Clarification of VFR on top

[ChippyChop]

Hi All,

As I understand it now that we're under EASA it's no longer possible to fly under IFR rules unless you have an IR and are in an IR aircraft, so if you want to fly on top of cloud you have to follow VFR rules which mean you must be, in the case of a helicopter, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. So has the change to EASA really made any difference to how helicopters can operate in relation to maintaining VMC?

Cheers
Chippy

[Thomas coupling]

VFR on top is not, nor has it ever been a recognised flight regime?
The OUTCAS/INCAS rules apply.

[John Eacott]

It is certainly a recognised flight regime in Australia, and the requirement "in sight of land or water" is only below 2,000ft agl.

[Grenville Fortescue]

So in Oz you can be in a single flying VFR on top of an 8/8 undercast because the "in sight of land or water" requirement is only below 2,000ft agl?

[John Eacott]

Yes, if you are cruising above 2,000ft agl and 1,000ft above the cloud top.

[Grenville Fortescue]

If a single was running low on fuel and was inbound to Mascot and got stuck on top of the undercast would they be talked down by radar and would they be penalised for getting stuck on top?

[John Eacott]

If a single was running low on fuel and was inbound to Mascot and got stuck on top of the undercast would they be talked down by radar and would they be penalised for getting stuck on top?

Talk about a hypothetical question: substitute Heathrow for Mascot and you try to answer!

All VFR (not just VFR on top) is required to have 'in sight of land or water' when below 2000ft agl, it's part of ENR1.2 in our AIP. You could be above a layer of haze, bushfire smoke, local solid cover, etc and comply with all other VFR requirements. An IFR aircraft can climb up through the gloop and then request (and be given) VFR-on-top, as per ENR1.1 p18.

[JimBall]

London Tuesday morning. VFR on top - see "O2" shot (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281157/London-mist-Thick-fog-blankets-east-Britain-wakes-frosty-beautiful-morning.html).

[Bravo73]

VMC on top? Yep.

VFR on top? Nope, not possible.

And for the pedants out there, it is no longer 'in sight of the surface'. It has been 'with the surface in sight' for a few years now. A subtle but important difference.

[puntosaurus]

The current core rules for VFR below FL100 outside class A airspace in the UK are EITHER (A) 5,000m forward visibility, 1,000ft vertically and 1,500ft horizontally clear of cloud, OR (B) if a helicopter at or below 3000ft amsl, 1,500m forward visibility, clear of cloud and with the surface in sight (my bold).

'With the surface in sight' is defined in UK legislation as ...the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in the desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument

So If you have a low level undercast/fog up to say 1000ft with gin clear skies above, and you fly at 2000ft or above then you're VFR, and even if you fly down to the top of the undercast, then provided you can meet the definition of 'the surface in sight' above, you are still VFR. The pictures earlier in the thread eg. of the O2 poking through the fog IMHO would meet the definition, depending on the direction of flight.

You can use the words 'on top' if you want to qualify your situation although there's no technical reason to do so since those words are not used in UK legislation.

Of course whether it's sensible or legal to do any of the above depends on the ATC service you are receiving, the airspace around you, the equipment in the aircraft, the nature of your flight, your own qualifications, and the plan you have for getting back down.

As far as I know the EASA Single European Rules of the Air are not intending to change these core aspects of the rules.

[heli7]

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) & Chart Information | Airspace Use | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=64)

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011.pdf

A. Weather minima
VFR flight within Controlled Airspace (Classes C to E Airspace)
At and above FL 100 Below FL 100 At or below 3000ft
• 8 km flight visibility#
• 1500m horizontally
from cloud*
• 1000ft vertically
from cloud*
• 5 km flight visibility#
• 1500m horizontally from
cloud*
• 1000ft vertically from
cloud*
• As per below FL
100….or…
• Fixed wing aircraft
operating at 140kt or
less: 5 km flight
visibility; Clear of
cloud and in sight of
the surface.
For helicopters: Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

# For the purpose of taking off or landing within a Control Zone, the actual meteorological visibility reported by
ATC shall be taken as the flight visibility. (Rule 26 of the UK Air Navigation Order refers).
There is no Class B Airspace in the UK FIR and Class C only exists above FL195. To accommodate VFR and
military autonomous operations above FL 195 Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) have been introduced. TRAs
are notified volumes of airspace within which ATS will be provided in accordance with UK Air Traffic Services
Outside Controlled Airspace (ATSOCAS) rules. The dimensions and activation times of these TRAs are detailed in
the UK AIP ENR 5.2.
VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)
At and above FL 100 Below FL 100 At or below 3000ft
• 8 km flight visibility
• 1500m horizontally
from cloud
• 1000ft vertically
from cloud*
• 5 km flight visibility
• 1500m horizontally from
cloud
• 1000ft vertically from
cloud
• As per below FL
100….or….
• 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.
For helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable:
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

[Grenville Fortescue]

John - Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I know it seems like a bit of a trick question.

