Student Flying over Clouds Question

[Brad Z]

Ok, stupid question time.
I have always understood and believed without question that certificated VFR pilots could not fly above the clouds if the ground was not visible in any direction.
Have I been wrong all this time?

As others have mentioned, you've been assuming wrong.

I feel bad that in all the time you've been flying as a PP, you've been bouncing around below the scattered cumulus layer, rather than above it, where it's nice smooth and cool.

 

[MAKG1]

Yes, that is incorrect. If you hold a PP, you can fly over a solid under cast as long as both ends have a way up and down. Not to say it's a brilliant solution, but it is legal.

It's used all the time for marine layer. In the absence of other weather issues, there is always an "out" by flying inland. Marine layer is usually totally flat and tops out around 2000, with visible edges not far inland.

I won't hesitate to fly over low stratus I can see the far side of, provided the ceiling is at least 1000 for the emergency landing scenario (and this is almost always the case).

 

[FastEddieB]

Which regulation do you think prohibits that? Note that Student, Sport, and Recreational Pilots have that "visual reference to the surface" limitation explicitly in 61.89, 61.101, and 61.315, but not PP's in 61.113.

Asked and answered?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

AHA!

So my Cub statement was not wrong!

I hope.

Not wrong for yea olde PP with a valid medical.

If I had a medical, I could legally fly the Cub over an overcast until it ran out of gas, at which point it becomes illegal to enter the IMC without an IFR rating unless I first declare an emergency. Of course, I would lose control and die because of the lack of gyros, but that is not relevant to the discussion.

Without the medical, I have to maintain visual contact with the ground (Sport Pilot rules).

So, the lack of a medical may very well save my life.

 

[EdFred]

Not wrong for yea olde PP with a valid medical.

If I had a medical, I could legally fly the Cub over an overcast until it ran out of gas, at which point it becomes illegal to enter the IMC without an IFR rating unless I first declare an emergency. Of course, I would lose control and die because of the lack of gyros, but that is not relevant to the discussion.

Without the medical, I have to maintain visual contact with the ground (Sport Pilot rules).

So, the lack of a medical may very well save my life.

You got a compass in the Cub? That's all you need to keep it from turning in an emergency IMC descent.

 

[Henning]

It's used all the time for marine layer. In the absence of other weather issues, there is always an "out" by flying inland. Marine layer is usually totally flat and tops out around 2000, with visible edges not far inland.

I won't hesitate to fly over low stratus I can see the far side of, provided the ceiling is at least 1000 for the emergency landing scenario (and this is almost always the case).

Yep, the CA marine layer is about the most benign IMC that exists. An hour or so inland and you pretty much always have severe clear. Still, when I fly over it, I am prepared to go IFR to get down. Normally you can get under, sometimes you can't.

 

[roncachamp]

You can, but the aircraft has to be IFR equipped.

Sec. 91.507 — Equipment requirements: Over-the-top or night VFR operations.

No person may operate an airplane over-the-top or at night under VFR unless that airplane is equipped with the instruments and equipment required for IFR operations under §91.205(d) and one electric landing light for night operations. Each required instrument and item of equipment must be in operable condition.

That applies only to "Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft". If I was operating such an aircraft it would definitely be IFR-equipped.

 

[roncachamp]

Pretty sure "over the top" is a specific clearance and not a general description of flying over an overcast, which you can legally do in a Cub, let's say.

"Over-the-top" means "above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling." Over-the-top operations can be done under IFR or VFR, if done under IFR the clearance will be "maintain VFR-on-Top".

 

[Henning]

"Over-the-top" means "above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling." Over-the-top operations can be done under IFR or VFR, if done under IFR the clearance will be "maintain VFR-on-Top".

They should call it "IFR over the top."

 

[roncachamp]

IFR - VFR on Top
VFR - Over the Top

From 14 CFR PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS:

Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.

VFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top under VFR when it is not being operated on an IFR flight plan.

IFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top on an IFR flight plan when cleared by air traffic control to maintain “VFR conditions” or “VFR conditions on top”.


The phraseology for that clearance specified in Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control is MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP.

 

[roncachamp]

They should call it "IFR over the top."

Perhaps. The downside with that is it removes "VFR" from an operation that requires VFR conditions. I've advocated changing the clearance phraseology from "maintain VFR-on-top" to "maintain VFR conditions on top”.

