VFR 'On Top'

[HR200]

Hi,

I was wondering if you could fly on a basic PPL above cloud assuming you do not enter cloud whilst climbing or descending through cloud.

I found this;

Weather minima for VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)

(a) At and above FL 100
8km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.

(b) Below FL 100
5
5km flight visibility
1500 m horizontally from cloud
1000ft vertically from cloud.

(c) At or below 3000ft
As in (b) above or:
for fixed wing aircraft:
5 km flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

for fixed wing aircraft operating at 140kt or less:
1500 m flight visibility
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

Would this indicate that if you are flying above 3000' you can fly above cloud (even overcast) but cannot enter cloud at any time as this would be IMC.

Any help appreciated.

[Jumbo Driver]

For a basic PPL in the circumstances you mention, I think you'll find the relevant restriction is contained in the ANO (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf) Schedule 8, where it says ...

PART A – FLIGHT CREW LICENCES
Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) ...
Privileges:
...
(2) He shall not:
...
(c) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:
...
(iii) out of sight of the surface;
Hope this helps ...

JD
:)

[scooter boy]

getting up through the cloud aint the problem.... its the gettin' down again!

If it's a broken layer then you may well get stuck above it.
I would guess that every PPL has done it and had something of a white knuckle ride back down through it usually with no autopilot and usually breaking out of the cloud before you find terra firma.

SB

[Pilot DAR]

VFR on top is permitted in Canada, by a suitably rated pilot, in a properly equipped aircraft, in certain conditions.

[Mark1234]

Ditto, over here you're allowed VFR on top as a basic PPL right, with limitations on ascertaining positive position fixes at intervals of not less than (I don't remember!). however the book actually suggests that visual position fixing above >4/8ths is not 'feasible'. If you're signed off on VOR/NDB you can fly over 8/8ths, but you'd better hope for a hole to come down through!

All of which is utterly irrelevant if you hold a JAA UK PPL. Sorry!

[IO540]

VFR above a solid overcast is the default around the world.

Very few countries ban it on their basic PPL. The UK is one of them and I believe the only one in Europe.

How you navigate is a separate issue. The UK PPL training syllabus is not up to much and perhaps this is why the CAA has banned it - one would have to teach proper radio navigation (VOR/DME/GPS).

[172driver]

Perfectly legal on a FAA PPL license, not so on a CAA-JAR PPL license. AFAIK also legal in some JAR countries, but not sure which ones.

HTH

[PompeyPaul]

How is it possible to be VFR on top of OVC ? Surely you entered IMC to get there, or will on the way back down. If you went through a hole then you are not IMC in the UK since it's BKN and therefore you are still "in site of surface" ?

I guess you can be VFR on top during the odd occasion (and extremely unlikely) that your destination has BKN, as does your departure, yet it's OVC in between. How often does that happen ?

[Keef]

It really is as simple as Jumbo Driver wrote above.

ICAO stipulates varying VFR minima depending on altitude etc (quoted by HR200), but they don't say anything about "in sight of surface". You can climb in the clear, fly over an overcast, and land in the clear the other side and be legal.

That's the case in most countries.

The UK adds a restriction to UK PPLs. Unless they have an IR or an IMCR, they must at all times be in sight of the surface. *

So a French PPL with no added ratings can fly VFR on top in the UK, a CAA PPL ditto cannot.

The UK PPL cannot fly VFR on top in France, according to his licence. The eternal question is: if he has an IMCR, can he? (France doesn't recognise the IMCR).

___________________
* Edit: Sorry: the rules changed. In some publications, it's now "with the surface in sight".

[IO540]

How is it possible to be VFR on top of OVC ? Surely you entered IMC to get there, or will on the way back down. If you went through a hole then you are not IMC in the UK since it's BKN and therefore you are still "in site of surface" ?

I guess you can be VFR on top during the odd occasion (and extremely unlikely) that your destination has BKN, as does your departure, yet it's OVC in between. How often does that happen ?Firstly, thus is a UK-only-PPL thing and no UK law defines how "broken" clouds needs to be to enable you to be legally in sight of the surface.

