Possibly reported for VFR on Top

O

OSH

Guest
Hello
A few days back I was heading home from a long cross-country in a VFR only aircraft, I stopped about an hour out from home base at an airport to refuel, just so happened that another airplane from my airport was at said airport.

After departing the airport The clouds were broken at around 2,500'. I found a gap in clouds and decided to go VFR on top and cruised at 4,500'. While I didn't have a tape measure on board from what I could tell I was well within the VFR cloud clearance requirements in the class E airspace. There were taller clouds to the left and right of me however they were several miles laterally from me.

Later that day I get a call from the pilot of the other aircraft. He told me they where on an IFR flight plan and where in the clouds at my same altitude (however they were only at 4,000') And he swore that there was no way I was in VFR conditions (which I most definitely was). He told me the controller had to vector him around me.

I did not ask anymore questions from said pilot. I am concerned he might of reported me, or possible the ATC might of reported me.

So my questions are...
1. If reported how long till I find out, and how will I find out?
2. While I was legal, if FAA disagrees what would the likely enforcement action be?
3. Is this something I should be very concerned about?

Anything helps!
 
Interesting. I wouldn’t worry about it. You were what you were. Enforcing that sort of thing I hard enough to not make it worth it for them.

if you get a letter, and it matters, hire a lawyer and respond. That simple. Vectoring someone around someone is WHY they exist. No worries!

Had you not been adsb and were supposed to be or something… then maybe an issue.
 
I would lose zero seconds of sleep over this.
Nobody has any way of knowing what you saw or what distance you were from clouds. If you get reported it will be a phone call where you say " I was legal" and the will say. Cool be safe.

But more likely you will never hear a peep.
 
kyleb said:
I'd fill out a NASA form, but there is no way the other pilot is in position to measure your cloud clearances unless you were well under the minimums and he had a clear view of you.
Click to expand...
Why? What would you say? From his point of view, what was the safety issue? How would filing a report on this situation improve anyone's safety?
 
I'd toss in a NASA report as a backup but otherwise wouldn't worry too much about it. But, it is a good reason to use flight following. Not just for you but for them too. In and out of the clouds IFR, you really don't expect to see anyone near you. When you do see a "surprise" airplane it always looks too damn close, even if perfectly legal. ATC point outs for both cuts down in the surprise. (BTW, I was once that VFR airplane.)

On some of your specific questions, see if my article, Dude! You're Busted. Originally in IFR Magazine, it's published on AvWeb.
 
Salty said:
Why? What would you say? From his point of view, what was the safety issue? How would filing a report on this situation improve anyone's safety?
Click to expand...

The NASA report is a get out of jail free card, at least to an extent. It won't hurt, and if the other pilot presses the issue, the OP's perspective is on record.
 
kyleb said:
The NASA report is a get out of jail free card, at least to an extent. It won't hurt, and if the other pilot presses the issue, the OP's perspective is on record.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The purpose of the NASA report is not to be a get out of jail free card. The point is to improve safety. How would filing a report on this assist in improving safety?
 
Salty said:
I disagree. The purpose of the NASA report is not to be a get out of jail free card. The point is to improve safety. How would filing a report on this assist in improving safety?
Click to expand...

You're welcome to disagree. I'd still file a NASA report if I had any concerns at all...
 
kyleb said:
The NASA report is a get out of jail free card, at least to an extent. It won't hurt, and if the other pilot presses the issue, the OP's perspective is on record.
Click to expand...
The part about the poster's perspective being on record is not correct. The whole point of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (aka the NASA form) is that it is anonymous. Identifying information is removed from the reports. In the old days that meant physically cutting the part of the form with that info off. That isn't to say someone wouldn't e able to figure it out knowing time and place of the event, but the point is the ASRS in no way acts as a legal statement by the filer.

Except in regulated airspace, eg Class A, B, C, there is no minimum separation for ATC between IFR and VFR aircraft. If you were in Class E airspace, you could not, by definition, have caused a loss of separation. So even if the other pilot decided to make an issue of it, it is simply his word against yours, with no actual harm done. I can't see how this would meet the standard for opening an investigation, let alone any finding against you. I too would not worry about it.
Jon
 
I agree with the No NASA required crowd. There’s no way this could be enforced and you did nothing wrong.
I’ve had another pilot say to a controller (about me) “There’s no way that guys VMC” I was on top, he just didn’t see me. Not my problem.
 
OSH said:
1. If reported how long till I find out, and how will I find out?
2. While I was legal, if FAA disagrees what would the likely enforcement action be?
3. Is this something I should be very concerned about?
Click to expand...

1. You won't be. So don't worry about it.
2. Nothing. Because you were legal. And nobody can prove otherwise. FAA - "How far were you from clouds?" You - "At least 500' below, 2000' horizontally and 1000' above any clouds." FAA - "Ok." But that conversation won't happen. Because you were legal. And nobody can prove otherwise.
3. See point number one. No.

