VMC on top - are you VFR?

[tmmorris]

A recent flight got me thinking about this one again. I think I know the answer...

If you are IMC rated and flying in VMC on top, maintaining adequate clearance from the clouds vertically and horizontally, can you be VFR? My understanding is yes, you can, as an IMC-rated pilot is exempt from the 3000viz/in sight of surface requirement, and only needs ICAO VFR minima.

The recent flight? I was IFR out of Oxford towards Wolverhampton SpacePort at FL45. FL45 was nicely between two cloud layers... then the clouds started to rise up. I stayed at FL45 and went into IMC, but it would have been nicer to climb to, say, FL50 or so - but that would have been an incorrect level for IFR, so I would have needed to be VFR to do it.

Tim

[FlyingForFun]

My understanding is the same as yours - you can be VFR. But I'm not 100% certain on that one.

However, in the example you give, FL50 would not have given you adequate separation from clouds to be flying VFR (1000' vertically at altitudes of 3000' and higher), so you would have been stuck with IFR in any case.

FFF
---------------

[tmmorris]

Good point. I need to re-learn VFR minima, as in practice all my VFR flying has been low enough to be 'clear of clouds and in sight of surface'.

Tim

[IO540]

AFAIK you can indeed be "VFR" if VMC on top and with the IMCR, but there isn't any point that I can think of, since calling yourself "IFR" to ATC makes it far more likely you will get a RIS, overhead transits on large airfields, etc. "IFR" flights are treated as knowing what they are doing and you get a lot less hassle :O

[desafinado]

Check out this link, should give you some of the answers.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/DAP_ACD_3_VFR_Airspace.pdf

As long as you meet those criteria, you are VFR - your IMC rating does not change the VFR minima and doesn't come into it when deciding VFR or not. As soon as you don't have those VFR in flight conditions any more, you're IMC.
So, the question to your answer is yes, you can have VFR on top, even as a VFR pilot only. Not for you on your recent trip though, because you were IFR (and having filed a flight plan etc.). In that case nothing changes, whether you're in cloud or not, unless you decide to cancel IFR and continue VFR.

Happy flying,
des

[tmmorris]

That's a fantastic document, particularly the chart - thanks, Desafinado. I can't think why I haven't come across it before - it would be invaluable for training. I was forgetting that above 3000ft you can't get away with being clear of cloud - you need specific separation vertically and horizontally.

Tim

[IO540]

desafinado

I am not sure that makes sense. The IMC Rating allows you to call yourself "VFR" down to 1500m. Below that you have to call yourself "IFR" (and are in IMC).

However ATC don't generally care whether you are IMC or VMC. You tell them whether you are flying VFR or IFR.

With a PPL only, "VFR" is 3000m min.

(AIUI)

[englishal]

Basically the IMCR removes the "in sight of the surface" restriction in the ANO, so if you comply with VFR minima above the cloud, then yep you are VFR

EA

[Justiciar]

The IMC Rating allows you to call yourself "VFR" down to 1500m

I think you will find that you are only VFR if you can meet the VFR minima set out in the Rules of the Air. Being VFR has nothing to do with what sort of licence or rating you have. If you cannot comply with the VFR minima then you have to fly IFR. Thats why the 1000' feet above the highest object within 5 miles of track is taught for the IMC rating. The actual visibility will determine whether you can remain within the privileges of your licence or rating. Because you are "VMC on top" does not in fact mean you are or should be flying under VFR. You may in fact have to fly IFR. For example, above 3000' you may have less than 5km visibility, which requires you to fly IFR, even in uncontrolled air space.

[tmmorris]

Not to be contentious, but...

above 3000ft if you had <5k vis you'd be in IMC, technically, n'est-ce-pas?

Tim

[CE525]

VFR on top is no problem in the USA, it has nothing to do with the type of licence a pilot has. In a couple of European countries vfr on top is prohibited.:8

[Flyin'Dutch']

In the US VFR on top is an IFR clearance.

So only available for those with in IR.

FD

[bookworm]

In a couple of European countries vfr on top is prohibited.

Out of interest, which ones?

[2Donkeys]

If only a pound were given to charity every time this came up on Pprune. :D It is only about 3 weeks ago that VFR on top and VFR over the top were sorted out last time (FAA).

Here in Europe, plenty of places prohibit VFR flight over a covered layer under different circumsntaces.

For example, at Night, the rules of VFR in France change to prohibit flight above a covered layer. Other countries prohibit VFR flight in a control zone above a covered layer. I don't recall any country that prohibits it as a matter of course though. Where did you have in mind Ce525?

2D

[Timothy]

IO540but there isn't any point that I can think ofAvoiding route charges.

W

[bookworm]

For example, at Night, the rules of VFR in France change to prohibit flight above a covered layer. Other countries prohibit VFR flight in a control zone above a covered layer. I don't recall any country that prohibits it as a matter of course though.

Just this once, I'm genuinely interested in the data and I'm not trying to pick a fight for the sake of it :)

I've downloaded GEN1.7 (National Differences from ICAO) from a number of AIPs (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden) and I can't find any evidence of that. Germany does prohibit VFR on top in class G, which only exists below 2500 ft agl.

France doesn't seem to change its rules of the air for night VFR, but since night VFR is effectively by exemption on particular routes, it may be that all the permissible night VFR routes have an 'in sight of the surface' restriction -- can't find it though.

