Mist and/or fog enroute

[piperboy84]

Currently faffing around in France with the Maule and deciding which direction I want to go each morning. When creating a potential plan for the day in skydemon some airfields along my intended route are designated IFR due to mist or fog. Now if I plan on overflying VFR at say 4000 feet do I really give a monkeys what the field is reporting, how would one determine from the taf/metars what the "tops" of the mist or fog is, as over flight with vfr on top is fine with me. Other than pilot reports where if anywhere could I find this info?

Probably should know this stuff, but sitting here trying to plan my day it's gotten me stumped and slowing down the party.

[DeeCee]

Have you tried Orbifly?

MET'MAP - ORBIFLY FLIGHT SCHOOL - IFR ET CPL AMERICAIN EN EUROPE - FAA IFR AND CPL IN EUROPE (http://www.orbifly.com/member/metmap.php?region_choose=UK2)

[DeeCee]

Doesn't look too bad today

[Dominatio]

@ piperboy84: I'm only just finishing up on my license so these may be stupid questions, but:

1. Don't you need to be in sight of the ground for VFR? Can you do that if there is fog over your flight path / below you - or can you see around to ground level?

2. If the fields you are flying over are IFR only would that not disbar them as possible alternatives in case of the need to put down - so choosing a different route might enhance your safety overall?

As I said - prolly daft questions but would value your feedback for my own education!

[DeeCee]

Dominatio;

I you are just 'finishing' your license then maybe you haven't done your exams yet? Have a look at Air Law which covers both of your questions. Frankly your questions and the phraseology you use leads one to believe you are not very far along on your PPL. Good luck anyway.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not daft Dominatio. Personal choice, but I'd never fly over extensive fog out of gliding distance of clear air because as you say, you might need to force-land (engine failure being the most obvious possibility).

Some pilots will bet their lives on the collection of nuts, bolts, castings, bearings, pipes, mags etc that comprise a running aero engine. I'm not one of them, and it's why a not insignificant part of the PPL syllabus is dedicated to forced landings without power.

[Rhino25782]

I you are just 'finishing' your license then maybe you haven't done your exams yet? Have a look at Air Law which covers both of your questions. Frankly your questions and the phraseology you use leads one to believe you are not very far along on your PPL. Good luck anyway.Why can people not just plainly answer questions instead of arbitrarily criticizing them and the person asking?

That just DISCOURAGES folks to ask more questions because they think their questions might be regarded as "stupid".

So here we go.

1. Don't you need to be in sight of the ground for VFR? Can you do that if there is fog over your flight path / below you - or can you see around to ground level?Depends on country regulations, licenses, and airspace. For the EASA PPL in uncontrolled airspace, there is no "surface in sight" requirement for VFR flight.


2. If the fields you are flying over are IFR only would that not disbar them as possible alternatives in case of the need to put down - so choosing a different route might enhance your safety overall?True but that's at your own discretion. The same could be said for overflying mountaineous terrain (possibly at night!). It's obviously riskier than flying over flat, rural areas with dozens of suitable landing fields in gliding distance, but it's not illegal.

Some pilots will bet their lives on the collection of nuts, bolts, castings, bearings, pipes, mags etc that comprise a running aero engine. I'm not one of them, and it's why a not insignificant part of the PPL syllabus is dedicated to forced landings without power. But then again, we all know that the higher risk factor is the collection of water, proteins, fats, gases and such that comprise a living human body and mind. I'm one of them, and it's why an entire book and exam in the PPL syllabus are dedicated to human factors. :hmm::)

[piperarcher]

That just DISCOURAGES folks to ask more questions because they think their questions might be regarded as "stupid".


Exactly what I was thinking too. There are a whole load of nuances and variances european wide that probably dont make themselves particuarly clear in the training material. Thats why people come to places like this for 'opinion' and to one day aim to explorer the wider world.

As others have said, there is nothing illegal there, but unless you have an IR, or in the UK an IMCr or an IR(R), I would be very careful about overflying a destination that is fogged in, especially if a) it was going to be a planned or even unplanned alternative b) other airfields are reporting low viz / low cloud. Worse case, you might have to use some of your instrument skills to aid you in a safe landing somewhere. It is a judgement call but fog will either get worse, or better, but its a gamble which way it might go. It probably wont lift when the TAF says it will either ;-)

There was an incident here in the UK a few years ago where the TAF's had almost no claims about predictin of fog, and mid afternoon, and an amended TAF later (no use when you have already taken off), almost the whole of the south east quarter of the UK was a big sheet of fog, causing at least one fatality if my memory is correct.

So good on you for asking the questions and seeking opinion, and always be careful.