Secondly, it is perfectly easy to climb up in VMC, fly above an overcast for a few hundred miles, and descend in VMC. This is a fairly common profile for a flight from UK to France for example - if you pick the weather correctly. I have flown UK to Italy or Croatia, legal VFR, without seeing the surface at all from Belgium onwards and across the Alps.

I would agree it is not a fantastically useful privilege for short bimbles around the UK (not least because it is rare, in the south, to be able to climb VMC on top without busting Class A) but it does make long trips across Europe possible under legal VFR. You have to know you weather sources though, and obviously radio nav is a must.

Remember this is the worldwide default...

The eternal question is: if he has an IMCR, can he?I have in writing from the CAA that he can. The IMCR gives you two things

- IFR for Class D-G, UK airspace only

- removal of the need to be in sight of surface for VFR (no geographical restriction)

Unfortunately these two bits are in different parts of the ANO.

This works brilliantly for long trips to the continent. Depart the UK under IFR, change to VFR by the FIR boundary, continue above the overcast, and land VFR. Then reverse the process on the way back. A great use for the IMCR.

CAA email extract from 2003:

Article 123 of the current ANO sets out the extra territorial effect
of the ANO. In the simplest of terms what it says is that what you cannot
do here in the UK, you cannot do elsewhere. That said, the holder of a
valid IMC Rating is not bound by the condition that requires the holder of a
licence without an IMC Rating to remain in sight of the surface.

[HR200]

Thanks everyone for your input.

My main reason for asking is I am planning a trip to the Isle Of Man from Sherburn and this route takes me over the pennines unless I track around the highest points.

Even in the best of weather there are usually some cloud formation over the hills. There are class A all over the West part of Northern England but will be flying between 3000' and 5000' until I reach the coast. I am very confident and have no problems with Radio Nav and probably track POL - IOM anyway.

Usually these altitudes are above the cloud and is clear again in the East and again in the West its just the trip over there.


From everyones comments I am starting to believe my original understanding being as long as you can maintain VMC on the way up and down assuming your above 3000' (as per my original post) you can fly over the cloud but the comments of the UK not allowing a basic PPL to be out of sight of the surface is concerning if definate (at all altitudes)

[flightlevel1985]

Simply put, with a CAA issued JAR PPL, there is no VFR on top allowed without an IMCR. You must stay in sight of the surface.

[Fright Level]

And remember "the surface" doesn't have to be underneath you, technically you could fly on top of overcast with a hill poking through in the distance. There is no requirement for you to be able to reach that "surface".

[Jumbo Driver]

From everyones comments I am starting to believe my original understanding being as long as you can maintain VMC on the way up and down assuming your above 3000' (as per my original post) you can fly over the cloud but the comments of the UK not allowing a basic PPL to be out of sight of the surface is concerning if definate (at all altitudes)

HR200, it seems to me that you may be trying to convince yourself that you can do it ...

Yes, of course you can fly over cloud in VMC. However, if you only have the basic CAA PPL, then Schedule 8 of the UK ANO requires that you must remain in sight of the surface at all times, confident or not - if you intend to stay legal, that is ...

There can be no equivocation.


JD
:)

[TopBunk]

I think the question should be asked of those who plan to explore the limits of legailty how they would deal with an engine failure.

Take the Pennines example of being able to see (but not reach) a distant peak, with maybe a 500ft (or less) cloudbase in the surrounds of it, the terrain avilable to land in being undulating etc?

Is it a question of Dirty Harry and 'Do you feel lucky punk?"

[PompeyPaul]

I think the question should be asked of those who plan to explore the limits of legailty how they would deal with an engine failure.

Take the Pennines example of being able to see (but not reach) a distant peak, with maybe a 500ft (or less) cloudbase in the surrounds of it, the terrain avilable to land in being undulating etc?

Is it a question of Dirty Harry and 'Do you feel lucky punk?"
It would be safer to fly 4,000ft VFR on top across the channel, than it would be to fly @ 2,400ft under the clouds for precisely the "engine out" scenario imho. That is, of course, if you can GARAUNTEE that the wx at your destination will have holes for you to descend through and you aren't going to find yourself descending through cloud that is actually to the ground. Which, of course, you can't ever really garauntee no matter how unlikely a scenario it is.