Can anyone disclose the autorotation procedure applicable to managing an engine failure if flying above an 8/8 undercast the base of which is say 300ft agl?

[Bravo73]

http://www.pilotlist.org/voyages/uk/DAP_ACD_VFR_Guide.pdf

I suspect that that document is slightly out of date (it uses 'in sight of the surface' and not 'with the surface in sight').

And ref puntosauraus' post, I seem to recall that the definition was changed explicitly to prevent items sticking up through low cloud (ie the O2) being defined as the surface. In other words, you can't just be visual with bits of the surface sticking up through the layer (such as a hill or a tower in the distance) but in order to be VFR, you need to be visual with the surface itself.

But I might just be splitting hairs on this point.

Would I want to be VMC on top in a single engine helicopter? Nope, not if I can't see what I will have to auto down in/onto in the event of everything going quiet.

[heli7]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/20090108UKATSAirspaceAndTheVFRPilotA5.pdf

Aircraft (except helicopters) at 140KIAS or less: clear of cloud with the surface in sight in a flight
visibility of at least 1500 metres. Helicopters at a speed which, having regard to the visibilty is
reasonable: clear of cloud with the surface in sight in a flight visibilty of at least 1500 metres.

Copyright Civil Aviation Authority 2008 and reproduced with their permission AC&D 50/2008 ATS FAQ(A5) 18 DEC 08

[Flounder]

Can anyone disclose the autorotation procedure applicable to managing an engine failure if flying above an 8/8 undercast the base of which is say 300ft agl?

Without a RADALT you're screwed, with a RADALT and a well practised IMC autorotation profile you might stand a chance of walking away from a pile of smoking wreckage if the cloud is 300ft agl to the ground (assuming it's thick enough to limit visibility which is likely).

[XV666]

heli7,

Quoting from the VFR guide is not complete: you should refer to UK AIP ENR1.2 Visual Flight Rules (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-F5933FEADC49C253E4F0E77B236946E9/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_2_en_2012-12-13.pdf), which adds the caveat at 3000 ft amsl or below and flying at 140 KIAS or less: or similar to the requirement Clear of Cloud and with the surface in sight........

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/VFR.jpg

It follows by default that when above 3000ft amsl it is not a requirement to be with the surface in sight, and only compliance with Table 1 is needed: much the same as already postulated by puntosaurus ;)

Grenville,

IFR auto is usually a fixed speed (~70kias) steady state auto into wind, with a flare as usual at the normal height for the aircraft type or alternatively a 10 degree nose up at 150' radalt and a pitch pull if still IFR to the surface. Pot luck where you land, though

[Bravo73]

heli7,

The text that you've quoted in your first post (#11 (http://www.pprune.org/7704731-post11.html)) is not from the 2011 VFR Guide, which you have linked to in the post.

It is from the earlier document (and so is no longer current).

[heli7]

still reads the same

[Bravo73]

Nope. You don't seem to understand the difference between 'in sight of the surface' (old) and 'with the surface in sight' (new).

Like I said above, a subtle but important difference.

[XV666]

heli7,

Have a look at the first paragraph of CAA Visual Flight Rules (VFR) & Chart Information:Information for airspace users (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=64) which is there to ensure you realise that the VFR Guide is just that: a guide.

This guidance material is intended for Pilots of VFR flights within UK Airspace below FL 195 and combines useful information from numerous sources. It is used on the understanding that it does not represent a substitute for the more comprehensive information contained in the UK AIP which should always be regarded as the authoritative source.

Then read ENR 1.2 :ok:

[VeeAny]

My comments below relate to the UK only, VFR on top itself is not a term that appears in any UK rules and regulations that i am aware of, but if we assume that we are looking at being in compliance with the VFR rules above an overcast layer of cloud.

Puntosaurus seems to have it correct about the rules themselves. I think the new SERA which we get next year in the UK will change things subtly, and if I read them correctly will be more restrictive than we currently have now, I might be wrong and just don't know where to look, but at first glance it seems that way.

B73 Is correct about the subtle difference between in sight of the surface and with the surface in sight. The one currently used in the rules if the air in the UK means you need be able to maintain attitude by sole reference to the bit of the surface you can see and not by reference to instruments.

There is also an issue of what the privileges of your particular licence and whether the surface needs to be in sight or an IR held in some conditions, but these themselves are not the VFR rules.

