Flying on top of clouds...in VMC

[Scoobster]

This has probably been covered before and I did read a few threads but wanted to 'gauge' opinion on if it was executed correctly.

Last Sunday I flew with a fellow aviator on a DA40 G1000 - Glass Cockpit...I was in the RHS and responsible for RT and Nav. The DA40 has a Garmin equipped GPS in addition the PIC had Sky Demon.

I had an up to date chart so I could fly using visual references.

The cloud base was Few at 600ft around NW and then SCT at 1200 FT around London TMA and Stanstead CTA and then CAVOK across around Northampton Sywell, Coventry, East Midlands and Nottingham Tollerton.

Taking off at NW we remained clear of cloud and climbed to 1000ft to remain clear of the TMA and routed via the corridor at BPK VOR and towards Henlow.

Technically at 800ft (not very good for navigation) and a cloud base of 1200 ft above us - but seeing patches of 'blue sky'.

Pottering around at 1000ft wasnt very comfortable so talking to Farnborough North and notifying them of a "Request Climb to 2000ft".- Reply: "Roger".

The idea being to fly through the "blue hole" and come out on top of the cloud base knowing that flying towards stevenage, bedford we would have no cloud.

Maintained VMC at all times i.e. we were in sight of the surface and plenty of patches of blue sky to descend through should we encounter an engine failure.

Climbed to 2000 ft and then to 2500ft - approaching Northampton - CAVOK -no cloud and descent back to 2100ft where we continued our journey.

Was this OK i.e. legal to execute or illegal??

Scoobster

P.S The scenery was amazing.

[Mach Jump]

If you were, at all times, below 140kt, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface, and with a flight viz of 1500m, you were legal.


MJ:ok:

[Scoobster]

Viz was >5km..

Speed was 120kt

Clear of all cloud and in sight of the surface... through patches of blue holes and seeing through the cloud separation.

As a New PPL just wondered if this something which is common that aviators would do?

It just occurred to me at the time of flying that 'What if we were to fly on top of the clouds?".

Just don't want to make a habit of it if it is not 'normal'... - but my instructor did often use the term 'character building' iif you are able to fly and assess situations and make a command decision.


Scoobster.

[Mach Jump]

Just remember it's 'In Flight Viz' not Met Viz, so you have to be at least 1500m from the cloud in front of you at any time, and if you go above 3000' everything changes.

This kind of thing is 'normal' for some people, and not 'normal' for others. If you make a habit of it, and how far you push your luck is up to you.


MJ:ok:

[wb9999]

The VFR "in sight of the surface" is no longer required for EASA PPLs - VFR above cloud is perfectly legal now. As long as you were VMC then no problems.

[maxred]

Just always remember that those blue patches, can always close up. That leaves you IMC. Particularly if you go away from base, and on your return, the field is socked in. Always have a Plan B, and a Plan C. It can catch you out. But hey, great flying and good experience. Enjoy...

[Chilli Monster]

You don't say whether your pilot was a PPL or whether he had any form of instrument qualification?

If the former - providing you remain in sight of the surface, perfectly legal. If you lose sight of the surface you require an instrument qualification (IMC / IR(R) / IR) to remain so.

WB9999 - Schedule 7 of the ANO still contains the "in sight of the surface" restriction. Am I missing something with the EASA transition?

[Scoobster]

Just remember it's 'In Flight Viz' not Met Viz, so you have to be at least 1500m from the cloud in front of you at any time, and if you go above 3000' everything changes.

Mach - Question - Am I correct in saying that the 1500m refers to 'cloud passing horizontally' i..e directly in front of the nose etc?

Also in a 'mental capacity' - if the viz was to change in flight - how does one make an assessment of how far 1500m is?

I mean its not like you can say 6 car lengths = 1000 m etc.

Just curious if things were to suddenly go bellyache.. then flight safety can easily be compromised so in flight viz is one thing i want to be able to build up a picture of.

@Chilli Monster - The PIC and myself both PPL's call in to F'Boro also mentioned 'PPL Qualified'.

