Divert during CPL QXC

[CrazyScientist]

Hello

There is another thread with a similar question slightly further down the page but I felt my query was unique enough to warrant opening a new thread.

I recently completed my CPL QXC (Liverpool-Cambridge-Gloucester-Liverpool), which I think came to 333NM. Very happy to have gotten it out of the way, however I do have a concern.

On the day, there were areas notified by NOTAM of intense gliding activity due to the competitions going on at the time. One of them was right in the way of the route I planned to fly from EGGP to EGSC. However, I departed with no change to the plan as the weather forecasts all indicated that there would be plenty of room to fly well above (1000ft+ above the top of the NOTAM'ed area). As luck would have it, I approached the area and found the forecasts were way off and there was no way I would be able to fly over. The radar unit I was in touch with confirmed intense activity, and I did not have a death wish. So I put the airplane into an orbit and plotted a diversion. To reduce workload, I plotted a diversion via DTY VOR, and after identifying it (by way of the morse identifier) I set a heading for it then continued to track an inbound radial. I then continued outbound from the VOR to another visual fix and then onto EGSC as planned with no further issue.

After landing, I had some nagging doubts about what I'd just done. The CAA are pedantic. The requirements for a CPL(A) state explicitly that the trip needs to be a VFR trip, and that it needs to be a 'cross-country' trip. I'm worried I've stumbled when it comes to these two requirements. With the diversion, as I flew via the VOR by way of tracking it using the CDI, am I right in saying this is technically IFR, not VFR? Secondly, could the fact that I diverted itself be an issue? The definition of 'cross-country' according to EASA is:

"...a flight between a point of departure and a point of arrival following a pre-planned route, using standard navigation procedures."

I fear that as I made an unplanned diversion, that particular leg no longer counts as a cross-country flight in the eyes of the Authority.

What are other people's thoughts? I know I'm nit-picking, but I have no doubts whatsoever about the CAA's ability to make my life a misery, and I don't want to make things difficult for myself when I eventually come to apply for a CPL(A). TLDR: should I just bite the bullet and repeat the trip?

CS.

[parkfell]

I see nothing wrong in what you did. So you used a VOR to track as part of a diversion in VMC...? Still VFR then.
So your logbook clearly shows flights from A to B to C to A. Distance 300nm or more in one day.
Ensure that it is labelled as CPL QUAL XCTY. I see no reason to make mention of the dog leg required.

If you had got lost and various ATCUs required to file reports to the CAA that would have put a different complexion on the situation.

As FDRs/ CVR/GPS are not required to be submitted as evidence that a qualifying criteria has been met who would know anyway. ATC at the airfields record your movement were evidence ever required.

[rudestuff]

As long as you were looking out of the window, maintained VFR cloud/vis minima, flew 300Nm and landed at three points, you’ve done what was asked. How you navigate is up to you. You don’t actually need to write anything unusual in your logbook, although pointing out the distance will help anyone checking your logbook (the CAA don’t usually need to see it anyway if you apply online) and A lot of people seem to think they have to be solo. In your case you pre-planned to go there and encountered problems, so you used available aids to re-route, all perfectly normal (read: normal navigation procedures). But why do you keep mentioning a diversion? Did you land somewhere you didn’t intend to?

[Bill Macgillivray]

CS

Sounds to me as if you did exactly the right thing nav-wise. Shows good awareness and airmanship, I see no problem.

Bill

[daveandg]

1. As mentioned above you did not divert as rudestuff alluded, you went to your planned destinations. What you did was re-route, perfectly legal. What you have shown by re-routing is actually the competence required to hold a commercial licence, instead of plugging on through an area with intense activity, by deciding following a risk assessment that the safest course is to route around. That is a professional pilots attitude! This is what we do every day, with changes of level or route due to turbulence or cb's. We plan to go one way, but plans change!

2. You said it yourself, a pre-planned route. By taking up the orbit your progress has stopped, and you are back to the planning phase. You worked out where you were, planned a route, and flew it. What the CAA dont want is a random route where you map crawl, desperately going from town to town with no semblance of the bigger picture.

