What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Flying VFR and getting through clouds!!!

J

Juicegoose

Well Known Member
Okay guys call me an idiot but I was a little confused with something. I'm a VFR pilot and there have been a couple times where i've encountered the puffy little clouds. Nothing major of course and i just either stay below them if mins and the altitude allow it or get above them. Today as i was looking out into the sky(you know what I mean). the cloud layer was almost solid of in the distance. It wasn't tall growing stuff just light layer like frosting in the air. If i were a vfr pilot flying along and found myself getting below stuff like this where the cloud cover was pretty much constant. But was able to find a hole to get me above the clouds(let say bottoms at 2000 and tops at 2500..thin clouds!!!). Am I legally able to stay above those clouds. There are no clouds above me and clear sky but I can not see the ground below me at all for the thin layer. it's just a random question I thought about
 
You are legal to fly above a cloud deck. The getting down part is the issue.

If you are an LSA pilot, I think you have to stay below the clouds at all times. Someone correct me on this.
 
As long as you comply with the FARs relative to cloud clearance and visibility for the airspace you are in you are legal.

Safety and the wisdom of this situation are however another matter . If your engine quits are you and your plane capable of descending through this thin layer?

If not then I would say you are illegal from the standpoint of the FAR about careless or recklless operation.
 
Perfectly legal.

Just be positive that you have clear air ahead to get back down.
 
5 minute rule of thumb

Says to continue 5 minutes and if you don't see ground somewhere nearby, it's time to go back and descend below the clouds. A couple of times I've climbed high to get a better look around. But most of us (VFR types) won't continue for any distance above a layer.

This seems to happen to me all the time :-(.

John
 
Bill IIRC....

N941WR said:
You are legal to fly above a cloud deck. The getting down part is the issue.

If you are an LSA pilot, I think you have to stay below the clouds at all times. Someone correct me on this.
Click to expand...

LSA needs to have visual contact with the ground at all times.

Kent
 
The first time I went over a solid cloud deck had these factors:

1) Thin (300' thick?)

2) Warm temps so should not have been a freezing issue in them

3) Bottom of clouds 3000-4000' AGL

4) Wing leveler autopilot available
 
XM Weather, too

This spring, going to Sun-n-Fun, there was a flat cloud deck for about 50 miles over Virginia. Looking ahead and knowing that it would all clear out (same with discontinuous ground fog) it was great to have the XM weather on-board the 496. Yes, we had autopilot and IFR experience on-board, but the air was very stable and the layer was thin...

As for getting through clouds, you need to go up/down around them through a scattered layer, officially maintaining minimum distances, for VFR flight.
 
It's called VFR on Top. I have flown hundreds of miles on top but I knew where I was going was clear and that I could stay above the cloud layer. It's challenging sometimes and sometimes you have to back track 50 miles to get back to an opening. If you are going to do it make sure you are capable of surviving an encounter with clouds in case of an emergency. Being Instrument rated or have significant hood and actual time is a must though as far as I am concerned if you are taking long journeys on top.
 
I thought for VFR flight you have to maintain sight of the ground at all times. This is to allow for emergency landings because how do you know there isn't a mountain there when forced to break through the cloud. Plus for navigating how can you see where you are going or where you are, a GPS isn't VFR.
 
Last edited:
nturner said:
I thought for VFR flight you have to maintain sight of the ground at all times. This is to allow for emergency landings because how do you know there isn't a mountain there when forced to break through the cloud. Plus for navigating how can you see where you are going or where you are, a GPS isn't VFR.
Click to expand...

Please do not take this question the wrong way but are you still a student pilot or do you have a PPL or Light Sport Lisc?

Before you venture out on any flight you need to know everything pertinent to that flight including the terrain you are over and the height AGL of the cloud deck below.

A GPS is a navigation device that can be used VFR or IFR and legalities of its use only enters into the equation if you use it flying IMC or on an IFR flight plan.

The questions you are asking are not those I would expect from a certificated pilot and if you are would suggest you need to spend some face to face time with your CFI before you consider doing any of the stuff mentioned above.
 
nturner said:
I thought for VFR flight you have to maintain sight of the ground at all times. This is to allow for emergency landings because how do you know there isn't a mountain there when forced to break through the cloud. Plus for navigating how can you see where you are going or where you are, a GPS isn't VFR.
Click to expand...

Thanks to my Garmin 696's terrain database; I know where mountains are all the time. And of course the GPS is excellent for the navigation question too.
The majority of my flights are in mountainous areas.

3D synthetic vision is even better. But I'm not advocating "scud running" We often see the results of scud running around here. Unfortunately, I think that their GPS's were not of the sufficient data-base type.