So banning, non IMC from flying on top, does sounds like the safer thing to do, in my limited tyro inexperienced opinion.

[Jumbo Driver]

It would be safer to fly 4,000ft VFR on top across the channel, than it would be to fly @ 2,400ft under the clouds for precisely the "engine out" scenario imho.

Not if you are not "instrument" (IMC/IR) qualified, it isn't ... and that, with respect, was the basis of the original question ...

JD
:)

[flybymike]

Don't forget the cloud separation requirements when above 3000 feet. These requirements may have the effect of pushing you up or forcing you down into controlled airspace or some other place you do not want to be .

Of course those with a lifetime CAA licence, and even with no instrument qualification, may legally opt to declare themseves IFR with no relevant cloud separation minima, provided they maintain VMC

And then there are those who might think that cloud separation minima are legally undetectable and therefore unenforceable ;)

[mm_flynn]

Of course those with a lifetime CAA licence, and even with no instrument qualification, may legally opt to declare themseves IFR with no relevant cloud separation minima, provided they maintain VMC
Not Quite! They can fly in accordance with IFR and with less than VMC cloud clearance (which by definition means they are not in VMC and hence in IMC) so long as they are In Sight Of Surface and have the required in flight visibility. (This ability to fly IFR in Class G, in some IMC is an odd feature of the CAA PPL)

[belowradar]

I would not recommend flying above an overcast in the UK without an IMC rating.

You are starting to gamble on a successful descent at destination or alternate. Ask yourself how you would feel if no such escape route materialised ? Add high ground to the mix and you may well be flying over weather that is fog or mist on hills with much reduced visibility. Engine failure in a single must be considered.

Well do you feel lucky Punk ?

[MarkerInbound]

Just to stir the pot, over here "VFR on top" is an IFR clearance where the pilot is responsible for maintaining terrain, traffic and cloud clearances. "VFR over the top" is the act of flying over an undercast while operating under VFRs.

[sycamore]

Can you clarify the last 2 posts with ref to lifetime PPLs...

[Rod1]

The good news is that the new EASA licence is likely to allow the standard VFR on to as per the rest of the world. For those that think this is a bad thing, I would point out that this is allowed almost every ware else and provided you check met and have a good diversion plan / plenty of fuel it works.

Rod1

[IO540]

People must avoid mixing up legality and practicality/sensibility.

Flying above a solid overcast which extends all the way to ground is no worse risk-wise than flying on a real proper night.

I almost never fly at night, but I will fly above an overcast. 99% of the time the IMC does not extend to ground but if it did, one can run a GPS with a terrain map and glide down into a valley - sounds very dodgy but it is still better than flying at night ;)

The finer legalities like whether a distant hill is sticking up through the cloud, or whether you are meeting cloud spacing requirements, are completely unenforceable. The important thing is to stay safe. Obviously one cannot navigate with map+stopwatch above an overcast but most pilots who actually go places have moved on long ago.

[bjornhall]

At least here in Sweden, while VFR on top is allowed, and VFR at night is allowed (with an NQ), VFR on top at night is not allowed. Not sure what to make of that, or if that's a local thing...

Various well defined weather planning minima also apply, including forecasts of no more than 4/8 cloud at the destination at the planned landing time. A rather peculiar national regulation is that it is illegal to depart cross country without weather forecast printouts onboard, if forecast weather is below 8 km visibility and 2,000 ft cloud base (not ceiling!) along the planned route...

On the other hand, if the forecasts show that the cloud cover and layering is such that VFR on top is allowed (and planned), the normal legal planning minima of 1,000 ft ceiling and 5 km visibility along the entire route are relaxed to only apply to the destination area.

So a lot of hoops to jump through to legally go cross country when WX is less than perfect... As it should be, IMHO.