[ShyTorque]

You did the right thing at the time :ok:, but all I would say is that it's a good idea to think about "Plan B" on the ground at the planning stage, rather than in the air.

Sometimes it's best to make "Plan A" a dogleg around stuff in the first place, then on the day, if possible, "Plan B" cuts the corner and saves time and fuel.
Same with very high ground, if you're unsure about the weather, plan to route round then if the weather is good enough, cut the dogleg out and fly direct.

[CrazyScientist]

Many thanks for all the useful input everyone, it's much appreciated.

What I have read is definitely reassuring. I did indeed land at the intended aerodrome, just with a modified route. With regards to use of the term 'divert', isn't this context how the term is used on the PPL syllabus? I seem to recall the exercise involving putting the aircraft into an orbit and plotting a new route in the air always being referred to as a diversion?

I guess my bigger concern is the VFR/IFR issue. Can you really navigate by tracking a VOR and still call it VFR flying, as long as it's in VMC?

[BillieBob]

You are falling into the all too common trap of making things far more complicated than they need to be. You can either fly in accordance with the instrument flight rules (IFR) or the visual flight rules (VFR). If you cannot maintain VMC, you are obliged to fly under IFR but you cannot fly under IFR unless you hold a valid instrument rating. The aids that you use to assist you to navigate (map, compass. watch, VOR, GPS, etc.) while flying under VFR are entirely irrelevant.

According to the Collins English Dictionary, 'divert' simply means "to turn (a person or thing) aside from a course; deflect". How you choose to carry out a diversion, whether by orbiting while plotting a new route, by tracking a VOR or by simply eyeballing it is, again, entirely irrelevant.

In any case, how will the person at the CAA who assesses your application know what happened during the flight? You planned to go from A to B to C and you went from A to B to C - job done. In fact, the person who checks your application will probably be someone who was on the checkout in Sainsburys last week and wouldn't know a VOR if it jumped up and bit them on the nose!

[ShyTorque]

A diversion to me means landing somewhere other than my original intended destination. It doesn't mean I've had to adjust part of my original route to get to the original destination.

(Or that I'm doing something I want to do then the missus decides I'm going to do what SHE wants me to do...).

A VOR is just another navigation tool in the toolbox, using one doesn't suddenly change the flight rules to IFR.

[Duchess_Driver]

The only possible comment someone could make IMHO would be would be if the planned ‘re-route’ was commercially expeditious or could you have reduced track distance by selecting a track inbound to DTY radial x at 10 miles then 090 track to DTY radial Y at approx 10miles.

As as has been said, safety of crew/pax is paramount followed by the niceties of fuel and time used or saved.

well done, and don’t worry. All counts.

[CrazyScientist]

Thanks again guys for the insight; feeling quite relieved now.

I had actually added 'divert via DTY' (DTY is indeed the VOR I used) to the remarks for the flight in my logbook. As it ended up being one of the turning points for the flight (regardless of whether it was pre-planned or not), I felt compelled to mention it. But from what has been posted I am not as concerned now about how the CAA will take that.

[Duchess_Driver]

What you write in the remarks column is entirely up to you. You could note what colour socks you wore that day but, rest assured, for this case the CAA will not care less. A+B+C>300 =box ticked.

[CrazyScientist]

Sweet, thanks!

[TryingToAvoidCBs]

As everyone has said, don't worry about it.

On my CPL QXC I had to replan another airfield to land at, as my second airfield decided to close half way through the day due poor surface conditions. I sat at my first point of landing and spent almost an hr replanning a new route around bad weather to land at another airfield that would a) be open b) accept me c) meet the 300+nm criterea. Finally managed to get home after a 5hr flight 25 minutes after sunset landing at an airfield with no runway lights. Long day, many lessons learnt. Nothing wirtten in my log book, CAA didn't ask about anything, or care for that matter.