L.Adamson
 
VFR on top

TSwezey said:
It's called VFR on Top. I have flown hundreds of miles on top but I knew where I was going was clear and that I could stay above the cloud layer. It's challenging sometimes and sometimes you have to back track 50 miles to get back to an opening. If you are going to do it make sure you are capable of surviving an encounter with clouds in case of an emergency. Being Instrument rated or have significant hood and actual time is a must though as far as I am concerned if you are taking long journeys on top.
Click to expand...

I'm nit-picking, but the term (according to the FAA) is "VFR over the top." VFR on top is usually used to describe flying at VFR altitudes and providing your own separation while on a IFR clearance. And no, I don't know why people bother to do that, all it gives you is some leeway in altitude, you still have to fly the filed course.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Juicegoose said:
Okay guys call me an idiot but I was a little confused with something. I'm a VFR pilot and there have been a couple times where i've encountered the puffy little clouds. Nothing major of course and i just either stay below them if mins and the altitude allow it or get above them. Today as i was looking out into the sky(you know what I mean). the cloud layer was almost solid of in the distance. It wasn't tall growing stuff just light layer like frosting in the air. If i were a vfr pilot flying along and found myself getting below stuff like this where the cloud cover was pretty much constant. But was able to find a hole to get me above the clouds(let say bottoms at 2000 and tops at 2500..thin clouds!!!). Am I legally able to stay above those clouds. There are no clouds above me and clear sky but I can not see the ground below me at all for the thin layer. it's just a random question I thought about
Click to expand...

As others have said, yes, you're legal if you maintain legal clearances. What you need to consider is what you would do if you couldn't find a hole to descend through the layer or if your engine quit.

In the "no hole" scenario, the legitimate thing to do is call the FSS and see if they can help you find a VFR hole nearby. If that fails, you'll need to ask for ATC assistance which will probably result in declaring an emergency plus the related paperwork. Then the question becomes whether you can successfully pilot the airplane through the clouds.

In the engine out scenario, you're faced with the issue of keeping the shiny side up in an emergency (power failure in IMC) event AND whether you have enough clear air below the clouds to put yourself in position for a safe forced landing. If the cloud deck reaches the ground or stops at 100' AGL, you're probably headed for a bad end...
 
If you have the appropriate equipment in case of emergency (as others have pointed out) as well as good knowledge about the weather on each end, then it can be a quite nice experience. Usually it's smoooooth above a layer like that, and can make for a very enjoyable flight. See the pic below shot from my RV6 one flight - not a very thick layer, but a nice cold, smooth and sunny day that was a REALLY nice flight. This scuzzy layer only was about 100 miles long with clear weather on each end. This is one of those cases where it started out ok below where I was flying, but the scud got lower & lower & lower (actually it was the ground getting higher, but the net result is the same). Finally I just went over the top as it was much more enjoyable.

Cheers,
Stein

RV6CLOUDSright.jpg
 
VFR ON TOP ref AIM

nturner said:
I thought for VFR flight you have to maintain sight of the ground at all times. This is to allow for emergency landings because how do you know there isn't a mountain there when forced to break through the cloud. Plus for navigating how can you see where you are going or where you are, a GPS isn't VFR.
Click to expand...

The following is taken from the AIM:

a. Pilot.

1. This clearance must be requested by the pilot on an IFR flight plan, and if approved, allows the pilot the choice (subject to any ATC restrictions) to select an altitude or flight level in lieu of an assigned altitude.

NOTE-
VFR-on-top is not permitted in certain airspace areas, such as Class A airspace, certain restricted areas, etc. Consequently, IFR flights operating VFR-on-top will avoid such airspace.

REFERENCE-
AIM, IFR Clearance VFR-on-top, Paragraph 4-4-8.
AIM, IFR Separation Standards, Paragraph 4-4-11.
AIM, Position Reporting, Paragraph 5-3-2.
AIM, Additional Reports, Paragraph 5-3-3.

2. By requesting a VFR-on-top clearance, the pilot assumes the sole responsibility to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft and to:
(a) Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.159
(b) Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from clouds criteria in 14 CFR Section 91.155, Basic VFR weather minimums.
(c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

3. Should advise ATC prior to any altitude change to ensure the exchange of accurate traffic information.

b. Controller.

1. May clear an aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top if the pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests the clearance.
2. Informs the pilot of an aircraft cleared to climb to VFR-on-top the reported height of the tops or that no top report is available; issues an alternate clearance if necessary; and once the aircraft reports reaching VFR-on-top, reclears the aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top.
3. Before issuing clearance, ascertain that the aircraft is not in or will not enter Class A airspace.
 