 

[JOhnH]

As others have mentioned, you've been assuming wrong.

I feel bad that in all the time you've been flying as a PP, you've been bouncing around below the scattered cumulus layer, rather than above it, where it's nice smooth and cool.

You think YOU feel bad about it! I feel worse, AND stupid!

 

[poadeleted20]

Asked and answered?

Yup -- premature epostulation -- didn't read whole thread first. Sorry.

 

[TMetzinger]

My instructor put "no flight above a cloud layer" in my solo limitations. We were agreed that flying above a single cloud was ok, but the moment there were enough clouds to be a widely scattered layer it was time to get below them or turn around.

I put the same limitation and have the same discussion with my students.

 

[JOhnH]

My instructor put "no flight above a cloud layer" in my solo limitations. We were agreed that flying above a single cloud was ok, but the moment there were enough clouds to be a widely scattered layer it was time to get below them or turn around.

I put the same limitation and have the same discussion with my students.

Was that limitation only during the time you were a student pilot?

 

[eetrojan]

From 14 CFR PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS:

Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.

VFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top under VFR when it is not being operated on an IFR flight plan.

IFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top on an IFR flight plan when cleared by air traffic control to maintain “VFR conditions” or “VFR conditions on top”.


The phraseology for that clearance specified in Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control is MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP.

So, let me get this straight. Is this correct?

When an instrument rated pilot on an IFR flight plan requests a "VFR-ON-TOP" clearance, then the controller may clear the aircraft to "MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP" and then, once the aircraft is flying in the clear, over the clouds or other meteorological formations, the aircraft is operating "IFR over-the-top" and, once doing so, the controller stops providing the aircraft with IFR separation and the aircraft must fly at an appropriate VFR altitudes and comply with VFR visibility requirements.

And, when a regular or instrument rated pilot flies in the clear, above the clouds, but not on an IFR flight plan that has been altered to a VFR-like arrangement, that's merely "VFR over-the-top" and, never, ever, ever, ever, to be called "VFR-on-top."

If I got all that right, all of that gibberish is a ridiculously bad use of the English language.

 

[JOhnH]

Thanks. You said it better than I could.

So, let me get this straight. Is this correct?

When an instrument rated pilot on an IFR flight plan requests a "VFR-ON-TOP" clearance, then the controller may clear the aircraft to "MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP" and then, once the aircraft is flying in the clear, over the clouds or other meteorological formations, the aircraft is operating "IFR over-the-top" and, once doing so, the controller stops providing the aircraft with IFR separation and the aircraft must fly at an appropriate VFR altitudes and comply with VFR visibility requirements.

And, when a regular or instrument rated pilot flies in the clear, above the clouds, but not on an IFR flight plan that has been altered to a VFR-like arrangement, that's merely "VFR over-the-top" and, never, ever, ever, ever, to be called "VFR-on-top."

If I got all that right, all of that gibberish is a ridiculously bad use of the English language.

 

[roncachamp]

So, let me get this straight. Is this correct?

Not quite.

When an instrument rated pilot on an IFR flight plan requests a "VFR-ON-TOP" clearance, then the controller may clear the aircraft to "MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP" and then, once the aircraft is flying in the clear, over the clouds or other meteorological formations, the aircraft is operating "IFR over-the-top" and, once doing so, the controller stops providing the aircraft with IFR separation and the aircraft must fly at an appropriate VFR altitudes and comply with VFR visibility requirements.

A pilot on an IFR flight plan who is operating in VFR conditions may request and be cleared to "maintain VFR-on-Top." Standard IFR separation stops immediately and the pilot must comply with VFR visibility and cloud clearance requirements and must fly at appropriate VFR altitudes not below the minimum IFR altitude.

A pilot on an IFR flight plan who is operating in less than VFR conditions may request a climb to VFR conditions on top. In that case the clearance would be something like "climb to and report reaching VFR-on-Top, no tops reported, if not on top at ten thousand maintain ten thousand and advise." Standard IFR separation is provided until the aircraft reports reaching VFR conditions on top and is cleared to "maintain VFR-on-Top".

And, when a regular or instrument rated pilot flies in the clear, above the clouds, but not on an IFR flight plan that has been altered to a VFR-like arrangement, that's merely "VFR over-the-top" and, never, ever, ever, ever, to be called "VFR-on-top."

Correct.

If I got all that right, all of that gibberish is a ridiculously bad use of the English language.

