VFR on Top in France? [Archive]

bookworm

4th Aug 2002, 10:24

Contrary to BlueLine's assertion, there's plenty of scope for debate of this one:

Schedule 8 Part B sets outs the entitlements of an IMC rating holder within the UK.

Schedule 8 Part A Section 1 Para 1 (2)(c) sets out the limitations of PPLs without IMC ratings, wherever they may be. It does not impose those restrictions on IMC rating holders either within or outside the UK.

Note that if you read the ANO as requiring the restrictions of Part A Section 1 Para 1 (2)(c) to be lifted by explicit entries in Part B, instrument rated pilots are a bit stuck. All it says in Part B is that they can fly IFR in controlled airspace. It doesn't explicitly lift any of the other restrictions either within or outside the UK. So by the argument that BlueLine seems to be putting, they would be restricted to 3 km visibility outside controlled airspace and flight within sight of the surface at all times. This is clearly not the way that the Parts were desgined to be read together, hence I think it makes sense to read Part A on its own.

AMEX

4th Aug 2002, 16:10

VFR on top used to be something like that.
Blue hole for an hour (forecast) at departure point and two hours on either side of ETA at arrival point.
No IMC juts Visual (ie you see oustide) at any time during your journey from T/O to Landing.

as a reminder IMC isn't a rule but a condition and so is VMC. Nothing to do with the way the flight will be conducted....

GRP

4th Aug 2002, 16:40

The actual wording of Part B is somewhat poorly drafted and on any reading does suggest that an IR holder or an IMC rating on a JAR PPL only permit IFR within controlled airspace and not in uncontrolled airspace (limited to D and E for the IMC), however the opening text of the Part B section in the IMC rating does explictly state 'shall within the United Kingdom'. My reading of the bit about the IMC w.r.t the UK PPL seems to be correct according to my understanding. My reading of the bit about the IMC w.r.t a JAR PPL seems all wrong and I suspect that it is meant to look more like the wording of the CAA PPL bit but with the correct paragraphs referred to. However, whatever the intention of the text on restrictions lifted by an IMC rating, the fact that the whole thing is prefaced by "shall within the United Kingdom' suggests to me that the intention is that the original restrictions placed on a JAR or UK PPL are specifically not lifted by the addition of an IMC rating other than when you are flying within the UK.

Now, if the JAR PPL when issued elsewhere does not include the 'out of sight of the surface' rule, it is beyond me how the CAA can do so when issuing the supposedly same license within the UK! What is the point of the JAR if countries are going to slightly modify things for their own purposes???

bluskis

4th Aug 2002, 17:37

Another way of interpreting the rules is to take the limititation as to the acceptance of the IMC rating to include only the UK, IoM, Channel Is.

However the French although not accepting the IMC rating, accept PPL VFR on top, VFR in the airways, SVFR down to 1500 metres in some class D, and several other things I can't recall at the moment.

They do not accept as far as I know flight in IMC, or letdowns and approaches in IMC.

The UK therefore allows you to do all the French things in their jurisdiction, except SVFR at 1500 m, and the French allow those things in their jurisdiction.

So if you can climb VMC, remain VMC on top, descend VMC, and have the required UK visibility when you do it, how does this offend either the French or the British.

The key word in the above is acceptance.

distaff_beancounter

4th Aug 2002, 17:42

Thanks for all the replies, folks.

I am glad to see it was not just us, who were confused yesterday. It looks as if the rules ARE confusing. :confused:

My understanding of French PPLs being allowed to fly "VFR on top", came originally from the French pre-JAR regulations.

Can anyone confirm whether or not the new French JAR PPL permits VFR on top?

'Cos if it does, it seems odd to me that the supposedly uniform JARs are different in different countries :rolleyes:

Keef

4th Aug 2002, 19:36

It's a long and hoary old chestnut! I've seen excellent legal aviator minds argue this one every which way up, and not reach agreement. FWIW I'm with Bookworm.

We aren't going to know the definitive answer until the French or UK authorities prosecute someone for flying VFR on top in France with a CAA PPL plus IMC rating or IR.

I can't see the French bothering, because their PPLs are allowed to fly VFR on top anyway.

I can't see the UK CAA even knowing the person flew VFR on top in France.

So we all make our own decision as to what to do.

Meanwhile, we're working on putting our G-reg Arrow back onto the N-reg so that the FAA PPL/IR will avoid this problem (and many more JAR delights).

BlueLine

5th Aug 2002, 20:23

Contrary to BlueLine's assertion, there's plenty of scope for debate of this one:

Not if you understand what a rating is!

