big.al

Apologies if this subject has been done before, but I'm hoping you folks can clarify something for me. I don't have my text books in front of me but from memory the VFR rules go something like this (class D or below):

Below 3000ft AMSL: clear of cloud and in sight of the surface

Above 3000ft AMSL: 1000ft from cloud vertically and horizontally and in sight of the surface.

But the question is, do I need to be below ALL cloud?

By way of explanation, let me give an example based upon todays weather.

The METAR for Wattisham is as follows:
EGUW 191050Z 05014KT 9999 FEW022 05/M00 Q1029 BLU NOSIG

The 'few' clouds at 2200ft would certainly not prevent me from being 'in sight of the surface' if I were at FL40, and it would seem more sensible to be at FL40 and maintain level flight than having to duck and dive around the few clouds at 2200ft. Of course I could bumble along at 2000ft QNH but if I'd prefer to remain clear of ATZs/MATZs etc it seems better to be higher, plus of course there's more time to pick a field and glide to it if the donk stops.

So (all other weather issues and met issues aside) am I legally able to fly VFR at FL40 above 'some' clouds, provided I can still safely see the surface in order to navigate and remain orientated? I know full well that I can't fly VFR 'on top' without an IMC. I also understand that as commander I have to decide whether or not it is safe to fly above any cloud but what really constitutes the legal maximum before cloud is considered as 'cover' and I have to stay below it?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Chilli Monster

As a rule of thumb "FEW" or "SCT" are not a problem being above for a PPL without any extra ratings - so yes, no reason for you not to be and perfectly legal.

When it becomes "BKN" then you really need an IMC, as "BKN" can fill in to become "OVC" quite easily.

Fly Stimulator

Think of the implications if such a rule did exist!

How far away could a cloud be and still be relevant to this calculation? People with better eyesight who were able to spot clouds in the far distance might be forced to fly along at treetop height while the more myopic soared aloft entirely untroubled!

I think we should keep this idea under wraps though, in case the likes of EASA take it up.


Joking aside, when I'm flying a non-IMC-capable aircraft I tend to scale up cloud forecasts to avoid being caught out, so for example I assume that 'broken' will actually be a solid overcast etc.

360BakTrak

Above 3000' amsl but below FL100 the minima are ; 1500m horizontal and 1000' vertical from cloud and flight visibility of 5km.....no mention of 'in sight of surface'.
Thats from the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1. I think its up to date...............

Chilli Monster

360BakTrak

True - but it's a licence limitation on a UK PPL that flight is to be conducted "within sight of the surface".

This can only be overcome with the addition of an IMC/IR to the licence.

(ANO - Article 8, section 1)

360BakTrak

Ah....never bothered reading that as it dont make much sense to me! Does that mean you can only fly VFR on top with an IMC? Didnt think it mattered once you were up there....only how you got there.
Will delve into the boring green book when I'm back at work......if I can find someone to translate it as I'm a bit fick!!!

Just found that bit on-line.
So that means you can fly VFR on top of, in theory, up to BKN cloud with 3000m visibility, as long as you stay near the 1 okta you can see the surface through.
I realise reality is not quite as simple as that!

IO540

An IMCR or IR pilot can fly VMC on top, above a solid layer, and call himself either IFR or VFR, as he chooses.

IFR is usually preferred because he is much more likely to get a RIS that way, not to mention things like overhead transits (ATCOs often seem suspicious of the nav skills of a "VFR" pilot)

A PPL-only can fly above clouds but he has to be within sight of the surface. I am not aware of a specification for the degree of overcast (X octets) above which this is not allowed - is there one?

DFC

The legal definition of ceiling is cloued cover of broken or overcast (5 to 8 Okta).

Consequently, if flying above a cloud cover of broken then one is flying above the ceiling. While one may be able to see glimpses of the surface, it can not be relied upon. That is why I would recomend that in the case described, don't plan to fly over anything more than scattered.

A word of caution though - have a good read of the criteria for the met office reporting cloud cover. They report the lowest cloud and then before they report the next higher band, it must amount to 4 Okta (can't remember the exact figure). However, it could be 4 okta.............So with the only reported cloud being sct020 (say 2 Okta), there could be a cloud layer (or layers) just above that of 3 Okta which is not reported............get above that lot and you could end up with 2+3 = 5/8 ground cover from your height and perhaps even more if there is another few okta between you and the second layer.

Remember also that METAR and TAF refer to the vicinity of an aerofrome only. Check enroute weather also.

VFR on top is only permitted by UK pilots who have had further training in the form of an IMC rating and by every other JAA PPL without further training. Want VFR on top - move your PPL to France or Ireland or another JAA country.

Regards,

DFC

360BakTrak

If you read the specific part in the ANO it only stipulates 3000m Visibility in sight of the surface......it doesnt specify how much surface to be in sight of. Surely 1 okta of ground is 'in sight of the surface'?
As far as ATCO's are concerned its (above 3000') 1500m horizontal and 1000' vertical from cloud and 5km visibility.
Personally speaking my experience as an ATCO has proven that whether a pilot is an 'IFR or VFR' pilot has no bearing whatsoever on their individual ability.
A RIS will be provided regardless of your flight rules/conditions if requested and traffic levels permit.
Hmmmm........things get more confusing!!!!

