VFR Over The Top

dwalt said:
Yes but just remember, what goes up must come down. I wouldn't be worried about fighting my way up so much as finding a safe and legal way down.
Click to expand...

Just put it in a spin, hold full aft stick and rudder. Recover when you pop out the bottom :hairraise:

not safe or legal though
 
Sac Arrow said:
If you aren't IR, and you aren't with a CFII....
Click to expand...

How bout if you're a non instrument rated private pilot and you're flying at night with no horizon in haze but meeting visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.
 
dell30rb said:
How bout if you're a non instrument rated private pilot and you're flying at night with no horizon in haze but meeting visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.
Click to expand...

Were not arguing about the legality of that. We're arguing the merits of logging such.
 
dell30rb said:
How bout if you're a non instrument rated private pilot and you're flying at night with no horizon in haze but meeting visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.
Click to expand...

That can be normal conditions here. My last night flight was like that. +10 miles vis on the diagonal, air to ground but no way of determining straight horizontal vis.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Yes but you're also going to sign the logbook entry and the circumstances are going to be fairly obvious. My point being if you log actual time by yourself and you aren't IR (or maybe you are but the particular route dictated that you couldn't have been or probably weren't on an IFR flight plan) then it would beg the question of why you were flying in IMC.

It's just a matter of whether you want the additional scrutiny or not, that's all. Maybe I'm being over paranoid.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so.
 
dell30rb said:
How bout if you're a non instrument rated private pilot and you're flying at night with no horizon in haze but meeting visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.
Click to expand...
Then do what the Chief Counsel said: log the actual instruments time and put the circumstances in the remarks. Or don't log it -- it's up to you.
 
Velocity173 said:
Given quite a few PARs into the hazy sun on rwy 24 at NKX. Awesome place to be stationed. My last PAR in the Marines was there. I was called out to the MATCALS to give a PAR to Flight Check flying a Hawker jet. Said it was "the best PAR he's ever gotten." Not sure if you've ever done a MATCALS approach but it's pretty darn accurate. It's all touch screen and color displays capable of automatic landings (mode I) like the SPN 46 on the boat. For some reason we never certified it for fully coupled landings. Used to be state of the art stuff back in the day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was by far my favorite duty station thus far. Fantastic flying, good ranges, and at the end of the day, you get to go home and have a beer on the beach at night. Only thing I didn't like was that there was rarely any variation of the climate, aside from generally being cooler in the winter, and slightly warmer in the summer (and June gloom).

No idea what MATCALS is, but sounds cool. I also don't know anyone who has known anyone to have flown a Mode I approach at the boat, so I can only compare to the Mode II approach I am used to (be it ACLS or ICLS). Given the weirdness I've seen in older jets with pilot-relief modes and auto-throttles, I'd probably be hesitant at this point to fly a Mode I in the conditions that would warrant it......which I think is generally the consensus and reason why people don't do it often (or at all).
 
Sac Arrow said:
The difference is that you have a horizon, just not the ground surface. And by the way I wouldn't log instrument time for a VFR flight on a clear, moonless night. Personally I think logging actual instrument without being on an IFR clearance raises red flags, even if it may be technically legal.
Click to expand...
We'll see when I go for my IR checkride. I have a few tenths of an hour of logged actual in VMC conditions. All of it was over water in haze, and yes I logged that as well in case it ever raises a question. Whether the DPE will consider that evidence of poor judgment, is anyone's guess.
 
dell30rb said:
Just put it in a spin, hold full aft stick and rudder. Recover when you pop out the bottom :hairraise:

not safe or legal though
Click to expand...

And not a good idea in some aircraft...
 
Sac Arrow said:
The difference is that you have a horizon, just not the ground surface. And by the way I wouldn't log instrument time for a VFR flight on a clear, moonless night. Personally I think logging actual instrument without being on an IFR clearance raises red flags, even if it may be technically legal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. My Instrument ride was with a DPE and an inspector doing surveillance on the DPE (she wasn't in trouble, it's a normal "due diligence" occurrence". When we were reviewing the logbook they noticed some time where I'd logged actual instruement time, SOLO, and PIC. The remarks said something like "night flight over the chesaspeake bay had me glad for the instruments", and we started the oral with a discusson of VFR, IFR, and what "actual instrument conditions" were. I was taught, and I teach, that is you HAVE to use the instruments to safely keep the plane under control, that's actual instrument conditions, regardless of the view out of the window.