[puntosaurus]

OK, I've got a good one for you regulation hounds. If I'm flying outside controlled airspace in the UK in a single engined helicopter at 3000ft in clear skies over an undercast layer of fog from the ground to 1000ft amsl with no surface features in sight within 10nm, what Rule of the Air am I almost certainly breaking ?

[Bravo73]

Probably the ability to land clear in the event of a power unit failure.

[puntosaurus]

Close, but no cigar yet. I'll give you 1/2 a point for guessing it's the low flying rule, and the other half if you tell me which part of the rule is most likely to be being broken.

[jymil]

In Switzerland, only flights in class G below 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL (whatever higher) require continuous visiblity of the ground for VMC. Otherwise, a vertical cloud distance of 1000ft applies for VMC minima.

Example: you fly at 4000ft AMSL/2000ft AGL, you can fly VFR over an inversion which tops at 1000ft AGL.

Ability to land is not a factor for VMC. And a VFR flight is by definition a flight in VMC conditions.

[2F1B]

puntosaurus

Chances are you are going to impact some sort of settlement in the event of a power failure regardless of what height you're flying at in those weather conditions, and regardless of how good your Radalt is, so most likely "failure of a power unit", but again if you can't maintain visual with the surface all the way along your "VFR" route then you shouldn't have gone in the first place? Too many people think because they can see well ahead and laterally then it's fine to continue, until that one time when it will all go quiet, with no safe option below :=

Same as at night..........................

[puntosaurus]

Bingo ! Failure of a power unit.

(2) The low flying prohibitions
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event
of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to
persons or property on the surface.

Everyone remembers the 500ft rule and the 1000ft rule, but because this one doesn't have a snappy title. it tends to get forgotten. Yet it's the first in the list of rules, and it's the one that carries the least exemptions.

[Bravo73]

Bingo ! Failure of a power unit.


...which is what I said:

Probably the ability to land clear in the event of a power unit failure.

Yay for me. :rolleyes:

[Chopper Doc]

What a daft topic. Can't you just agree it's a bloody stupid thing to do in a single engined helicopter and not to be encouraged let alone discussed as if in some fairy world it might be acceptable.

[XV666]

Bingo ! Failure of a power unit.



Everyone remembers the 500ft rule and the 1000ft rule, but because this one doesn't have a snappy title. it tends to get forgotten. Yet it's the first in the list of rules, and it's the one that carries the least exemptions.

Then again, not everyone reads down a bit to 6.d.(ii):

(ii) Any helicopter flying over a congested area shall be exempt from the land clear rule.

CD,

That's your opinion to which you are entitled: many of us would disagree :=

[VeeAny]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

This is one of those things, which is often taught wrong in flying schools, so the student only knows part of the rules, which then gets handed down when they go on to teach and becomes the gospel.

There a lots of things we should not do perhaps out of common sense in a single which the rules might permit us to do.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

What a daft topic. Can't you just agree it's a bloody stupid thing to do in a single engined helicopter and not to be encouraged let alone discussed as if in some fairy world it might be acceptable.

Precisely.

To be isolated on the top side of an overcast layer for anything more than a few seconds transit is IFR territory even if you are VMC and anyone flying for longer periods over a solid or near solid undercast (especially in a single) is a bleddin' idiot!

Exceptional mil operations, yes. Exceptional civvie ops (such as a PAN type situation when you know you are transiting to an area which is clear of cloud), yes. But anything else, no.

[ChippyChop]

Thanks all for the input. Not sure about the comment that this is a daft topic. The reason I wanted to clarify it was due to the AIB Preliminary Report on Rocket 2. Ok so he's in a twin, with and IR rating, but, when asked if he wants to transit IFR he says no he's ok he has good VMC on top. At this stage he's heading back to Redhill all looking good. Now regardless of whether he's a twin or a single, I think this was a safe place to be.

Now in a different scenario when I'm pootling along in my single continually ****ting myself that the engine is going to stop at any moment (cos they do all the time!!) and the weather starts to change let's say as I approaching Birmingham, I'm at 1500ft QNH and I'm transiting up the west side of the zone, I know there's some high ground coming up I'm being forced down to stay clear of the broken cloud. In order not to hit anything, I climb through a hole to 2,800ft, I'm still in sight of the surface and can fly without reference to my instruments (but why would I not use them?) am I not safer here than skud running with very little vis?

So if the weather gets worse and I'm stuck on top, and let's hope my planning has given me sufficient fuel to divert, I can talk to Birmingham and get help from them to find an airfield to land at.

At least I'm in a helicopter and I could auto down through a hole when my engine fails, better than a fixed wing which has to glide and find a field big enough to land in.

