Do you prefer being on top or bottom?

There's not enough information in the scenario to develope an educated guess on go / no go as well. Even though the example is a VFR pilot, no clue about their experience. Plenty of VFR pilots flying in Alaska with enormous amounts of experience in safely navigating above and below clouds.

I suppose you could look at it in the most simple matter in that if you're a VFR pilot and you feel uncomfortable with clouds below you, then by all means, don't go high. I won't call you chicken either. My first flights over the top were a bit uncomfortable as well but over time in both civ and mil flying you develope experience on what's acceptable and what isn't. I've had some pretty incredible experiences while on top...sorry, over the top. :D
 
If they were CB clouds and possibly continuing to climb in height, staying low to see the bad stuff would be my choice. Of course if the terrain was to constrictive then that could cause problems as well (no way to turn around). For me, in most light singles, too constrictive would be obscured terrain narrower than 4-5 miles wide.

Sounds like the Cirrus pilot 'got away with one' and didnt run into building clouds or a complete OVC sky that meant flying somewhere to find a hole.
 
Personally, I would not take the option that has me "hoping" there's a break in the clouds at some point so I could get down. Hoping will not be part of my vocabulary while in a plane, as long as I can help/control it.

I guess I'm risk-averse when it comes to crashing a plane.:eek:
 
I'm planning on flying today and it looks like I'll be flying over some marine layer. The TAF at my destination shows it burning off before I get there, and the enroute portion of my flight shows it burning off as well. If it doesn't burn off, I know there are more inland airports that I can get to to stay away from it.

So my only choice is to stay on top. In conditions other than a marine layer without a TAF that went from BKN to SKC for at least two forecast times, pretty sure my butt would stay below the clouds... usually on the ground since we don't get much in the way of high ceilings down here.
 
This got me thinking about many of the more challenging weather situations I've encountered.

I often opt to go over the top when the destination reports clear and is forecast to be clear. I have called to talk to a briefer if I doubt the forecast. When enroute If I see something that is contrary to the forecast then I re-evaluate and keep a viable plan b handy. For long x-c I usually top off so have 7 hours endurance. With 3 hour legs planned (usually) that 7 hours is a nice thing to have. I do carry oxygen and use it when necessary.

For the op's situation, an autopilot descent through a layer is an emergency procedure for a VFR pilot. It is a way out of a mess but it should be coordinated with ATC. It is not something to seriously plan on doing. That said there are a number of pilots out there with startling disregard for their own and others safety. Some of those guys even like to brag about it. All you can really do is walk away since they've made their choices. Words just bounce off of them.

On the "under the layer" option. It helps if you know the area and understand the weather system. If the ceiling is fairly static or lifting, Bueno. If there are towers or unavoidable terrain, be a bit more careful.

It's summer now...but watch the freezing levels when playing with the clouds or precip.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Perhaps, but for a VFR pilot to be doing an emergency descent through clouds in the OP's scenario is pretty much going to be engine failure or fire. Ice is the least of your concerns.

Like I said earlier, if you want to go low because you wish to avoid the possibility of an emergency descent through clouds, that's fine. You just need to be prepared to turn around of conditions warrant.
Click to expand...

No, the worrisome emergency descent in IMC is bingo fuel. MUCH more likely than engine failure or fire.
 
mscard88 said:
Only choice? Heard that before....be careful out there.
Click to expand...
I mean legally. 200 AGL is frowned upon in the LA basin. :D

I'm pretty risk averse, but the marine layer has been burning off around 10 or 11 here for the last several days and burning off at the destination around 11 or 12. The TAF for both says the same should happen today, and again, I have an out since all I have to do at any point along my route is go east and there will be an airport that is SKC.
 
ircphoenix said:
I'm planning on flying today and it looks like I'll be flying over some marine layer. The TAF at my destination shows it burning off before I get there, and the enroute portion of my flight shows it burning off as well. If it doesn't burn off, I know there are more inland airports that I can get to to stay away from it.