Chilli Monster

Just to clear this one up - by the book:

1st cloud group reported - lowest cloud of any amount.

2nd group - next highest layer SCT or greater

3rd group - next highest layer BKN or greater

Plus - any CB's / TCU (Towering Cu) to be reported no matter what the amount.

360BT - Dunno how much flying you've done above cloud but if you're above 7/8 cloud at normal piston engined levels below CAS in the UK then there's a lot of time when you won't be visual with the ground - hence my rules of thumb earlier in the thread.

As for the IFR/VFR not being an indicator of ability - there have been times recently when I will wholeheartedly concur with that one

360BakTrak

Chilli Monster,

I realise from a practical point of view that is the case, but as the rule is stated in the ANO then it is legal. As a rule of thumb then yes but taken literally from the book it should be legal. However...when something goes wrong how liberal can your interpretation be?!
As well as ATCO'ing I've been flying for about 10 years and encountered this kind of situation alot. If the specific met conditions are to be taken into account then things like operating levels should be taken into account in relation to cloud base/tops. Also the metars are specific to within 8km of the reporting aerodrome, so what weather do you take into account to apply the rule? A forecast which may not be accurate, a metar for the nearest airfield or your own estimation considering you may not be a qualified met observer or forecaster?

Rod1

Just to make sure I understand. To fly VMC on top you have to have an IMC/IR, but as you are VMC, you could be in a permit aircraft? You would of course have to remain VMC all the time.

Chilli Monster

How about the weather that you observe by looking out of the aircraft windows and seeing whether you can see the ground or not. You don't have to be a qualified observer or forecaster to be able to make that decision.

Rocket science it aint - it's up to the individual concerned to make the decision as to whether he can or cannot comply with the privileges of his/her licence based on the conditions at the time - and if he can't then he has to do something about it to change that to compliance.

Maybe that's the problem with questions like this. People start trying to find loopholes in the way the rules are written in the ANO, rather than interpreting them in the spirit in which they were written. Let's face it - you'll only get hung if it goes pear shaped, but the best way to stop it going that way is to fly defensively, constantly evaluating your decisions against the conditions around you. I'm all for making a plan and sticking to it - but you should always have options and escape routes too. Arguing about whether 1/8 cloud holes is or isn't compliant is not, in my mind, a safe escape route.

An example. Saturday I got airborne, was in cloud at 600'. I was on top at 1200'. As far as I could see a completely unbroken layer - until I looked straight down, where there were small holes. Now, by some reasoning it could be argued that I was compliant. I on the other hand would say I wasn't because I don't fly looking straight down all the time (at 160 Kts that would be pretty dumb ) and on looking ahead and around the ground was not continuously visible. It would not have been legal or sensible for a UK PPL with no extra ratings. He may have been VFR on top, but there comes the question of getting back down again - and you can't stay VFR if descending through cloud which has more than half cover as you're going to fly through some in the descent sooner or later.

360BakTrak

I'm not arguing that its safe, just saying how the rule can literally be applied. Reading that part of the ANO it seems to me that all you can do is interpret it, its hardly a comprehensive and detailed rule.
The ANO gives you a whopping 3 short sentences on the issue, I'm not saying PPL holders should break the law or fly beyond their licence limitations, only that specifics such as flying on top of cloud, or VMC at night or whatever, seem a bit vague or open to mis-interpretation within the ANO.
I totally agree about having escape routes but surely that is an airmanship consideration?
I'm not trying to argue but just trying to understand this issue myself as it seems to me to be a bit of a 'grey area'!
I have always found the ANO to be a bu$$er to understand, thats why idiots guides like the MATS Pt 1 were introduced but with this particular issue the ANO appears to be less than informative or definitive.
Lets talk about VFR at night shall we? ....a much more straight forward topic!!!!!!!!!!

DubTrub

In sight of cloud, clear of the surface. Permit to Fly or C of A.

360BakTrak

Why cant you descend through more than half cover or more and stay VFR?! Of course you can.....5/8ths is more than half cover yet still 3/8ths of the 'celestial dome' is 'blue sky'....you dont need to break the law or have an IMC/IR to descend through that amount of blue?!?!?! Surely not?!

Chilli Monster

No - but I like planned descents that preserve my engines, not shoving the nose down 60-90 degrees with the throttles back and shock cooling them

360BakTrak

Good point....but then you can start factoring in aircraft performance........your 160kt machine is somewhat different to a 90kt machine that could easily descend through a large gap whereas a faster machine may not be able to.
Anyway......we're getting far too specific now!!!!!
3000m and in sight of the surface whilst applying common sense and good airmanship gets my vote!

Fly Stimulator

DubTrub, Seems a shame to be banned from flying on clear days!

The second part of your rule must pose some difficulties when it comes to taking off and landing too.

englishal

Ah, remaining "clear of surface" doesn't apply during take off or landing, see.........ANO 2000 Chapter 11, Sub section 5, paragraph 8, sub paragraph 12, item 4, section IV, subsection (a), note1, section 5.........however it is mandatory during en-route phase.