[TroyBranch]

I know many people fly on top of a solid overcast without an IFR rating. I am just curious how most determine the cut off point, it is all about risk management.

Do you only go if the ceiling is above a certain height?

Do you always have approach plates just in case of an emergency?

Do you just fly on top and never worry about the fan quitting?

Are you comfortable flying over a layer that is low IFR on the bottom?

What about between layers, at what point do you loose your comfort level?

If the base is fairly high and you are out of the bumps it makes perfect sence, but if the bases are low IFR, should one be there in the first place without an IFR rating? If the fan quits with a low IFR below, the IFR rating won't be a tone of help if there is no airports around anyway

I am sure that some IFR pilots are more cautious on this than some VFR pilot, please don't take offense

Canada's rules are fairly strict on VFROTT and I am just curious how our southern pilots make decisions on this as you have much more freedom. Above is most often the most comfortable place to be, but some days the most comfortable place is on the ground.

 

[Ron Lee]

Plenty of space below the cloud deck (3000' or so)

Thin cloud deck

Well above freezing temps

VFR below.

Clarification, I have never flown through clouds to get on top. Only short distances (80-100 miles) after I knew the extent of the clouds. So there is no "muck" below as your subject states.

 

[SkywayCaptain]

I fly VFR over the top quite a bit in my RV. I wouldn't consider doing it without approach plates and being comfortable flying an approach to minimums. You are much safer and comfortable flying above the clouds than getting beat around down low dodging towers and such. There is always the chance the engine will quit or you may have smoke or fire to deal with. You should have a plan do deal with these things and balance the risk to "reward" given the circumstances. I would think that the odds of ending up stuck in the clouds due to rising overcast, shooting a low approach or having an ice encounter are much greater than engine failure. At least you have greater gliding distance at altitude to try to make an airport. I have had landed 5 times with an engine shutdown in the last 8000 hours. 2 of them in singles where I was able to land at an airport. 1 in a twin Cessna, 1 in a BE1900 and 1 in a Gulfstream. It sure is nice to have a spare engine or 3

 

[mikerkba]

Marginal VFR is usually enough.

Plenty of space below the cloud deck (3000' or so)

Thin cloud deck

Well above freezing temps

VFR below.

I figure that if I go engine-out in VFR on top, there is little to no chance of getting on an approach. So my main concern is just enough ceiling to pick a place to land. Depending on terrain, that means 1000 to 3000 reported ceiling and 3 or more miles viz. If I'm on top for long, I like LOTS of altitude to begin with, flight following/some ATC frequency on guard, and GPS #2 set to "nearest airport." I would not worry much about ice* in this situation since you'll be through them (or at least any in the icing accumulation temperature range) in minutes.

* Freezing rain in/under the cloud decks is a NO GO due to rapid airframe accumulation and the total loss of forward and side vision in a plane like mine without any type of defroster. If you haven't experienced the speed of ice accumulation in freezing rain, trust me - very scary when I encountered some in a lightly loaded Cessna Cardinal long ago.

I don't VFR on top at night or with IFR conditions below. That is the time to be on an IFR clearance, or on the ground enjoying a new town. And I keep my distance from any forecast/report of freezing rain.

 

[pierre smith]

In the first place, it's illegal...

...to fly up through an overcast without an IFR clearance and also to descend through one.

The clearance from clouds rule covers that plainly.

Secondly, I don't fly single engine piston at night because forced landings at night seldom have a good outcome but in my turbine, I feel that there's less risk.

Best,

 

[David-aviator]

Flying over an extended area of IFR weather VFR-Over-The-Top is not advisable. It sounds like Canada rules make that premise official, here in the US it is legal no matter the weather below, but you have to get there and return under VFR conditions or with an IFR clearance which makes it VFR-On-Top unless the IFR clearance in cancelled and then it becomes VFR-Over-The-Top. (I think the terminology is correct)

If a route is generally 1000/3 and I can get on top VFR and the destination is VFR, that's a go plan. The issue of an engine failure in route with clouds below is dealt with by using a pilots prerogative to declare an emergency, if need be. The airplane is equipped with a separate AI and auto pilot, so either will keep the thing level going down through an under cast with an engine failure. But it has to be 1000/3 below. (my limits)

This is not recommended without basic IFR experience - do not fly VFR Over-The-Top with no way to get down.

 

[cguarino]

Terminology

What ya'll are talking about is not offical VFR on Top which is done in Class A airspace while on an IFR clearance. This is flying VFR in VMC above a solid overcast without an IFR clearance. We need a better term to differentiate the two. Maybe like Drew's "VFR over the top". Just don't want people confusing the two.

 

[w1curtis]

What ya'll are talking about is not offical VFR on Top which is done in Class A airspace while on an IFR clearance. This is flying VFR in VMC above a solid overcast without an IFR clearance. We need a better term to differentiate the two. Maybe like Drew's "VFR over the top". Just don't want people confusing the two.

There already are two defined terminologies:

VFR-on-top is an IFR procedure of flying at VFR altitude (+500) while on an IFR clearance in VMC ; usually above a cloud deck.