So my only choice is to stay on top. In conditions other than a marine layer without a TAF that went from BKN to SKC for at least two forecast times, pretty sure my butt would stay below the clouds... usually on the ground since we don't get much in the way of high ceilings down here.
Click to expand...
Marine layer is an exception. You can almost always find an edge if you fly far enough east. Maybe you'll land in Barstow or Palm Springs, or maybe even Big Bear (if the marine layer gets anywhere near that high, it's not marine layer) but you have plenty of fuel for that, right? As long as it's clear and a million above the layer.

But be careful... sometimes there is another layer above.
 
MAKG1 said:
Marine layer is an exception. You can almost always find an edge if you fly far enough east. Maybe you'll land in Barstow or Palm Springs, or maybe even Big Bear (if the marine layer gets anywhere near that high, it's not marine layer) but you have plenty of fuel for that, right? As long as it's clear and a million above the layer.

But be careful... sometimes there is another layer above.
Click to expand...
Barstow? Let's not get crazy. I'd rather chance it through the clouds. :D
 
Last January, I needed to go up to Visalia to pick up my truck from being serviced. We took off in a 15nm diameter hole over Bakersfield. It was a thin layer... Bases at 008 tops at 012 to the north.... Plenty of small holes. We left with a contingency plan of seeing how it was on top and coming back if it didn't work out.

81b9ba560c98e90c27ae20cd6f73c270.jpg


Of course, every single hole was gone once we got up. We didn't make it 20 minutes before we turned back. Of course there was now a giant cumulus bank between me and the big hole that I estimated the tops at 8000'... It was cold... I could have climbed over it and opted for the big hole still being there, but I wasn't willing to take that chance. We found a much smaller hole over a small valley northwest of the field.

I circled with the contingency plan of landing on a ranch where I knew there was a strip (had visual contact with the strip)

We circled down and punched under the layer. We crossed the top of the foothills at 500'AGL and bee-lined for the field.

And the 15nm hole was gone when we landed.

Never. Again.
2286ef51b210f69c715bf21b4f416404.jpg


If I'm not on bottom, I can't go for that. No no, no can do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ircphoenix said:
Barstow? Let's not get crazy. I'd rather chance it through the clouds. :D
Click to expand...

Don't laugh. Well, not TOO much. I once spent two nights at Barstow. I think I'm the only one that ever did that. The motel operator did not understand.

At least it's more than a giant McDonalds these days.

I stayed overnight in Baker, once, too. Real funny massively outdated and pretty dumpy "Tiki" motel. I don't think it's there anymore.
 
In the OP scenario I probably would not try to go on top.... I'm not used to flying anywhere near a mountain and 10,000' to get over the tops is probably more than I want to do.

However, on a cross country over the flat midwest I'll go over a scattered layer IF I can see a way down. See a way down means literally I see holes in the clouds in some direction that are big enough to get through and ground beyond them. Soon as I'm not sure I can see that way down up ahead, I go back below.


*edit
and here's what that looks like to me.
iphone280.jpg


that was a pretty ideal day, I'll fly over clouds a little thicker than that but not much.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, the worrisome emergency descent in IMC is bingo fuel. MUCH more likely than engine failure or fire.
Click to expand...
BS.

Whether you go over or under, you should never put yourself in a situation where you are in that situation.

And running low on fuel while you try to get in can happen whether you go over or under. If the layer is solid enough that you might not make it in and fuel is questionable, you might have to make the no-go decision well before you reach the destination.

And please stop misusing military terms ala Allegiant.
 
Fearless Tower said:
BS.

Whether you go over or under, you should never put yourself in a situation where you are in that situation.

And running low on fuel while you try to get in can happen whether you go over or under. If the layer is solid enough that you might not make it in and fuel is questionable, you might have to make the no-go decision well before you reach the destination.

And please stop misusing military terms ala Allegiant.
Click to expand...

If you're stuck on top, you WILL eventually run low on fuel. How is that BS? We all have finite tanks, and most of us can't take aerial refueling.

It's even more stupid to blast through the layer before you need to.