N395V said:
Please do not take this question the wrong way but are you still a student pilot or do you have a PPL or Light Sport Lisc?

Before you venture out on any flight you need to know everything pertinent to that flight including the terrain you are over and the height AGL of the cloud deck below.

A GPS is a navigation device that can be used VFR or IFR and legalities of its use only enters into the equation if you use it flying IMC or on an IFR flight plan.

The questions you are asking are not those I would expect from a certificated pilot and if you are would suggest you need to spend some face to face time with your CFI before you consider doing any of the stuff mentioned above.
Click to expand...


I can appreciate Milt's comments, but as a low time VFR guy myself, I can appreciate the confusion. Most of my flying since getting my ticket has been in strictly VFR equiped planes without nav aids other than compass. I can pretty much guarantee that if I tried the kind of flying shown in Stein's beautiful pic I'd be lost in short order. Without prior flight following, I suppose ATC might have a hard time even finding me and obviously a chart is worthless. GPS would save the day if I had one with me, but...

It might be legal, but without solid training and the proper gadgets it's not for me.
 
John Clark said:
I'm nit-picking, but the term (according to the FAA) is "VFR over the top." VFR on top is usually used to describe flying at VFR altitudes and providing your own separation while on a IFR clearance. And no, I don't know why people bother to do that, all it gives you is some leeway in altitude, you still have to fly the filed course.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, I had that on my brain since I have been studying for my IR.
 
Two issues...

As i said earlier, there is a difference between VFR over the top, the issue we are talking about here, flying on top of a cloud layer, in visual conditions without an IFR clearance and VFR on top, flying on an IFR clearance which is what you have quoted from from the AIM.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA


DAGO said:
The following is taken from the AIM:

a. Pilot.

1. This clearance must be requested by the pilot on an IFR flight plan, and if approved, allows the pilot the choice (subject to any ATC restrictions) to select an altitude or flight level in lieu of an assigned altitude.

NOTE-
VFR-on-top is not permitted in certain airspace areas, such as Class A airspace, certain restricted areas, etc. Consequently, IFR flights operating VFR-on-top will avoid such airspace.

REFERENCE-
AIM, IFR Clearance VFR-on-top, Paragraph 4-4-8.
AIM, IFR Separation Standards, Paragraph 4-4-11.
AIM, Position Reporting, Paragraph 5-3-2.
AIM, Additional Reports, Paragraph 5-3-3.

2. By requesting a VFR-on-top clearance, the pilot assumes the sole responsibility to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft and to:
(a) Fly at the appropriate VFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.159
(b) Comply with the VFR visibility and distance from clouds criteria in 14 CFR Section 91.155, Basic VFR weather minimums.
(c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

3. Should advise ATC prior to any altitude change to ensure the exchange of accurate traffic information.

b. Controller.

1. May clear an aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top if the pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests the clearance.
2. Informs the pilot of an aircraft cleared to climb to VFR-on-top the reported height of the tops or that no top report is available; issues an alternate clearance if necessary; and once the aircraft reports reaching VFR-on-top, reclears the aircraft to maintain VFR-on-top.
3. Before issuing clearance, ascertain that the aircraft is not in or will not enter Class A airspace.
Click to expand...
 
My favorite VFR over the top

You amateur astronomers know how it always clouds up when you really want to see something.

A number of years ago we had a nice annular solar eclipse in my area. The forecast was quite good and we usually have pretty clear weather but as the time approached it was getting pretty cloudy, but with lots of breaks. Finally I made a mad dash for the airport. As I pulled in there I met up with sort of a "hippy van" with a family that was looking for a good spot to see the eclipse. I offered to take up to three of them, but they turned me down. They should have come.

I got in the airplane and climbed on top; seems like I had to go to 12,000 or 13,000 or so. It was a great experience watching the eclipse (using a solar filter and taking plenty of breaks to watch for air traffic) up above the puffy cloud layer.

When the eclipse was completely over a lot of time had passed and now there were no breaks to get down through. No problem. I was equipped and current so just called center for an approach clearance and did the VOR approach. They probably don't get that much IFR Piper Pacer traffic these days.

Memorable!



P1010222.jpg

On the way back from LOE 2005​
 
Last edited:
Ok I have a question about this also, I only want to hear about what is or is not legal not someone?s opinion about what may or may not be safe, that I can decide for myself as can the rest of us I?m sure.

I fly VFR over the top all the time, and always have the report for where I am going; besides I believe we are required to have the weather for our destination before we leave any way. My question is this, is it ?legal? to fly over the top in such a way that if the engine quit you could not reach the edge of the clouds and the ceiling below the clouds is below VFR minimums? So IFR below the clouds and flying VFR over the top of those clouds and you cant reach clear air below if the engine quits. Legal or not?

