Second solo XC - problems

[GauzeGuy]

Did my second solo XC yesterday. Not a fun time, and may have some repercussions to deal with as a result.

Flew KAPA to KFNL. Those of you who aren't aware of the Denver area, getting from one to the other is pictured on the back of the TAC. Basically stay just west of I25, at 7500 to duck under KDEN Bravo. It was a rather bumpy day, but manageable for the first part of the way up. Getting close to KFNL, I checked the AWOS -- 6 kts, not bad, and decided to enter a left downwind to land on 33. Getting closer to the mountain, the turbulence became worse than I've ever experienced. To be honest, it scared the crap out of me. I hate to paint myself as a wuss, but I can't think of one other time in my life where I've experienced that level of absolute fear. Full throttle, went around, exited the pattern to the east.

Again, if you look at the TAC, the route back to KAPA is at 8500 and closer to the mountains, which is the route that I planned. I figured though if I just flew back via the planned route, I was really not going to have a good time going back that way since the conditions seemed to be worse close to the mountains.

I planned on heading east of the KDEN bravo as conditions were probably a lot better in the area, but since I wasn't familiar with the area I figured I'd better make a plan before just flying it. What I decided to do is divert to KGXY, which is just 17 east of KFNL. Winds calmed nicely away from the mountains, entered left downwind for 9, landed and exited once the shaking stopped. Plotted a rough route back to KAPA to the east, double checked my fuel and departed once I had calmed down a bit.

The route back was much better. Just kept the thumb on the TAC chart to keep track of where I was, using the various lakes and small towns east of Denver and tuned in the mile high VOR/DME. Landed at KAPA in time to turn the aircraft over to the next renter. I'm usually disappointed when I have to land. This time I've never been happier to get back to the ground and to the ramp.

Today I sent a txt to my CFI explaining the situation, and its not sounding good. There's some "safety report" that I get to fill out. My guess is that I'm going to catch hell for landing at an airport that I was not endorsed for. Understandable, but my thought has always been that if I wound up in a situation that I had not anticipated at my level of (in)experience, then the best idea might just be to get out of dodge and figure out a different plan. It just suck to think that anything significant could result of this when I should be a matter of a few weeks away from my check ride (aside from my long XC, everything else is done). I did what I could under the conditions I felt I was under and with the experience that I had. I wasn't perfect but I did get the aircraft back without damage and without busting airspace. I was honest with my CFI, when I could have just pencil whipped my logbook. If that isn't good enough, well...

Comments will be appreciated.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Yup. You should have consulted your instructor and obtained a new endorsement before launching again. What you did is a violation of 61.93, and could have serious consequences.

Are you claiming that he was not endorsed to fly to his home airfield??
Or something else? 61.93 is rather lengthy so it helps to be more specific.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Limitation means 'may not' vice not listed. I think the student exercised prudent judgement to divert (they are taught those right...?), therefore as the sole authority over operation of the aircraft he diverted.

Once back on the ground is another story altogether.

Why is simply being on the ground "another story"? The original cross-country flight was not complete since the OP hadn't reached the final destination - the home field.

Consider if a student flies off course by X miles and discovers the mistake and makes a course correction. The new course was not part of the original course in the plan that the CFI was required to review. Is the student pilot in violation of the regs, and if so, at what point did the pilot violate them?

Suppose the OP had simply overflown KGXY and then flown back home versus landing and then flying home....

 

[Jim Logajan]

Because the regs specifically address being on the ground (stud must be signed off for specific airports). My CFI was careful and listed alternates for me when I was doing X-Cs.

Most have already stipulated that OP's landing was not in violation of the regs to the extent that the pilot was reasonably using the authority granted by 91.3(b).

So being on the ground at said airport is moot with respect to the required endorsement. Issue passed. At that point there seems to be no difference between being off course in the air and off course but on the ground. If a student is in violation by taking off to return home, they would also have been in violation simply by overflying the un-endorsed airport.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Huh? My checkpoints were never in any of my endorsements. My airports of intended and alternate landing were. Big difference.

The cross-country regs talk about landings at remote airports, and say absolutely nothing about the route of flight. They do say that the instructor must verify planning was adequate, and there may be an issue there (for the instructor, not the pilot). Unforecast severe turbulence is an occasional risk there, so the OP should have had some training on it.

There is a world of difference between a takeoff and a turn. The emergency was over when he was on the ground.

The emergency was indeed over. If you are legally on the ground at an airport you weren't endorsed to land at - but are still not at your final destination (which you are endorsed for,) how is it a violation to take off? There is no regulatory requirement for an endorsement to depart. OP already had endorsement to fly and land at home airport for that cross country flight. So the situation vis the endorsement requirement of being on the ground and taking off appears to be no different than being in the air at that point.

I think there is an attempt here to invent regulatory requirements in this situation where there are none. If it is claimed that the OP was not within the authority of 91.3(b) to land in the first place then there might be a reasonable argument that further flying was no longer legal. But that doesn't seem to be the argument.