If you don't like the term, don't use it.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. A play on words of the "teaser" title of the thread. My reply was not spell checked. It was meant to read ".......does the thread drift......."
Click to expand...

I'm shocked and appalled that anyone would imply inappropriate undertones in my aptly and innocently titled thread.
 
MAKG1 said:
If you're stuck on top, you WILL eventually run low on fuel. How is that BS? We all have finite tanks, and most of us can't take aerial refueling.

It's even more stupid to blast through the layer before you need to.

If you don't like the term, don't use it.
Click to expand...
My point is that if you choose to go on top, you need to monitor the situation closely, just as you would if you went below and make the decision well before you get boxed in.

For the record, I am not necessarily advocating one over the other. I just disagree with some here that seem locked into the below option.


And I have no problem with the term Bingo. But just like the Allegiant knucklehead, you are using the term incorrectly. Bingo is the point where you have to break it off and go to your alternate/divert. Bingo is NOT a fuel emergency.
 
I have to commend you guys on not devolving this into a Cirrus bashing party (ok, not too far down that road anyways) haha.
I will comment as a pilot in a similar experience state as the OP described. I'm a 73 hour newly minted pilot that has all but one hour in a pimped out Cirrus. (working on my IFR rating currently)

I absolutely prefer to go on top whenever it's practical and safe. The practical part is the obvious things of making sure I can legally get on top and that there is a top I can get to as well as an obvious way to get down.
I'm not a big fan of flying over a hard deck and would only consider it if there are visible outs. For example when I was flying to Green Bay there was a system to the north and I flew over a deck for most of the flight, but just off to the south it was scattered to clear so I could have easily gone that way at any time, even with an engine failure.
My personal minimums I have set won't allow me to fly over an overcast layer without visible contact with the ground somewhere I can get to in a glide. If I were to change those I would make it to something like the bottom of that layer would have to be at least 3000 AGL (making up a number) so that if I had an emergency I could declare and auto-pilot through the layer with plenty of time to make decisions on the other side.
The primary tool I use to watch the cloud situation is in foreflight I watch satellite view with sky coverage. I then crosscheck the ceiling forecasts and a few TAFs to make sure they're all jiving.

As for Cirrus giving new pilots over confidence I would say there's a little bit of truth to that, but I don't think it's so much about the chute as it is all the other bells and whistles. The Chute is primarily just an alternative for off airport landings and other engine out scenarios. So if you're flying a new TTx or some other glass panel plane, you have most of the same "confidence boosters" you get with the glass panel in a Cirrus.
For example Synthetic Vision, XM weather, moving map, auto-pilot, TAWS, TCAS, etc all give a pilot a tremendous amount of information in IMC or otherwise. I hand flew for an hour and a half in hard IMC today (second IFR training flight) and I almost think I fly better than I do looking visually outside. It's like a video game in these things and keeping my eyes inside almost made it easier. Throw in an auto-pilot and I could climb in back and take a nap (kidding of course).
So in the scenario of the OP, I'm sure he did have a lot of confidence in the technology he was flying and felt he had an overall great situational awareness if things went sideways. I certainly wouldn't be flying over a 10k layer in the mountains, synthetic vision or not, so I do believe he took some unnecessary risks at this stage of the game, but it was likely due more to having a glass panel and AP than it was having a chute.
 
Fearless Tower said:
My point is that if you choose to go on top, you need to monitor the situation closely, just as you would if you went below and make the decision well before you get boxed in.

For the record, I am not necessarily advocating one over the other. I just disagree with some here that seem locked into the below option.


And I have no problem with the term Bingo. But just like the Allegiant knucklehead, you are using the term incorrectly. Bingo is the point where you have to break it off and go to your alternate/divert. Bingo is NOT a fuel emergency.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's incorrect.

Bingo fuel means fuel is an operational concern, and is not a substitute for an emergency. I'll suggest that a concern is enough for almost anyone to ask for an emergency descent (using the E-word, as that qualifies as an "urgency" condition). It's enough if there is less than 45 minutes fuel remaining, even with the airport directly below. I would use the term if I ever had less than an hour's cruise fuel remaining projected at landing (13 gallons in a 182, 9 in a 172). So far, I've never pushed it that far.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, I don't think it's incorrect.