A rating extends or limits the privileges of the licence to which it is attached. If the rating is only valid within the UK, it only extends the privileges within the UK.

In France you are not in the UK, so your basic license privileges are not extended. You cannot legally fly out of sight of the surface.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with the JAA licence because it applied long before its inception.

Now are we confusing VFR on top with VMC on top? Many countries regard VFR and VMC as the same thing, in the UK we don't.

If there is an incident or accident they will prosecute and of course your insurers will withdraw all support as well.

bookworm

6th Aug 2002, 07:25

I think I understand what a rating is.

Where in the ANO does it say that the IMC rating is only "valid" in the UK?

Let's run through the logic of this one again.

The ICAO PPL as defined in Annex 1 has no restriction in regard of sight of the surface. The UK places a special national restriction on PPLs who do not hold an IMC rating through one paragraph in the ANO. That paragraph makes no geographical claims.

France recognises the UK PPL as an ICAO PPL conforming to Annex 1 for flight in G-reg aircraft over its territory. It is not required to recognise any extensions to that basic PPL, so it does not permit IFR for example. But it doesn't itself impose on a wide class of pilots a restriction that was imposed only by the UK on a narrow class of pilots.

distaff_beancounter

6th Aug 2002, 08:05

Thanks for all the replies.

It is reassuring to see that you lot, have just as many differing opinions, as us lot did. :confused:

Well, I think that I am going to go along with Keef and bookworm on this one.

Mind you, if you suddenly see the headlines of "woman pilot prosecuted for flying VFR on top, over France" then I will have to agree that BlueLine was right, all along! :D

BlueLine

6th Aug 2002, 08:19

"UK places a special national restriction on PPLs who do not hold an IMC rating through one paragraph in the ANO. That paragraph makes no geographical claims."

So if you are flying a UK registered aircraft the ANO applies to you wherever you operate it.

The IMC rating is not an ICAO rating and is not recognised by any other State. If another State chose to recognise it, then the privileges would apply. The UK ANO has no power to dictate what other States do and so cannot say tht the IMC rating is not valid outside the UK. However, if it is not recognised by another State then the privileges that it infers are not valid.

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 08:32

This is an interesting one that comes up time and time again. Bookworm and I have talked about this one in real life many times, and still disagree.

That the relevant legislation is poorly drafted does not take away the fact that the IMC rating, as a non-ICAO document, can only apply to pilots flying in the UK. Any privileges it might appear to confer in France, or in Germany (where it is accepted as equivalent to the CVFR rating) are accidental at best, and mythical at worst.

So, if the legislation is badly drafted, now lets talk about what is prudent.

In the UK, if you are IMC rated, you can put yourself above a closed layer of cloud, safe in the knowledge that you can legally enter IMC and fly an IAP if needs be, if the weather at your destination should be worse than planned, or should you need to make an early stop off.

In France, should the headwinds prove too strong, whilst you are above your closed layer, or should the wx at destination prove to be OVC, you are stuck without a *legal* alternative.

Prudent?

It doesn't seem to me to be a great plan to engage in a flight which *requires* you to break the law if things don't go according to plan. Flight under VFR above a layer by non-IR holders is generally not encouraged in France, despite its legality. Many clubs have rules prohibiting it.

Because unlike the UK there is no half-way house in France, if you once declare your flight to be IFR, you will be expected to accept and be capable of flying any reasonable IFR clearance, to hold an IR (required even to fly IFR in VMC in France), and to be appropriately equiped with avionics and approach plates. I take it that this is no problem for the VFR on top merchants.:rolleyes:

Final thought, British PPLs have the widely-held reputation in France (justified or otherwise) of sailing close to the wind on regulations, particularly where weather is concerned. Is that a fair assessment? If the CAA spent a rainy weekend in the terminal at LFAT, they would probably agree.

bluskis

6th Aug 2002, 09:03

2Donks

Have you really studied what a French PPL is allowed to do, and what a UK PPL is allowed to do?

Have you noticed how restrictive a UK PPL is compared to a French PPL?

The UK IMC rating goes some way towards giving a UK PPL similar priviliges to the French PPL holder, but not all the way, and in some instances gives the UK holder additional privileges.

As to Le Touquet, I have noticed the hotel I have stayed at overnight to be full of other UK pilots who have decided not to fly back to the UK in unsuitable weather, IMC rating or not.

distaff_beancounter

6th Aug 2002, 09:23

2Donkeys I am well aware that an IMC rating in not vaild outside the Uk. And, yes, we all seem to be agreed that it is therefore not prudent, to plan to intentionally fly VFR on top in France. As I said above, it seems daft to me that the French do allow their PPLs to do just that.