[glum]

Depends on country regulations, licenses, and airspace. For the EASA PPL in uncontrolled airspace, there is no "surface in sight" requirement for VFR flight.

But I know the VMC minima is always to have surface in sight if you remain below 3000 feet.

I too am part way through (just gone solo) and am still a little muddled with the different rules between what a PPL is allowed to do, what the VFR rules are and what VMC is.

By all means send me back to the books, but can anyone describe these three things in a simple way?

Is it as simple as "fly above 3000 feet and you're exempt the 'ground in sight' rule"?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Is it as simple as ...
It's as simple as "the rules keep changing, and at any given moment it depends on which of 17 different types of licence you have, what medical you've got, the type of aircraft, the state of registration of the aircraft, which of 6 different instrument qualifications you've got, whether it's day or night, whether there's an R in the month, and what you had for breakfast".

[rarelyathome]

Gertrude.

Is that last one right? :hmm:

[alexbrett]

But I know the VMC minima is always to have surface in sight if you remain below 3000 feet.

Have a look at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011_update.pdf - while you can be VMC if you are below 3000 feet, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, you are also compliant if you have 1000 feet vertical / 1500m horizontal separation from cloud without sight of the surface.

(Note that doc is a bit old now, so you'd need to check the actual EASA info (which I can't find off hand) to confirm the current minima)

[fisbangwollop]

Just don't bust any CAS if you try to climb above it!:cool:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Just don't bust any CAS if you try to climb above it!
Done that!


(I was already talking to the controller of the CAS at the time so it only took seconds to resolve.)

[piperboy84]

Oh you heard about that slight oversight FBW !!

Thanks for the others showing concern that some of the responses may make me feel, stupid,inadequate or hurt my pride, fortunately I'm pretty much immune to sarcasm,belittlement and unwarranted put downs as I've been married 3 times one of which was to a battle axe fae Falkirk. On a lighter note I used that orbifly (thanks deecee )and had a dashed pleasant flight today from Rennes to San Sebastián VFR for miles all the way, which is more that I can say for the VFR forecasted channel crossing , I could not see a frigging thing for haze and was on instruments for most of the crossing . All ended well with the sultry tones of what I imagine is a smoking hot French ATC bird on approach to Cherbourg , makes a nice change from listening to the buggers on Sco,,, Think i,ll quit while I'm ahead here !!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

But then again, we all know that the higher risk factor is the collection of water, proteins, fats, gases and such that comprise a living human body and mind. I'm one of them, and it's why an entire book and exam in the PPL syllabus are dedicated to human factors.

I don't know about you, Rhino, but I'm in charge of the decisions my collection human components makes. One of those is "if there's no 'out' if the engine quits (they do, you know, as I know from first hand experience), then don't do it".

Those who are happy to fly over a an extensive fog bank in an SEP when the collection of mechanical bits, which looked fine at pre-flight with all fluids etc present and correct, but the reliability of which is something over which they have no control lets go (they do, you know) might also be in charge of their own decisions. Most of the time there won't be a problem - but what a total prick you'll be (just before you die) if there IS a problem and you didn't have an 'out'.

Old, bold pilots, etc. It's not new, it's not rocket science - it's just "how lucky do you feel, punk?".

Cowardice preserves active life.

An aeroplane has thousands of way to kill you. Just be sure you don't give it the chance.

[piperboy84]

SSD

I agree to an extent, however 99 out of 100 deaths are probably attributed to the nut attached to the yoke and when it does happen it will be regardless if your over terra firma or the drink

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

PB84, yes of course. But those 'nut attached to the yoke (stick, in my case :) ) accidents are down to poor decision making by the 'nut'. Perhaps including deciding that flying over an extensive fog bank in a SEP is an OK thing to do?

In other words, if the 'nut' decides it's an OK thing to do, and dies when the engine fails and he can't see the ground to perform a safe forced landing, his death won't have been caused by the engine failure (that possibility is something his decision making should have taken into account). His death will be a direct result of poor decision making. Or unwise risk taking, if you prefer.

So the accident would come under the 'nut attached to the stick / yoke' category, one of the 99%.

[Level Attitude]

still a little muddled with the different rules between what a PPL is allowed to do, what the VFR rules are and what VMC is.A brand new (EASA) PPL Holder will be entitled to fly VFR by Day only.
Therefore learn the definition of night and learn, learn, learn, understand and implement the Visual Flight Rules!

Does the weather allow me to fly VFR if I wish?
Ans Yes = VMC
Ans No = IMC

VFR does change a little depending on Class of Airspace and Altitude flown, but for flight below FL100 (10,000') in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace:

VFR requires you to fly:
1) In a minimum Visibility of 5km and at least 1,000' vertically (both above or below) from Cloud and at least 1.5km horizontally from Cloud.
OR
2) Below 3,000'amsl (or below 1,000'agl, whichever is higher) and at, or slower than, 140kt and in a minimum visibility of 1.5km and clear of Cloud (NB: No distance specified) and In Sight of the Surface.

