VFR above clouds? [Archive]

Chilli Monster

11th Nov 2007, 14:00

YES

1) You can be VFR above cloud, no matter what some people here say. To those I say - recheck your facts regarding VMC minima. (Human Factors link is excellent for this).

2) You are clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, so are not breaching your licence conditions (I'm assuming UK PPL here).

I would even go so far as to say you woud be legal above SCT cloud (3 & 4 Oktas). Anything above that and it becomes a judgement call - you may be in sight of the surface, but how long will you stay that way if the holes fill in, or will you be able to comply with minima when you descend through a hole which is getting smaller.

A and C

11th Nov 2007, 15:13

I would not realy give a hoot about what is leagal, what I am interested in is what is safe!

As long as you can stay in contact with the surface, maintain the in-flight visibilty and decend safely within a gap in the cloud then you are unlikely to have any leagal come back. After all cloud movement is a dynamic thing and who in a court of law can fix the location of the clouds at a point in time.

DX Wombat

11th Nov 2007, 15:23

I would not realy give a hoot about what is leagal,Careful! That's not a very sensible or responsible satement is it? Failure to maintain your legal requirements could end up with a tea and biccies meeting with somebody from the CAA without the tea and biccies. :ooh:

Rod1

11th Nov 2007, 15:35

If you are below 3000 ft, clear of cloud and in sight of one blade of grass you are OK legaly.

Rod1

IO540

11th Nov 2007, 15:45

You can certainly be VFR above a solid overcast. This can be done everywhere in the world, AFAIK.

The problem is whether the pilot's license permits him to fly VFR above a solid overcast. I know of two countries (there may be more) which prohibit this for their own license holders: the UK and South Africa. Nobody else in Europe (AFAIK) has this restriction.

Such a prohibition is valid worldwide so a UK issued PPL (or a UK issued JAA PPL) holder cannot fly above a solid overcast anywhere in the world. The requirement is that he is in sight of the surface.

For the UK PPL the restriction disappears if the holder has an IMC Rating or an IR, and again this is valid worldwide. (The IFR privileges of the IMC Rating are valid UK only but that is a separate issue).

So a UK PPL with the IMCR can depart IFR in the UK, climb up through the clouds and provided he is VMC on top by the airspace boundary with France, he can continue that way across France, and then he needs to be able to descend through a large hole in the cloud to land ;)

As Rod1 says, one blade of grass visible through the clouds or whatever is enough to be legal.

Navigation is another matter; obviously UK PPL style dead reckoning won't be much good, but that wasn't the question was it ;)

BTW Rod1 I don't see where the "3000ft" comes into it.

Human Factor

11th Nov 2007, 15:51

I don't see where the "3000ft" comes into it.

In Class C to G airspace, below 3000ft you are only required to be "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface", assuming you're doing 140kts or less. Above 3000ft, you must be 1500m horizontally and 1000ft vertically clear. My link above refers.

Contacttower

11th Nov 2007, 15:55

So a UK PPL with the IMCR can depart IFR in the UK, climb up through the clouds and provided he is VMC on top by the airspace boundary with France, he can continue that way across France, and then he needs to be able to descend through a large hole in the cloud to land ;)

Does that apply to a JAA PPL and IMC rating holder as well? Pity I happen to be in the one other country (South Africa) that needs you to be in sight of the surface for VFR.

bookworm

11th Nov 2007, 16:15

Rod1

11th Nov 2007, 17:02

IO540 is quite correct.

Remember, PFA permit aircraft have to be flown VFR at all times. An IMCR changes the VFR rules, so you have a much more flexible system. Having said this, the "below 3000 ft rule" allows huge latitude provided your aircraft is appropriately equipped and you are competent. This is one of the reasons why it is possible to tour seriously in a permit aircraft, without actually braking the NO IFR rule.

My aircraft cruses at 138kn (odd that :)) so I tend to forget the speed limit.

Rod1

badboy raggamuffin

11th Nov 2007, 17:19

Done it plenty of times, always found it a most spectacular and satisfying experence, much better to be a bit higher above the clouds (airspace permitting) than below in all the turbulence.

Always good fun when you suddenly realise that there is more cloud below you (ie 6-7 oktas) than there was before you went up there, pick a hole and dive!