The original discussion arose, after a recent trip to Le Touquet in a S/E. I arrived over Cap Gris Nez at 3000ft to find about 2 octas of cloud under me, at about 1000ft. I did not want to go over Boulogne (how do you spell it?) at less than 1000ft, so remained on top. Unfortunately, by the time I was west of Boulogne, all the little white fluffy clouds underneath the a/c, had joined hands to form 8 octas. Le Touquet was clear.

If I had held a French PPL, I would undoubtedly have been totally legal. So was I really illegal?:confused:

A couple of years ago, there was a report of a UK PPL+IMC (not me!) who flew the ILS perfectly into Le Touquet, with a cloud base of 600ft. The French authorities asked to see his licence. The reply was "No Insrument Rating Monsieur? That will be 10,000 francs fine please!" SO, we have been warned :(

Aussie Andy

6th Aug 2002, 09:25

I've enjoyed reading this thread. My own view is that our IMC rating is clearly a UK rating and not recognised elsewhere.

The final arbiter, in a sense, though is not the regulators - it is the insurers who will doubtless avoid paying out if you are found out to have not been strictly legal.

In the worst case, you might risk that your estate (if you come to grief) might be robbed of funds to pay for damages to thers involved in the air and/or on the ground, depriving your own family of the income you would otherwise expect them to have.

Its just not worth it, is it?

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 09:39

Bluskis asked:

Have you really studied what a French PPL is allowed to do, and what a UK PPL is allowed to do?

Indeed, in some detail. By contrast, you come up with a short list of some examples in your earlier posting.

The 1500m vis restriction is under special VFR in certain control zones absent any IFR traffic. It is not a generally applicable minimum for VFR flight.

VFR "in airways" is a misnomer, because airways in France are class E below FL115. Indeed you are not "in the airway" as such but are simply following the path of the airway at a VFR level. (semi+500). For this reason, when following the airway, you are not in any way cleared through restricted or danger areas. So, this is not a French PPL privilege, it is normal class E behaviour.

By contrast, a UK IMC-rated PPL can basically operate as though he has an instrument rating, with modestly higher minima.

You say:

Have you noticed how restrictive a UK PPL is compared to a French PPL?

Not sure you'd find many Frenchmen agreeing with you. The only material additional benefit enjoyed by a French PPL holder is the 300 metres difference in minimum vis. Consider the privileges by constrast of being able to conduct a flight from beginning to end in solid IMC...

No way a Frenchman in a French aircraft can do that without a £12,000 IR, regardless of where he is flying.

And finally.... whilst you and virtuous crowds are down at the Hotel, many Brits are to be found at the holding point accepting very SVFR clearances and the odd ILS.

The DGAC do pay regular visits to LFAT as distaff_beancounter says, and spot fines and worse are not unusual.

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 09:48

distaff_beancounter

I arrived over Cap Gris Nez at 3000ft to find about 2 octas of cloud under me, at about 1000ft. I did not want to go over Boulogne (how do you spell it?) at less than 1000ft, so remained on top. Unfortunately, by the time I was west of Boulogne, all the little white fluffy clouds underneath the a/c, had joined hands to form 8 octas. Le Touquet was clear.

Indeed, it is unlucky, and very rare to find cloud that goes from nothing to 2 OCTAS to 8 OCTAS to nothing, all in the space of some 20 nautical miles.

I would guess that if your recollection is correct, even at 3000 feet, you would be able to see Le Touquet (in the clear) from Boulogne, and therefore be able to see the edges of your rather unusual cloud formation :cool:

distaff_beancounter

6th Aug 2002, 10:59

2Donkeys Yes you are correct. While heading West from Cap Gris Nez, at all tiimes, I could see the sea, on my right, & approaching Le Touquet, I could clearly see the estuary, airfield & the town. It was only directly under the aircraft that was 8 octas, & so technically I was "in sight of the surface" in one direction or another. It was hardly a dramatic situation, 'cos otherwise I would not have admitted to it on PPRuNe!.:D

It was just that my little saga got us all talking in the flying club, on a Saturday morning when the weather was naff, again :( (Well, it is August.). We came up with as many questions as answers, hence my query on PPRuNe, to see if anyone else knew the definitive answer. :)

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 11:10

From 3000 feet:

It was only directly under the aircraft that was 8 octas

Better check on that definition of an OCTA :D

http://www.polestaraviation.com/cruising.jpg

At least, on the legal point, you were more-than safe, regardless of the varied and interesting interpretations of the validity of the IMC rating outside the UK.

bookworm

6th Aug 2002, 11:21

We've missed you, Donks.
:D

bluskis

6th Aug 2002, 11:44

2Donks

I was comparing the French naked PPL with the UK naked PPL.