Bingo fuel means fuel is an operational concern, and is not a substitute for an emergency. I'll suggest that a concern is enough for almost anyone to ask for an emergency descent (using the E-word, as that qualifies as an "urgency" condition). It's enough if there is less than 45 minutes fuel remaining, even with the airport directly below. I would use the term if I ever had less than an hour's cruise fuel remaining projected at landing (13 gallons in a 182, 9 in a 172). So far, I've never pushed it that far.
Click to expand...
Is Bingo in the controller -pilot glossary? No it is not.

Is Bingo in the AIM or any FAA publications? Nope, other than the recommendation you not use it.

I don't know you from Adam, but seriously dude, you are perpetuating the stereotype that CAP guys are just military wannabes.
 
Depends

In a backcountry plane, if the area isn't 100% trees or 60 degree slopes, I'll stay below.


In a turbine with onboard radar and a high ceiling, if it can top much of it, I'd go above.
 
The USAF use of bingo fuel is the fuel state that would allow recovery to primary landing/home plate, arriving over the fix or initial at normal recovery fuel. In the event the weather dictates an alternate to be filed, bingo fuel would have to allow to arrive at the primary recovery base FAF with the required divert fuel, which will now become the new "normal recovery fuel".

The term is kinda moot for point A to point B flying, where there is no intermediate planned actions that requires loitering, maneuvering, or weapons employment. Joker fuel is another term that's used to further sub-stratify KNOCK-IT-OFF/CONTINUATION points in the planned phases of a sortie; a term which would be even more comical in civilian use.

Though I'm guilty of making a gear down call on usaf fighter format on tower every now and then out of habit from work, you won't find me shining my rear using mil lingo in my Arrow. That's just RV owner rooster-baggery.
 
In my case, I would check wx if possible and always leave an out. Probably fly under since I am not yet instrument rating and want to be safe.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Is Bingo in the controller -pilot glossary? No it is not.

Is Bingo in the AIM or any FAA publications? Nope, other than the recommendation you not use it.

I don't know you from Adam, but seriously dude, you are perpetuating the stereotype that CAP guys are just military wannabes.
Click to expand...

Dude, this is not a radio, you are not a controller, and there is no emergency right now.

You understand the term, so its point is accomplished.

I never EVER EVER EVER said anyone should use that term over the radio. That you would assume such is YOUR assumption. Nothing more.

CAP doesn't use that term over the radio either, except perhaps in the context of air defense exercises. Even then, it's questionable.

And, FYI, "Fire" and "engine failure" aren't in the PCG either. Does that mean it shouldn't be used? If the engine quits, it's not necessarily a failure. Could be empty tanks or the pilot configuring it incorrectly. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

So, do you care to have stupid semantic arguments, or do you want to address the point that fire and engine failures are not the only reasons for emergency descents through the clouds? Grabbing onto a tangental and largely irrelevant assumption is no substitute for answering the actual issue.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Though I'm guilty of making a gear down call on usaf fighter format on tower every now and then out of habit from work, you won't find me shining my rear using mil lingo in my Arrow. That's just RV owner rooster-baggery.
Click to expand...

Let's not paint all RV owner/builder/pilots with such a broad brush, either...
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Supposedly they checked the weather that day and it was forecast to just be for a "few clouds" (not sure on height of clouds).
Click to expand...

The more you fly, the more experience you'll get, including finding out how bad forecasts can be. I fly full fuel all the time (51 gallons 5 hours endurance easy) and have been criticized for "tankering" too much fuel - that fuel comes in handy if there's a large diversion due to a state wide effect that somehow was unforecast (see #5 and #6 below). Some of the memorable flights that were forecasts gone bad over the past 600+ flying hours:

1. FSS forecast no wind, calm evening for night currency flight over to the Class C. Results after airborne initially calm, surface winds change to 40G49 - escape to alternate airport and spend the night there departing at 5am.