We where just talking about this at the airport the other day and no one had the answer.
 
Russ,


My interpretation is yes it is legal.

Assuming you are a VFR pilot flying VFR over a solid layer. You planned the flight, got a brief and know it is clear at your destination and will stay that way, in my opinion it is legal to fly without the ability to glide to VMC while enroute.

If you lose an engine and must descend through the cloud deck you are covered by the anything necessary to respond to an emergency part of the regs.
 
VFR Over the Top

Could I have the FAR Part 91 reference that authorizes VFR Over the Top procedures for VFR operations in the U.S? Below is the Part 135 regulation. Pay particular note to paragraph b.(2). Why would a Part 91 VFR operator not be required to plan his flight to comply with the same?

Sec. 135.211 - VFR: Over-the-top carrying passengers: Operating limitations.

Subject to any additional limitations in ?135.181, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR over-the-top carrying passengers, unless --

(a) Weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that the weather at the intended point of termination of over-the-top flight --

(1) Allows descent to beneath the ceiling under VFR and is forecast to remain so until at least 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at that point; or

(2) Allows an IFR approach and landing with flight clear of the clouds until reaching the prescribed initial approach altitude over the final approach facility, unless the approach is made with the use of radar under ?91.175(f) of this chapter; or

(b) It is operated under conditions allowing --

(1) For multiengine aircraft, descent or continuation of the flight under VFR if its critical engine fails; or

(2) For single-engine aircraft, descent under VFR if its engine fails.

[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-32, 54 FR 34332, Aug. 18, 1989]

Regards,
 
Use the Basic VFR WX Requirements of 91.155

Tom, Nice question. I've spent too much time myself flying Part 121 to think about this subject. I did a Google search and came up with this, which I believe answers the question. This is from the Northwest Antique Airplane Club, who quoted from AvWeb: http://www.nwaac.com/article_vfr_on_top.htm

The Long Way Around To VFR On Top
A Story Not For The Squeamish...
When AVweb reader Steve Biddle asked an innocent question about flying VFR above a cloud layer, he initiated a long and tangled quest through the annals of the FAA, the confusion of the GA masses, and the arcana of the U.S. airspace system. Today, almost two months after Biddle's query was chosen as a Question Of The Week, we have an official, certifiable, FAA answer ... that is, if you consider an answer from an FAA staffer who signs his e-mails as "Member, Loyal Order of the Flackosaurus Aeronauticus" to be official in the official sense. FAA Flight Standards spokesman Les Dorr, who braved the cloudy corridors of the FAA to get us this response, says: "Sorry for the delay [this arrived about four weeks after our initial request]. Here 'tiz ... The main question was, 'Can a VFR-only pilot legally fly over a cloud layer in VFR conditions, then descend and land, all maintaining VFR visibility and cloud-separation requirements?' The answer is yes. VFR-over-the-top is not addressed in 14 CFR Part 91, so only the basic VFR weather requirements of Section 91.155 [Basic VFR weather minimums] apply."

Dorr wrote: "VFR-on-top is an aircraft on an IFR clearance that has requested and received permission to operate at VFR altitudes of their choice in VMC from ATC, but is still considered to be an IFR aircraft. Although it is not prohibited by the regulations, [VFR-only] pilots who choose to fly on top need to consider their options in the event of a situation that might require an immediate landing. A simple need to land for some minor issue, such as a sick passenger, could turn into a life-threatening emergency."
 
DAGO said:
Could I have the FAR Part 91 reference that authorizes VFR Over the Top procedures for VFR operations in the U.S? Below is the Part 135 regulation. Pay particular note to paragraph b.(2). Why would a Part 91 VFR operator not be required to plan his flight to comply with the same?
Click to expand...

Tom, the best way to think about it is the FAA feels that it's okay for you to kill yourself and friends/loved ones, but not others who are paying passengers. That is why you will find more restrictions in the 135/121 world than the 91 world. Oddly the opposite is usually true with regards to IFR alternates but for the most part you will find much less restriction in "grey" operations while part 91 than 135 or 121. In either case, VFR over the top can be scary or perfectly safe, depending on a number of factors. Final decision rests with el capitan. ;)
 
Last edited:
John Clark said:
VFR on top is usually used to describe flying at VFR altitudes and providing your own separation while on a IFR clearance. And no, I don't know why people bother to do that, all it gives you is some leeway in altitude, you still have to fly the filed course.
Click to expand...

