PPL qualify cross country

[mrshoe]

http://freedom-in-the-air.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/09/qcc-flight-log.jpg

The other day when i did my short navex to Connington and Fenland, i was less nervous then i was today. I was going further away from my home aerodrome through several MATZ crossings and to 2 different aerodromes, each with different circuit patterns and circuit heights surrounded by villages who wish that aeroplanes were not flying near their homes. The other thing that i recalled when i got to Cranfield was that today was September 11th, possibly not the best day for being in a plane. i have been taught very well so i had to apply what i have learned. Still doing something for the first time is a daunting event and I naturally wonder if i will forget something.

Leg 1 Cranfield to Connington.

Take off was nice, wind today on the surface was very calm, but at about 500 feet it was a little bit bumpy..I flew to Olney where i would start my navex from. I turned onto track bang on where i should have and after checking my alt, t x P, hding, DI and compass, i saw on my map that i was exactly where should be at the right time check. The flight to Connington today was just lovely, the weather was almost perfect, viz was great, the sky was sparkling. Very little traffic in the air today, just 2 planes i saw on route. Changed radio freq to connington and told them that i was “inbound with 10 miles to run” as well as other bits of info. made my standard overhead join and landed smoothly on rwy 21, back tracked the rwy and once vacated parked on the grass. I was pleased with myself that i had flown accurately and kept on track the whole way.

Leg 2 Connington to Retford Gamston

Now this leg was alot longer, longer then anything i have flown yet on my own and it would mean going through military airspace or MATZ. Prior to departure here and at Cranfield, i have been calling NATS (national air traffic service) this is not nromal, but i have a problem with the transponder i have been followed on radar by them to try and work out why the transponder sometimes says that i am at 20,000ft which i am not ever.

there is more on the voayage inlcuding leg 3, which can be found here http://www.freedom-in-the-air.com - when you get the time do check in and hear how my journey ended, some pictures of the plane trip too.

http://freedom-in-the-air.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/09/map.jpg

[The Member]

Well done MRSHOE. Sorry I missed you at Conington yesterday ( RWY 28 not 21 at EGSF). I know how I felt when I did my first big one. Happy Flying.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Well done, reminds me of my QXC.
I was Humberside to Conington then Gamston and home.
That Conington to Gamston leg was nerve wracking at the time. The only thing I did different to you was I skirted the stub at Barkston Heath to avoid more MATZ clearances.
The first leg from Humberside to Conington gave me enough of those.

[BEagle]

You have NOT been taught well - that map prep was simply appalling. Which schools still get way with such dreadfully poor instruction?

But congratulations on your Q X-C - that's what really mattered!

[Hansard]

BEagle

That comment was very harsh. If an Instructor crushes a student's enthusiasm and confidence, it doesn't matter how well he has taught that student to mark a chart.

[BEagle]

Bolleaux!

He did well to do his Q X-C and should be praised for that.

But chart prep is an essential part of navigation training and that clearly has NOT been taught properly.

I would never let anyone go off on any navigation exercise with such a poorly marked chart. Perfectly good visual fix points (such as Spitalgate) have been ignored, instead the stupid 1/2 mark in the middle of nowhere has been used. The chart should be the primary reference, not the silly 'PLOG' so beloved of 'pilot shop' providers. Which is a maze of mostly worthless figures in flight.

Navigation training is the worst taught aspect of most PPL schools (apart from how to fly the final approach correctly); is it any wonder that there are so many airspace violations?

[Bahn-Jeaux]

To be fair BEagle, I have flown that route and Grantham is a big enough VRP without the need for Spitalgate. It would have been visible well before his halfway mark on his track.
Also along that route, the A1 is an excellent aid to navigation as it snakes roughly the same direction.

[BEagle]

Grantham is NOT a VRP.

Spitalgate is a better unique feature which would serve as both a track and timing fix.

As for the A1 and A1(M), well, to be honest all the pilot would need to do would be to follow the road all the way from Peterborough to Retford. Hardly pilot 'navigation'.....

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Granted it is not a VRP as marked on the chart but it was visible way before Spitalgate when I flew it and I used it to skirt the stub of the MATZ.

The A1, again is not a VRP but it is a good identifying feature which offers reassurance to a student on solo QXC.