IO540

11th Nov 2007, 18:49

The South African restriction is Rules of the Air, not licence privilege

Thank you bookworm - most interesting.

As for the cloud separation above 3000ft, I must get myself one of those laser measurement thingies that builders use, and point it out of the window at the nearest cloud ;)

Oh and I also fly at 138kt IAS, at ~ 60% power, LOP. Funny that!

VFR above cloud is a wonderful way to do long legs across Europe. Just have to be very careful about the far end. And if going east of the UK one does tend to be reliant on getting transits through CAS, which is a lot more common than in the UK but is far from 100%.

DFC

11th Nov 2007, 19:12

An IMCR changes the VFR rules

No it most certainly does not. It changes the licence privileges.

Please also note that UK VFR limits are different from ICAO and thus from most other countries (some of which have further differences). The most important one being that in controlled airspace C, D and E it is normally a requirement to meet the 1500m horizontally and 1000ft vertically from cloud requirements regardless of level.

------

IO540,

Perhaps ICAO wrongly give pilots some credit for judgement. Remember that when required it is a minimum and there is nothing stopping a pilot from being more than the minimum.

As you may be aware, it is unusual to meet the requirements for an appropriate level for cruising flight i.e. odd+500 or even+500 as appropriate under ICAO and manage to get only 1000ft separation from cloud. I find that it is usually obvious that there will be less than 1000ft or there is well more.

regards,

DFC

Captain Procedures

12th Nov 2007, 08:58

I fly 172s in the Philippines of all places. Contrary to what some people have mentioned in connection with other country's regulations I can quite categorically state that VFR on top is NOT permitted in the Philippines unless you are flying an instrument flight plan and, needless to say, you have the appropriate endorsements on your license. I do not but I am learning IR.

In my opinion flying over clouds is a matter of common sense and safety. If for example you are flying along at 6000 and there is a cloud with a ceiling of 6500 and a base of 2000 in front of you, it would make much more sense to climb to 7000 to get over it than descend to 1500 to go under it. Subject, of course, to whether or not your are sure that the ground will always be in sight.

Bottom line here is don't do it unless you are 100% sure it is safe. :ok:

Captain Procedures

12th Nov 2007, 09:01

My Math is not so good:bored: should be 7500 over and 1000 under.

soay

12th Nov 2007, 16:29

Thanks for all the responses. The forecast was for few over Snowdon today, and I wanted to be sure that it was OK to fly over any cloud. However, it turned out to be broken, so I decided to fly around the mountain instead. Still great views though!

mostlytossas

20th Nov 2007, 04:53

Thank god I live in OZ or I'd never get anywhere. Here so long as you have a nav aid rating such as a VOR or NDB and the NVFR rating does that you can fly VFR on top outside controlled airspace. For years I used to fly to Sydney in the winter from the west over full fog/ low cloud for 150nm untill crossing the Blue Mountains then decend from 7500' to clear conditions. You see here the prevaling westerlys push the cloud up to the mountains where they then back up for 150 miles or so and there is no getting under them in winter. Over the top is the only sensible way to go bathed in 10octas of sunshine and 10octas of whiteout below. The trick of course was to phone up before takeoff and confirm clear or at least suitable cloud conditions east of the divide and always have enough fuel to go back if you had to.
I know live in south Oz where there wouldn't be more that probaby 12days a year you couldn't go flying at some point due weather.

IO540

20th Nov 2007, 07:44

New Zealand and Australia have their own little regulatory system which will keep GA there healthy and moving forward.

They are also so far from anywhere (in GA flight terms) that nobody nearby is likely to complain if they bring in regs which the neighbours don't approve of.

Here in Europe, we have a regulatory scene run largely by a bunch of elitist old ex airline codgers who (if they got their way) would ban everybody without an ATPL from flying IFR. I am certain that if it wasn't for ICAO, European GA would have been stuffed long ago.

There is a possibility (obviously I hope I am wrong) that in 20 years' time the only GA in Europe will be the "ultralight sports" stuff, buzzing around between farm strips at 500ft AGL, and the rest will be confined to the islands i.e. the USA, Australia, NZ, plus perhaps India and China if they play things over there the right way and follow the U.S. model.