I've done "VFR on top" while IFR numerous times, usually for traffic purposes. Last time was an IFR leg from Santa Theresa, NM to Palm Springs. I was at 10,000 on the airway overtaking a Mooney, so the controller wants me to climb to 12,000. I was clear of clouds and didn't want to climb to 12K, so requested VFR on top at 10,500. No problemo, I passed the Mooney 500 ft above and went on my way. Easy!
 
VFR on top

jbDC9 said:
I've done "VFR on top" while IFR numerous times, usually for traffic purposes. Last time was an IFR leg from Santa Theresa, NM to Palm Springs. I was at 10,000 on the airway overtaking a Mooney, so the controller wants me to climb to 12,000. I was clear of clouds and didn't want to climb to 12K, so requested VFR on top at 10,500. No problemo, I passed the Mooney 500 ft above and went on my way. Easy!
Click to expand...

An excellent use of the rule, I have done the same thing many times flying Part 135. My remark was about people that ask for VFR on top routinely, without any obvious need. Guess it would protect one from an altitude bust. :rolleyes:

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
jbDC9 said:
I've done "VFR on top" while IFR numerous times, usually for traffic purposes. Last time was an IFR leg from Santa Theresa, NM to Palm Springs. I was at 10,000 on the airway overtaking a Mooney, so the controller wants me to climb to 12,000. I was clear of clouds and didn't want to climb to 12K, so requested VFR on top at 10,500. No problemo, I passed the Mooney 500 ft above and went on my way. Easy!
Click to expand...

Exactly. It was explained to me that VFR on top clearance on an IFR flight plan reduces the traffic separation requirements for ATC because you can now "see and avoid," and you fly at VFR cruising altitudes following visual flight rules . This is why it is called "VFR on top" and not "VMC on top." It can also help reduce controller workload.

You are still on an IFR flight plan, so the obligation to inform ATC of changes in altitude still applies. If you encounter IMC at your altitude you'll either have to request a new VFR cruising altitude or cancel the VFR on top clearance.
 
n5lp said:
You amateur astronomers know how it always clouds up when you really want to see something.

A number of years ago we had a nice annular solar eclipse in my area. The forecast was quite good and we usually have pretty clear weather but as the time approached it was getting pretty cloudy, but with lots of breaks. Finally I made a mad dash for the airport. As I pulled in there I met up with sort of a "hippy van" with a family that was looking for a good spot to see the eclipse. I offered to take up to three of them, but they turned me down. They should have come.I got in the airplane and climbed on top; seems like I had to go to 12,000 or 13,000 or so. It was a great experience watching the eclipse (using a solar filter and taking plenty of breaks to watch for air traffic) up above the puffy cloud layer.

When the eclipse was completely over a lot of time had passed and now there were no breaks to get down through. No problem. I was equipped and current so just called center for an approach clearance and did the VOR approach. They probably don't get that much IFR Piper Pacer traffic these days.

Memorable!



P1010222.jpg

On the way back from LOE 2005​
Click to expand...

Are you questioning the decision of a family to not go fly above the clouds with a total stranger in a homebuilt airplane?
 
The Pacer is a certificated airframe but likely 50+ years old so they may still have been wise to pass on the offer.

I however would have been on board before he could finish the sentance!! My risk management envelope is somewhat broader than the average by a significant margin.

I LOVE VFR over the top, best views in the world, best sunsets and sunrises ever. I frequently go fly at sunset because it's a broken layer and I can get on top for a few minutes.

Always have an out and go for it prudently. Few guidelines I've used to get comfortable: Call flight watch for updates and keep a very conservative fuel reserve. Get enough IFR experience to have a decent for an emergency out even if it'll result in a bust (better alive and talking to FAA than spinning in). Best yet be IFR rated and never have to worry about it but I'm still working on that one (3/4 IFR rated going on 2 years:rolleyes:!)

Cheers
 
VFR Over the TOP

Flyfalcons said:
Tom, the best way to think about it is the FAA feels that it's okay for you to kill yourself and friends/loved ones, but not others who are paying passengers. That is why you will find more restrictions in the 135/121 world than the 91 world. Oddly the opposite is usually true with regards to IFR alternates but for the most part you will find much less restriction in "grey" operations while part 91 than 135 or 121. In either case, VFR over the top can be scary or perfectly safe, depending on a number of factors. Final decision rests with el capitan. ;)
Click to expand...

John, Gary, & Ryan,

Thanks for the input and references. I have just gotten back into flying again after a 3 year absence. In April, I had taken a VFR refresher course and thought they did a pretty good job reviewing the FARs. However, the VFR over the top was not discussed. My conservative assumption is that you could not legally fly Part 91 VFR over a solid undercast. Now I see otherwise.