And 4 - Like someone said above - I would have told the guy who called me to **** off and lose your phone number real quick. He got some vectors for traffic. Big deal. Happens all.the.time. If getting vectors for traffic was such a big deal for this guy, maybe he needs to either fly more or not fly IFR.

And 5 - you were VFR over-the-top, not VFR-on-top.... sorry couldn't resist.
 
Deelee said:
And 5 - you were VFR over-the-top, not VFR-on-top.... sorry couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

Note to the OP - if you do decide to file a NASA report (and I'm in the camp that thinks it's pointless), make sure you use the correct language. "VFR-on-top" is an IFR clearance, and if you claim that's what you were doing you might create an issue where none really exists.
 
If you do file a report, or discuss this with anyone - especially an ops inspector - just be sure you know the regs as they apply to that airspace, cold…..and have an unwavering & unchallengeable description of the event timeline at the ready.
A number one way pilots get in trouble is by self-incrimination.
 
Salty said:
Dear NASA,

Nothing happened.

Sincerely,

Pilot that's just covering his ***.
Click to expand...

My thought - what could you say in a NASA form? I was flying along. Later someone told me I had to be IFR, but I know I was in the clear. I kept flying.
 
I've been asked by ATC what conditions I was in, whilst on top (actually between layers.) From the ground one might think I was in the muck.
 
bflynn said:
My thought - what could you say in a NASA form? I was flying along. Later someone told me I had to be IFR, but I know I was in the clear. I kept flying.
Click to expand...
My theory is you can always learn something from a flight that you can pass on. I wasn't there but I mentioned one possibility in an earlier post - the human factors which make an unexpected VFR aircraft a surprise that seems closer than it was. That was only part of what I learned in my similar event. Thing is, you and I don't know what information will lead to recommendations and best practices.
 
Sounds like both parties are telling what they believe to be the truth.
What has been stated:

The IFR guy was in the clouds at 4,000'

The OP was above them at 4,500',

The cloud layer was broken.

If all of these statements are true it is HIGHLY unlikely the OP had 1000' of cloud clearance below.

If the IFR pilot is factually correct, and the OP is factually correct about the cloud distances, then the OP couldn't have been flying at 4,500 MSL. The altimeter is either REALLY off, or the altimeter setting was wrong and the OP was cruising at a wrong altitude assuming terrain elevation was less than 1500MSL.

If the IFR pilot was correct about being in the clouds at 4,000 and the OP was correct about the altimeter, then the OP needs some more experience in determining cloud distances.

It's possible the IFR pilot wasn't at 4,000' and the OP was both at 4,500' and had 1000 feet of clearance, but if the IFR pilot wasn't at 4000 ATC would have probably been constsntly yelling at him to get at the correct altitude.

So I wonder what the real story is. Post the flight aware tracks.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like both parties are telling what they believe to be the truth.
What has been stated:

The IFR guy was in the clouds at 4,000'

The OP was above them at 4,500',

The cloud layer was broken.

If all of these statements are true it is HIGHLY unlikely the OP had 1000' of cloud clearance below.

If the IFR pilot is factually correct, and the OP is factually correct about the cloud distances, then the OP couldn't have been flying at 4,500 MSL. The altimeter is either REALLY off, or the altimeter setting was wrong and the OP was cruising at a wrong altitude assuming terrain elevation was less than 1500MSL.

If the IFR pilot was correct about being in the clouds at 4,000 and the OP was correct about the altimeter, then the OP needs some more experience in determining cloud distances.

It's possible the IFR pilot wasn't at 4,000' and the OP was both at 4,500' and had 1000 feet of clearance, but if the IFR pilot wasn't at 4000 ATC would have probably been constsntly yelling at him to get at the correct altitude.

So I wonder what the real story is. Post the flight aware tracks.
Click to expand...


Maybe there’s another possibility. The OP wrote, “There were taller clouds to the left and right of me however they were several miles laterally from me.”

We don’t know how far the planes were separated laterally. Perhaps the IFR pilot was two miles away laterally at 4000’ and in clouds, and maybe he was on a converging course with the OP. In that case, ATC might have vectored him past the OP before turning him back toward the airport.
 
Half Fast said:
Maybe there’s another possibility. The OP wrote, “There were taller clouds to the left and right of me however they were several miles laterally from me.”

We don’t know how far the planes were separated laterally. Perhaps the IFR pilot was two miles away laterally at 4000’ and in clouds, and maybe he was on a converging course with the OP. In that case, ATC might have vectored him past the OP before turning him back toward the airport.
Click to expand...

But it was still reported by the OP as a broken layer below him.
 
EdFred said:
But it was still reported by the OP as a broken layer below him.
Click to expand...