The reasons for the above are to try and ensure that pilots will always have sufficient time for 'See and Avoid' (though 1.5km viz is really Clag City) and to ensure there is a margin to enable pilots to always have sufficient outside visual references/cues to enable them to control the aircraft.

Flight by IFR doesn't care about cloud or viz which is why it is not permitted (under EASA) unless the pilot also holds some form of Instrument Rating (for which the training course(s) require a lot of time flying by sole reference to the instruments - ie not being able to see out).
NB: This does not mean that IFR flight must be by sole reference to instruments.

Example:
Layer of 8/8 Cloud with defined, flat, top at 1,900'amsl and excellent (20km+) visibility above.
Bottom of Cloud varying between 1,700' and 1,800' with whispy tendrils going lower merging with a generally misty atmosphere such that the visibility is 4km to 5km.

Choice 1) VFR 'On Top' at 2,900' or above (Not in sight of surface, so must be 1,000' vertically from Cloud)
Choice 2) VFR at 1,700' or lower

Provided Navigation is not a problem (ie usable GPS, preferably more than one, on board) then Choice 1) would be a much more pleasant flight - the problem being How do you get there VFR and, more importantly, how would you get back down again.

[Fuji Abound]

Simples really EASA now says above a layer is OK, fog is just a layer usually attached to the ground. (see above for technical discussion on distance from layer etc).

As an aside in the old days the CAA said no, VFR was in sight of surface, the rest of Europe said yes, and that is where some confusion originates.

Air law aside, flying above fog is fine until / if / when the engine fails. You will do very well to land in fog without a lot of damage (or be very lucky because it will be mostly down to luck). So you have only to decide whether the very small risk is worth it, because after all around one engine failure in every 1,000 hours is about the mark, but with a good maintenance regime you will beat those stats. considerably.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Fuji - indeed. But of what comfort is that when it all goes quiet up front and you can't see the ground?

I was far from 1,000 hours when mine happened (and I know some guys who've had up to 3 in those number of hours), which of course doesn't contradict that the average is 1 in 1,000 hours. The reality is it could just as well happen in hour number one as in hour number 1,000. Or 5,000. Or never in a pilot's flying lifetime!

Something that has kept me alive in 35 years of SEP flying, even ahead of "never take the aeroplane anywhere your brain hasn't already been", is "ALWAYS have an 'out'".

Flying over fog denies you that. I would not be happy to fly with any pilot who accepts, knowingly, a situation where if the engine fails there is no 'out'. Flying over water is a grey area for me this respect, but flying over extensive fog isn't. You have pretty much no chance.

For me, that indicates a non risk-averse attitude. Not a good thing in a pilot IMO.

[300hrWannaB]

If I recall correctly (I may be rusty here) The Uk has a VFR mandate for being in sight of the ground. In Johnny Foreign land of EASA there is something colloquially called VFR "on top". EASA rules may have changed the UK rules that are in my Air Law book, but the weather hasn't read any books, new or old. Some examples:

-Flying this morning was particularly grotty. The cloud didn't have a base. It just got soupier and soupier as you went up. I never got 2000'. Terrain avoidance, land clear and even the 500 ft rule were all in my mind. Yes I was also lit up like a Christmas tree.

-In the later morning, the cloud lifted and threatened to have holes. There was absolutely no way I was going to go up through them, because I'd have a bigger problem: how to get back down through them.

-Consider that most beautiful of alternative days. Lovely puffy cumulus to play around. You are on a cross country. The Cu becomes strato cumulus and your 3/8 becomes 5/8 with patches of blanket across parts of the terrain. You can see the ground -frequently, but this becomes occasionally. What was that town? That becomes the new game. It's all too easy to head off 30 degrees away from your planned route.

It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.

[thing]

Dominatio:

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. Please don't be put off asking any questions.

There are VFR rules and IFR rules but you can also have your own rules (as long as they are in addition to and not subtracting from the 'official' rules). Personally I would find it slightly mad to fly above a fog bank in a SEP whether it was legal or not. Always always always consider whether you have an out if the fan stops.

There are airfields that my clubmates have no compunction about flying to that I avoid like the plague because the approach/departure is over housing/industrial estates etc. Likewise I have an IMC rating or whatever it's called these days but I won't take off unless the cloudbase is 1K or above even though legally I can do so. I don't want the quiet bits to start when I'm at 600' in cloud.

There's the legal part of flying and then the common sense bit.