VFR-over-the-top is an ALL VFR procedure of taking of in VMC overflying a cloud base and landing in VMC. What this thread is describing is VFR-over-the-top.

 

[Greg Arehart]

What Ron said.

I recently planned a flight over the central valley of CA, flew over the Sierras (CAVU) and there was about 80 miles of fog in the valley with essentially zero visibility at ground level. CAVU at my destination on the coast. I turned around and went home before going over that fog. I would only consider it with a very thin layer (preferably broken rather than overcast) and with plenty of ceiling/visibility underneath.

greg

 

[David-aviator]

What ya'll are talking about is not offical VFR on Top which is done in Class A airspace while on an IFR clearance. This is flying VFR in VMC above a solid overcast without an IFR clearance. We need a better term to differentiate the two. Maybe like Drew's "VFR over the top". Just don't want people confusing the two.

Almost correct, Charlie, except VFR-On-Top is not authorized in Class A airspace nor is VFR-Over-The-Top. Class A is IFR hard altitude only.

You are correct about the terminology, changed it to VFR-Over-The-Top.

 

[vfr800]

additional factors

I agree with most comments so far. While remaining VFR at all times, I've gone VFR over the top with VFR conditions below the clouds, relatively thin layer, low/no icing potential. And definitely altitude for more time and options should the unthinkable happen.

Additionally, XM weather is a must for me so I can see if the actual conditions are matching the forecast or changing for the better/worse. Provides great situational awareness, IMO.

Also plenty of extra fuel to allow for several options -- this is not usually a big problem in our RVs with impressive endurance and efficiency. Terrain type below certainly is a factor as well.

Lastly, in a declared emergency situation such as engine out, synthetic vision terrain with a flight path indicator and a runway displayed on the screen would be nice. Hope to never find out or rely on this! Again, this is not to be a crutch or replace basic instrument skills but to aid with SA.

 

[dick seiders]

I wouldn't recommend flying over the top VFR unless one had an instrument rating. Finding your way down thru a solid deck w/o center directions is ripe for air to air collisions, and you can't be certain of how clear below as well w/o center. If you're not ifr rated and current, and you go into the clag for any amount of time over about 10 seconds you are likely in a lot of trouble.
Dick Seiders

 

[vfr800]

thanks for the reminder

It was mentioned on the first page, but the above post reiterates consideration for flight following as a requirement. Many have recommended this as routine for all VFR XC flights and I highly encourage it, too. It's a natural part of my VFR XC adventures. A free tool to aid safety in my book.

My disclaimer/2 cents -- Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's for everyone, similar to single engine IFR, SE VFR at night, etc., or even flying at all. Going VFR over the top without an IFR ticket is legal and an individual's risk:benefit decision to make; if done, it should be done with a thoughtful approach. There are ways to minimize the risk if you elect to do it with certain parameters and aids, flight following being just one more that I'd highly recommend.

Just wanted to add FF to what I mentioned above.

 

[David Z]

Many variables

I'll begin this by saying I have my multi-IFR, not IFR current, but that can be easily fixed.

Do you only go if the ceiling is above a certain height?

Really depends on the layer. If it is barely broken [read 5/8ths], then I really don't care how low it is. If it's solid pea soup, then I would want at least 3 minutes decent in a glide between poping out of the cloud and landing [which depends on the type] In a good twin, I would go regardless.

Do you always have approach plates just in case of an emergency

Depends on how low the clouds are. 3000', not worth it. 500', you bet! Although, there are some approaches with MDA 2000'+ above ground.

Do you just fly on top and never worry about the fan quitting?

I always worry about a fan quitting, it's the concequences of that failure that affect my decision. If I can still maintain a safe altitude when a fan quits, then I'll go.

Are you comfortable flying over a layer that is low IFR on the bottom?

Again, depends on a capable second engine. In a single or bad twin, no.

What about between layers, at what point do you loose your comfort level?

Depends on the aircraft, avionics, fuel, traffic situation. If I am equiped to file an IFR flight plan from the air, then there's an easy out. Flying between a layer of stratus and cirrostratus would be fine. Status and altostratus would be a bit scarier.

 

[TroyBranch]

These are all great comments, it is interesting so see how people feel about it. As mentioned flight following is a must in my book for XC and a flight plan is aswell. If you get low under a deck you can loose flight following then you are on your own. Yes I have a spot tracker to, but I am in less control of my family's safety without a flight plan. XM weather is also a must to me. Not looking at the XM clouds but looking at the airport METARs.

I have done many XC's in the US and always up high on FF unless the weather pushed us down, I have heard many VFR pilots asking center if there is a PIREP of any holes to get down at there destination. I was just surprised to here someone flying over top without really knowing the forcasted weather at the destinatation. Assuming they didn't? When centre could not give him an answer he turned around, good decision.

So pilots tell center that there is say one hole over Aurora for example to pass along? If so, this is great but seems much to ask.

I was just surprised that there is no issue to just find one hole to get through and all is legal. If we have a broken layer it is considered a ceiling so you could not have a destination as broken and file VFR OTT to land there. It has to be scattered. Much more stricted. Take that as good or bad.