Yes, the OP could have been over a broken 3500’ layer while flying at 4500’, VFR over the top, with the IFR plane in taller thick clouds a couple of miles away, flying at 4000’.

I myself have often been flying over a scattered layer, completely VFR, while there were thick, tall clouds just a few miles off my wing. Not uncommon, at least here in central Florida.
 
schmookeeg said:
Pedantry aside, how did this IFR pilot get OP's phone number, and why was that pilot doing the job of ATC/FAA Enforcement? Sounds like an entitled douchecanoe to me.
Click to expand...

A couple of google searches will lead you from my N-number to my name to my phone number. Ain't hard.
 
Another pedant remark......"VFR on top" is an IFR clearance. You were VFR over the top. There is a major distinction.

""In short, a VFR on-top clearance is an IFR clearance that allows pilots to fly at VFR altitudes (i.e. to select a level in lieu of the assigned one). This can be helpful if flying slightly above, or in between layers, and it is preferable to stay out of the clouds.""

https://www.thinkaviation.net/vfr-on-top-vs-vfr-over-the-top/
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, the OP could have been over a broken 3500’ layer while flying at 4500’, VFR over the top, with the IFR plane in taller thick clouds a couple of miles away, flying at 4000’.

I myself have often been flying over a scattered layer, completely VFR, while there were thick, tall clouds just a few miles off my wing. Not uncommon, at least here in central Florida.
Click to expand...


Yes this was the scenario.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like both parties are telling what they believe to be the truth.
What has been stated:

The IFR guy was in the clouds at 4,000'

The OP was above them at 4,500',

The cloud layer was broken.

If all of these statements are true it is HIGHLY unlikely the OP had 1000' of cloud clearance below.

If the IFR pilot is factually correct, and the OP is factually correct about the cloud distances, then the OP couldn't have been flying at 4,500 MSL. The altimeter is either REALLY off, or the altimeter setting was wrong and the OP was cruising at a wrong altitude assuming terrain elevation was less than 1500MSL.

If the IFR pilot was correct about being in the clouds at 4,000 and the OP was correct about the altimeter, then the OP needs some more experience in determining cloud distances.

It's possible the IFR pilot wasn't at 4,000' and the OP was both at 4,500' and had 1000 feet of clearance, but if the IFR pilot wasn't at 4000 ATC would have probably been constsntly yelling at him to get at the correct altitude.

So I wonder what the real story is. Post the flight aware tracks.
Click to expand...


The flight aware tracks show my aircraft at 4,500' and his at 4,000'
He was a mile or so west of my track which is likely why he was in the clouds. I only need less than half a mile separation from the clouds for VFR so unless he was directly under me (which he was not) therefore he can not describe what the cloud tops were at my exact location.

I am not going to post flight aware tracks as it will show registration of both aircraft...

After this encounter I will not fly VFR over the Top unless I am at least several thousand feet above the clouds to save myself from false claims in the future...
 
This reminds me of an experience I had a few years ago while departing Palo Alto (PAO) VFR to the northeast. There was what looked like a fairly low cloud layer across the bay, so I climbed soon enough to get 1000 feet above it in time. This put me higher than I expected, but I was still a few hundred feet below the SFO bravo. By this time, I was monitoring the TRACON, who called me out as traffic to an airliner, and I could tell by the controller's tone of voice that he thought I was IN the clouds. (He sounded like I had killed his cat or something!)

A little later the airline guy reported me in sight, and being a standup guy, he added, "He IS above the clouds," to which the controller replied, "EXCELLENT!"

I guess he wasn't looking forward to a pile of paperwork.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I disagree. The purpose of the NASA report is not to be a get out of jail free card. The point is to improve safety. How would filing a report on this assist in improving safety?
Click to expand...
I don't have your confidence in my ability to predict what reports others will find useful.

Also, the way I look at it, if the feds didn't want people to use the get-out-of-jail-free card, they wouldn't provide it.
 
By the way, one thing the OP's NASA report might do is illustrate the problem of subjectivity in estimating cloud clearances.

Besides, what's the big deal? It's not like reducing the number of ASRS reports is going to cut the federal deficit to any meaningful degree.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't have your confidence in my ability to predict what reports others will find useful.

Also, the way I look at it, if the feds didn't want people to use the get-out-of-jail-free card, they wouldn't provide it.
Click to expand...
Ok, I respect your opinion. But mine is that either the OP is lying, or the other guy was a whiny ***** that needs to mind his own business. Either way, clogging up the NASA reports with this nonsense is silly. /opinion
 
Salty said:
Ok, I respect your opinion. But mine is that either the OP is lying, or the other guy was a whiny ***** that needs to mind his own business. Either way, clogging up the NASA reports with this nonsense is silly. /opinion
Click to expand...

Even if the op is lying, I don't think he is, the pilot who tracked him down is a dick.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top