Do you prefer being on top or bottom?

rolivi said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

You CAN use the E-word in this circumstance. An emergency doesn't necessarily mean you are going to die if nothing changes. It can mean such a situation might develop with undue delay. That's an "urgency" condition.

You got cooperation from ATC, so it wouldn't have made any difference in your case. But there have been a few crashes where ATC didn't understand the urgency and fuel ran out.
 
danhagan said:
I fly full fuel all the time...
Click to expand...

Me too. Went out to do a xc the other day and the tanks were filled to the tabs in the PA28 I was renting... more than enough fuel for my round trip. But I still called for a top off. Overly cautious? Maybe. But I'm good with that.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I've been waiting to hear from someone with this perspective. But I think if I found myself flying into rising terrain and lowered ceilings, I'd opt for one of the other options - either turning back, or navigating along a different route. I could even divert to a nearby airport and wait out the weather.
Click to expand...

I found myself in just that situation last year. Gently rising terrain, and a layer clouds lower than forecast. I was Instrument Rated and equipped, but had just completed an avionics upgrade and I wasn't yet familiar or comfortable using them for anything other than VFR.

Elected to turn back, and didn't make the trip.

If I'm ever on top, it's IFR.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Me too. Went out to do a xc the other day and the tanks were filled to the tabs in the PA28 I was renting... more than enough fuel for my round trip. But I still called for a top off. Overly cautious? Maybe. But I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

I don't. 182s hold a lot of fuel, and I'll usually be overweight with two other adults in there plus full fuel. Especially in a fat pig G1000.

Later models (after the R model, I believe) have a maximum landing weight 150 lb lighter than the maximum takeoff weight. That's often a factor for a short flight even with kids in the plane.

If you go to high altitude, reduced fuel is often a good idea, as excess weight directly impacts your performance. And if you ever do IFR in that Warrior, you'll want it light 'cause it climbs too slow otherwise.

Keep a generous margin, but always filling to the gills is not necessarily feasible.

I'll usually insist on at the very least 1 hour of reserve, and I'll fill it up if W&B and performance allow. But in an airplane that holds over 500 lb of fuel, that's a lot of useful load to give up. Endurance at full rental power in a 182 is twice what my bladder will take anyhow. It's over 7 hours.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Me too. Went out to do a xc the other day and the tanks were filled to the tabs in the PA28 I was renting... more than enough fuel for my round trip. But I still called for a top off. Overly cautious? Maybe. But I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

Ditto, the more reserve I have the better. My plane will go up to 6 hours on full fuel so I'm almost always landing with two to three hours of reserve and have no problem with that. I couldn't imagine trying to stretch to VFR reserves with only 30 minutes left. eek
 
I just realized I had a few pictures over the top. This is cruising at 9500' and there was a system off to the left. I was skirting it 20-30 miles on the latter half of the trip and it looked like this. To the right was fairly open and I never lost complete contact with the ground so I was very comfortable. (Foreflight screenshot was about 5 minutes before outside pics)
I had to deviate a bit further to the east than the flight plan to get around the corner.
IMG_4798.JPG IMG_4799.JPG IMG_4800.JPG IMG_4801.JPG915C4FF4-1E6F-433A-A136-82333AAE4302.PNG
 
MAKG1 said:
I don't. 182s hold a lot of fuel, and I'll usually be overweight with two other adults in there plus full fuel. Especially in a fat pig G1000.

Later models (after the R model, I believe) have a maximum landing weight 150 lb lighter than the maximum takeoff weight. That's often a factor for a short flight even with kids in the plane.

If you go to high altitude, reduced fuel is often a good idea, as excess weight directly impacts your performance. And if you ever do IFR in that Warrior, you'll want it light 'cause it climbs too slow otherwise.

Keep a generous margin, but always filling to the gills is not necessarily feasible.

I'll usually insist on at the very least 1 hour of reserve, and I'll fill it up if W&B and performance allow. But in an airplane that holds over 500 lb of fuel, that's a lot of useful load to give up. Endurance at full rental power in a 182 is twice what my bladder will take anyhow. It's over 7 hours.
Click to expand...