As to whether or not that constitutes good navigation, if flying VMC then surely it does. Navigating by reference to terrain and features alongside elapsed time is surely what it is about unless in IMC.

[DX Wombat]

BEagle - I'm in agreement with you. IF he has done his QXC then very well done to him BUT there are many things which do not ring true.
I was taught to
a) Round UP the height to the nearest 100' then
b) Add 1,000' and
c) Add a further 300' for any unmarked obsacles.
For heights with a height recorded obstacle it was just a &b.
I can't comment on MrS's route as I don't know the area and also, I find it very difficult to follow what he has been doing as that Plog seems very chaotic, but if that is what he has been used to and has been taught ,it, hopefully, means something to him.
I was taught to use a different plog for each leg to make things simpler and easier to follow, and also the QXC is three seperate flights, so mine went;
Sheet 1EGBO to EGNR
Sheet 2 EGNR to EGBJ
Sheet 3 EGBJ to EGBO
This left me plenty of room to put in halfway points and the radio frequencies relevant to each airfield.
There are lots of things which make me wonder. The title of the thread itself "Qualify Cross Country" instead of Qualifying and statements such as: Leg 1 Cranfield to Connington. ....I flew to Olney where i would start my navex from.
Leg 2 Connington to Retford Gamston
Now this leg was alot longer, longer then anything i have flown yet on my own and it would mean going through military airspace or MATZ. Prior to departure here and at Cranfield, i have been calling NATS (national air traffic service) this is not nromal, but i have a problem with the transponder i have been followed on radar by them to try and work out why the transponder sometimes says that i am at 20,000ft which i am not ever. Why would he fly to the start of his QXC? Surely the QXC starts from your home airfield? Mine certainly did as did those of the rest of the group of us who were all learning at about the same time. Olney is a VRP.
What does he mean when he says he was calling NATS? It certainly isn't normal,and, as far as I know,(and I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong about this) the only way you can call them is by phone. Does he mean London Info? If so, why not say so. Why didn't he just switch the transponder to Mode A?
He was also using a chart which is apparently well out of date. I have both my current (Edition 33) and my first practice (Edition 30) charts here and what he is using must have been issued well before then. Cranfield does not have a large ATZ on either of my charts. The area does not appear on Editions 32 or 32A either. Why would his FI apparently allow him to use an illegal chart? I should hate to discourage someone from learning to fly but I'm beginning to have serious doubts about this person's claims. I hope I am wrong and that it turns out to be just a very poor command of the English language.

[BEagle]

No, that's a current chart. Take a look at the placing of the elevation figures of the mast near Melton Mowbray. The marking of the area around Cranfield is some local modification to the chart.

A QX-C does not have to start from overhead the aerodrome of departure. Olney is a well-known landmark for Cranfield-based pilots and it would be reasonable to start and end the route thence.

The pilot is completely genuine and has had a long life struggle with life to achieve what he has done. He deserves congratulation.

But I just don't think he has been particularly well trained. Not his fault in any way.

I flew with a student recently who had received inadequate navigation training - the usual over-map reading and poor diligence with the correct use of ETA checks.

Navigation isn't difficult, it just takes personal organisation; however, the teaching of navigation is often very mediocre, in my view.

Congrats again to mrshoe on his Q X-C and thanks for sharing his experience on this site!

[BackPacker]

I was taught to
a) Round UP the height to the nearest 100' then
b) Add 1,000' and
c) Add a further 300' for any unmarked obsacles.
For heights with a height recorded obstacle it was just a &b.

Well, there's three ways that you can determine the safety altitude.

First, you can scout out your route, 5 or 10 miles either side of track, for any obstacle or elevation figure, then apply what you said above.
Second, if you have a chart that is marked with Maximum Elevation Figures (like the CAA ICAO chart) you can add 1000 feet to that number in the "box"
Third, if you have a chart that is marked with Minimum Grid Area figures (like the Jeppesen VFR charts) you can simply use that number.

Looks like he used the first method from his numbers.

Obviously, you can always fly lower than the safety altitude, and sometimes you have to. You just have to keep a sharp lookout, that's all.

