Can you actually fail your cross country?

[FireDragon]

This is something I'm curious about.

I'm due to do mine in the new year, and, until recently, have had a break from flying.

I'm a bit worried about possibly getting lost, etc.. and thinking of this gave rise to my question: Is it possible you can muck up your Xcountry to the extent you have to do it again?

Cheers FireDragon

[poetpilot]

well yes, if you dont/cant complete it <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Seriously, I witnessed a rather unfortunate end to some hapless student's x-country second leg many years back. He was from Liverpool, not sure where he'd landed first, but he was supposed to land at Barton next. He didnt touch down till 2/3rds down rwy 27 and ended up in the hedge of the western boundary. So he completed his x-country by bus, one presumes, thereby failing to get the requisite signature for landing back at Liverpool. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

But, dont let that put you off. And whatever happens, it will be a learning experience (e.g. if you have to turn back because of weather or whatever.

If it's the same as when I did mine, at each place you stop at, you get the ATC dignatory's autograph to say you landed and displayed appropriate airmanship. Due allowance tends to be given for the fact that you're a student away from home alone for the first time.

Your instructor will have the experience and judgement to know that you can cope, so please don't worry unnecessarily. Just choose places with nice long runways <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: poetpilot ]</p>

[sunnysideup]

Don't panic too much - but you can hit problems.

As long as you arrive at the other end in one piece getting lost for a while doesn't really matter - even if you use 121.5 for a fix and track/distance nobody will mind - in fact, its a sign of blooody good airmanship.

During my QXC, I got Brize to vector me around all of the restricted areas, purple airspace and busy fields for a good 45 mins after I got a little "unsure of position"!!!!

The important thing is getting you slip signed at the two away landings. If you do something dangerous in the circuit or on the ground, they may not sign it and that, quite rightly, is a failure!!

If this year is anything to go by, you will probably make several attempts to get it done only too be let down by weather before departure or en route. So don't be anxious to get it all done now!!!

Thats my twopennyworth - hope it helps - the elation you feel when you've done it is the highest high in aviation after your first solo.

[bamboo]

God, funny this thread is here now.

Well, finally got mine done, and guess what, I've been told I've failed, and have to do it again.

Got to the necessary places, and landed, but on the way accidentally went into controlled airspace. Also, at my second destination, was told I'd shown poor airmanship.

That's what went down on the form - landing - good, airmanship - poor.

That one word appears to seal my fate. I am completely gutted, to be told I've got to do it again.

Can anyone shed some light on this? - I wasn't even aware that you COULD fail, provided you landed at the correct airports, and got back in one piece

Thanks - b

[Noggin]

You cannot fail, because it is not a test! If you break the law by entering controlled airspace, or display poor airmanship, you are quite clearly in need of further training before anyone will give you a licence. It follows, that an unsatisfactory cross country should be repeated or you may not pass the navigation section of the Skill Test. I have failed 5 candidates on Nav in the past year, in each case, it was because they had not be taught to navigate properly.

[bamboo]

Noggin

I don't want to 'hijack' the thread, but when you say "you cannot fail, it's not a test", does that mean that I HAVE to do mine again? or, if as you say, navigation was at fault, why can't I just do a few more navigation practices? (I did a few prior to the Xcountry, and got on ok).

I know I made mistakes, but at the end of the day, I obtained the objective:- to land at desired airfields, and get back, without killing anybody!

Is it a CAA requirement to have to do it again, or is it up to the individual school?

Your reply would be very much appreciated

b

ps Firedragon, I understand your worries!

[Bluebeard]

Agree with all of the points above, however although the qualifying XC is not a test as such you need to have the form completed with 'Satisfactory' as a minimum across the board.

ATC are quite wthin their rights to mark your landing or airmanship down as 'Unsatisfactory', if this happens you are looking at repeating the XC.

[DVR6K]

Well, I had to send off my QXC form with all the signatures on it when I applied for my licence. So, presumably, you have to crack all 3 legs so you have got all the signatures to send off to the CAA.

I went to Norwich as part of my QXC and they couldn´t give a crap. I don´t even think they noticed me to be honest. After a greaser and correct procedures all the way through, I got a couple of "satisfactory"s. Cheers guys. Nothing personal or anything.

