Flying on top of clouds...in VMC

[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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by worrab

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 , 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

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.





Cheers,
Scoobster.

[maxred]

Yes I am SURE I understood THAT from reading IT

Classic

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.

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.)