Can you actually fail your cross country?
Safety First!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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">
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">
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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">
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">
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what other people think.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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>
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>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
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!)
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.....
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.....
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....
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....
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>
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>
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
G
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
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.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
ngland & 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.
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
ngland & 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.
Dog Tired
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">
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">
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>
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>
Dog Tired
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">
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">