Dr Eckener

20th Nov 2007, 08:58

Unless you have an instrument qualification I would suggest a sensible interpretation of 'in sight of the surface' to be able to perform a safe forced landing whilst maintaining visual flight at all times, and not 'being able to see a blade of grass' as has been suggested.

hobbit1983

20th Nov 2007, 09:04

I think the point was that technically it would be legal with one blade of grass, rather than a practical suggestion?

Rod1

20th Nov 2007, 09:33

Just to repeat what I actually said;:)

“If you are below 3000 ft, clear of cloud and in sight of one blade of grass you are OK legally.”

Practicality depends on lots of factors, not just pilot qualifications.

Rod1

DFC

21st Nov 2007, 10:35

If you are;

below 3000 ft, clear of cloud and in sight of one blade of grass

You are illegal on a VFR flight.

Because the visibility is less than that required for VMC if all you can see is one blade of grass.

Regards,

DFC

The Flying Pram

21st Nov 2007, 11:16

Sorry DFC, but I've just looked at the link suggested by "Human Factors" and the diagram (and my previous understanding) only require you to be "In sight of the surface" and with an "Inflight visibilty" of 5km. Therefore you could legally be at 1500ft above broken cloud with the surface in sight, so long as your visiblity above the cloud is 5km or more. It also adds that below 140kt IAS this can be reduced to 1.5km, but my old training book suggests that this is only applicable to those with an IMC/IR rating. Above 3000ft the limits are more stringent.
As far as the safety aspects go, I would rather (and often have) be above scattered or even broken cloud, than be stuck in poor vis below it. Obviously it needs constant observation, and if the holes start closing up a quick descent whilst still safe to do so.

Tony Hirst

21st Nov 2007, 11:44

LFP,

OCAS, the 1.5km becomes 3km if you have a PPL without an IMCR/IR. 5km between three and ten thou.

Practically speaking, 6km is horrible never mind 3!

Rod1

21st Nov 2007, 12:03

DFC,

Have a good look at;

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

Note, the visibility minima is horizontal not vertical, so you could be at 2999 ft, in sight of one blade of grass and have a horizontal vis of 50km. This is LEGAL, I make on comment on the practicalities. Remember the original question was about flying above some cloud, not a discussion on horizontal vis.

Rod1

Gertrude the Wombat

21st Nov 2007, 22:56

Round here the haze layer usually seems to top out at around 4,000'.

So you can be at 4,100', in flight visibility of hundreds of miles in all horizontal directions, not a cloud in sight, you can see the ground directly beneath you ... but can you see that airfield three miles away that you're wanting to land at? - no chance!

IO540

22nd Nov 2007, 07:26

but can you see that airfield three miles away that you're wanting to land at?

I'd say that's quite a normal problem anyway, which is why one has GPS :)

Many grass runways are barely visible when in the circuit, unless one knows exactly what to look for.

Lucy Lastic

22nd Nov 2007, 08:40

... in my experience, if you can see a blade of grass, you are probably flying at about 10' and are at the correct height for the flare;)

soay

22nd Nov 2007, 08:44

The first time I used GPS to locate an airfield, I flew right over it without seeing it. That was Sleap, where the approach is along the runway center line at 2000 ft, for a variation on an overhead join. Sticking to the magenta line kept it hidden under the nose all the way. :O

dublinpilot

22nd Nov 2007, 10:03

Tony Hirst

22nd Nov 2007, 10:45

Funny....I did the exact same thing on my skills test using DR. :rolleyes:Had to be said :ok:

clearfinalsno1

22nd Nov 2007, 12:46

I recently had reason to refresh my knowledge of VFR flight limitations and consulted the classic CAA chart already mentioned:

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

This has been around for years and years and I wonder if an ommission has been overlooked. Either I am being thick (quite probable) or there is a lack of clarity concerning what rules apply to aircraft below 3000ft at speeds of greater than 140kts

For classes F and G, if your speed is slower than this, then you can fly down to 1500m forward visibility (this referenced by the * and text below the chart), otherwise you must have 5km viz or more.

For classes B, C, D & E, if you speed is slower than 140kts you can fly down to 5km viz. What applies if your speed is greater than 140kts? This is not stated. Has this been missed off for years/am I the first to query it (unlikely)?