[matspart3]

As a controller, this can sometimes be difficult to assess. I've signed one as unsatisfactory for airmanship when safety was genuinely compromised but I've had a few who, in my humble opinion, have scraped through. There are no official guidelines for Controllers as to what 'satisfactory' airmanship is but we seem to get an awful lot of people who get lost, join for the wrong runway/circuit direction or use abysmally poor RT. I'd estimate having spoken to maybe a dozen students this year who have cocked something up on the QXC, but in most cases, I've been able to point out the error of their ways in a constructive and friendly manner and after consultation with their instructor signed their forms. I suppose this could indicate that some students are being 'let loose' without adequate training and I'm often surprised by the weather conditions that some qualifiers are sent off in. There does also seem to be some 'mystical' air about the QXC and lots of people seem to get uneccesarily worked up about something they should be capable of achieving without substantial difficulty at that stage of their training. Relax, enjoy it!

[DVR6K]

I enjoyed every second of my QXC. Except for parts of my journey into E Anglia.

QXCs are there for you to mess up though aren´t they? That´s the way to learn about nav and flight planning, landing away etc. Could I find Fenland???? Could I heck, Wattisham (or whoever) radar could see it but I was buzzing around with a dodgy ADF relying on my stopwatch!

I made everyone en route well aware of my QXC activities and they were generally very sympathetic and understanding, top stuff.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

bamboo, whilst I sympathise with your 'failure' the whole point is that you did not prove your competence on your X-country flight. Unauthorsied penetration of CAS (whether intentional or not) is serious business; one could question the nature of the route that your instructor authorised. Don't get bitter but take on-board the necessary lessons and, in the long run, you will become a far better aviator. I have been involved in aviation for over 20 years and one of the first lessons I was learnt was that you never stopped learning. I echo the sentiments of matspart3; enjoy it!

[Red Four]

Interesting thread - I would like to know how A/G radio operators & AFISOs, are allowed by the CAA to sign off these forms. Yes, many have a wealth of aviation experience and may recognise poor airmanship, but for these people to have a possibly catastrophic affect on some wannabes career, shouldnt they have some formal professional qualification.
Perhaps what I am suggesting is that QXC flights should only be between units equipped with full ATC, where at least the people who sign the form have professional accountability for their verdict?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oh course you can fail. I did.

In my case, I ballsed up my nav on the way back, spotted another airfield, did a non-radio join and landing, and phoned my instructor. He was very sympathetic, but very politely explained that he thought I should do another dual X-country before trying again.

Did my flying a lot of good in the long run, but rather embarrasing at the time.

G

[BEagle]

If as my chum Noggin suggests, an 'unsatisactory' 150nm has not been repeated following further training, as an Examiner I would not consider that all training requirements had been properly completed prior to the Skill Test and I would not test the 'applicant'.

Some years ago I was flying a dual navex which included a join, circuit and departure at Wellesbourne. We could hardly get a word in edgewise due to the very helpful A/G operator trying to assist an obviously hopelesly lost pilot from S*******n on his qualifying cross-country. When I got back I rang the club at S*******n to advise them that whoever it was who was blundering around was clearly not ready for such a test and had been a hazard to himself and everyone else. Their reply? "Well - just so long as he gets his signatures on the form"......

I too have failed 'applicants' (rarely, fortunately) who simply haven't been taught to navigate properly, relying on map reading and track crawling to get them through to their turning points. That and/or PFLWOPs are the most common fail item on the PPL Skill Test; navigation isn't difficult - it just requires a methodical and disciplined approach and the ability to tell ones ar$e from one's elbows!

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Mister Gash]

I knew a bloke who, on the final leg of his xcty, busted a prohibited zone, was intercepted by the military and then burst two tyres on the C150 on landing and was surrounded by the full airport fire crew. He never flew again.

[BeauMan]

Hurrah for BEagle and Genghis the Engineer! As I was reading down this thread I was starting to get a bit concerned that the general concensus was that your main objective on a cross country should be to get the right signatures in the right places on the form!

My view is, was, and always will be that we should always commit aviation SAFELY. If getting your personal skills to a safe level can be achieved without failing at any stage, then all well and good. However, this isn't an ideal world, and we all make mistakes at some point in our flying lives. The trick is in recognising that we are fallible, and then doing somethinbg about it, in order to become better, SAFER pilots.

I'm sure we all strive to improve, and I'm also sure that everyone on here who has any degree of experience, be it me with my paltry 70 hours or someone else with 10,000 hours over many years, would all endorse that. Let's face it, any pilot who DOESN'T try to improve their airmanship skills quite frankly shouldn't be up there at all.