I'm a small person and typically fly by myself, so never fully loaded. It costs me nothing extra and only takes about 5 minute to top the tanks off. No downside I can see.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I've been waiting to hear from someone with this perspective. But I think if I found myself flying into rising terrain and lowered ceilings, I'd opt for one of the other options - either turning back, or navigating along a different route. I could even divert to a nearby airport and wait out the weather.
Click to expand...
It is good to have multiple options, as you say. If you plan well, you have similar options when VFR on top. I have done it often over the years, always with current and forecast scattered clouds at locations within easy range. I'm instrument rated, but often fly aircraft that have "VFR" panels. As fearless tower mentioned, if you fly underneath, especially in mountains, the weather can close behind you, leaving you in a similar (bad) situation as you would have when VFR on top with no breaks in the overcast within range.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I'm a small person and typically fly by myself, so never fully loaded. It costs me nothing extra and only takes about 5 minute to top the tanks off. No downside I can see.
Click to expand...

Another upside: Your maneuvering speed will be higher.

I usually top off after every flight, as I can go max gross (400 lb. of humans, 100 lb. of baggage) and still comfortably stay within the cg range. If I know I'm going to do a couple of short lunch hops during the week, I won't refuel, but that still leaves at least an hour of reserve fuel after downing patty melt No. 2. :eek:
 
Before I got my instrument ticket I stayed below unless the distance between my destination and the end of the cloud layer was pretty significant. Now that I have my IR I only look at the destination information to see if I can get into the field and the tops report to see if I can cancel and go VFR as soon as I'm on top. I guess this means that I like to be on top and on the bottom depending on the situation. Sometimes both top and bottom are warranted in a matter of moments during a particular fun and eventful flight. Wait.... what am I talking about??..?? I think that I'm getting confused and had better leave before someone presses charges......
 
I've only gone over the top of a BKN/OVC layer whose edge I could not see three times before I got my instrument rating. The first two times I knew, based on current reports and trends, that my destination would be clear. The third time was with a current and proficient IR pilot in the right seat. In bumpy conditions I found a hole and climbed through it. It was scattered at our destination, but this time we needed the clearance to get back down when we got there.

Generally speaking, if VFR and without being instrument capable, I'd avoid going over the top unless I had very high confidence that I would be able to get down again legally at my destination. That goes double for mountainous areas with cloud tops high enough that oxygen might be a consideration. If they're that high, my (non-turbo) Cardinal would likely not be a very good performer up there.
 
image.jpg


Wish I could have posted the difference between the nexrad and the onboard radar for this.


...This was after I declared bingo fuel, and requested to buzz the tower, they said no, guess they are still ****ed about goose ;)
 
neilw2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Weather can move in/ceilings drop behind you just as much below as it can if you're above. The real point here is that you need to evaluate all options and make a decision as to which has the highest chance of success and least risk. And continue to evaluate conditions as you progress on your route, adjusting as necessary.

Truthfully, I probably go below 70% of the time and find that generally speaking lower has the highest chance of success. But there are times (that other 30%) where above is the way to go.
 
Being on top gives me a smoother ride and a better view.

However, being on bottom gives me a good view of mammatus clouds. The ride is a bit rougher.
 
I agree that flying above the clouds is probably not a good option if a VFR pilot is planning to descend through them if necessary. Going over with the intention of backtracking if there is no descent at the destination can work.

And going underneath has some issues, too. The OP mentions flying up a river valley. What happens if the cloud bases come down while you're flying through the valley? Maybe with too little room to turn. Not a pretty picture.

I made the decision to go underneath the clouds in the hills just east of Pittsburgh on a flight to NJ from Indiana. METARs showed the band of clouds was only about 50 nm wide and all the TAFs to the east said the region would be clear...except for one which forecast the clouds to spread and cover my destination. So I decided to be cautious since I did not want to find myself at the edge of my reserve fuel above the clouds in the event that the oddball TAF turned out to be correct.

Initially I had about 2000 ft between me and the tops of the hills and another 500 ft to the cloud bases. About 5 nm beneath the clouds there were wisps descending below the bases. And I descended. And the bases descended. That continued. Shortly my moving map started to show terrain warnings near me. Fortunately I had lots of room to divert.

I called my wife from the diversion airport and she told me that sky at home was clear and unlimited. If I had gone over I would have been in the clear in 50 nm. And if there were clouds there, I could have turned around and gotten on the ground safely west of the clouds.
 
MAKG1 said:
I don't. 182s hold a lot of fuel, and I'll usually be overweight with two other adults in there plus full fuel. Especially in a fat pig G1000. Endurance at full rental power in a 182 is twice what my bladder will take anyhow. It's over 7 hours.
Click to expand...

I can see not filling if you have a HUGE amount of storage capacity and tip tanks. On long XC flights I max out on fuel. On local flights I carry at least enough for 2.5 hours minimum.

James331 said:
...This was after I declared bingo fuel, and requested to buzz the tower, they said no, guess they are still ****ed about goose ;)
Click to expand...

They sell shirts for pilots in San Diego at the Midway Museum that read, "If I was the pilot, Goose would still be alive."
 
Yea... flying in the mountains... He'll autopilot himself into a granite cloud... I don't want to hear anyone say "He has something for terrain warning either... STUPID IDEA!
 
Yeah but back to the original question. Do you prefer to be on top or bottom? Wait, it must not be what I was thinking? That Cajun, fools me every time! :D
 
FlySince9 said:
Yea... flying in the mountains... He'll autopilot himself into a granite cloud... I don't want to hear anyone say "He has something for terrain warning either... STUPID IDEA!
Click to expand...
While I agree completely that no VFR only pilot should plan on an autopilot descent through a layer, I will say the 430w terrain database has been reasonably good.
 
Clark1961 said:
While I agree completely that no VFR only pilot should plan on an autopilot descent through a layer, I will say the 430w terrain database has been reasonably good.
Click to expand...

It is annoying as hell to always have my 430W screen being interrupted with a "Terrain Alert", requiring me to take my eyes from outside into the panel to start pushing the CLR button to get my magenta line back.
 
"You can disable it at any time by going to the terrain view (third page in the first group), pressing the Menu button and selecting "Inhibit Terrain?" You should then see "TER INHIB" below the VOR data section in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen."

Found after literally 2 seconds of googling.
 
James331 said:
Just disable it
Click to expand...
I've thought about it but so far have resisted. Decided I'd rather have the alert and not need it than not have the alert some dark and stormy night...
 
Those of us who design operational systems cringe at the necessity of disabling alerts. It's a sign of poor design. But yes, that alert is really annoying while VFR, and yanking eyeballs inside is not right. At least they don't set off an audible alarm at the same time.

What does a proper TAWS system do when there is an obstruction 1/2 mile away and 500 feet below?

I wonder if it would make sense to have a VMC mode, rather than turning it off entirely. Just more complexity, I suppose. Not an easy tradeoff.
 
MAKG1 said:
Those of us who design operational systems cringe at the necessity of disabling alerts. It's a sign of poor design. But yes, that alert is really annoying while VFR, and yanking eyeballs inside is not right. At least they don't set off an audible alarm at the same time.

What does a proper TAWS system do when there is an obstruction 1/2 mile away and 500 feet below?

I wonder if it would make sense to have a VMC mode, rather than turning it off entirely. Just more complexity, I suppose. Not an easy tradeoff.
Click to expand...

See... I'm a s****y pilot. And when I'm turning downwind to base, I am approaching a hillside. So the alert goes off and the 530 displays the terrain warning... which distracts me because I need the screen to not display anything on it, and again, I'm too much of a terribad pilot to be able to ignore it.
 
ircphoenix said:
See... I'm a s****y pilot. And when I'm turning downwind to base, I am approaching a hillside. So the alert goes off and the 530 displays the terrain warning... which distracts me because I need the screen to not display anything on it, and again, I'm too much of a terribad pilot to be able to ignore it.
Click to expand...
Is there a setting to desensitize the terrain warning...that is, have it alert when you're closer to the ground? I've got an iFly 520 that you can set for three different levels of sensitivity. I'm always hugging the mountains on my way back to the home drome, and it is quite a distraction.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Is there a setting to desensitize the terrain warning...that is, have it alert when you're closer to the ground? I've got an iFly 520 that you can set for three different levels of sensitivity. I'm always hugging the mountains on my way back to the home drome, and it is quite a distraction.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can change the sensitivity on any of the Garmin products. It's either on or inhibited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top