PPL qualify cross country
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL qualify cross country
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.
Intelligent Idiot
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
But congratulations on your Q X-C - that's what really mattered!
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?
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?
Intelligent Idiot
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Also along that route, the A1 is an excellent aid to navigation as it snakes roughly the same direction.
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'.....
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'.....
Intelligent Idiot
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that BEagle. 
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. 
The pilot is completely genuine and has had a long life struggle with life to achieve what he has done. He deserves congratulation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - well done! It's just his maths! I'm really pleased about that. 
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) 
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)
Intelligent Idiot
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Bahn-Jeaux; 13th Sep 2007 at 09:45. Reason: Just seen the above posts, got in before me
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Don't be sorry about being beaten to it, at least we have all got the same bit of good news to report.
Don't be sorry about being beaten to it, at least we have all got the same bit of good news to report.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I make the distance (including the dog-legs via Olney) 160 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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.