[DX Wombat]

Thanks for that BEagle. :) The pilot is completely genuine and has had a long life struggle with life to achieve what he has done. He deserves congratulation.
I'm glad to hear that but now feel really sorry for the poor lad as his route does not appear to fulfil the requirements for a JAA PPL QXC which has to be a MINIMUM of 150nm. According to his plog he has only flown 146nm - so near yet so far. :{

[BEagle]

Well, I make the distance (including the dog-legs via Olney) 160 nm.

So no reason to suspect that it won't be accpeted.

[DX Wombat]

BEagle - well done! It's just his maths! I'm really pleased about that. :ok: I did measure it on my chart but as I got more or less the same figures as he did I didn't add them up. (I made it 149 stretching it but the chart wasn't on a completely flat surface and I used his final total) :(

[Bahn-Jeaux]

I'm glad to hear that but now feel really sorry for the poor lad as his route does not appear to fulfil the requirements for a JAA PPL QXC which has to be a MINIMUM of 150nm. According to his plog he has only flown 146nm - so near yet so far.

Ah, but since he actually started his flight from his home base at Cranfield (see top of plog, CFD to CFD) using Olney as a VRP on which to start and end, the total distance flown from Cranfield and back puts it within his target of 150 nm.

When I leave Humberside I always use Brigg or Caistor VRPs as my start points to allow for climbout and levelling off, I would imagine he has done the same.

Sorry BEagle and Wombat, you beat me to it whilst I was typing.

[DX Wombat]

What happened to my reply to BEagle?
BEagle, I am delighted. I have to say I also measured the chart and got the distances to within 1nm of his so didn't check the total (adding it up now I get 159 so good enough). I'm really pleased it is just his poor maths. Well done MrS, now on to your RT and Skills Test. :ok:

[DX Wombat]

Bahn-Jeaux, there is something VERY odd going on here. I posted a reply to BEagle which wasn't there when I looked a few minutes ago. I have just looked again and it has re-appeared. :confused:
Don't be sorry about being beaten to it, at least we have all got the same bit of good news to report. :)

[BackPacker]

Well, I make the distance (including the dog-legs via Olney) 160 nm.

What I remembered from the rules about the QXC is that dog legs don't count. It's the straight-line distance between the airfields that count. Fortunately when I calculate those, he gets to 27+55+74 = 156 nm.

After all, if the CAA checks your logbook or blue form with signatures for the QXC, it only contains start and end airfield, not any dog-legs that you may have incorporated, so I guess it makes sense.

[DX Wombat]

BackPacker, before I posted my concerns about the apparently short length I checked with a FI who told me that, amongst other things, a reasonable dog-leg can be included. It is the word "reasonable" which is important, so a QXC of say EGBJ-EGBP-EGBS-EGBJ (landing at EGBP and EGBS) couldn't include a huge dog leg via Cardiff just to make up the distance.

[BackPacker]

DX, out of curiosity I checked both Lasors and JAR-FCL 1.125 and nowhere does it say straight-line distance or dogleg, as far as I can tell. All it says is a flight of 150 nm or more, with two full stops at a different aerodrome. So I guess there is room for interpretation anyway. Plus, a "reasonable" dogleg will probably not add many miles to the total so the point is moot anyway.

[funfly]

Well done MRSHOE
Don't get put down here. Realise that there are instructors that will tell you to plog features, instructors that will tell you to plog distances or times. Some will say travel x minutes on a heading then revise your position, others will tell you to watch out for landmarks. The comments you see above reflect the multitude of ways that you can plog and fly a route - trouble is that many people think their way is the only way.
It is possible to do nearly all your work actually on the chart itself and this is what you may eventually end up doing, however your instructor wants to see all your workings so you will continue with the printed sheet - even then you will find another school will insist on a completely different plog sheet!-you can't win with this one. I would hate you to see some of my own plogs.
Some people forget how scary it can be when you are flying alone and loose sight of your own airfield for the first time!
Good luck and keep us posted on how you are doing.

[DFC]

Perhaps this could be copied to the Instructor/ Examminer forum for discussion.

Some points I find worthy of discussion:

The Fuel planning line shows a mix of units - litres and gallons. Are they US or UK gallons?

Thus we have a POH and fuel gauges in US gallons, a PLOG with litres and possibly some UK gallons mixed in there also.