In those situations when it is allowed, VFR on top seems like a sensible thing to me! I'd be a lot happier at FL085 above the clouds, than at 800 ft AGL below them... :ok:

[Mark1234]

For the OP, it sounds like you'd be OK on the basis that you're flying over <some> cloud, but still in sight of ground. If it's solid undercast, you're flat out of luck - it's not legal.

As IO540 said, legality and sense/safety are two separate issues.

[Jim59]

The good news is that the new EASA licence is likely to allow the standard VFR on to as per the rest of the world. For those that think this is a bad thing, I would point out that this is allowed almost every ware else and provided you check met and have a good diversion plan / plenty of fuel it works.

Rod1


It is often not realised that the old UK PPL and JAA PPL, as issued in the UK, permits flight in IMC as long as the ground is still in sight and a minimum 'flight visibility', which changes with altitude, is maintained.

The NPPL is different - it is a VMC licence so, for example, above 3000' a pilot must be 1000' vertically from cloud and 1500 metres horizontally away from it.

The EASA proposals are vague in this area and in responding to this consultation organisations such as the BGA have assumed that EASA is a VMC only licence with the lesser privileges of the present NPPL.

This is a serious limitation for gliders as the best lift is often less than 1000' below cloud base.

The consultation seems to specifically exclude any flight by PPLs in IMC as indicated in the extract below...


48. Finally, the Agency considers it necessary to refer here to the more general issue of the qualifications required for flying an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). This issue was raised several times during the development of the implementing rules, both by members of the FCL.001 rulemaking group and by stakeholders contacting the Agency independently. In this context, the most controversial issue was the future of the UK IMC rating, which allows the holder of such a rating to fly in IMC in certain UK airspace categories without having an instrument rating. After discussions with the FCL.001 rulemaking group, the Agency has decided to initiate a new rulemaking task on this issue, which has already been included in the Agency’s Advance Planning 68 and will be started after the summer. The working group for this task will review the existing instrument rating requirements and the training syllabus of the UK IMC rating. The Agency decided furthermore not to develop a specific cloud flying rating for sailplanes, which exists in several Member States to allow its holder to enter clouds with sailplanes and fly in IMC conditions. It is envisaged to include this issue when drafting the ToR for the new task mentioned here above.



The impact of the EASA PPL being pure VMC will leave holders of the JAA and UK PPL in a worse position than now and in the same position as the NPPL holders. Back to the point - if you are flying over broken cloud with the tops above 3000' there will need to be a very large holes for you to climb up through, or descend down, without going within 1000' vertically of the cloud, or 1500 metres horizontally.

[IO540]

Yes, the IMC option was crippled off the LPL by the committee which was loaded with VFR-only industry interests and which wanted the easiest passage for a VFR-only license for its plastic sports products.

As soon as the word "IFR" is mentioned, things get very political. All the time you talk "VFR only" there is no problem because there is no implied access to CAS; ATC can always say "keep out" and that sidesteps the whole issue.

However another EASA committee has been set up recently to re-examine the private IFR issue, and it looks pretty hopeful. It probably won't be an LPL add-on though.

[G-BMML]

Had the time of my life when I used too live in L.A. flying vrf over the San Fernando valley, as a student pilot. My instructor and I got "partially IFR" as luck was in my favour there was a "hole" in the cloud cover I could decend through.

Returned to SMHO no problems.

Bilko

[mm_flynn]

It is often not realised that the old UK PPL and JAA PPL, as issued in the UK, permits flight in IMC as long as the ground is still in sight and a minimum 'flight visibility', which changes with altitude, is maintained.Not True.
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you desscribe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in

The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175
of Section 1 of JAR–FCL 1.

1.175 says basically - IFR not allowed, except to comply with UK night = IFR

So, as I understand it, UK issue JAA PPLs are just like everyone else's PPL and not allowed to operate IFR - regardless of the weather. (Note given UK IFR in VMC is almost identical to UK VFR - this shouldn't present an issue when the weather is VMC)

[HR200]

Hi everyone, I have been reading all comments and I am learning so much from it all.

I think I can now clear this up after a bit of reading.

To remain VFR above 3000' AMSL you do not need to be in sight of the surface and below 3000' AMSL you do need to be in sight of the surface and if flying less than 140kt IAS you can fly in only 1500m visability.

