VFR on top in permit aircraft

[Mark 1]

but VFR also requires "in sight of surface".


No it does not.

This is asking about UK rules and so subject to Rule 28 outside controlled airspace.

If you maintain the requirements of:
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace
below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet
vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

Then there is no requirement to remain in sight of the surface.

So, if the pilot has licence privileges to fly out of sight of the surface, can expect to do their initial climb and final descent in VFR conditions and is willing to accept the risk of a descent through cloud in the event of an engine failure; then they are allowed to do the flight on top of cloud.

[Sensible Flyer]

I'm still doing my PPL, but had an interesting flight at the weekend which turned into a bit of a radio nav lesson with 8 8ths cloud topping out at 1,000 feet.

Permit aircraft are legal to flay in daytime VMC. But if the pilot was suitably qualified, is it legal to fly a permit aircraft in VMC on top conditions?

I'm thinking about what I should be aiming to fly once I have my PPL and this might influence my choice. I realise that I would also need IMCr or IR to do this legally.

[Genghis the Engineer]

From CAP 733 page 31...

a) Article 9A of the ANO 2000; for those limitations of a general nature that are
applicable to all classes of aircraft operating on a Permit to Fly. The principal
limitation is that Permit to Fly aircraft are restricted to flight by day and in
accordance with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) unless the prior permission of the CAA
has been obtained. Permission for flights under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) will
only be given in exceptional circumstances, such as, to meet a long distance ferry
requirement. In such a situation the alleviation would be subject to agreement on
aircraft instrumentation and pilot qualifications.
b) The individual aircraft’s Permit to Fly; for those limitations which are applicable to
either that individual aircraft or that class of aircraft. In particular, restrictions on
flight over congested areas will be contained in the individual Permit to Fly.

Nothing about sight of surface - so far as I know, unless there's something on the permit, that is entirely down to the individual pilot's licence limitations.

G

[foxmoth]

One problem you might have here is getting up there and back down legally!
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011.pdf

[Heston]

I think this is going down the route of the common confusion between VFR and VMC. They are not the same.
Visual Meteorological Conditions are a difinition of the conditions actually experienced.
Visual Flight Rules are the rules governing the flight. One of those rules is that the flight must be in VMC, but VFR also requires "in sight of surface at or below 3000'".
The para from the ANO that Genghis quotes says that permit aircraft must be operated under Visual Flight Rules - ie in VMC and in sight of surface at least up to 3000'.

So yes, bit difficult to get up and down again legally.


H

[riverrock83]

the VFR guide linked above for below 3000 Feet says you can follow the below FL100 rules instead
which are:

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

# For the purpose of taking off or landing within a Control Zone, the actual meteorological visibility reported by ATC shall be taken as the flight visibility. (Rule 26 of the UK Air Navigation Order refers).

So as long as its a decent hole and you can get 1000 feet above the cloud you're OK...

[BackPacker]

To sum up.

VFR on top is only allowed provided that:
a. Your CofA/PTF allows this.
b. The airspace allows this
c. Your license allows this

As far as (a) is concerned, there do not seem to be any general or specific rules for Permit aircraft. But you would have to check the provisions of your specific PTF to be sure.

As far as (b) is concerned, see above. For each class of airspace there are specific definitions as to what constitutes "VFR", and sometimes this does include an "in sight surface" restriction, sometimes it does not. May also depend on the altitude.

As far as (c) is concerned, there is a specific provision in the UK ANO that a plain PPL, who does not have a (current) IMC or IR rating, has to stay in sight of the surface at all times. This applies to all PPLs that are issued under the ANO (in other words, UK issued PPLs, JAR or National) and is a license restriction, so it applies worldwide. Obtaining an IMC or IR does lift this requirement, worldwide. (Even though the other privileges of an IMC - IFR flight - do not apply worldwide.)

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

The 'small print' for my UK Permit to Fly aeroplane contains the words:

The Aircraft shall be flown by day and under Visual Flight Rules


The rules are contained in this handy document (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011.pdf) for those who have forgotten, or never bothered to learn it in the first place.

Clear of cloud & in sight of the surface - It doesn't specify how far away that surface has to be though, especially if it's the Matterhorn poking through in the distance..:E

[foxmoth]

Why do people repeat posts? I had already posted that link:rolleyes:

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I had the same question with my instructor on my first cross country, we took off early AM in the morning and the Valley we were flying down had low morning cloud. so we took off in CAVOK, expected to Arrive in CAVOK but for 90% of the route i was not in sight of surface.From on top I'd say there was maybe 200-300 ft or so between valley floor and the base of the cloud I said was it legal ...my instructors response was ... "yes, but it'll be really interesting if the engine quits"from then on i was trying to visualise the valley floor under the cloud.... where was that farm?..... how narrow is the valley here?

[funfly]

The confusion is often when VFR gets mixed up with Privileges of your licence.
As I recall VFR needs sight of ground only under 3000' but some licences require sight at all times.

[BillieBob]

What is so difficult about this? A permit aircraft must be flown in accordance with the visual flight rules. The visual flight rules, outside controlled airspace, comprise Rule 28 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996, which states:


(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c) is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.

(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.

