VFR on top

[BobTurner]

For our Aussie friends: Here in the US it is legal to fly under VFR even when the ground is not in sight. This is not true in some other countries, and here in the US is not allowed for student pilots.
In controlled airspace you need to be at least 1000' above the clouds, to give see and avoid a chance to work for climbing ifr aircraft.
The proper FAA term for this is "VFR over the top". Although widely misused, "VFR on top" is a form of ifr clearance.

[bpattonsoa]

The article that DanH posted is an excellent read. (post 22) If it seems a bit conservative, he provides excellent reasoning for that conservatism. I learned some additional things to consider before going on a long VFR over the top.

Suggest reading it if you have doubts or questions.

[rbibb]

Yeah but inquiring minds want to know: What primer did he use on that plane?

[Tom Martin]

VFR over the top is legal in Canada although it does require a rating. Extra instrument time, some extra equipment, (for example a heated pitot), are required. There are also some conditions that apply. The airport at the destination must be forecast VFR at the time of arrival and for some amount of extra time as well, I forget the exact details.
I have flown VFR over the top on many occasions, when the weather conditions were clear at both ends and I always had a way out. I feel that it is much safer to be up on top, in clear skies then to be flying along under a low VFR layer with less then ideal visibility.
Three years ago I was stuck in Kansas City for three days and decided at that time that I would get my IFR ticket.
After three seasons of IFR flying I have had very few IMC flights but the ones I had allowed me to safely complete a flight. I really like cross country IFR flight in VFR conditions as the controllers hold your hand the whole way.
On two occasions, to test the system, I was on flight following and encountered some cloud on my route that looked like good practice IFR conditions. I called centre and asked for a IFR clearance to do an approach to my destination. As I was already in the system the clearance came quickly with no questions asked.
I have had 28 years of VFR only flight and have travelled coast to coast, always watching the weather.
The past three years of IFR have not really modified my personal minimums that much but it has given me many more options for travel and taken quite a bit of the worry out of marginal VFR conditions.
For the OP, I am sure that you have learned some lessons from this thread, and you will likely do a better job with your weather briefing in the future. Always give your self a place to go, even if it means going back to where you started.

[stinson pilot]

Originally Posted by Arlen

I believe that each rating or endorsement that one adds to the pilots license does serve to improve one's piloting skills. I know it's worked that way for me.

high performance
complex
instrument
seaplane
commercial

others that would also help (but I have not yet pursued):

glider
multi
CFI
CFII
ATP

I really think they're all worthwhile, and each of them makes us a little bit better...

I agree that all the ratings tend to make one a better overall pilot.

What I haven't seen mentioned is this:

There's a huge gulf between being IFR current (FAR requirements) and being proficient (having flown enough actual to be comfortable with your skills)

Good discussion all around.

[Richard Connell]

Originally Posted by Tom Martin

VFR over the top is legal in Canada although it does require a rating. Extra instrument time, some extra equipment, (for example a heated pitot), are required. There are also some conditions that apply. The airport at the destination must be forecast VFR at the time of arrival and for some amount of extra time as well, I forget the exact details.

Actually Australia's regs for VFR "over the top" (or on top of more than SCT and with no ref to ground features for nav) are almost identical....

Cheers

[Jesse]

For those offended by my quote, it is something I have heard more than once. It does not mean you're not as good of a pilot, but, as was described by RV6_flyer, you can only fly half of the time. In the case of the OP, without an IFR ticket, he couldn't have made his destination legally, even if he would have filed. So, for that trip, he was not a legal pilot without an IFR ticket. The fact that he has an IFR ticket means that he could have done it legally, but chose not to. As David Paule described, he is VFR and has a set of personal rules to work with. Depending on where he lives, there are likely a lot of times that he can't go where he would go if the weather was better.

In short, I did not mean to offend anybody, but I think the quote makes a valid point.

[eddieseve]

Thanks Bob

That makes sense, thanks for your feedback

Cheers

Originally Posted by rvmills

Eddy,

No dumb questions! He said he didn't file IFR, so there would have been no alternate filed. Even with an IFR flight plan, some weather conditions at the destination don't require an alternate either, though its good to plan outs. His VFR planning may or may not have included an alternate. Also, there can be a marked difference between scattered and broken (the wx mentioned in your question), and safely flying under an overcast depends greatly on the height of the overcast, and the surrounding terrain and obstacles, and we don't have any info on that in this situation. Hope that adds value!

Cheers,
Bob

[eddieseve]

Hi Richard,

That is what I believed to be true as well.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Richard Connell

Actually Australia's regs for VFR "over the top" (or on top of more than SCT and with no ref to ground features for nav) are almost identical....

Cheers

[rvmills]

Originally Posted by eddieseve

Thanks Bob

That makes sense, thanks for your feedback

Cheers

You bet Eddy.

Hey for that pesky, sometimes confusing VFR On Top, versus VFR Over the Top…

Here's what the Pilot to Controller Glossary says:
VFR‐ON‐TOP- ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR conditions at any appropriate VFR altitude (as specified in 14 CFR and as restricted by ATC). A pilot receiving this authorization must comply with the VFR visibility, distance from cloud criteria, and the minimum IFR altitudes specified in 14 CFR Part 91. The use of this term does not relieve controllers of their responsibility to separate aircraft in Class B and Class C airspace or TRSAs as required by FAAO JO 7110.65.

Pilot-friendly translation and real-world use: You are on an IFR Flight Plan, at an IFR altitude. You may have speed, altitude or routing restrictions that you want to alleviate. You are in good VFR conditions, above clouds, or between layers…actually you could be in CAVU conditions…no clouds, but on an IFR flight plan you intend to remain on. You request VFR-on-Top. If ATC clears you for it, you operate at a VFR Altitude, IFR separation is somewhat relieved for the controller, and you typically can fly direct, and at the speed of your choice (ATC may impose restrictions in their VFR-On-Top Clearance to you). It really is more of a separation relief and shortcut producing method than a cloud avoidance tactic in this type of scenario. A Metroliner Pilot once used this tactic to try to scoot by me (in a Jetstream) to get to LAX from San Diego first. He failed miserably…went too high (17.5)…and that little Jetstream was the fastest one we had!

Another use is to climb through IFR/IMC conditions to VFR-On-Top. You have IFR separation in the IMC climb portion, and then move to the VFR separation and VFR Altitude phase when on top, and have reported in VMC conditions. This method often is used by a flight that wants to eventually cancel IFR and proceed VFR, once past the IMC conditions…for example taking off from the cloudy coast and flying to the CAVU desert.

Interestingly VFR Over the Top is not in the Pilot To Controller Glossary. It appears to be more of a description of conditions of flight, versus any kind of clearance. Sounds like there are restrictions or regs in some countries about requirements to operate in those conditions.

Seems its also a matter of judgment. As Dan H said, the risks of flying with no visual contact with the ground don't care what kind of flight plan you are on. Gotta ask...Do I have the equipment, training and currency to get down safely, if the "pilot cooling fan" up front stops turning, or if I get to where I'm going and the ground is still MIA? Do I have the SA on what's below that white carpet to allow a safe descent? When faced with nuttin' but clouds ahead and below as far as the eye can see, no IFR ticket or no IFR airplane, Harry Callahan said it best: "You gotta ask yourself…do I feel lucky?" Ask that before terra firma disappears!

Cheers,
Bob