As always, it would be a personal decision to fly VFR over a solid undercast. In 1969, I had an engine failure in a Cessna 150. As a matter of fact, we were coming back from the EAA fly-in at Rockford, Illinois. I was at 6500 ft when it happened. We landed next to a corn field. I was very thankful that I had good visual conditions to select a landing site. That experience pretty much set my personal standards while flying VFR?no ground in sight?no fly.

Regards,
 
Great answers guys. Like most of you I have always felt it is a personal decision as to your capabilities and safety whether or not you should get on top of small cloud layer. I think alot of us VFR pilots are extremly cautious around clouds and rightfully so. But I know some pilots that if it's anything more then blue skys they won't go up in fear of not keeping proper separation from the clouds. Again it's a personal choice. To the guys that spoke of navigating In VFR without being able to see the ground. I know when I was learning my instructor had me tunning in VORs all the time. He said if you can see the ground and no where your at thats great but to have a second item that can help you determine exactly where your at that even better. There have been many a time I've used the intersection of to VORs to locate exactly where I was at when i was renting a spam can without GPS. Try as you might sometimes the sectional just doesn't have alot of identifiable stuff on it.
 
This was a good discussion for another low-timer (me!). I have to be honest though, once you pick through the legalities of the topic, the real issue to me seems to be the rationality of doing it. I know I have already desensitized to some things I was cautious of just months or a year ago, like X-C under a 3000' base. I always felt better flying at 4500' AGL than 2500'. But now I am not as bothered by it. Does that mean I am a better pilot? Probably not. And I can't see how you could argue that 2500' is safer than 4500', all else equal. So do we become less sensitive to things and still make rational trip decisions or do we simply rationalize the risk in our minds???

Case in point. I have a handheld GPS like a lot of other PP's. And I love to use it. But if I am going anywhere that is near a sensitive airspace, or someplace I am not completely familiar with, I always make sure I have my flight planned on a chart next to me in case my GPS goes away. But what if I was over a layer and had 100 miles of X-C ahead of me until I could land at my destination in clear air. Would I want to navigate that with a handheld GPS? I don't think I would make that trip. But as I mentioned, I already noticed that certain things are less worrisome to me now. I don't know what the answer is, or SHOULD BE (if there is a universal truth to be found). But this discussion has made me stop an think, so I thank you all for you posts!:)
 
RV3 Pilot said:
Are you questioning the decision of a family to not go fly above the clouds with a total stranger...?
Click to expand...
I guess I expressed that poorly. If their decision was based on uncertainty about the pilot or airplane, I would never question the decision. I was thinking about it in terms of an opportunity lost. I really think they didn't go because not everyone could go together.

I do think about this issue and I don't normally offer rides, especially if I think the person does not know what they are getting into. Although we all know that we control a lot of the safety issues ourselves, statistically, what we do is very far from being a safe activity. I do offer a ride on occasion if I am pretty sure the person really wants to go and is just being polite not to ask. I virtually always give a ride, if asked.

When someone declines a ride, I don't give it a second thought nor do I question their judgment. There are lots of people that I know and know the airplane and do not want a ride and hope that isn't held against me.
 
Last edited:
n5lp said:
I do offer a ride on occasion if I am pretty sure the person really wants to go and is just being polite not to ask. I virtually always give a ride, if asked.

When someone declines a ride, I don't give it a second thought nor do I question their judgment. There are lots of people that I know and know the airplane and do not want a ride and hope that isn't held against me.
Click to expand...

I have had to wrestle with this problem also. I used to give rides all the time, volunteer for Young Eagles, ect. Then, after a conversation with the FAA about "Experimentals" and giving rides I stopped. The public just does not understand the nature of Experimentals. Even if you explain it to them it is a conversation it is not good enough. Signing a waiver is simply not good enough. You are trying to convince them it is safe, when in fact it is not safe by the standards the public (court system) has set. I no longer give rides to anyone other than owners or pilots of experimental aircraft or my immediate family. Young Eagles included, and that makes me sick.

The conversation with the FAA I had was concerning offering a flight as a charitable gift to raise money. I would donate an hour of flight time in the -10 so it could be raffled off to raise money for breast cancer research. The FAA said no because the plane is "Experimental". "The person buying the winning raffle ticket does not understand the dangers of flying Experimental aircraft and could not have the knowledge of the dangers involved over "Certified" aircraft. Signing a waiver is not good enough. The public has demanded "certified" aircraft be built to a certain standard, "Experimentals" are not, therefore no experimental can be used for hire, charitable rides, and should not be used to give airplane rides to the unsuspecting public."