So to go back to the original question, yes, you can fail a cross country. And that's the way it should be. Compromising on personal standards compromises on safety. And THAT can kill.

Right, rant over. Climbing back down from soapbox. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[brisl]

In response to the original post - you can end up doing your QXC again even if you don't "muck it up".

After two legs of my QXC a phone call home revealed that the crosswind had blown up to something which, while just within the aircraft limits, I wasn't very comfortable with.

After a thoughtful cuppa, I abandoned the attempt and an instructor was despatched to accompany me home. As it happened, I coped with the crosswind landing just fine, which made the episode even more irritating and embarrasing.

Re-doing the QXC wasn't a problem, I needed the solo time anyway. Also, over the next few days, *every* instructor at the club took the trouble to tell me they thought I'd made a sensible/safe decision, which made me feel a lot better about the whole episode.

[bcfc]

Bloke at our club did his QXC with a marginal TAF for the end of the day. Set off first thing but stayed so long at his intermediate stops (1.5 hrs), he had to spend the night at Bournemouth. Got back next morning with it all signed off but a big question mark over whether it still counted as it wan't all done in a day. Never did find out as he moved clubs.

[FireDragon]

Many thanks for all your replies to this question. Well, looks like I'll have to get the practise in - don't want to be doing anything that would result in a refusal to sign to paper!

FD

[Whirlybird]

Look, I know everyone desperately wants to get their licence, but look at it this way. What are you going to be doing when you get your PPL? Answer - going flying. What are you doing on a QCX? Answer - going flying. So does it really matter that much if you have to do it again?

[Kermit 180]

If youve been taught everything, are comfortable, and can fly to a proficient standard then there shouldnt be any problems. I find that most students who muck up a qualifying cross country do so because they dont understand airspace structures or procedures, or are not proficient at radio calls (hence not being able to ask for exactly what they want, ie entry or transit into control zones, altitudes, etc).

So, to help out, heres what I suggest to my students:

1. Know your checks, procedures and configurations for the aeroplane you are using.

2. Know your law and radio calls. Ask your instructor if you have any questions before the flight is due to take place.

3. Revise the night before the flight is due to take place. 'Visualise' and 'fly' the route in your mind while looking at your chart, practice radio calls to yourself.

4. Get a good night sleep and be enthusiastic about the flight.

And lastly, it is only another flight, a final check of your learning and of the information you have received from your instructor. It is as much a case of testing the instructor's teaching as it is your own skill and knowledge. As Whirlybird suggested, it is only really another flight, youre going flying (and paying for it too) so enjoy it!


Kermie <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Spoonbill]

Just add to all the other posts......
If it doesn't feel right - it probably isn't <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
One of the major causes of the few "unsatisfactory" comments I've put on such forms, is because the student didn't ask for help when they should of. In almost all cases, they incorrectly assumed that if atc assisted in any way, they would fail the QXC test - this is not so for many of the reasons already stated.
If in doubt - ask. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Whirlybird]

There's something I'm wondering about here. Back in pre-JAR days when I did my PPL(A), the QXC was much shorter, 100 nm I think. People didn't worry about it too much, most of us enjoyed it (I loved mine!), and to my knowledge very few people screwed up. Now it's 150nm isn't it? That's a really long flight for most low hours pilots. An instructor friend of mine says many of her students really worry about doing it; people on PPRuNe do too, and I'm sure I would have at the same stage. Now we all know that stress coupled with fatigue makes it harder for people to cope with a workload they could probably manage otherwise. Plus, on a long flight, the wx etc is more likely to change, increasing the workload at just the time you really don't need it. Now in those sort of situations you don't have enough spare capacity to know you're stressed; you usually think you're doing OK; you just do silly things like landing on wrong runways or mixing up radio calls - things you'd cope with perfectly well under normal circumstances (I speak from bitter experience here <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ). So what I'm wondering is, is the current QXC just too long? And is that why people are making errors, rather than that they haven't been taught properly? Is it that they need more experience, rather than more training? And you can get that experience post-PPL, preferably gradually and safely. You can't hurry where flying's concerned; it doesn't work (again, I found that out the hard way).

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps the length of the QXC should be determined in hours rather than miles ? I'd have thought a distance corresponding to 1½ hrs at 75% cruise would be about right, making about 2 with joins and departurs.