(6) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in accordance with rule 6(i).
It is clear that if the pilot complies with paragraph 2 (i.e. 1500m horizontal and 1000ft vertical clearance from cloud and a flight vis of 5km) then ground contact is not a requirement. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to fly a permit aircraft at, for example, 2500ft amsl above a solid cloud layer with tops at 1500ft amsl provided the flight vis is at least 5km and the pilot is appropriately licensed and rated. Getting there and getting back, however, is a whole other problem!

[Heston]

Billiebob
No it isnt legal at 2500' - the extract you yourself quote says that below 3000' "in sight of the surface" is required.

And someone needs to point out that in any case just because something is legal does not mean that it is sensible...

H

[mm_flynn]

Heston,

you need to read it again. Clause 3 is a relaxation of the rules of Clause 2. in English that means if you can comply with clause 3 (all three points on of which is IN sight of surface) then you can ignore clause 2. Otherwiese you must comply with 2. So if you are below 3000 feet and in sight of the surface than all you need is clear of cloud. But if you can't see the surface you have to be 1000 feet above the cloud with 5 km viz.

[Heston]

.Heston,

you need to read it again. Clause 3 is a relaxation of the rules of Clause 2

Oh I see now, silly me!:\ My apologies to Billiebob. I confess that I've just learnt something, so thanks guys.

H

[BackPacker]

Those rules appear to intertwine flight conditions, pilot ratings, sight of the surface, altitude, distances in meters and feet, airspeed, and aircraft airworthiness category in a completely indecipherable maze.

See my earlier post with regards to pilot ratings and aircraft airworthiness.

As far as the definition of VFR in the different airspace classes is concerned, yes, there seems to be some sort of mandate for ANO writers to put at least a triple negative in any article written. Cases like this, the AIP is a much better source of information.

UK AIP, ENR 1.2 para 1.1 has a very handy table for VFR requirements in all classes of airspace, at all altitudes. Unfortunately it's impossible to cut&paste it here, but the link below should take you directly to it.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-58FB574C0B80D76F62690DF366352487/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_2_en_2009-12-17.pdf

[BEagle]

VFR:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/VFR.jpg

There is often confusion about the Class F/G 'below 3000ft' relaxation, because of the clumsy way it is described in the ANO...:bored:

What it actually means is that "If you're flying an aeroplane in Class F or G airspace at or below 3000ft amsl and at or below 140KIAS and you're in sight of the surface, then you only need to be clear of cloud and have a minimum in-flight visbility of 1500m".

A 'plain vanilla' PPL holder without IMCR has more restrictive minima; however, when the joy of €urocracy arrives, the restrictions will not apply to someone holding an EASA part-FCL PPL.......

[flybymike]

The answer is bloody simple.
If the visibilty is greater than 8k and the Matterhorn is more than one mile away and the sky is at least 1000 feet above you and you are not travelling at more than a hundred and forty miles an hour in a permit aircraft inside Class A airspace without a full IR, then you may not fly VFR on top in France.
Got it!! :{

[bookworm]

Worth noting that the UK has a difference on this. The ICAO rule requires sight of the surface at or below 3000 ft. See Annex 2 Table 3-1.

UK difference (GEN 1.7)
4. Class F and G Airspace: The VMC minima at and below FL 100 applies down to the surface (instead of down to 3000 ft amsl) with the minima at and below 3000 ft as an alternative. The proviso ‘or 300 m above terrain whichever is higher’ does not apply in the UK.

[Sensible Flyer]

I'm still no clearer as to whether VFR on top is allowed in permit aircraft or not! :hmm:

Seems on balance the answer is "No".

[BackPacker]

The answer is: "Unless there is a specific restriction in the PTF (e.g. no flight without sight of surface allowed) for your aircraft, it doesn't matter whether you have a Permit or CofA aircraft."

IF your license allows it (a plain PPL doesn't, but PPL+IMC does, as does PPL+IR) and IF the airspace allows it (and that depends on the airspace class and the altitude) you can fly VFR-on-top.

[foxmoth]

Well, we have MULTIPLE posts showing the same VFR minima table I posted right at the beginning, but nothing that shows the bit that actually restricts a vanilla PPL from VFR on top!:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

foxmoth, see the ANO!

This is the relevant extract from the PPL(A) privileges:

The holder may not....

.....unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane—
(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace if the flight visibility is less than three km;
(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km
except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this subparagraph;or
(iii) out of sight of the surface;

[BillieBob]

I realise that this goes against everything that PPRuNe stands for but could we, for once, answer the original question?Permit aircraft are legal to flay in daytime VMC. But if the pilot was suitably qualified, is it legal to fly a permit aircraft in VMC on top conditions?Can we all agree that the answer to this specific question is - YES?

[BackPacker]

No. Because it also depends on the airspace and the altitude.

[BillieBob]

Perhaps I misjudged the context of the original question - I assumed that it related to the relative legality of 'VMC on top' in an aircraft operating under a Permit to Fly as opposed to an aircraft with a Certificate of Airworthiness. My contention is simply that it is as legal to fly 'VMC on top' in the one as in the other, all other considerations being equal.

Having now understood the degree of pedantry applied to postings on this thread, I undertake to word my response more concisely in the future, regardless of the wasted bandwidth.