That's why we periodically have this discussion.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ok, stupid question time.
I have always understood and believed without question that certificated VFR pilots could not fly above the clouds if the ground was not visible in any direction.
Have I been wrong all this time?

IIRC, Canada does not allow VFR Over The Top.

 

[nosehair]

So, let me get this straight. Is this correct?

When an instrument rated pilot on an IFR flight plan requests a "VFR-ON-TOP" clearance, then the controller may clear the aircraft to "MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP" and then, once the aircraft is flying in the clear, over the clouds or other meteorological formations, the aircraft is operating "IFR over-the-top" and, once doing so, the controller stops providing the aircraft with IFR separation and the aircraft must fly at an appropriate VFR altitudes and comply with VFR visibility requirements.

And, when a regular or instrument rated pilot flies in the clear, above the clouds, but not on an IFR flight plan that has been altered to a VFR-like arrangement, that's merely "VFR over-the-top" and, never, ever, ever, ever, to be called "VFR-on-top."

If I got all that right, all of that gibberish is a ridiculously bad use of the English language.

We do it that way to weed out the chaff.

 

[kenjr]

The real problem comes with broken, or rapidly developing layers, that is where you can get trapped on top. This is why I think that in that hood training time involved in PP training, it's probably a good idea to do a PAR or ASR approach for familiarity.

I did a lot of extra hood work...even called my CFI up a few times since earning my PPL to go fly in IMC to CYA in case that exact thing happened. It did happen once...flying at about 8500' above a broken layer near the coast that filled up very fast. I had to get through about 500' of it to get below it but with the training I had received it was a non-issue. We have a single axis autopilot in our plane too which helps...if you end up that situation get it on so at the very least you keep the shiny side up if you do get a bit disoriented.

 

[Brad Z]

IIRC, Canada does not allow VFR Over The Top.

Sort of true. CAR 602.114(a) and 602.114(b) state that "no person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within [controlled or uncontrolled] airspace unless the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface"

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.114

...but they do allow "VFR Over-the-Top" provided certain limitations are met, such as daytime, vertical cloud clearance, visibility, and the forecast of the destination airport. It looks to me like the provision allows operations over broken cloud layers. VFR OTT in Canada is not an IFR clearance.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-602.116

 

[TMetzinger]

Was that limitation only during the time you were a student pilot?

Yes... hence the "solo limitations".

 

[danhagan]

You answer should have been "yes thats fine....I do it all the time. Its really pretty. Want to see some pictures?"

"Yes, I took these with my buddy during my student solo XC"

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Yes... hence the "solo limitations".

Which means that they don't apply when you take someone along with you.

 

[JOhnH]

Yes... hence the "solo limitations".

Plenty of PPLs fly solo.

 

[TMetzinger]

Plenty of PPLs fly solo.

You do not seem to grasp the context that I was speaking of limitations placed on me as a student pilot - there's no context for an instructor to place operational limits on someone who holds another type of certificate, at least not any that the FAA recognizes (rental agreements and insurance stuff is different).

The limitations were actually placed on my student pilot certificate as part of the solo endorsement, along with some crosswind limitations and general weather limits.

 

[poadeleted20]

You do not seem to grasp the context that I was speaking of limitations placed on me as a student pilot - there's no context for an instructor to place operational limits on someone who holds another type of certificate, at least not any that the FAA recognizes (rental agreements and insurance stuff is different).

There is one case of which I am aware in which an instructor may place such limitations, and often does, and that's when writing a 61.31(d)(2) solo endorsement for a rated pilot to solo an aircraft for which s/he does not hold the necessary category/class rating.

 

[TMetzinger]

Right, Ron, but in that case the pilot is exercising student privileges for that particular aircraft - at least that's how I look at it. But legally it may be something different.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right, Ron, but in that case the pilot is exercising student privileges for that particular aircraft - at least that's how I look at it. But legally it may be something different.

It does say something different, which is why Private Pilots flying under a 61.31(d)(2) endorsement do not, for example, require separate endorsements for Class B airspace and are not prohibited from flying without visual reference to the ground. Legally, they aren't Student Pilots, and they aren't restricted by the General Limitations of 14 CFR 61.89. So, unless I put restrictions in that 61.31(d)(2) endorsement, they can do pretty much anything a PP with the cat/class ratings for that aircraft can do other than carry passengers.