The EAA had to lobbied the FAA to allow Experimentals to be used in Young Eagle flights, but even that is on very shaky legal ground, and the waivers are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Trust me, I hate even posting this, but "it is what it is." Seems like of you are having fun flying, or bringing fun to someone else flying, you are more than likely breaking some FAR's somewhere.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
Larry,
Giving Young Eagle flghts in an E-AB aircraft is absolutely legal. Do you have documentation otherwise?

Are you sure you're not thinking about Boy Scouts and participation in official scouting events--than I believe you are correct.

Also, don't confuse giving rides for free and giving the rides away as a raffle. The two are not the same--that's the FAA's position. You are free to give rides to anyone you want.
 
Last edited:
n5lp said:
Although we all know that we control a lot of the safety issues ourselves, statistically, what we do is very far from being a safe activity.
Click to expand...

where can i find such statistics? Do they really prove flying in exp. aircraft is less safe than getting on a freeway in a major city? Or is it another lies, **** lies, and statistics type of factoid?
 
Aargh! Statistics.

I'm going to preface this by agreeing that MANY factors are being left out so please don't give me a lecture on sloppy math, but one quick and easy comparison goes like this:

Number of drivers in US: 200,000,000
Number of traffic deaths last year: 40,000
Chance of a driver winding up dead: .0002

Number of pilots: 600,000
Number of airplane deaths last year: 490
Chance of a pilot winding up dead: .0008

Being a pilot is about four times more likely to kill you than being a driver.
 
AndyRV7 said:
This was a good discussion for another low-timer (me!). I have to be honest though, once you pick through the legalities of the topic, the real issue to me seems to be the rationality of doing it. I know I have already desensitized to some things I was cautious of just months or a year ago, like X-C under a 3000' base. I always felt better flying at 4500' AGL than 2500'. But now I am not as bothered by it. Does that mean I am a better pilot? Probably not. And I can't see how you could argue that 2500' is safer than 4500', all else equal. So do we become less sensitive to things and still make rational trip decisions or do we simply rationalize the risk in our minds???
Click to expand...

Andy,

Good post. You are correct, the real issue is the rationality of doing it. The fail safe barometer is the feeling you get in the pit of your stomach during the decision making process. VFR over the top operations could definitely give you that funny feeling. Below is a recap of my 1969 engine failure under favorable conditions:

The engine failure that I experienced at 6500 ft MSL (about 5500 ft AGL), gave me considerable options. At the time, I was a newly licensed private pilot with about 60 hours total flight time. At the moment of engine failure, to my west was the Bloomington, IL airport. Because of the prevailing winds, I decided that I did not have the glide ratio to make Bloomington.

I was closer to Gibson City, IL which had two sod strip airports listed on the sectional. One airport was depicted on the west side of town, the other was depicted to the east.

With my eyes as wide as silver dollars, I could not pick out the airstrip on the west side of town. So I made the decision that if I couldn?t locate the airport by 4000 ft, I would cross over to the east side to locate the other airport. In the mean time, I identified a suitable forced landing field about where I had guesstimated my emergency landing field to be.

Well, as luck would have it, I still couldn't locate the second airport, so at 2500 ft, I set up for an approach into a tall grass area located between a corn field and a stream. The touchdown and rollout was bumpy but uneventful with no damage. My knees started knocking about 30 seconds after coming to a stop.

If I didn?t have visibility, altitude, and terrain factors all in my favor, the outcome could have been different. With VFR over the top operations, if you are forced to descend through an undercast because of an engine failure, you may not enter VMC nor have the time to set up for a forced landing.

As you can discern, VFR over the top procedures is not on my Hit Parade List. I had to use my Barney Fife silver bullet. This discussion highlighted in my mind the need for FAR Part 91 guidance on this procedure. I would recommend that at least basic VFR weather minimums are forecasted to exist below the ceiling along the proposed route of flight, and to include mandatory use of flight following. With the addition of a few Rolaids, my stomach could possibly then rationalize VFR over the top procedures.:)

Regards,
 
Statistics

Danny7 said:
where can i find such statistics? Do they really prove flying in exp. aircraft is less safe than getting on a freeway in a major city? Or is it another lies, **** lies, and statistics type of factoid?
Click to expand...

Danny, Steve's "Cliff Notes" version is close, but if you want a good read on the subject with some breakdowns on the stats, take a look at this:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Geico266 said:
The EAA had to lobbied the FAA to allow Experimentals to be used in Young Eagle flights, but even that is on very shaky legal ground, and the waivers are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Trust me, I hate even posting this, but "it is what it is." Seems like of you are having fun flying, or bringing fun to someone else flying, you are more than likely breaking some FAR's somewhere.

JMHO
Click to expand...