[FullWings]

I think Thing gives very good advice here. When you’re an inexperienced pilot, you worry more about the rules than the actual situation, i.e. am I breaking the law, am I going to get into trouble?

Once you’ve got to a certain level, you realise that you can fly extremely dangerously whilst conforming to all the regulations and safely while (ahem) bending them a little bit. The tricky bit comes in knowing what’s important and what isn’t: essentially, you can do what you like as long as you don’t make a public show of it. There are no “air police” shadowing you, therefore it is up to your own sense of self-preservation and responsibility to other users of the air to behave sensibly in this regard. It’s called Airmanship and seems to be a bit of a forgotten cause these days. :(

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It’s called Airmanship and seems to be a bit of a forgotten cause these days.

So it's not just me who has noticed this lamentable trend.....

It's absolutely true you can be whiter than white legal, while flying very unwisely. Conversely you can do stuff which is entirely safe, but not legal.

I'm grateful for the wise pelicans (OK, there were a couple of hours builders in there as well but the wisdom of the WPs drowned them out) who taught me Airmanship if it can be taught (I think it can if the stude is receptive). These WPs are still around, but perhaps much less common than in the 1970s when I did the PPL. They are worth seeking out.

Beyond the PPL, you learn through experience what kills pilots and what doesn't. You see over the decades who has the 'incidents' and who doesn't. What's legal isn't always the measure (though of course, often it is as air law is modified by a desire to reduce accidents).

So stay legal, but THINK!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Personally I would find it slightly mad to fly above a fog bank in a SEP whether it was legal or not.
I flew across the channel and never saw the water - a bank of fog from coast to coast.

I didn't consider this "slightly mad" as I was scraping along the bottom of CAS and (in theory) could have made one side or the other if the fan stopped. And as I could see the coast on both sides throughout it was legal whichever set of rules you use.

[thing]

I didn't consider this "slightly mad" as I was scraping along the bottom of CAS and (in theory) could have made one side or the other if the fan stopped.

Different scenario then. Not completely bonkers. Go at 6,499' per chance? :)

[glendalegoon]

hi

you have reasonable questions and I will try to give you reasonable answers but I have not flown GA in europe.

1. In the states, you can certainly be VFR above the undercast, just comply with VFR minimums.

a. IF you are VFR above the undercast and you have problems and must land right away, you have better have an option in mind. You must also rely on navigation methods that do not depend upon you see the ground below you or nearby your route of flight. (vor etc).

AS a practical matter I flew small single engine planes VFR (though IFR rated and equipped) over the foggiest parts of california . I flew with a chart on my knee and could figure out a gliding approach to nearby airports, whether I could see them at all or not. Vicinity and pray sort of thing. The engine never quit and I never had to do it in real life. (though I taught and tested the technique to my students)

I've also flown over the Sierra Nevada (peaks over 14k) at night in single engine planes and am here to type about it. But it is demanding and the "OUTS" are few and far between. Having a two engine plane with a single engine ceiling of only 5000' only adds time to the situation , but again the engine(s) kept running.


So, fly over the mist or fog, but think about what you are capable of handling just in case. Get radar following (or whatever you call it there) and if you lose it, get a vector to the clear or some airport even if not clear and hope you can let down safely.

I remember reading that our aviation antecedents would fly over the mountains of the eastern USA using a cigar as a timing device...when the cigar was finished, it was time to let down and hope for the best.

Good luck and always think, and then think even more!

[flyme273]

Piperboy,

Seems to me a little thread drift . . .

“do I really give amonkeys what the field is reporting, how would one determine from thetaf/metars what the "tops" of the mist or fog is”

In my opinion, yes you do give a “monkeys” - the field forecast is important to your planned alternate options. In the example, a report of fog is read as field un-available.

VFR on top. When on top of a cloud layer, a reasonable cloud base (say 1,000 ft) would give an opportunity for a forced landing. In this example fog would precludes uch a contingency. A radar service cannot give you an acceptable RVR (probably better to be vectored away from built-up areas).
(I assume nav does not require ground reference).

TheTAF-Metar gives the cloud layers to expect, reported as the bottom of the layer. Also any PROB forecast would give a trend i.e. is the fog expected to clearor getting worse?

On climb out from your clear departure field, the forward situation and any need to return should be apparent.

In the Maule, a few clear views of farmland would provide a contingency and goahead, whereas a fog blanket would probably press the return button, depending on the confidence of a clear destination and time of exposure.

I don’t see that IFR/ IR gives any additional options with this example (fog = RVR less than acceptable – assuming your Maule is not CAT3 equipped:rolleyes:).

flyme

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Go at 6,499' per chance?
That's the idea. But I've never actually tried gliding from that height, engine off, to see whether I can really get as far as the book says.