However the 'privileges' of a PPL are different.

Basic PPL;

Minimum flight visibility 3km
Remain in sight of surface at all times
Minimum visibility 10km and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Flight in circumstances which require compliance with IFR not permitted

PPL with IMC Rating;

Minimum flight visibility 1500m to maintain VFR
Minimum flight visibility 3km, clear of cloud, and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Minimum visibility below cloud 1800m for any take-off or landing


It is safe to assume that you can fly VFR on top if above 3000' but not with a basic UK PPL.

[IO540]

I think you can fly above a solid overcast, VFR, at any altitude, so long as your PPL does not have the UK "sight of surface" requirement, or (if it has) if you have an IMCR or an IR.

But like I said, these rules are meaningless except for the navigation and risk management aspects.

[englishal]

VFR over the top is quite useful sometimes. For example, I once left Big Bear in California, 6700' altitude, and it was solid IMC down at around 2000' despite us being in glorious sunshine. I flew to the coast 50 odd miles away which was also in sunshine, and landed without having to file IFR.

By the way, someone who has a foreign IR is excempt from the "in sight of surface" requirement because holding a foreign IR allows one to fly IAW IFR outside CAS without holding an IMCr or UK IR.

[BabyBear]

Excuse my ignorance guys, but my understanding of VFR is such that, by definition, VFR over the top cannot technically exist?? Or is it a case that I need to get the books out again?

BB

[Jim59]

Not True.
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you describe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in

This only goes to show how ridiculously complex the rules are with multiple types of PPL.

The Air Navigation Order below states the legal position and makes the old UK PPL (that I hold) and the JAA PPL privileges the same. Only the NPPL has a prohibition on IMC outside controlled airspace as long as one is clear of cloud with the required flight visibility.

So is the ANO the law or a remark in a JAA licence? I think I give up!


Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:
(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than 3 km;
(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface;
(f) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules; or

Section 2 – JAR–FCL Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplane)
(3) The holder shall not:
(a) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:
(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than 3 km;
(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface.
(b) unless his licence includes an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.

Section 3 – National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) as pilot in command of any such aeroplane:
(i) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km;
(ii) out of sight of the surface; or
(iii) at night; or
(d) as pilot in command of any such an aeroplane in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.

[mm_flynn]

Jim,

In your quote of the JAA PPL privileges in the ANO you have started at para 3, it is para 2 where the FCL1.175 restriction is mentioned - in the ANO. (I should have been clearer, there is no wording on the licence itself re. 1.175 it is in the ANO).

It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)

Babybear,

You do need to get the books out. VFR doesn't require you to be able to navigate by looking at features on the ground. It is primarily about the flight rules when in sufficiently good visibility for see and avoid and visual terrain separation to work (if you are 1000 ft above the clouds you wont hit the ground and have a chance to see anyone climbing up through the clouds (they would of course be IFR))

[BabyBear]

MM, of course, got the differnt heights a bit confused!

Thanks

[Jim59]

In your quote of the JAA PPL privileges in the ANO you have started at para 3, it is para 2 where the FCL1.175 restriction is mentioned - in the ANO. (I should have been clearer, there is no wording on the licence itself re. 1.175 it is in the ANO).

It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)


MM Flynn,
Thanks for pointing out the restriction on JAA licences. I stand corrected. As you say very sneaky!

This only confirms the fact that the EASA licence will, like the NPPL, be strictly VFR in true VMC and that existing UK PPL licence holders will probably loose more than the option of an IMC rating in the spring of 2012, they will also loose the option to fly IMC as long as clear of cloud.

I did respond to the EASA consultation (with nearly 90 personal comments and suggestions) including a strong objection to the loss of the above limited IMC privilege; I hope enough others did as well to make them think again.

Jim.

[IO540]

they will also loose the option to fly IMC as long as clear of cloud.

I don't think any plain PPL, anywhere in the world, can fly in actual IMC.

In the UK you could have done that up to about 1965.

