VFR Over The Top. Oldie but a goodie. Anyway I've done it a few times but I'm IFR rated and equipped. Obviously you're not on an IFR flight plan or clearance through all this either. Anyway the question is can a VFR guy do it legally? AOPA told me no, the aircraft has to be IFR certified and the pilot IFR rated. Ron?
She probably was. Any PP or better can legally climb up through a big enough hole, cruise around on top with nothing more than the 91.205 minimum VFR equipment, and descend again back down through a big enough hole. There are lots of reasons why doing that isn't real smart, but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal. Where you need instrument privileges, instrument equipment, and an instrument clearance in that scenario is to climb through a layer to get VFR over the top, cancel, and continue VFR.
) I do make it a point to say "awesome work" or something to that effect when a PAR controller does a great job....my hope is that their sup hears this and notices. Last PAR I shot here was to mins in driving rain in L5 with a convective sigmet over the field, and the girl controlling me was like pure sugar on the radio. Absolutely perfect control right down to breaking out over the rabbit lights. I ASAP'd her as being a step beyond perfect. Granted, I'm sure that given the conditions, she was anything but a student, but that was by far the best PAR I have gotten in at least a couple years (to include attempts at sugar calls from CATCC at night behind the boat on a crappy wx night).
Fighterspeak. And I understood it just fine. :wink2:What foreign language is this??! Dang I can't wait to get instrument rated
Does anyone know the answer to this one??
Fair enough. I'm of course exaggerating. I absolutely do give them my best work on practice PAR's, even if it is CAVU and requested for controller training.....and I will fly the headings they call regardless of how far I am off centerline. For whatever reason today, they weren't doing PAR's, though that would have been the SOP for any other mil field I have ever flown from. Heck, Miramar would be shooting PAR's with HZ and a bad sun angle like it was going out of style (or misreporting ceilings for FCLP players, concluding with me going IMC in the break
I think it would depend on conditions. In most cases, VFR over the top operations are conducted in clear blue skies above a defined deck providing a good horizon reference, in which case they are not dependent on the flight instruments for aircraft control, only for navigation. In that case, I would not think it appropriate to log instrument time. OTOH, at night, with a high overcast above so there is no moon or stars to help light a horizon reference, it would be actual instrument conditions.
Not sure why it would raise any "red flags" since the FAA Chief Counsel it was correct, although in keeping with his advice, it would be wise to log the conditions which led you to do that.
In the Chief Counsel's files, not on the web site, as it's an older one, but here's what it says (minus the second question about the six month rule):
You can confirm this letter by contacting AGC-200 if you need a paper copy.
However, that's logged in the "simulated instrument" column, not the "actual instrument" column, and the safety pilot's name is recorded in the "remarks" column, so it's clearly distinguishable. But as you mentioned, there's nothing in the log saying the flight was conducted under VFR unless you put that in the "remarks" column.
As an instrument instructor, I do a lot of practice approaches under VFR with my trainees. But again, that's done with a vision restricting device, and logged as simulated, not actual, instrument time, and thus easily distinguishable from time logged under the "no available external references" provision of the Carr letter.