Now, if someone had a large amount of actual time without being rated, that would raise some questions. But don't be afraid to log it if it actually happens.
 
This has been interesting. I have a question. If you are a VFR only pilot and you make a flight like Tim just mentioned over water on a pitch black night causing you to have to fly the instruments what happens to see and avoid? Seems like you might not have much time to look out the window?
 
Considering even IFR flights conducted in VMC use see and and separation, and the flight in question is still technically in VMC, wouldn't it be the same thing?
 
EppyGA said:
This has been interesting. I have a question. If you are a VFR only pilot and you make a flight like Tim just mentioned over water on a pitch black night causing you to have to fly the instruments what happens to see and avoid? Seems like you might not have much time to look out the window?
Click to expand...

Well you'd have to have TCAS in order to make up for the lack of see and avoid. :D
 
EppyGA said:
This has been interesting. I have a question. If you are a VFR only pilot and you make a flight like Tim just mentioned over water on a pitch black night causing you to have to fly the instruments what happens to see and avoid? Seems like you might not have much time to look out the window?
Click to expand...
Part of instrument flying is, when in VMC, to look out enough that you can spot any VFR traffic out there, then get back inside long enough to interpret the instruments and make any necessary corrections, and then get back outside scanning for traffic again. It takes discipline and practice to do that.
 
Dark night VFR can definitely be a challenging task, ask JFK Jr. found out. :(
 
EppyGA said:
This has been interesting. I have a question. If you are a VFR only pilot and you make a flight like Tim just mentioned over water on a pitch black night causing you to have to fly the instruments what happens to see and avoid? Seems like you might not have much time to look out the window?
Click to expand...

Although dividing your attention appropriately can be challenging, one thing that helps is that the aircraft are lighted, which makes them easy to see at night. One exception, however, is traffic below you when you're over a city.
 
Ok the only time a VFR on top clearance ever helps is when you are playing the ATC routing game [or fuel perhaps] and in those cases you can almost never get them.

I used to want to always get a VFR on-top over NYC so instead of being at 5000 IFR you could stay at 9500, or 11500 with a good tail wind. NY NEVER allowed an VFR on top clearance - even if there were no airplanes at those altitudes.

VFR on top does not happen in LA either - or SFO.

Or it seems anyplace a VFR on top clearance can actually help.
 
comanchepilot said:
Ok the only time a VFR on top clearance ever helps is when you are playing the ATC routing game [or fuel perhaps] and in those cases you can almost never get them.
Click to expand...

What's the ATC routing game and how could VFR-on-top help it?

I used to want to always get a VFR on-top over NYC so instead of being at 5000 IFR you could stay at 9500, or 11500 with a good tail wind. NY NEVER allowed an VFR on top clearance - even if there were no airplanes at those altitudes.

VFR on top does not happen in LA either - or SFO.

Or it seems anyplace a VFR on top clearance can actually help.
Click to expand...

I don't see how VFR-on-top could help in Class B airspace given that ATC must still provide separation.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Although dividing your attention appropriately can be challenging, one thing that helps is that the aircraft are lighted, which makes them easy to see at night. One exception, however, is traffic below you when you're over a city.
Click to expand...
The good news is that if the traffic is backlit by the city lights, it's far enough below you that you won't hit it unless one of you changes altitude a good bit.
 
ChrisK said:
Considering even IFR flights conducted in VMC use see and and separation, and the flight in question is still technically in VMC, wouldn't it be the same thing?
Click to expand...
Dark clear night your advantage are the lights of the other aircraft. I find it easier to see and avoid because of the lights. Not that I haven't managed to avoid other aircraft in the daylight, just that it's easier to spot a light moving right to left than a white plane against a light background.
 
In orange county KSNA we deal with the marine layer. Especially in the morning. IFR to VFR on top is a snap. I use it all the time.
Pop out on top and cancel IFR. VFR direct:wink2:
 
andybean said:
In orange county KSNA we deal with the marine layer. Especially in the morning. IFR to VFR on top is a snap. I use it all the time.
Pop out on top and cancel IFR. VFR direct:wink2:
Click to expand...