Unless one defines "IMC" as anything technically not VMC e.g. 2999m vis on a JAA PPL, etc, but that is meaningless.

And IFR in VMC, plain PPL, is a waste of time anyway. VFR, OCAS, the sky is all yours!

[Lurking123]

A UK PPL holder (JAR or CAA) can fly in a flight visibility of not less than 3km in uncontrolled airspace (privilege of license). Below 3000ft this is a penalty as VMC criteria are 1500m, above it is a bonus as the criteria for VMC are 5kms/1500m/1000ft. Consequently, a PPL can fly IMC (ie not VMC) in Class G above 3000ft without an instrument qualification.

Dog's dinner springs to mind. :ugh:

[MarkerInbound]

Baby Bear,

It may depend where you are but over here "VFR over the top" is quite legal. You just have to maintain cloud, traffic and terrain clearances.

[Vlad the Imbiber]

Not True.
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you desscribe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in


Quote:
The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175
of Section 1 of JAR–FCL 1.
1.175 says basically - IFR not allowed, except to comply with UK night = IFR

So, as I understand it, UK issue JAA PPLs are just like everyone else's PPL and not allowed to operate IFR - regardless of the weather. (Note given UK IFR in VMC is almost identical to UK VFR - this shouldn't present an issue when the weather is VMC)


mm flynn:

If you have an IMC rating, its privileges say that it “… entitle[s] the holder of a JAR-FCL Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplane) to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.” That clearly overrides JAR–FCL 1.175.

Well, it does for Classes D & E at least. What I don’t understand is, what about Classes F & G?

[bookworm]

I'm surprised that no one has quoted the original text:

1.175(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

The UK is clearly a "JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night)". Therefore, within the UK, "the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted."

Surely that permits a UK PPL without instrument qualification to fly IFR in circumstances that meet the restrictions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 Section 2 Sub-Section 1, which Jim59 quoted above.

[mm_flynn]

I am going to regret this post as bookworm is nearly always right .... But here goes.

The UK requirement for night vmc flights to be conducted under IFR is clearly a target for 'specified circumstances'. However, I don't see how operating in sub-VMC falls into this category. Especially, as the ability to operate in IMC (ie not VMC) is not specified but rather is not mentioned as excluded.

It would be interesting to know the CAA's intent. After all the UK has been, I believe, unique in allowing PPLs to operate under IFR (with a range of limitations)

[bookworm]

I am going to regret this post as bookworm is nearly always right

Is there a "right" when debating interpretation like this? I thought we were just having fun!

[flybymike]

CAA lifetime licence holders, self declare yourself IFR, disregard the cloud separation requirements with impunity and skim the fluffy cloud tops until your little heart's content.

JAA PPL holders who knows any different anyway.... ;)

[mm_flynn]

Is there a "right" when debating interpretation like this? I thought we were just having fun!We are! I had to break off for a very enjoyable dinner!!!

[IO540]

IMHO, one of the most pointless things to debate in aviation are the VFR cloud spacing rules :)

European pilots are fortunate to not have an oral exam. Some FAA examiners just love to pick up on this area during the oral... cloud spacing rules versus airspace class versus day/night :)

[Rugbyears]

Why not simply complete the IMC, surly this will then equip you with the necessary skills as well as knowledge needed, rather then pursuing legal technicalities to permit one to fly above cloud. :)

[englishal]

It may depend where you are but over here "VFR over the top" is quite legal. You just have to maintain cloud, traffic and terrain clearances.
The US is very flexible, and you can fly portions of IFR under VFR but remaining on the clearance. For example, departing under an IFR FP which may take you one a big SID all over the place - if it is VFR conditions you can request say a "VFR climb en-route" - basically bypass the SID and climb VFR subject to ATC approval of course and remain on the IFR clearance.

They also have the "IFR to VFR on top" clearance which is a useful clearance to climb through the cloud. Once on top, you cancel IFR and continue VFR. If not on top, you continue IFR or whatever you decide to do (shoot the approach back home for example).

Great system :ok:

[edit: you need an IR of course;)]

[MarkerInbound]

We won't even get into a "cruise" clearance!