Is 7 GPH (assuming US gallons) not a bit tight for the ab-initio solo student at lower levels with probably not a fully leaned mixture and no allowance for climb etc.

While the leg can start from an adjacent VRP or feature - a very good idea at busy airfields, it is a good idea to plan the leg so that if the vis is a bit worse than expected or simply to ease workload, the heading can be flown for the appropriate time. This student knows Cranfield's local area well but will not have that luxury elsewhere - note how subsequent flights did not use the same technique.

The plog also shows no allowance for the time and fuel consumed flying to and from the VRP.

What fuel has been allocated for each flight to;

Route?
Final Reserve?
Alternate(s) (if required); and
Contingency?
Extra fuel?

Was this on another piece of paper?

As BEagle says - well done on the flight but many points to considder.

Regards,

DFC

[strake]

mrshoe...
Very, very well done and thank you for jogging my mind back to 1983:)
Sywell, Leicester, Cambridge, Sywell.:ok:

[DX Wombat]

Perhaps this could be copied to the Instructor/ Examminer forum for discussion.
Good idea! Perhaps the FI involved might see it and take appropriate action - it would be just this poor lad's luck for someone at the CAA to spot the Total NM as 146, as I did, and not check up on the actual distance. but many points to considder.
He also doesn't appear to have any drift lines plotted (maybe his school doesn't teach that) or the wind direction / maximum drift. Perhaps they were elsewhere on his chart. I'm sure there are other things but I'm not going to go looking for them. I'll post something on the FI forum with a link to this and hope they take up the cause. I'll be very interested to hear what they have to say.

[DX Wombat]

Done. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3539631#post3539631) I've tried to make clear that it is a polite request for constructive comment not a flaming of anyone.

[Cusco]

I'm slightly surprised Mr Shoe hasn't been back to comment........
Tho' he has been busy cutting and pasting his entry to other aviation forums......
The more exposure/opinions the better, I guess............
Safe (and north-up) flying;);)
Cusco

[homeguard]

Rules, what Rules and where does it say any "reasonable ........."?
Simply, the QXC flight flown must be at least 150 nm in total and include two land aways, not including the start and finish aerodrome. No more than that is written or intended.
With regard to navigation techniques. The debate should not be about whether a certain place could be seen on the horizon or not. Such training and qualifying flights should include and demonstrate good technique for use anywhere at any time in good and poor visibilty. I would not allow my students to second guess a fix on the horizon and on arrival at a fix positive ID (3x unique features) must be undertaken. It dosn't matter whether the fix is halfway or part of any other division. How do you know if you are halfway anyway if there are no features. (other than Navaids being employed)
Whatever techniques used and they are numerous, heading, time and progress fixes are the root of navigation. If the wind could be guaranteed to be constant with unlimited visibility then a fix would not be needed. However pinpoints (fixes) are paramount and as BEagle has stated should be obvious and also unique whenever possible. The fix is simply there to assess actual progress in time/track made good so that applied corrections can be made objectively to reach the destination at a known time and within a planned endurance.
One further caveat on which I insist, is that any decision that can be made on the ground before flight, IS! Scrambling around map in hand guess-estimating from point to point is not acceptable.

[Contacttower]

Is 7 GPH (assuming US gallons) not a bit tight for the ab-initio solo student at lower levels with probably not a fully leaned mixture and no allowance for climb etc.


It is indeed, in the PA-28-161 I would quote more like ten- in reality it probably burns 8-9/hour, but seven is rather low. It may well have been a -140 though.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Just Googled G-AXIO and it is indeed a 140

[neilcharlton]

MRSHOE; bet you wish you never posted now ;-)
Try the flyer forums next time , your less likely to be shot down in flames ...

[DX Wombat]

Try the flyer forums next time , your less likely to be shot down in flames ...Er, I wouldn't bank on that. :uhoh: See here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=36678) if you need an explanation.

[QTS]

Just checked my log book, and I did my QXC on G-AXIO as well - on 16/9/79, 28 years ago tomorrow! The route was White Waltham, Sywell, Kidlington - a lot less than 150nm, so I guess the rules were different then. And no, I'm not posting the PLOG...

[DX Wombat]

And no, I'm not posting the PLOG... Spoilsport! Go on. Go on, go on, go on! :E :E :E
Don't worry, I'm not being serious. :)