150nm could be anywhere between 1¼ and 3 hrs depending upon what you're learning in. Doesn't really make for a level playing field.

Same down in the weeds where I usually play. The microlight QXC length of 40nm is suitable for a/c like the F2a I did my microlight QXC in which cruised at about 40kn, but nowadays with schools operating a/c like the CT2K which can cruise at 110kn, this figure is woefully inadequate for a proper exercise.

G

[keeders]

Thought I'd add in my twopenn'orth here as today I have just completed my first solo Nav from Filton to Usk, Abergavenny, Ledbury & back (approx 1 hr).

Now as it's been a while (about 2 months) since I last flew solo (circuits) I can understand some of the thoughts that have expresed. As a student it can be nervy to say the least, taking that step from flyimg circuits around your home airfield to going it alone out in the big bad airspace. It certainly made me very aware / cautious (not a bad thing though).

Surely though students are not going to be allowed to do their QXC unless they have at least done 1 - 2 (poss more) dual navs / landaways ???

I know that I will now be doing a landaway at Shobdon (watch out for the SAS!!) and then at Coventry.

By which time I will have about 6-7 hours nav practice under my belt. Isn't this common practice with needing 10 solo hrs for PPL ????

Anyway enough from me,

Keeders

[tacpot]

I definitely agree with Genghis' logic - measuring the QXC by flight duration makes a lot of sense, to level the playing field as it were. But I'm not sure I agree with Whirlybird's thought that the QXC should be made shorter.

I'm of the opinion that:

1.) students shouldn't be sent on the QXC until their instructor is confident that they are going to be safe, and this would include a degree of contingency, e.g. what if the weather get's worse, will the student still have enough mental capacity left at that stage of the flight to take a sensible decision. (This is basically Keeders point, but from a supervision rather than experience angle)

2.) that the QCX is a reasonable simulation of the sort of land-away trip a newly qualified PPL might undertake. And therefore, having demonstrated the ability to make such a trip safely, whilst under the supervision of an instructor, it is a good test of the student's capacity to operate at the PPL level.

I also agree with Whirlybird's first post. Flying is flying. But nobody likes to fail, and as these flights are charges at instructional rates, a failed QCX can represent a significant amount of money.

On my first QXC, I messed up the radio at Norwich but the still signed my form. I got the impression that although my calls were c**p, the other airmanship aspects were acceptable, and they were feeling generous. But having let my PPL lapse for more that 10 years, I now have to do another QXC, and if the weather is upto it, it will be tomorrow! So I may soon have yet another answer to the original question!

p.s. I'm following Kermit 180's advice.
Thanx Kermit. V.Timely.

[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: tacpot ]</p>

[tacpot]

Did the QXC, and passed. Having seen the form now, it's apparent that you can fail on airmanship (radio calls, integration with other circuit traffic, not parking neatly <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> )& landings at either destination. Plus I understand if you enter controller airspace without clearance, that is also a fail.

One airfield switched runways on me between ringing up for PPR and arriving, the other switched circuit directions. So make sure you a map of both airfields and an idea of how you would join and fly a circuit to any runway in a left hand or right hand direction. (Don't be afraid to draw on your map, if that help you visualise the pattern your are going to fly - use the right kind of pen and it will rub out!)

[twistedenginestarter]

The Cross Country is a bit odd as nobody searches you beforehand to see if you've got a GPS. I'm not going to say anymore than that except I'd fail anyone who didn't take one. Flying is about safety and being in control.

So it's relatively easy because you haven't got the pressure of people watching you and you can make things easy eg fly above ATZs to avoid having to get the call a precisely the right time or skirt around controlled airspace etc.

When you get to your destination, again you go above and take your time over orienting yourself before you make your calls.

So it should be dead easy (and enjoyable) so if anybody then questions what you have done, do not hesitate to have more dual navigation. It's not a game. It's a matter of life or death.

Why do I condone cheating? - because they'll catch you on the Flight Test if you're no good.

[NORCA]

O

[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: NORCA ]</p>

[BEagle]

Interesting view about the use of GPS. It may be used to 'confirm' preselected visual fixes during the PPL Skill Test, but not as a primary navigation aid. By the time they do their 150nm X-C, our students will have been trained to be able to read their present GPS range and bearing from the default position (base aerodrome) and to read off the latitude and longitude to assist ATC if they become lost and the transponder isn't being picked up.