The title of this thread "Flying VFR and getting through clouds" is an oxymoron of sorts. You can not fly VFR and get through clouds unless an emergency is declared.

Beyond that and going with the drift of the thread, the legality of using an experimental airplane for purposes not clearly authorized in the operating limitations is not smart. Also, giving "rides" just for fun is a legal risk everyone should think about, especially Young Eagles, and young parents with kids at home. You hurt a kid or a parent of young kids, you are in serious legal trouble and whatever liability insurance you have, it may not be enough to prevent being wiped out financially forever.

I like people and I like kids but I don't give many rides for that reason. I know what can go wrong in flight and its always better not having to be concerned about a passenger - unless he is some old fxxx pilot who should know better than to be there. :)
 
TSwezey said:
It's called VFR on Top. I have flown hundreds of miles on top but I knew where I was going was clear and that I could stay above the cloud layer.
Click to expand...

Just to be a bit anal, VFR-On-Top is an IFR clearance allowing an IFR flight to operate in VFR conditions at pilot-selected VFR altitudes. Flying VFR above the clouds (with required cloud clearance) is just plain old VFR.
 
Last edited:
aerovin said:
Just to be a bit anal, VFR-On-Top is an IFR clearance allowing an IFR flight to operate in VFR conditions at pilot-selected VFR altitudes. Flying VFR above the clouds (with required cloud clearance) is just plain old VFR.
Click to expand...

Somebody beat you to the punch but if we are being a bit anal there is a term,VFR over the top.
 
N395V said:
Please do not take this question the wrong way but are you still a student pilot or do you have a PPL or Light Sport Lisc?

Before you venture out on any flight you need to know everything pertinent to that flight including the terrain you are over and the height AGL of the cloud deck below.

A GPS is a navigation device that can be used VFR or IFR and legalities of its use only enters into the equation if you use it flying IMC or on an IFR flight plan.

The questions you are asking are not those I would expect from a certificated pilot and if you are would suggest you need to spend some face to face time with your CFI before you consider doing any of the stuff mentioned above.
Click to expand...


Here in NZ a lot of aero clubs also have their own added rules when hiring their aircraft for added safety such as not to fly above cloud when you can't see the ground and for VFR you have to be able to navigate with a chart only.
According to the CAA if flying 3000ft or below then you have to be in sight of the ground at all times. Above that as long as you meet the minimums for cloud clearance you are fine but the problem comes down to navigating because with solid cloud a chart is useless. When training etc (and a lot of aircraft that you can hire from aero clubs) you don't have a GPS so this immediately prohibits you from doing this. Here the use of a GPS while flying VFR can only be used as an aid to navigation and charts so flying above solid cloud the GPS would be your only form of navigating and your only form of navigating for a long period of time other than just flying a heading for a set time. Also a number of times I have heard of many pilots losing their GPS signals or their GPS's going down for long periods and for someone who is only rated VFR with no other instrumental aids then this could mean trouble. Also here in NZ VOR tracking is not included in PPL flight tests
 
Last edited:
nturner said:
Also a number of times I have heard of many pilots losing their GPS signals or their GPS's going down for long periods and for someone who is only rated VFR with no other instrumental aids then this could mean trouble. Also here in NZ VOR tracking is not included in PPL flight tests
Click to expand...

I can't speak for GPS in NZ,

But I often quiz other pilots in regards to GPS loss of signal, as well as my own GPS experience since 1993; in which I've owned six aviation GPSs. Unless there is some type of military operation which is usually has a NOTAM, or a case of bad antenna location---

GPS's rarely fail. It's been years since any of mine have, as well as many pilots I know. Of course there will be those who experience GPS outages, but as a whole, failure or loss of signal is really rare these days. I've had satellite based radio in my vehicles for six years. They haven't failed for more than a few seconds, and it's mostly under an overpass or deep canyon.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
 
Just my opinion, but............

Juicegoose said:
.....Am I legally able to stay above those clouds...........
Click to expand...

Flying over a cloud or a few clouds is one thing, but in my opinion flying over a layer is excessive risk for a VFR-only pilot. A VFR-only rated pilot with solid hood skills reduces the safety risk considerably, which is the most important thing. However, the legal risk remains, which is the second most important thing.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't do my best flying when I'm afraid of getting in trouble for violating an FAR.

I'm instrument rated, IFR current, and my airplane is instrument equipped, but I think long and hard before flying VFR above a cloud layer.

I do it, but only if one of the following:
-Improving weather, so I know that more and larger holes will be opening.
-Flying into better weather so I know I can get down VFR
-The weather (temperature), route of flight, altitude, destination, and planning are suitable to continue/finish the flight IFR if necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top