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.

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.

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

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

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. 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.

Done. I've tried to make clear that it is a polite request for constructive comment not a flaming of anyone.

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

QXC
 

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.

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.

Just Googled G-AXIO and it is indeed a 140

MRSHOE; bet you wish you never posted now ;-)
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 if you need an explanation.

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...

Spoilsport! Go on. Go on, go on, go on! :E :E :E
Don't worry, I'm not being serious. :)