Some luddites refuse to teach GPS work; my view is that it is a very useful back-up to traditional visual navigation techniques under VFR and I'd far sooner students learned to use it properly rather than desperately pressing buttons and getting hopelessly confused whilst failing to navigate or to look out.....

[Megaton]

BEagle,

Agreed on the use of GPS as a back-up but this will then require greater emphasis on a proper look-out especially to the jerk who nearly took off my head today. Visbility must have been about 60 nm and some cowboy in a fairly new Piper-type thing bonged through the overhead as I was climbing out. Since the weather was perfect I would guess that he was probably setting up his next waypoint on his GPS as he passed over my home airfield. Now, if I could only have caught him there would have been trouble....

[Polar_stereographic]

Well said BEagle. About time someone put a bit of reality into the GPS use. Shame the Belgrano cannot be convinced too.

PS

[BEagle]

My opinion about the use of GPS is:

1. Students should not be allowed to use it until they have mastered the basics of visual navigation first.

2. I have the luxury of a fleet of 4 ac all fitted with panel mounted Garmins (GPS 150 or GNC 250) - hence virtually the same GPS switchology can be used in all ac.

3. Our 'default' setting is to have our home aerodrome as the reference waypoint on the position page; this allows pilots to know their GPS range and bearing from home at all times. Students are also taught how to read their lat/long from the same page - but are not taught to navigate using GPS until post-PPL if they so wish (the instruction is effectively free of charge).

4. We leave 'GS', 'DTK', 'ETA' and the CDI bar on the navigation page so that post-PPL pilots using GPS correctly can compare track, groundspeed and ETA values between waypoints with their 'traditional' calculations.

5. We also have a standard library of user waypoints to assist with cross-channel navigation, particularly ETA estimates under VFR outside DME range.


The CAA Chief Flight Examiner's 'Flight Examiners Handbook' states that no radio aids may be used on the first leg of the navigation section of either the PPL or CPL Skill Test. However, on the second leg GPS may be used to confirm a fix that has already been made. That seems entirely reasonable to me - and means that visual navigation can be assessed properly, but that basic GPS use is permitted. Quite what is meant by 'a fix that has already been made' is rather open to interpretaion - personally my view is that if a student has planned to use a feature on track as a timing or tracking check and has measured its lat/long beforehand, then referring to the GPS to confirm that the feature encountered is indeed the pre-planned one is quite OK.

I'm not, however, a fan of handheld GPS receivers used in aircraft as it can be quite difficult to prevent either the antenna lead, the power lead or the unit itself from fouling the controls unless the aircraft is regularly flown by a private owner who has fitted his cabling safely and correctly. Neither do I care for 'moving map' or 'moving postage stamp' GPS receivers - unless they are approved for use under IFR and are being used as 'moving charts' in IMC. In VMC, the best moving map is the one outside the window - a quick check of the GPS CDI bar now and again is all the 'head-in' activity that's really needed if the GPS has been set up sensibly! The advert showing a GPS connected to a laptop loaded with an aeronautical map makes me shudder - are there many pilots flying around with laptop computers distracting their attention from an adequate look out?

[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just a thought, a couple of years ago I got dragged in to help AAIB with a fatality during a QXC. The instructor had apparently threatened his student with GBH if he took a GPS in the air again until he was qualified. He ignored this and had one with him. The GPS doesn't seem to have contributed to the accident, but the Boffins at Farnborough were able to download it's memory and give us an accurate flightpath.

G

[ShyTorque]

A few years back I was an RAF QFI at East Midlands University Air Squadron, based at RAF Newton.

The airfield was closed for lunch so there was no ATC or Fire cover. I suddenly saw a civilian light aircraft land, come taxying in and shut down. Myself and OC Flying went out to see what was going on. The pilot had jumped out and was trying to get into the tower, which was locked. We asked if we could help and he indignantly asked us why ATC wasn't manned. We explained the airfield was closed. He got quite agitated and said ATC shouldn't have closed the airfield without telling him, especially as they had just cleared him to land.

I asked him where he thought he was; he said Tollerton. We told him he had landed at the wrong airfield. He got quite angry and refused to believe us. The boss then pointed out ten foot high white lettering on the side of the adjacent green hangar and asked Biggles what it said. He replied "It says RAF Newton, but this is Tollerton!".

The boss then asked him what type of surface Tollerton had. He correctly answered "Tarmac, of course". He was asked what type of surface he had just landed on. He again answered "Tarmac" (but in fact RAF Newton was totally grass). We asked him for his chart. We pointed out that Tollerton was just a few miles away and that he had misidentified the field.