2. San Antonio FSS forecast early fog burning off by 9am. That turned into IFR past noon and marginal VFR at 3pm that was isolated to only over San Antonio (was flying to El Paso). Departed at 330 pm (6 hours past intended departure)

3. Same as above out of California Fullerton but with only a couple of hours delay. Impact here is that the delay places you over Arizona and New Mexico returning west Texas at 3-5 pm which is our thunderstorm development time.

4. DUATs and FSS forecast winds aloft < 20 westbound over the mountains in my area. Have seen winds aloft near Guadalupe Peak give me 60-70 knots over a 40 mile path numerous times ... luckily all smooth and no rotors or lenti's.

5. DUATs and FSS brief VFR along El Paso to California route with occasional light drizzle. Turned into entire northern Arizona in severe thunderstorm activity before 10am when I was in that region. ATC gave me a re-route across the restricted areas to Yuma AZ in light rain. Several IFR spam cans requested same route as mine VFR after I was approved.

6. El Paso to Austin last fall FSS and DUATs forecast: VFR entire route, clear and a million. Turned into ground fog over most of the state that lifted to tops 2500 MSL (I was at 10,500). All IFRs from Llano TX to Pecos TX were going missed on approaches.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Let's not paint all RV owner/builder/pilots with such a broad brush, either...
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. It was a peace offering to the uber sensitive cirri crowd. I was being facetious about that generalization. Apologies for not putting a sarc tag with my comment. Damn written humor lol
 
I'm about halfway thru my instrument training right now. I like to fly from the central valley to Monterey quite often, and on more than one occasion, I have been in this very same scenario. However, as a (hopefully not much longer) VFR pilot, I don't fly anywhere without carrying enough gas to turn around and fly all the way back to my last departure point, for this very reason. I don't want to get trapped on top, or underneath. (Yeah, I know I'm tanking extra weight, but I don't care.) How do I know that the ceiling over that river valley isn't going to descend on me. Then I'm in IMC, with possibly not enough room between mountains to turn around!

Since I always carry enough gas to do a 180 and return to my departure point, I'll choose on top just about every time. The only time I go under, is when it's flat land all the way there, and I know for damned sure that the ceilings are 3,000 AGL or greater the entire route.

Of course, on top, a dead engine becomes far more complicated, especially over mountainous terrain. But that's a whole other topic, with another set of variables to consider.
 
No worries. :D There certainly are a few RV flyers out there who give the rest of us a bad name, but I like to think they're the exception rather than the rule.

I am guilty of saying "No joy" on occasion, but controllers seem to be fine with that.
 
Rykymus said:
Since I always carry enough gas to do a 180 and return to my departure point, I'll choose on top just about every time. The only time I go under, is when it's flat land all the way there, and I know for damned sure that the ceilings are 3,000 AGL or greater the entire route.
Click to expand...


That works sometimes, but even then, what happens if wx moves in behind you? A SKC layer can turn into a OVC quickly and you can turn back only to find your out gone.

I know there are people with plenty of experience in this thread saying you can do this VFR on top as long as you have outs. Maybe it's because I fly in the North East but I just don't know how you guarantee these outs without being IFR qualified and equipped.
 
I recently reported to Center: "Request Bravo clearance to Kxxx, minimal fuel"

He asked if I was declaring a fuel emergency and I said "negative emergency, would like direct to avoid circling East"

I was cleared into the Bravo, direct Kxxx and he kept with me about available airports, checking on the fuel situation, etc. Worked out fine.

Did I use the correct notification in the initial report, or is there better phraseology?

Note: This DID happen to me as described :)
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I'm shocked and appalled that anyone would imply inappropriate undertones in my aptly and innocently titled thread.
Click to expand...
And I am shocked and appalled that anyone here would actually put his needs before hers. The correct answer to the question in the thread title should always be "whatever she prefers". Unless it's 6PC paying a girl, then he can choose. ;)
But then again this is PoA, a board full of arrogant pilots who disregard passenger comfort for their own pleasure. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top