I certainly would not have been happy attempting it if I thought we would go enter IMC conditions.

Just to clarify the discrepancy (forgive me, it is probably me being thick!) - wb9999 mentions the "in sight of the surface rule is no longer applicable.

Chilli Monster - mentions you enter IMC if you lose sight of the surface - I can see how this would apply as if all you see if cloud below you then no way to remain "VMC" in the event of a forced landing.

Which is correct?

Scoob.

[Scoobster]

Also - happy to look this up , might take me a while but will find it.

"Everything changes if you go above 3000 feet' - that's the transition altitude correct?

Changes in terms of you will need to fly according to Quadrant or Semi Circular rule?

Curious again..

Thank You.

Scoobs

[Chilli Monster]

Mach - Question - Am I correct in saying that the 1500m refers to 'cloud passing horizontally' i..e directly in front of the nose etc?

Doesn't have to be cloud - heavy rain showers can reduce the visibility dramatically

Also in a 'mental capacity' - if the viz was to change in flight - how does one make an assessment of how far 1500m is?

Experience and practice

The PIC and myself both PPL's call in to F'Boro also mentioned 'PPL Qualified'.

From an ATC point of view we're not interested in your qualifications and ability until the poo hits the proverbial.

Just to clarify the discrepancy (forgive me, it is probably me being thick!) - wb9999 mentions the "in sight of the surface rule is no longer applicable.

I'm going by the latest copy of the ANO (CAP393), Schedule 7 (Licence privileges). If it has changed I'm happy to be corrected, but reading that it doesn't appear so.

Everything changes if you go above 3000 feet' - that's the transition altitude correct?
No - it's just a level above which things change. Transition Altitude is totally different, and is higher under certain pieces of airspace (6000ft within the lateral dimensions of the London TMA for example).

[worrab]

Have a look at: The CAA VFR guide:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?pageid=5537

[Scoobster]

CM,

Thanks for that info! Very valuable.. will look up some information for own reference.

Final thing:

The route on the way back was slightly different to route via Wittering MATZ.

Leaving Nottingham we got East Mids Approach who cleared us and then released with Squawk 7000.

Day was Sunday. Time Approx: 16:20.

Contact Wittering MATZ for 'MATZ and ATZ' Penetration.. No Answer on any frequency.

Couldn't see anything in the NOTAM's and after multiple attempts.. I decided to go to London Information on 124.600 and opted to route around the MATZ/ATZ.

One can still fly though the MATZ but not the ATZ whilst making blind calls?

Correct?

It's academic anyway as we routed around the zone.. but just wondered about protocol!

Scoobster.

[Chilli Monster]

Correct - though once the RAF move the Wyton operation to Wittering expect the MATZ to be active (and that general area) to be active at weekends

[Talkdownman]

"in sight of the surface"
Shouldn't that be 'with the surface in sight'? Or does 'the surface' have eyes…?

One can still fly though the MATZ but not the ATZ whilst making blind calls?
MATZs are civilian bin fodder...

[wb9999]

Quote:
Just to clarify the discrepancy (forgive me, it is probably me being thick!) - wb9999 mentions the "in sight of the surface rule is no longer applicable.

I'm going by the latest copy of the ANO (CAP393), Schedule 7 (Licence privileges). If it has changed I'm happy to be corrected, but reading that it doesn't appear so.



The change only applies to EASA licence holders, and I can't remember if it's Part-FCL or SERA which brought in the change. Either way, EASA regulations take precedence over the ANO. For CAA PPLs, the ANO regulations on VFR applies.

[Mach Jump]

The change you are thinking of was a Licensing change, and was the dropping, for JAA/EASA Licences, of the CAA requirement for PPL holders without Instrument Qualifications to maintain sight of the surface under all circumstances, and a minimum of 3km viz, regardless of the less stringent requirements for maintaining VFR.

The requirements for maintaining VFR have not changed:


VFR flight outside Controlled Airspace (Classes F and G Airspace)

Below FL 100

• 5 km flight visibility
• 1500m horizontally from cloud
• 1000ft vertically from cloud


At or below 3000ft

• 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.