You could guess and say that it goes up to 8km, as is required for flight above FL100. If this were the case, why does it not apply to flight between 3000ft and FL100? Or, does the speed limitation in these airspace classes not affect the viz at all, and just mean that at speeds greater than 140kts at less than 3000ft, I still only need 5km viz, BUT I must now have 1500m horizontal separation and 1000ft vertical separation from cloud, rather than just being clear?

Tony Hirst

22nd Nov 2007, 13:01

clearfinalsno1,

For classes F and G, if your speed is slower than this, then you can fly down to 1500m forward visibility (this referenced by the * and text below the chart), otherwise you must have 5km viz or more.
A vanilla PPL has a vis minima of 3km attached to it. A VFR minima of 1500m only applies if you have CPL, IMC or IR. See the ANO sections for licensing and the Rules of the Air for airspace/VFR constraints.

What applies if your speed is greater than 140kts? This is not stated. Has this been missed off for years/am I the first to query it (unlikely)?
If more than 140kts, the vis stays at 5km but you are subject to 1.5km and 1000' away from cloud constraint.

clearfinalsno1

22nd Nov 2007, 13:20

Thanks Tony. I forgot about the 3km limitation for non IMC holders.

Other readers can see this and other PPL(A) licence priviledges in the CAA's LASORS (Licensing, Administration, Standardisation, Operating Requirements and Safety) 2007 guide, available online free here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf

Goto the the Section A appendices, Appendix F, paragraph 2 c i.

IO540

22nd Nov 2007, 15:16

Has to be said that cloud separation and the 140kt limit are completely unenforceable, and are meaningless in practice anyway.

The hardest to spot planes (gliders) disregard the cloud spacing requirements totally.

One has to remember this stuff for the exams.

Kirstey

22nd Nov 2007, 15:23

Is the ATS categories link correct?

If I'm in Class G above solid cloud (and clear of it) surely I'm in VMC?? There's no requirement to be in site of the surface surely.

Rod1

22nd Nov 2007, 16:23

I wonder if it is the poor standard of instruction, which leads to so many pilots not understanding the VFR minima?

Rod1

The Flying Pram

22nd Nov 2007, 17:06

I wonder if it is the poor standard of instruction, which leads to so many pilots not understanding the VFR minima?

Quite possibly - It could explain why so many PPL's blunder around in poor vis just below cloud, when they could (as I often do) climb above and enjoy far superior conditions. A further benefit (for me) is that this normally gives a much smoother ride, rather than the inevitable "bumps" lower down.

DFC

22nd Nov 2007, 17:12

... in my experience, if you can see a blade of grass, you are probably flying at about 10' and are at the correct height for the flare

Or about to have a CFIT. :E

------------

First of all why don't we separate once and for all the following totally separate issues;

1. Visual Flight Rules (VFR)

2. Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC); and

3. Licence privileges on personal licenses.

In the case of 1 they are simply a set of rules that are to be followed when making a VFR flight.

In the case of 3, they are to a certain extent individual and hopefully soon to be axed by EASA.

In the case of VMC, there are a number of issues;

First, after the requirement for a non-instrument pilot to have outside visual references the idea is to protect aircraft in flight and provide some assistance to flights that rely on the see and be seen principle for separation. Have a look at Class B where everyone is separated....and then compare that to the lower classes where less and less aircraft are separated by ATC..........note that the VMC requirements in many cases increase going faster as for example one can do above FL100 also requires further visibity to give time to aquire aircraft at the higher closing speeds.

The 1500m minimum is only permitted where according to ICAO the posibility of encountering another aircraft is low.........how the UK can apply this below the London TMA is any one's guess and probably a liability case waiting to happen.

To answer the question posed regarding the 140Kt limit in controlled airspace.........The UK are different from ICAO in that if you are 140Kt or less, you have the option of operating below 3000ft in 5Km clear of cloud rather than the 5Km, 1000ft verticaly and 1500m horizontally that applies in controlled airspace C,D,E below FL100.

I and other operators think that this is wrong because it removes the requirement for VFR flights to keep well away from could where IFR flights are descending and also encourages scud running in controlled airspace.

Regards,

DFC