Warning: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/aerofarm/web/ubbthreads/showflat.php on line 155
AVSIG: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)

AVSIG Discussion Sections >> FAA Topics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
John Gaitskill, 0A7
Top Gun


Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 1412
Loc: hendersonville, nc
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #269134 - 10/21/09 08:45 PM

20 Oct 09 FR published corrections to the rules, but they didn't fix the 150 mile cross county language.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dan Barclay [ORG]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/07/04
Posts: 4492
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #269138 - 10/21/09 09:01 PM

It also now says that it will consist of landings at *exactly* three points.

>> with full-stop landings at three points

What are they thinking?

Dan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Robert Mann [HPN-NY]
AVSIG Member


Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 11777
Loc: NY
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #269141 - 10/21/09 09:43 PM

John,

<< It seems they wanted to replace the language "at least" in the second clause with "more than,' >>

Maybe they thought that a minimum segment of exactly 50 miles was woefully inadequate, so they now require that it has to be "more than" 50 miles (as in 50.00001 miles) whereas before, exactly 50 miles would have been good enough to come under the definition of "at least 50 miles".

Whaduya think?

--------------------
Best,

Bob


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/13/01
Posts: 5059
Loc: Minnesota
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #269240 - 10/22/09 01:51 AM

I think my student will have to do some pretty crazy measuring with a protractor to get the exact distances...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #269470 - 10/23/09 07:36 AM

Yes, but now if the total distance is 151 nm,it doesn't count.

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cole Loftus [C89]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 2291
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Robert Mann [HPN-NY]]
      #271368 - 11/03/09 05:44 AM

It was changed for consistency with other regs dealing with the x/c distance.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Steve Leonard [KBOI]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/06/01
Posts: 1928
Loc: Atlanta
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Cole Loftus [C89]]
      #272263 - 11/08/09 04:21 AM

Quote:

It was changed for consistency with other regs dealing with the x/c distance.




Consistency is fine, but they've made it virtually impossible for most students to complete the requirements for a PPL. How do you plan a trip of 150 0 miles?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cole Loftus [C89]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 2291
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Steve Leonard [KBOI]]
      #272655 - 11/11/09 06:13 PM

I was referring only to the <50nm requirement.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Dan Barclay [ORG]]
      #273896 - 11/22/09 11:55 AM

Quote:

It also now says that it will consist of landings at *exactly* three points.

>> with full-stop landings at three points

What are they thinking?

Dan




Think? FAA? :)

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sue A. Critz (KELP)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 3384
Loc: El Paso, TX
Re: Pt61,91,141 Reg Chngs [Re: Terry Carraway]
      #281094 - 02/14/10 02:00 AM

More seriously, though, it puts a real crimp in my style.

I always have students permitted to make landings at four or even five airports. Why? Because in the interest of safety (which is what these reg changes are SUPPOSED to be partially about) I want students to make appropriate aeronautical decisions. One such decision might be to forgo that landing at the mountain airstrip where the winds can get very funny very fast and where weather reporting is next to nil. My last student did just that when he started encountering some bad turbulence while headed there. He was able to make his required three full stops at the other airports I'd approved him for, came back and reported everything he'd done and why. I said, "Good job!"

Why compel a student to make an unwise decision because "if I don't get these three landings in I'll have to do this all over again?"

I'm also not in agreement with making changes to simply be in lockstep with the JAA.

--------------------
-sue


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 22 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 9468

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum