Do you prefer being on top or bottom?

Cajun_Flyer

Cajun_Flyer

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,713
Location
New England
Display Name
Display name:
Cajun Flyer
When it comes to clouds, I mean.

Let's say you are flying VFR to an airport that's in a valley surrounded by mountains that are ~4,000 msl. You see some cumulus clouds ahead with bases around 3,500 that would require climbing to at least 10,000 ft to get on top of. You have no oxygen on board, so hopefully you don't need to climb higher. The clouds appear scattered, perhaps even somewhat overcast. You have options... you can:

- Go back... this was just a joyride flight, after all.
- Stay lower and circle around to the east of the terrain, fly along a river and come into the airport through a wide valley on the NE side, or
- You can stick to your straight point-to-point route and climb up over the clouds, hoping to find a break at some point.

The pilot in question opted to climb and actually said they weren't too concerned because they could always just use autopilot to descend out. o_O They fly a Cirrus and just passed their checkride recently... no instrument rating. People were patting them on the back saying they did a good job, but all I could think was that it was a bad decision to get on top of the clouds like that. Then again, I'm a fair weather pilot and I don't fly a fancy plane with autopilot, so maybe I'm wrong.

Having opted to stay under similar such clouds the other day and not having a great time with the updrafts, I can certainly see the appeal of climbing to smoother air. But I feel like that's taking an unnecessary risk.

So, what say you? Do you prefer just climbing over the clouds when you can and hoping you can find an opening at some point, or do you play it safe and stay underneath them? Is it even "playing it safe" to stay under, or is there ever a legit reason you should opt topside?
 
Last edited:
What is the metar and taf at your destination?
Sometimes on top and sometimes under is better than always on top or bottom.
 
With no gyros in my ride and no way to get down if the forecast is wrong (what are the chances of that?), I go under or I don't go at all.
 
Generally speaking, I like a nice smooth ride so I like be on top...of clouds.

I'm also instrument rated and proficient so getting a clearance through the clouds to fly an approach is not a big deal.

What you described of the other pilot leaves me shaking my head.
 
Climbing above MAY work good a few times, but in my opinion is playing with fire. Eventually doing that you are going to get stuck up there.

Besides the legalities of descending through a layer without a IFR clearance (it is definitely illegal as we all know) you are painting yourself in a corner. All you need is one time where you either can't find a hole and have to confess or worse fly right into a rock you never saw on your descent (especially surrounded by mountains as in your example).

This is why I feel it is so important to get your instrument ticket before you use PPL for anything more than a joyride.

I have a really good "Lesson Learned" that I should really write up about a similar problem I had years ago before I was instrument rated. (Spoiler- I'm a lucky SOB to get out of it the way I did)
 
Personally, my lack of IFR mountain flying in high altitudes helps me set a personal minimum. I suppose if IFR flight was planned ahead of getting in the aircraft, where I am mentally prepared for CFIT avoidance, high altitude ops, etc, I may feel differently. But if the clouds just appeared on my VFR jaunt, I'd do something different than the subject pilot did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Anyone who thinks they can punch through clouds (or even get too near them) without an IFR clearance is not only playing Russian Roulette with their own life, but with the lives of the innocent occupants of other planes, including possibly airliners, who might be legally inside said clouds. This would be a pretty good definition of "sociopath".
 
How far is it from being on top to the nearest airport that would allow a VFR descent? Fuel for that?

Seeking what the 'outs' are/were. Regardless, going on top as you describe it is way beyond my risk tolerance.

-Skip
 
In that pilot's scenario I think he/she should have done a 180, remain VFR, and get away from the mountainous terrain. You didn't say how high they went but mentioned 10K? Wow. So that pilot figured if he got trapped on top of an overcast just set up a descent w/ the AP eh. Trouble with that is there may be another plane on an IFR flight in the area that they wouldn't be aware of. Now when it happens again he/she will make perhaps another bad decision due to overconfidence and it may not turn out so good, especially around mountainous terrain. Someone needs to have a serious chat with this pilot before they really do something terrible that we may be reading about.

BTW I'm with 6PC above. Well not with him I mean, well, hopefully the opposite sex. :)
 
Last edited:
Like Forane said, depends on destination METAR / TAF. Even then more things to consider such as icing or convective activity along the route.

Personally, if enroute and destination conditions meet my approval, I'm going high. I've flown hundreds of miles VFR over the top even to the point where the entire state of TX was overcast below me. In some areas had to go between 12-13K to get over buildups. My destination state (AL) was forecast to remain clear the whole day.

It's obviously a personal decision based on experience. There's no magical recipe for which path to take. Over time you develope skills in judging go / no go decisions based on previous weather experience. When the WX Gods don't cooperate, you better have a plan B to get yourself down legally and safely.
 
Was it a female or male pilot... disregard.

As a VFR4Life pilot that has been stuck on top before in a plane with no A/P I would just have made sure I had multiple options and chosen the safest.
There was a time when I would do things I no longer do. I once played that game on top where That looks like a hole up there.
Get to it and no hole. But further out, that looks like the end of the clouds. Get to it and not the end.
You start looking at the fuel gauges and only because you realize 1 or 2 more of those mistakes and you are out of options.

It was a horrible feeling and I managed to solve my problem legally but I shifted some weight from the luck to the skill bag that day.

I do still get on top:
Yes but I do a lot more planing and evaluation of my options.
I sure as hell wouldn't just climb to 10k feet over a layer because it presented itself.

If there is an overcast enroute that is surrounded by VFR fields well within my fuel distance, I will do it depending on the ceilings. I try not to fly over IFR patches.
But if I am climbing over something I didn't expect, Either I didn't plan properly or something has changed and I need to do some serious evaluations.
 
Yeah but you're instrument rated aren't you V? This cat was a PP w/o an instrument rating.
 
If I know I have an out, I'll go on top. If it's broken to overcast at my destination I'll have to suck it up and stay on the bottom.
 
I'm instrument rated, and you would think the choice is easy. It is in summer unless there are a lot of thunderstorms around. In winter, it can mean ice, and it's an even more difficult decision.

I'll go on top if I know I can get down multiple ways.

Relying on autopilots to have a skill the pilot doesn't is stupid. We think that's the ultimate cause of the Bakersfield PA32 crash last winter. If I were you, I would not get in a plane with this guy again.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
.....................The pilot in question opted to climb and actually said they weren't too concerned because they could always just use autopilot to descend out. o_O They fly a Cirrus and just passed their checkride recently... no instrument rating. People were patting them on the back saying they did a good job..................
Click to expand...

Not the back. They were patting them on the wallet
 
Supposedly they checked the weather that day and it was forecast to just be for a "few clouds" (not sure on height of clouds). They are further west than I am, but the weather was crappy over the entire region... storms and all, so can't imagine why they opted to go up in it. The entirety of their route was ~400 nm round trip. The pilot was using flight following and apparently ATC was confused when they said they were going to be climbing to 10K to get over the cloud layer... jeez, wonder why o_O Don't know anything beyond that and would like to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt... nice person, but having a hard time with it.

I'm a chicken with clouds right now. Guess I'd rather get tossed around in the crap underneath them than risk getting trapped over them.

@MAKG1 - Thankfully I wasn't in the plane, but I do have a friend who was considering going flying with this person, but after seeing their questionable decision making skills the other day, has now decided against it.
 
So uh, how soon do drift to flying between layers......

Edit: .....does the thread drift.....
 
Last edited:
You didn't mention the fuel situation.

My typical lunch runs are approx 1+30 - 2+00 each way. Full fuel is 5+00.

So, I would fly on top and if I couldn't get down I'd turn for home.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
The pilot in question opted to climb and actually said they weren't too concerned because they could always just use autopilot to descend out. o_O They fly a Cirrus and just passed their checkride recently... no instrument rating. People were patting them on the back saying they did a good job, but all I could think was that it was a bad decision to get on top of the clouds like that. Then again, I'm a fair weather pilot and I don't fly a fancy plane with autopilot, so maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Pilot obviously hasn't been indoctrinated by COPA.

I believe the correct answer is to climb up and overfly the destination, then pull the red handle and ride the chute while you fill out the ASRS form on the way down.
 
mscard88 said:
They had the "handle" that's why!
Click to expand...

On a serious note, I do kind of wonder if their decision making was the product of learning in the top of the line plane. Maybe always having those bells and whistles makes them bolder and braver than they should be? I mean, if they have a chute and autopilot... and whatever else the Cirrus aircraft have, then maybe they think they can just kick back and take pictures of the scenery (...which this person does a lot of). I'm not trying to be judgmental, and maybe I'm just being ignorant... but to me it seems like they are already a complacent pilot, despite having only passed their checkride quite recently.
 
If you go on top, you have to be sure you can get down. Otherwise you're going to end up on your knees :)
 
The problem is not that they made the decision but that they think it was the right one after.

There is not a flight I have made yet where I felt I was 100% perfect. After the flight I always think of something I did wrong or could have done better. Usually they are just small things but there have been times where I have made the wrong decision.

The key is looking at it after, thinking about what you could have done differently and learn from it. Being a new PPL the pilot is going to make a lot more "dumb" decisions in his first few hundred hours. It is just important not to make a REALLY dumb decision and get yourself killed.

The people who are "patting him/her on the back" about it I feel are the worst decision makers in this scenario. I assume they are pilots as well and if any are experienced they should be warning them about doing that in the future, not praising them.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
On a serious note, I do kind of wonder if their decision making was the product of learning in the top of the line plane. Maybe always having those bells and whistles makes them bolder and braver than they should be? I mean, if they have a chute and autopilot... and whatever else the Cirrus aircraft have, then maybe they think they can just kick back and take pictures of the scenery (...which this person does a lot of). I'm not trying to be judgmental, and maybe I'm just being ignorant... but to me it seems like they are already a complacent pilot, despite having only passed their checkride quite recently.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, but it worth repeating.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the Cirrus airframe. I think like the Bonanza 40 years ago, the price tag attracts many folks who have the funds but not the time to be as proficient as they need to be. And I suspect the chute generates a sense of security that contributes to bad decision making.

That isn't meant to argue against the chute, but simply pointing out the mental challenges that Cirrus needs to address.
 
mscard88 said:
Yeah but you're instrument rated aren't you V? This cat was a PP w/o an instrument rating.
Click to expand...

Had a RW instrument flying a FW aircraft. I suppose that ticket gives some reassurance but my planning was strictly based on using VFR skills. For instance, my departure is good VFR to get "over the top." Enroute I can maintain VMC, more importantly I have good horizon reference so I'm not really on the gauges. My destination and any airport within the state is good VFR.

Only thing to really worry about is engine failure in the enroute portion. That's going to be a personal choice that will depend on how confident you are in your aircraft and skills to get down. If you have a fairly high ceiling below you, it shouldn't be a problem for most VFR pilots to descend wings level thru the goo. I'd say if one is so worried about engine failure in SE aircraft above a layer while VMC, they're probably not going to stay in the SE IFR boat for long either. Their own personal risk assessment will warrant getting their ME.
 
Fearless Tower said:
the price tag attracts many folks who have the funds but not the time to be as proficient as they need to be. And I suspect the chute generates a sense of security that contributes to bad decision making.

That isn't meant to argue against the chute, but simply pointing out the mental challenges that Cirrus needs to address.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I wonder for the same reasons. Nothing against those who own or fly them.
 
@Cajun_Flyer - you're spot on. I'm instrument rated and current - and would still think twice in that situation. I'm thinking of embedded storms, icing, a prolonged cross country hard IFR into building cumulus, and my 172's service ceiling.

I believe you're right about the other pilot's complacency. I did something similar myself as a new pilot, and was humbled by the outcome.

Keep asking those questions, and keep coming home after each flight.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I'm a chicken with clouds right now. Guess I'd rather get tossed around in the crap underneath them than risk getting trapped over them.
Click to expand...

That's not chicken; it's smart and safe. If you have enough options, getting on top of a layer will generally give you a better ride. But without knowing whether those options exist (or flat out knowing that they don't), staying underneath is almost always the smarter/safer way to go (as long as it doesn't result in scud running through difficult terrain, in which case a 180 back home is probably best).
 
There have been times where I went high and wished I had gone below and times where I took the low road and wished I had gone above. It happens.

But between the two, if you aren't completely sure which is best for given conditions, I will say this: It is a FAR more unsettling feeling to find yourself in a VFR only airplane flying into rising terrain and lowering ceilings than it is to be up above and not able to find a hole to descend through.

You make your decision to go low or high based on as much info as you can obtain at the time, but the bottom line is that whatever decision you make, you need to be fully prepared and willing to scrub the mission, turn around and go home if it doesn't work out. Regardless of whether it is just a fun flight, or you are trying to make a business meeting.
 
I would stay under. Icing can be an issue at those altitudes. It's also why I don't fly IFR over sections of terrain requiring really high MEA's, even if I'm capable of making them. And if you have terrain below that is at or higher than the cloud bases, you could have a real problem, even with Cirrus auto-descend.
 
As an instrument rated pilot, I typically want to be above the clouds where the ride is smoother. However there are times when I'll specifically do a low altitude flight. Usually this is when going a short distance and the ceilings are such that an instrument approach may result in a missed, but VFR you can get in.

Depending on where you are (specifically mountains, etc.) flying at a low altitude below a cloud layer can be just fine. I've had times when I've flown at ~200 AGL for a trip. It was flat as a pancake, visibility 10+. Easy.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But between the two, if you aren't completely sure which is best for given conditions, I will say this: It is a FAR more unsettling feeling to find yourself in a VFR only airplane flying into rising terrain and lowering ceilings than it is to be up above and not able to find a hole to descend through.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Yes but the scenario included the possibility of an emergency descent through the clouds.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Exactly. There isn't really a right or wrong answer for all conditions. The important thing is that you always have an out.
 
Oh, and it's good to see you flew a Viking, how did you like it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top