Cheers
Chippy

[Anthony Supplebottom]

At least I'm in a helicopter and I could auto down through a hole when my engine fails,

Its this kind of thinking that will get you in a hole if you aren't already in one - with all due respect!

[Brilliant Stuff]

IF Autos:

We are told to put 10degrees nose up attitude on at 150' on the Rad-Alt followed by a further 5degrees, hopefully by now you are VFR....

[VH-XXX]

We have it good in Australia, VFR over the top is great in places like Melbourne where it might be impossible to get over the mountain ranges without this rule. Otherwise you might be stuck for days. Not sure 100% on heli's, however for fixed wing, you need to have a positive position fix every 20 minutes or the pilot and aircraft must be night rated as a minimum with VOR or similar plus pitot heat etc. When I say the pilot must be night rated, that's how to ensure that the pilot is signed off for a VOR or similar.

[2F1B]

Chippy

If you pop up through a hole and either convert to IFR or remain VFR with a Traffic Service is not going to save you in a single engined helicopter. Yes, you will stay clear of the hard stuff but when it all goes quiet that little hole you popped up through is not going to be as big as it was or as big as you would hope it to be, and it certainly is not going to be where you thought it was.

You had one option - turn around and go back! It is easier to explain to a customer why you could not get there than it is for your family to hear the bad news of your last decission.

I firmly believe that ALL single engine helicopter pilots need to think twice about the consequences of flying anywhere were they can't safely land that helicopter if the engine decides it has had enough, or you get an emergency which will eventually require YOU to shut it down. You'll buy yourself an extra couple of minutes in the later case but from experience, there's never too much time on your hands before flicking that off switch. Whether that is above cloud or over water etc, always ask yourself the question, "have I got a safe option if I need to land in 90 seconds", if you do carry on! If you don't and you still carry on, please do us all a favour and please take a different career path because we all already have enough reports to read without reading yours. :ugh:

[[email protected]]

Well, I have spent quite a lot of hours in cloud in a single engine helicopter, as have many military pilots and don't recall a single engine failure amongst them.

Our IF EOL drill was initially normal auto speed, then once below 1000' agl come back to 40Kts and be prepared for a constant attitude (ie no flare) EOL - which we used to practice in case anyone asks.

The only difference is that the mil pilots all did it with an instrument rating but it is essentially the same level of risk/exposure.

[ChippyChop]

Hmm 2F1B I guess what you're saying is those 350's flying around in the Alps and elsewhere, like in the jungle doing seismic, like in the Arctic, Antarctic, lifting over forests and GOM should all be banned. Do you have shares in a company selling twins? Oh and that's only a twin engine not a twin gearbox, tail rotor or main rotor head. Let's have a look at the stats over the last couple of years. How many crashes were due to engine failure? I know of 2 109's sadly that crashed into something solid with both engines running a Super Puma that parted company with its rotor head and Robinsons that got into cloud and lost control. Mate I'm about risk management but this whole twin thing does make me wonder. Isn't the Bell 206 the safest aircraft in the world by hours v incidents or did I read that wrong?

[2F1B]

Your examples given is not exactly flying around highly populated areas where there's a great risk of endangering innocent people when you pop out the bottom... If there is a bottom and you don't meet a decent field first now is it.

As pilots we're paid to take the risks, but we should also be capable of managing those risks to ensure we don't put others at risk to.

As I said, it is MY opinion, just like everyone else has theirs.

Crab, we've all done it, and we were well practiced in it, but if there was never a risk of it happening then why practice it. Unfortunately we're discussing VMC on top where people can be suckered up with no options and not IFR where it's planned and the risks accepted.

All I'm saying is it would not be my decission to continue "over" those weather conditions with no ground within 10 nm in a single because you never know!

Anyone want to go halfers on a twin I've seen?

[jymil]

Agree with ChippyChop. There are all kinds of situations which may not allow for a safe landing. And two engines doesn't mean there is no single point of failure.

Personally, I wouldn't fly an extended period of time over a solid layer without anything sticking out of it. But there are also situations in which it is actually the better choice to fly on top in nice weather rather than underflying it in the ****. I've been flying once from Santa Catalina island back to Torrance and there was a layer of cloud at 1500ft which was, lets say, 7.9/8. So from time to time, you could peak through holes in the layer and that also told you it wasn't that thick. I am sure scud-running under that layer would have been the worse option, also considering that there are some hills on the coastline going up to 1200ft . So I think teaching dogmatically to always avoid VMC on top is not the right thing.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

So I think teaching dogmatically to always avoid VMC on top is not the right thing.

You are correct, it is not the right thing in ALL circumstances and I mentioned some of the circumstances on the previous page.

8/8 is just folly. A maximum of 5 octares is a sensible limit but 4 is better.