If You want to take advantage of the reduced viz requirement of 1500m, and not have to maintain 1000' from cloud, then you have to be below 3000', below 140kt, and in sight of the surface.


MJ:ok:

Ps.

Shouldn't that be 'with the surface in sight'? Or does 'the surface' have eyes…?

Talkdownman: I'm sure you are right. You could always ask all those people around airfields who constantly complain if the surface has eyes.

MJ

[Steve6443]

Am I glad that I don't have a CAA licence but an EASA PPL issued in Germany - VFR on top, even without ground visibility - has always been considered legal if you had an approved method of navigation above the clouds (ie, VOR, ADF - GPS wasn't accepted) and could be sure that you have the opportunity to descend to land in VMC at your destination.......

[wb9999]

You are right MJ. I misread the OP - brain didn't compute that the OP was below 3,000 ft. It's too late in the week for me!

[Mach Jump]

TFIF!


MJ:ok:

[Simon T]

Soooo.... If you are over 3000ft you don't have to have sight of the ground?

Simon

[foxmoth]

Soooo.... If you are over 3000ft you don't have to have sight of the ground?

But you need to be SURE you can sort yourself out legally at the far end!

[Mach Jump]

Soooo.... If you are over 3000ft you don't have to have sight of the ground?

Correct. You only have to maintin the requirements for VFR flight, ie. VMC, as stated above.

In fact. you don't below 3000' either, so long as you maintain the more stringent 'Below FL100' requiremenmts for VFR.


MJ:ok:

Ps. Foxmoth, as always, inserts a valuable note of pragmatism into the legal debate. Just because it's legal, doesnt necessarilly mean its the smartest thing to do!

MJ

[Simon T]

Yes I am SURE I understood THAT from reading IT ;)

simon

[Scoobster]

I am confused... well slightly..

So depending on the altitude selected to fly you either "have to" maintain in sight of the surface or not.

E.g if flying at 2500 feet outside CAS, I must remain in sight of the surface if I cannot be sure that I will be 1000ft vertically from cloud or 1500m horizontally?

At 3000ft+ I have to follow the more "tighter" regulation of 5km viz, and 1000, 1500 respectively? BUT do not need to be in sight of the surface?

Technically wont this second option put u in IMC?

If you pottering around at 4000 feet with a cloud base at 1000 feet with VFR on top... you are still separated 1000 feet vertically but cannot see the surface?

Have I just confused myself??

Scoobster.

[Mach Jump]

Have I just confused myself??

Yes.

If you are maintaining VMC then you can't be IMC. If maintaining 'sight of the surface' isn't a VFR requirement for the situation you are in, then you don't need to maintain that requirement to maitain VMC

It would be legal to fly at 2000' above total cloud cover where the cloud tops are 1000', so long as you have 5km viz.

Having said that, flying around over complete cloud cover where the cloudbase is low, or at the surface, is not something to be taken lightly. (As I'm sure you are aware, and from your original post it sounds like you were thinking about all the right things.)


MJ:ok:

[foxmoth]

So depending on the altitude selected to fly you either "have to" maintain in sight of the surface or not.

E.g if flying at 2500 feet outside CAS, I must remain in sight of the surface if I cannot be sure that I will be 1000ft vertically from cloud or 1500m horizontally?

At 3000ft+ I have to follow the more "tighter" regulation of 5km viz, and 1000, 1500 respectively? BUT do not need to be in sight of the surface?

You can look at it in many ways as to how "tight" things are. Below 3,000' you can follow the same regs as above 3,000, but if in sight of the surface you are allowed lower minima provided you are in sight of the surface - made a lot of sense today, at 2,500' it was gin clear, below more than 5K viz, but not a lot more and patchy cloud about 2,000', this meant a basic PPL could fly in clear air at say 3,500' and let down legally and safely on arrival.

[worrab]

It would be legal to fly at 2000' above total cloud cover where the cloud tops are 1000', so long as you have 5km viz.

And if there's a mountain poking through the cloud, you just need around 25s flight time of visibility to do a legal let down.

[Scoobster]

I think I will let it all build up with experience and a lot more reading and understanding...

Thank you to everyone for enlightening me!

Much appreciated.

Scoobster

[Genghis the Engineer]

And if there's a mountain poking through the cloud, you just need around 25s flight time of visibility to do a legal let down.


Technically, that mountain is "surface" presumably?

G

[Fishtailed]

Maintained VMC at all times i.e. we were in sight of the surface and plenty of patches of blue sky to descend through should we encounter an engine failure.


Was you upside down then!!

[Tinstaafl]

Reading this reminded of when I was based in Shetland: 1500m vis/clear of cloud was the norm, not the exception. Most flights were between 500' & 1000' and, in an Islander, about the only way to exceed 140kts would be to paint your own markings on the ASI.

[thing]

Scoob:you could remove all of these doubts by doing your IR(R) rating. If you are a newish PPL now is the time to do it as your brain is still in 'training' mode.

[Mariner9]

Scoobster - nothing personal, and in fact well done for sticking your head above the parapet and asking about stuff you didn't know the answer to :D, but...

VFR rules, VMC definitions, and flights through MATZ's etc is basic PPL level stuff that should have been thoroughly covered in your training. I would suggest you have been let down by your training establishment.

[Scoobster]

@M9 - Thanks for highlighting that.. quite possibly...

I'm afraid I don't really know anything different about quality of training establishments therefore have no other school to compare against. But it is not the school in my opinion.. just my inquisitive nature to keep digging deeper about certain things particularly when I see how it relates in practice.

The theory part was covered by myself from the Air Law book (very first exam I took) hence the VFR, VMC and all the definitions not being fresh.

I do a regular recap to "bridge the gap of knowledge" but am more interested in how the "theory" relates to the "practical" - and I think that will only come with experience.

For example, in the situation on our last flight - I obviously didn't have the command but was still able to offer input towards the flight taking in to account the rules :)

@thing - IR or IMC is on the list (subject to funding) - after i've recovered from the last dent in my wallet :}

Scoobster

[CISTRS]

"I obviously didn't have the command but was still able to offer input towards the flight taking in to account the rules"

Scoobster:
Your first post mentions a responsibility for Nav and RT.

I feel quite uncomfortable with this informal split of duties on a flight in fairly marginal conditions involving negotiating holes in cloud layers, etc.
Two basic PPLs together can feed off mutual bravado, which can quickly make you illegal (at best). Nice to have a glass cockpit, and electronic navaids, but stay within the provisions of your licence and capabilities.

I'm glad it worked out for you this time. UK weather is not as predictable as we would like to pretend.

But then I'm an old dinosaur...

[Pace]

Scoobster

As a new PPL it is something we will all probably have played with at some time! I can remember as a basic new PPL climbing up through a large hole on top having been used to a perspective below clouds.
There is little problem if the cloud is well broken and it can be so broken that you can navigate with reference to the ground while being in excellent visibility.

But and here is the big caution I flew from the North West to Cornwall past Brecon many moons ago before the luxury of GPS. At first it was great not very high on top with well broken cloud and my destination clear.

the holes got smaller the cloud tops got higher and I found myself going higher to stay on top then no holes and a much higher altitude then i wanted with high terrain below.
i did a 180 and went back not having IFR skills or experience. I was lucky because the broken lower clouds were behind me but a 180 does not always guarantee that you will find what you left behind you so a big caution.

Nowadays we have all manner of navigation aids and pretty visual displays of where we are but they too can lead you into a false sense of security if you don't have the skills yet to back up those aids

So get some instrument training :ok:

Pace

[Scoobster]

Thank You all for the replies..

I always welcome drawing upon the knowledge of more experienced aviators.

I would never ever attempt to put flight safety at risk.. believe me I have no desire to get myself in any form of trouble.

Pace - IR is on the list.. Limited Finances at the mo! but hey we have all been through the pain!

CISTRS - Noted about the informal split and segregation of duties.

Picture attached of the cloud base just to give you all an idea of what it was like. Second picture taken a few minutes later.. prior to descent back down to 2000ft.

http://i62.tinypic.com/23uqx06.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/2ev6drc.jpg

Cheers,
Scoobster.

[maxred]

Yes I am SURE I understood THAT from reading IT


Classic:ok:

Nice photographs, and plenty of breaks, no issues there. As Pace recounts, most have at one stage scared thenselves witless with this type of thing.

Theory is the framework. Reality is real time. Be aware of the theory, but nothing beats real time experience. Why not book an instrument experience flight with an instructor. It will give you the perspective of how different it actually is. Flying IMC. Should not break the bank either..

[Scoobster]

Maxred,

It was just an AMAZING first time experience witnessing that scenery! Couldn't stop grinning and being awestruck.. the feeling of being free!

That alone made the PPL training worthwhile and the real learning has now started.

I equally would probably s**t myself if I ended up in IMC and couldn't get back down safely or legally!!

The only training in the PPL syllabus is if you manage to inadvertently end up in cloud and how to recover..

Will give the IR or IMC a shot

Thanks a bunch. :ok:

Scoob

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It was just an AMAZING first time experience witnessing that scenery!
Pretty amazing is when you've got an instrument qualification and you descend through a cloud layer for the first time solo to discover that you are exactly where you thought you were! (Moving maps are cheating here.)

[Scoobster]

Pretty amazing is when you've got an instrument qualification and you descend through a cloud layer for the first time solo to discover that you are exactly where you thought you were! (Moving maps are cheating here.)

Now that takes skill and ace navigation to ground features (amongst other things)

One day.. i will post that experience too!

See if i can rope someone into a RHS IMC experience flight prior to instructor.

Scoobs

[thing]

I'll second Wombat there. The other part of IMC flying that never fails to delight me is climbing up on a filthy day and bursting out of the stratus into a brilliant blue sky and blindingly white cloudscape beneath you. It never ceases to make me go 'Wow'. It makes you feel extra privileged to be a pilot on those days.

[150 Driver]

Based on the photos I doubt there is a non-instrument rated PPL around who hasn't done what you did without a concern, I know I did. Looks like a no question VFR flight to me

That said, endorse doing the IRR at the earliest opportunity, I crammed mine in virtually as soon as the ink was dry on PPL-amazing what the pressure of the threat of having the IMC withdrawn in April made me afford.

Agree with thing about flying on a horrible day (non icing of course) and breaking through into brilliant sunshine above cloud, puts a real smile on the face thinking about the ground based people trudging around in greyness!

The one issue I pick up from your posting is the flying with another pilot and having some degree of responsibility . I hate having anyone else in the cockpit who has a licence, I think it can very quickly put you in the incident pit.

[phiggsbroadband]

For those who may like a little higher, is it necessary to have a different type rating if using; a Turbo, Supplementary Oxygen, or Cabin Pressurisation ?


I realise there is not too much FL160 class G airspace in UK !

[Mach Jump]

...is it necessary to have a different type rating if using; a Turbo, Supplementary Oxygen, or Cabin Pressurisation ?

Not a different Type Rating, but Turbo/Supercharging, and Pressurisation require 'Differences Training'.

MJ:ok:

Ps. There's actually quite a lot of 'G' Airspace at FL160 in the UK.

[thing]

I hate having anyone else in the cockpit who has a licenceI'm the other way around. I don't mind taking pax at all but the one nagging thought at the back of my mind is that if I keel over unexpectedly (I'm at that age where it happens...) then it's not just me that is going to sing with the choir invisible. The pax I take are regular pax and I always let them handle the aircraft enough so that they might feel confident to at least have a bash at getting it down.

I never tell them that's why I'm letting them have a pole around though...:)

On the other hand I really enjoy having another pilot on board. I have a regular flying buddy, my leg out, his leg back etc and we have it nailed down exactly who is in charge when flying and what the non flying pilot is expected to do. We brief it as well so there is no mistake. We're both ex mil and certainly in his case he has over 11,000 hrs cross cockpit experience so it works well for us.