Biggles then still didn't believe us. He insisted he must be at Tollerton because, he said, he had been there the day before! We pointed out the row of RAF Bulldogs and also the fact that everyone he could see was wearing RAF uniform.

He then asked where he could get some fuel and who was going to sign his logbook for his qualifying X-country. The boss said that he would certainly sign his logbook but he wouldn't like what he would write!

The penny only very gradually dropped. We showed him where the telephone was and a grown-up came and fetched him home shortly afterwards. I think HE probably did a re-fly.
:)

[twistedenginestarter]

That's a bit of a shame. I thought I was going to get a lot of irate responses.

You shouldn't of course use your GPS on your Cross Country simply because you need every bit of practice at dead reckoning and pilotage in order to pass the GFT.

Most people on PPRuNe spend most of their time on airways where you always know where you are (almost). There is actually quite a knack at reading a map over England where fairly similar ground features are packed together, visibility can be very constrained and where ATC can take you well off track. For long periods you have to get used to not really knowing where you are, relying on your dead reckoning to get you where you intended.

As I have said before, if you having difficulty with navigation, try Microsoft Flight Simulator with VFR:England & Wales to get used to matching ground features to your map and also to get used to that curious feeling of "that river is not the same as on my map - am I doomed?" without the stress that accompanies impending death.

[fantom]

relax!!
here is my (great) experience:
Chivenor 1970 being followed by a staff pilot in another hunter to go up and down welsh wales twice. I flew right thro cardiff zone at 420 kts/250 ft and did not even notice. when I went for my civil licence, my only claim to fame for x-country was germany to sardinia in a phantom.
there are ways and means........
good luck! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[BEagle]

Didn't there used to be something in the ERS requiring you to call Rhoose at 40nm? Certainly upset them when, inbound to St Athan in a Hunter, I duly did so......5 minutes before belting into the zone at 480 KIAS and breaking somewhat eagerly into the St Athan circuit...

Regarding the CPL 'night navigation' cross-country requirement, wasn't there some wag who quoted Muharraq-Talil-Muharraq, 17 Jan 91, to the CAA? When asked "Did you land there" by the FCL chappie, he reportedly said "No - I bombed the $hit out of it!".

[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[fantom]

not quite the same subject but....
there were two AFs, Firq and Saiq,in N Muscat or thereabouts. (really).
the transport freaks used to drop things there.if you went there three times you were entitled to wear the special tie. the arabic No 4 is a 3 written in mirror image.I can not do it on this writer. the tie read (4)-Firq-Saiq.
unfortunately I was not entitled to one. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Kermit 180]

Tacpot, very pleased I could be of assistance. Well done on passing too! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Kermie

[paulo]

I used the panel GPS as a backup for my Cross Country, Southend-Goodwood-Lydd. Didn't feel too guilty about it as I tracked everything 'old style' anyway.

For the first and second legs there was a display on at Shoreham so I got lots of fun chit chat with them keeping me clear of all sorts - you get a very big grin when ATC is advising you of traffic like "2 Spitfires passing in front of you on their way back to Gatwick". Plus a T-33, a silhouetted Lancaster on it's way to do a Southampton flypast, etc...

When I got to Lydd there was another event, and I parked up with a audience of hundreds (admittedly admiring two lovely PC-7s, not my tired old Warrior). Lots of kit there, including a (Southern Airways?) Dakota.

Then when I was lining up at the hold, Carolyn Grace came in for a low pass in her Spitfire.

One of my most enjoyable flights ever.

[theRolfe2]

I did a PPL in the US. For my second cross country we turned a Garmin GPS12 on, put it into a sealed brown envelope and hung it up on the hook used for stowing the seat belt. When I got back we downloaded the track log to a mapping program, printed it out and drew in the planned route. My instructor was then able to see *exactly* where I'd actually gone as opposed to where I was supposed to have gone. It was an educational experience for both of us! My course snaked back and forth across the planned one. My patterns were trapezoidal instead of square. You could even tell how much runway I'd used to land by the exit I took. Looking closely you could *just* see the 360 degree turn I did in the run up area of an uncontrolled field to check for traffic.

My instructors uninhibited laughter at my antics stopped when I suggested that we send him on an identical cross country and see what *his* navigation looked like......

theRolfe