Muck below is a no go for me, I am working on my IFR and I really think the only real way to feel the safest and most comfotable is to have that rating while flying over 200 miles of undercast. If it is thin with good ceiling not so bad. But several thousand feet of cloud and bases are 2000 AGL it is under I would go. Then again you guys have a tonne of really tall towers down there. Better get my obstruction software up to date before heading to Texas.

 

[DCat22]

I wouldn't recommend flying over the top VFR unless one had an instrument rating. Finding your way down thru a solid deck w/o center directions is ripe for air to air collisions, and you can't be certain of how clear below as well w/o center. If you're not ifr rated and current, and you go into the clag for any amount of time over about 10 seconds you are likely in a lot of trouble.
Dick Seiders

Well, if I was a VFR pilot that had to get down through an IMC deck...I'd be talking to Center if I had time. Not that it would help the "controlling the plane part"...although actually from some recordings, it might.

I usually won't go over anything that I can't actually see the other side... (like a tighter broken area)

Doing actual IMC during my PP training was a great experience IMO to gain even more respect for it. (But while gaining respect to avoid it...I think I'd be a lot more confident and calm if it did happen. I know I survived for an hour maneuvering in the soup without a CFI touching the controls, so I just need to not freak out and fly the dang plane. )

 

[dick seiders]

Hey Rick, appreciate your comments. I did the same flying in the slop for 45 min. with my CFI sitting idly by while doing instrument training, but I found flying in actual first couple times alone is a very different thing. The CFI's presence removes 99% of the anxiety even in basic flight training and is an issue for all when they start flying alone IMO. Probably everyone in training should experience more time in IMC so they are less likely to want to venture into it w/o everything necessary, ie; an IFR rating.
Dick Seiders

 

[David Z]

Actual IMC

My first time in IMC was on my Multi-IFR flight test. Did my hold and a good part of a VOR approach in the soup.
I'm offering a big +1 for flight following, unless your flying up north where there is no center.

 

[apkp777]

On 12/27, my son and I flew up to the U.P. of Michigan (225km). We were headed up there for a couple of days of skiing and relaxation. The weather at KIWD (Ironwood) was VFR, but at home is was 900 broken, the beacon was on at our class D airport and I had a severe case of "get-there-itis". Along our route, there were METARS with 600 broken. The TAF's for the day in the southern part of the route weren't great. Mostly, MVFR and IFR, some forecasts for LIFR.

So here's how I made the go decision.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a fair-weather flyer. Especially with my son on board. I would take NO-chances.

I have a CFI rating and an instrument. Certainly, I should have the skills to make the flight. However, I am current IFR, but not enough in my RV, which has no auto-pilot (yet). So, I did not want to file IFR. For me the choice to file IFR and go IMC through the layer would have been too risky. So instead I took a good look at the satellite imagery and found that there appeared to be some holes scattered about the state. My plan was to depart Special VFR, then remain in class G (skud run), find a hole and climb on top. That's just what I did. I departed, flew about 800 agl, 6 miles from home the broken layer had many "RV" size holes and "pointed and shot". Once on top, my son was amazed how beautiful it was and how smooth.

Here's the rest of the story. My son is also a flight student of mine, so I had to use this flight to teach. First, early in the morning I had him pre-flight, taxi out and then asked him what he thought we should do about the weather. I told him our options and he decided to return to the hangar. We went for breakfast and with the IPAD, we were able to get a good weather briefing. An hour later we were back at the airport and on our way. He decided that it would be best for me to be in the left seat, as it would give me a better view of things if we had to go IFR.

In the end, the flight had no greater risk than any other VFR flight. Had we a problem and I needed to descend through the clouds and make an off-field landing, I figure the risks would be about the same whether the clouds were there or not (this is WI, you can land anywhere). Synthetic vision gives me terrain and obstacles in route, so I wasn't too concerned about that.

 

[terrykohler]

Tony-Check out Mt. Ripley near KCMX

Hi Tony:
While I don't get to CMX very often in the winter anymore, we make frequent summer trips to our camp near Calumet. Whenever on a x-country, I encourage students and other pilots to use flight following. Rather than having to sort thru the pages of a book while flying, just about any GPS has a nearest function that will take you an approach frequency. If they do this early on in the flight, there's no anxiety having to carry out a frequency search while dealing with an emergency (that would include a VFR letdown through a solid layer). I also find it a bit re-assuring to have a hand on my shoulder while I'm flying. Just another way to think about it. Finally, while we don't have to rely on pireps quite as much since the advent of XM, it's always good to get (and give) first hand updates thru ATC. Any pilot that isn't instrument rated should not consider VFR Over-The-Top without FF.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[apkp777]

Any pilot that isn't instrument rated should not consider VFR Over-The-Top without FF.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

Hi Terry,

I agree. In fact, FF gives you not only traffic alerts and guidance, but also TFR notifications and search and rescue. There's a really good AOPA Air Saftey Institute safety course titled: "Accident Case Study: Cross-Country Crisis". Take a look if anyone hasn't seen it.

Hey with a name like "Kohler" don't you own half the state of Wisconsin.