From: brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
Subject: Re: Questions: logbook entries at cross country stops
Organization: none, in Reno NV USA 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:11:56 GMT


In article <C02109.32y@acsu.buffalo.edu> hull@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Jon Hull)
asks:
> Re:  the three solo takeoffs and landings at a tower
> controlled field that are required for student pilots.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1.  Are the landings required to be to a full stop?
>
> 2.  Is a logbook entry required from someone at that airport stating
>     that you were actually there?

I think there might be some confusion as to what is being asked. The
header Subject implies that the questions refer to landings on
the long cross-country flight required by 61.109(b)(2), but the "Re:"
prefix to the questions implies the three solo takeoffs and landings (not
necessarily on a cross-country flight) required by 61.109(b)(3).

61.109(b)(2) -- cross-country -- specifies only "landings," so I infer
that touch-and-gos or stop-and-gos would satisfy the requirement. However,
I would strongly urge the student to take this opportunity to make the
"very full" stops suggested by Geoff Peck.  In addition to the learning
experience of taxiing, shutting down, starting up, etc., at an unfamiliar
airport, this is the student's first LONG solo flight and a chance to
stretch and relax for a few minutes, and perhaps have a meal at one of the
airports should be welcome.  A full stop also provides an opportunity to
review the plan for the next leg, to get an unhurried weather update, and
-- should conditions indicate any doubt about the wisdom of continuing --
to confer by phone with the instructor.

61.109(b)(3) requires three takeoffs and landings *to a full stop* at a
controlled airport.  This is unrelated to the cross-country requirement of
61.109(b)(2), although technically both requirements could be satisified
on the same cross-country flight.  I say "technically," because the idea
of absolutely minimizing student experience to the legal requirements
seems an unhealthy one.

furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) answers "No" to question 2, but then
continues:

> > 3.  As long as we're on the topic, where does it say that
> >     such a corroborating endorsement is required for
> >     any of the cross country flights?
> 
> The reason for all this is that the student is is burdened with the proof
> of such cross countries. The examiner will be looking for the proof at the
> time of your PP examination. The easiest way to do this is to land full
> stop and get a signature from someone one the airport [that can be found
> and cross examined at a later date.]  Since the log book is required to be
> carried by students on X/Cs, this is not too inconvenient.
> 
> If you can prove by other means that you made the required X/C, no
> signatures are required. ...

The student is no more burdened with proof of the cross-countries than he
is of any of his required solo activities.  The student has certified by
his signature that his logbook entries are true.  I would *guess* that in
the great majority of cases, examiners know the sign-off instructor and
are not suspicious of logbook falsification.  I make this guess only
because I have not heard nor read of such suspicion in wide exposure
(including rec.aviation and many other sources) to pilot and training lore
in the past few years.  If an examiner were suspicious, he might ask the
applicant some questions about the flights but no *proof* by third-party
signature or other means is required by the FAR nor, to my knowledge, by
convention.

I did not get signatures and was not questioned about the veracity of my
logbook entries.  Of course the examiner knew my instructor (who happened
to be Geoff Peck) and trusted him, but again this would seem to be a
common case.

[To my friends on rec.aviation:  Hello and Happy New Year!  The previous
host I was using did not pick up the rec.aviation subgroups, so I'm now at
the new address indicated below.]

--
brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)