decision and that decision to act must not be clouded by time or hassle or peer or money pressures.

From the other side, the bending of the rules as described above can leave the industry open to the situation where pilots do two "there and back" routes to get two signatures because they are unable to navigate a triangle!

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

DFC, I don't think anybody is saying that a diversion is not acceptable, what the concern seems to be (certainly to me anyway) is that the student was sent off with the knowledge that there was fog at the first airport and that the superviion and briefing of the student seems to be a bit lax.

If the student did have to divert, it does happen ocassionally for unexpected reasons, then they should have phoned the instructor.
If there was a risk of fog, then the least a school could have done for a student is to thoroughly brief them on what they should do if the cannot get into any of the airports en-route. This could stop the student feeling hard done by when they had to do the whole flight from scratch, despite being authorised for the last one. When they plainly shouldn't have been.

I'm concerned that any school would send off a QXC when not only was fog forecast, but it was already there. Our students don't leave until the weather at ALL stops is above our minimums, not just FORECAST to be O.K. - First law of aviation, the Met man is always wrong!!

The instructor should have briefed all scenarios, such as diversion due to wx. In that way, there is no need for any 'free thinking' on the part of the student. They should know what they have to do in that situation.

[StrateandLevel]

DFC

There is no requirement to navigate a Triangle!

"one cross-country flight of at least 270Km (150nm) during which full stop landings at two different aerodromes to the point of departure shall be made"

[homeguard]

The position is clear.

Before any student is sent on a x/country the weather should be 100% in their favour and beyond doubt. Diversion except for unforseable occurances should be unlikely BUT PLANNED for.

The student at any time once airborne is the PIC albiet to follow the brief. The students right to make a decision as PIC must be paramount! If the student is not able to make a reasoned decision following their training then they are not ready for the QXC.

The AOPA Solo Navigation Brief form is a first class aid memoir to the instructor and student to follow.

Whatever the issues in regard to his diversion the student made a considered decision to continue on away from the fog to his next landing point. I agree with others that with the proviso the home base is CERTAIN to be clear (if not the student should not have been authorised to fly) the briefed course of action - turn back to base should have been decided beforehand if, in the event, adverse weather is encounted.

The QXC is to prove a students navigation skills and pilot proficiency in airmanship. Not completed then not done!

Yes, you do have to do it again! End of story i'm afraid.

[DFC]

S+L,

Agreed, The flight to the first point of landing could overfly the second point of landing, thus making it a straight ther and back crosscountry.

That scenario would require the first point of landing to be 150nm away and makes a diversion to a differnt airfield a higher probability. Although provided the pilot is willing to have an alternate 150nm from the destination, backtracking to the point of departure should be relatively easy.

Most schools I have come across use a triangular route because not only does it provide the best training to the student but it keeps the aircraft within a relatively small geographical area where for most aircraft, the start point is always available as an alternate.

SAS,

Agree totally that both the forecast and actual weather must be suitable. However, as I stated I would prefer not to comment on this case without the full facts from the day in question.

Question;

Where I come from policy is that the qualifying crosscountry required for licence application is completed dual and then completed solo at a later date. Is this not policy in the UK?

I ask because many students ask various questions about proposed qulaifying crosscountries which should have been answered by the instructor and seen in practice on the first trip.

Regards,

DFC

[jimmydacraw]

Sorry, I should have made this clear in a previous post, the student did telephone the home field after arriving at the other airfield and was advised to wait half an hour or so and if the weather didn't clear at the fogged in field then to return to base.

A similar situation to this arose a few months back at another school and a telephone call and letter to the CAA got a written reply that the cross country was valid (even though the 2 land away's were not completed on the same day!)

Seems that the CAA probably examine each case individually instead of just having a strict policy on it?!

That said, for a certain pass, the student is attempting it again.

Best regards
Jimmydacraw