Why bother with the VFR-on-top part if you're going to cancel IFR without operating VFR-on-top?
 
roncachamp said:
Why bother with the VFR-on-top part if you're going to cancel IFR without operating VFR-on-top?
Click to expand...

Some cases for flexibility. We used to clear the Marine helos out of Miramar (NKX) to Pendleton (NFG) VFR on top all the time (marine layer). When they got on top at 3,000 they would cancel then proceed VFR direct the restricted area and do their stuff. It's basically going from VFR on top and rolling right into over the top.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The good news is that if the traffic is backlit by the city lights, it's far enough below you that you won't hit it unless one of you changes altitude a good bit.
Click to expand...

But if it's climbing into you, look out.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right -- if the red and green lights appear motionless but are getting farther apart, it's coming straight at you. If they're getting closer together, sweat not.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Have seen that. Wasn't real happy about it. Controller capped his climb clearance about ten seconds after I saw him. Up until that point, that shiny little jet was cleared right straight into me.

Luckily nowadays folks are generally leaving all the other lights they have in disco boogie on mode for climbs and descents, as do I with my wimpy but nice LEDs in the cowl.

We haven't done a pulselight type system (kinda rubs me the wrong way that a freaking power transistor switch and the equivalent of a 555 timer hooked to it is a couple hundred bucks) but those are nice, too.
 
Velocity173 said:
Some cases for flexibility. We used to clear the Marine helos out of Miramar (NKX) to Pendleton (NFG) VFR on top all the time (marine layer). When they got on top at 3,000 they would cancel then proceed VFR direct the restricted area and do their stuff. It's basically going from VFR on top and rolling right into over the top.
Click to expand...

It's actually going from IFR to VFR.
 
roncachamp said:
It's actually going from IFR to VFR.
Click to expand...

Correct. I'm talking about aircraft that are VFR on top and no longer require the use of their IFR flight plan because where they are going doesn't have a need for it. They are now VFR over the top and can proceed to where ever they want on the range. As far as a civilian aircraft needing to cancel then go VFR direct to an airport? I dunno, maybe IFR they might encounter more delays by retaining their IFR flight plan? I myself haven't experienced this.
 
Velocity173 said:
Correct. I'm talking about aircraft that are VFR on top and no longer require the use of their IFR flight plan because where they are going doesn't have a need for it. They are now VFR over the top and can proceed to where ever they want on the range. As far as a civilian aircraft needing to cancel then go VFR direct to an airport? I dunno, maybe IFR they might encounter more delays by retaining their IFR flight plan? I myself haven't experienced this.
Click to expand...

See post #62. I don't see the purpose in requesting IFR to VFR-on-top if upon popping out on top the pilot just cancels IFR.
 
roncachamp said:
See post #62. I don't see the purpose in requesting IFR to VFR-on-top if upon popping out on top the pilot just cancels IFR.
Click to expand...

Does it make sense to file IFR and cancel when VMC is reached? Trying to understand what you are saying here. I THINK you are objecting requesting to VFR on top, which is an IFR clearance. A composite flight plan might make more sense here, eh?

Thanks!
 
ChrisK said:
Does it make sense to file IFR and cancel when VMC is reached?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Trying to understand what you are saying here. I THINK you are objecting requesting to VFR on top, which is an IFR clearance. A composite flight plan might make more sense here, eh?
Click to expand...

I'm not objecting to it, I just don't see the point in requesting IFR to VFR-on-top if the intent is to cancel IFR upon reaching VMC. If you don't intend to operate VFR-on-top why even mention VFR-on-top?
 
roncachamp said:
Yes.



I'm not objecting to it, I just don't see the point in requesting IFR to VFR-on-top if the intent is to cancel IFR upon reaching VMC. If you don't intend to operate VFR-on-top why even mention VFR-on-top?
Click to expand...

How would you request it, given the scenario?

(Edit: I've always requested "IFR climbout to VFR.")
 
roncachamp said:
I'm not objecting to it, I just don't see the point in requesting IFR to VFR-on-top if the intent is to cancel IFR upon reaching VMC. If you don't intend to operate VFR-on-top why even mention VFR-on-top?
Click to expand...

When a climb through IMC is required, one must reach VFR-on-top conditions before canceling IFR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top