I just want peoples thoughts on this...

I PERSONALLY believe a Cross Country should be ACROSS the country. At least as a dual.

Plus:

1. Experience with mountain winds.
2. Experience with different weather.
3. Experience with different airports.
4. Experience with different procedures.
5. Get to meet people across the country.
6. Get to experience large airports, small airports, grass strips etc. (plan it that way)

Minus:

1. Cost
2. If you get a snag or break down... See 1).
3. If you have a small fleet... other students will have to wait.

Thoughts?

I mean it's kinda scary to think that someone can get his or her CPL... simply doing the bare minimums. You can legally obtain a CPL by doing the minimums and flying the rest between two airports in day vfr.

*edit* Added Minus 3)

Why this as a dual? I'm more inclined that while one can learn about each individual thing dual, such a trip should be solo. Time for them to leave the nest.

You can learn an awful lot on a 1000 nm Cc solo.

I hardly ever record a cross country flight in my log. My usual rule is if i'm filing a flight plan or going somewhere i've never been before, I log it as cross country. Repeated trips from Langley to Victoria or Courtenay, despite being more than 25nm, never get a flight plan nor do I log them as cross country.

[edit]Just in case someone reads that wrong: I *do* record the flight in my log, I just don't fill out the "cross country" column.[/edit]

I totally agree.

With a shiny new PPL and under 100hrs total time, I blasted off with a friend (also a brand new PPL) for 1800mile trip.

I learned 10x the knowledge on that trip than during my PPL training. I am thankful they taught me to land first tho... although you wouldnt have know it from watching my first few landings in ontario...

My "friend" was looking for the greyhound station at the first few town trips...

While such a long trip would definitely provide a valuable experience, the cost, especially for a dual flight, would be too high. You can usually find large, small, controlled, uncontrolled airports and grass strips within 100 NM of your base.
I don't think it should be a CPL requirement either. I would rather make a multi engine IFR rating a CPL requirement, including dual flying time in actual IMC. IMHO it's more important for professional pilots to have knowledge and skills flying complex airplanes than flying long distance VFR trips in a 152/172.
On a side note, the government should not require students to do more than bare minimum, it is students responsibility to seek experience beyond minimum that would prepare them for their first jobs.

-

I would rather make a multi engine IFR rating a CPL requirement, including dual flying time in actual IMC.

I thought you were worried about cost.

A cpl is a qualification to fly day vfr air taxi in a 172. Don't try to build it into something it's not intended to be.

I believe it's valuable but proper well rounded instruction is important also.

I flew from Chilliwack to Tofino to Abbotsford then solo to springbank. Then soon after took my dad and brother to Washington DC, then brought my Dad home. That's two countries, basically solo, would it count?

I don't know why I never got a recommend for my CPL flight test since the guy that did the pre test check ride never debriefed me. Twice.

If you're doing a cross country as a PPL working on your CPL or, just to built time/experience, do the lion's share do the flying at night. This is the one category that seems to be lacking with folks getting the ATPL (night PIC)
Cross the border. Do the Bahamas. Screw flying across Canada. BORING! Do something INTERESTING! Go somewhere you will NEVER have the opportunity to go as a poor working pilot in this country. At least at your level.
GO SOMEPLACE!

xchox wrote:I just want peoples thoughts on this...
1. Experience with mountain winds.

You don't want to deal with these for the first time on a cross-country. First time flying in the mountains is nerve-wracking, even when you grew up in them.

LF