The only state I ever found that prohibited VFR on top was South Africa.

[2Donkeys]

France achieves the effect by specifying weather minima for night flight that place a minimum altitude on each enroute itinerary, and by insisting that the ceiling (as per the usual definition) is forecast to be at least 1500 feet above the intended cruising level.

The details are contained in Annex 1 to the "Arrêté du 20 juin 2001 relatif au vol de nuit en avion selon les règles de vol à vue."


2D

[WelshFlyer]

Which brings up that much talked-about topic: Can you fly VMC an night? The answer is yes. Providing you are in sight of the ground. (so I was told, I have no night hours in my book, so I coulden't say)

WF.

[Justiciar]

Which brings up that much talked-about topic: Can you fly VMC an night?

No, because all night flying is under IFR. The authority for this is Rule 22(2) of the Rules of the Air. The only exception to this when you are authorised for a Special VFR flight in Controlled Zone.

[matspart3]

Justiciar/Welsh
Big and common misunderstanding. Although you have to fly IFR at night, you can remain VMC. If there's no cloud in the sky you don't have any choice!!!

[360BakTrak]

Thimk I might patent a cloud machine to avoid the possibility of a night encounter with VMC! :bored:

[2Donkeys]

Aussie Andy

Your post, I regret, is totally irrelevant to the original post.

"VFR-on-Top" is a very specific terminology in the USA (from where you reference comes). It is indeed an IFR clearance. However, the US also has a concept of VFR "over the top", which is what we are really debating here.

In the UK and elsewhere, we don't make the same distinction, and VFR-on-top is a generic term for flight above a broken or overcast layer.

As many have said elsewhere on this thread, such a flight is still in compliance with VFR in the UK. However, the basic PPL contains a restriction preventing flight "out of sight of the surface".

So... being on top of a covered layer can still be VFR providing that you comply with cloud separation requirements. However, it may be outside the privileges of a basic PPL, unless he has either an IR or an IMC rating.


2D

[Aussie Andy]

2Donkeys Yes I know - my post obviously related to the US VFR on top and was only related to IFR. I don't think it is irrelevant to point out the source of the US definition (which was otheriwse causing confusion) - anyway have removed it, so :ooh:

[Justiciar]

Although you have to fly IFR at night, you can remain VMC

Yes, but you don't fly VMC - you are or are not in VMC. What you fly is either VFR or IFR, and at night you can only fly IFR, even if you may in fact be in VMC. It is a dangerous mistake to think that because you are clear of cloud and in sight of the surface you can fly VFR at night, which you cannot (except Special VFR if cleared to do so by ATC). This means that you must observe the quadrantial and height rules for IFR when flying at night - always.

[RodgerF]

Quote:

It is a dangerous mistake to think that because you are clear of cloud and in sight of the surface you can fly VFR at night, which you cannot


True but you can fly IFR under these conditions, so log as you remain below 3000' and can comply with Rule 5.

[S-Works]

Actually height IS limiting. Glide clear is still relevant. But the 1000ft above the highest object within 5 miles of track is the controlling factor.

I am not sure why the argument still persisist on this. Flight at night is conducted under Instrument Flight Rules whether or not the visability is VMC. If your PPL privledges do not allow you to fly out of site of the surface then you MUST maintain VMC in sight of the surface while flying under Instrument Flight RULES.

There is no such thing as Visual Flight Rules at night, the only exception to this is SPECIAL Visual Flight Rules Clearance through a zone.

[englishal]

How confusing !

So how do you define IFR and VFR? My understanding of IFR in the UK, assuming not on an IFR flight plan, is the quadrantal rule above 3000'. So what about below 3000', how do you define IFR? According to the ANO ALL PPLs can fly IFR outside CAS, so long as you remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, which might as well be VFR.

So what happens if you have an IMC rating, do you also need a Night Qualification?

EA

[RodgerF]

Quote:

But the 1000ft above the highest object within 5 miles of track is the controlling factor.


At or below 3000' it is not. As I said earlier, flight at or below 3000' clear of cloud and in sight of the surface complies with the IFR. Agree with the glide clear requirement as that is part of Rule 5.

Its all in Rule 29. This should answer ea's query about definition of IFR. The important point is that although 'clear of cloud, in sight of the surface, at or below 3000'' looks superficially the same for both IFR and VFR, there is no visibility minima for IFR.

[S-Works]

IFR requires 1000ft above the highest object belowe 3000ft and appropriate flight levels above 3000ft.

Glide clear applies whatever rules you are flying under.

You are confusing the IFR and VFR flight rules!

[RodgerF]

bose-x

I am perfectly clear about the differences between the VFR and the IFR.


Rule 29

Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless

(a) It is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;

(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the puposes of this rule:

(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority;

(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface


(Edited for typo)

[IO540]

Wcollins

Understood, but that’s true only for a >2000kg MTOW plane on an IFR flight plan isn’t it?

If you choose to go “IFR” for a bit here and there, in or out of CAS, in a Seneca/Aztec, will they bill you for that?

Will an implicit airborne-filed flight plan (which is what I believe in effect happens when entering Class D IFR) trigger an invoice?

Bookworm

Where did you find “National Differences from ICAO” ? This sounds very interesting.