The viz restrictions are looser in France than in the UK, even if this is limited to certain instances.

VFR in airways may well be allowed by combination of licence regulations and airspace designation, nevertheless it is operationally allowed for the French PPL holder.

As I understand it, VFR on top is also allowed in France, but not in the UK.

There are significant differences in the effect of the regulations in each country, no doubt a combination of history and differences in geography and climate. It would be difficult to be VFR on top in SE UK without being in class A space, and I am sure no one would suggest that space should be Class E.

Not many British hills reach 3000 ft, whereas in France this would be quite a small height, and with cloud attracted to hills like iron to a magnet, perhaps they have decided VFR on top is useful.

The French authorities certainly do not take kindly to people infringing their regulations, any more than do the UK, and using a UK IMC rating to descend or climb through cloud in France is certainly infringing their regulations.

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 12:09

Bluskis,

Not sure what point you were conveying in your last post.

We know that in France, a basic PPL can fly in vis that is less than that of an unmodified UK PPL. Not many places that the privilege can be used, and clearances that rely on such a privilege are routinely denied by ATC. Many French clubs prohibit pilots from exercising that privilege through the device of their Pilots Order Books.

You wrote:

VFR in airways may well be allowed by combination of licence regulations and airspace designation, nevertheless it is operationally allowed for the French PPL holder

This is clearly a point of confusion. That pilots flying in France can follow the path of an airway at semi+500 levels is in no way a licence privilege. It is just a feature of class E airspace, which UK pilots can enjoy when they fly to France. There is an interesting little article on this subject that may help at:

http://www.higher.flyer.co.uk/html/fairways.html

I was intrigued by this bit:

Not many British hills reach 3000 ft, whereas in France this would be quite a small height, and with cloud attracted to hills like iron to a magnet, perhaps they have decided VFR on top is useful.

Flying VFR above a covered layer in mountainous terrain is an interesting prospect, particularly in a SEL, and with no valid instrument qualification. Do you want to think that one through again? ;) The French do *not* encourage this.

Finally, you wrote:

It would be difficult to be VFR on top in SE UK without being in class A space, and I am sure no one would suggest that space should be Class E.

I imagine you fly out from underneath the LTMA, but this view is a little extreme. Have you perhaps missed the whole eastern side of the United Kingdom, bar the odd airway? Scotland is quite nice too, and they even have hills that approach and surpass the 3000 mountain definition.

Why the mention of Class E though, I am not sure? What did you have in mind?:p

distaff_beancounter

6th Aug 2002, 12:43

2Donkeys Better check on the definition of OCTA Right..... According to the OED :-
octa- means eight (from the Greek okta- )

Or .... do you mean 8 octas in CAA-speak is sky-obscured, & not land-obscured? :D

As for VRF on top in S/E UK. I have been across the Thames near Gravesend, in bright sunshine at 2000ft, when the ground is totally obscured apart from the tops of the tall chimneys peeping through. Ah ... very pretty. :) If the low level white fluffy stuff is fog, rather than cloud, does this not count as VFR on top, even though it was 8 octas?
(Oh no, best not mention octas, to 2Donks again :D )

Aussie Andy

6th Aug 2002, 13:18

OCTA also = "Outside Controlled Airspace" ;)

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 15:03

Good Grief:rolleyes: The quality of debate:cool:

bluskis

6th Aug 2002, 15:37

2Donks

There is no confusion in my mind, in France the authorities have largely provided for their PPL's to fly at an altitude which is safe, whether they have provided this facility through airspace classification, or the PPL licence rules is not important. What is important is they have done it.

In the UK, in the region where a quarter of the population live, the provision for safe flying rests with the welcome help of the stretched ATC.

The fact that French flying clubs have specific rules is hardly surprising, the same is true I am sure for UK clubs, but these rules do not set the overall legal framework.

I would hope that individual pilots would have their own rules within which they work, depending on their qualifications, recency and experience.

As far as flying singles over inhospitable terrain is concerned, in my book that is what singles to a greater or lesser degree do all the time, day and night. I chose not to, but nothing in either French or British rules prevents people doing this, and if they were not able to, there would be very few people flying small aircraft.

Coming to Class E, your post stated correctly that the lower levels of French (and other continental airways) are class E, hence making this space available to PPL's. I don't believe in the UK that this designation has been used. My point was that around the LTMA this would not be a practicble proposition anyway.

It was intended to highlight the possible reasons why rules differ across Europe.

The thread started with an attempt to interpret the compatibility or otherwise between the UK PPL/IMC and the French PPL. To do this I believe it is relevant to understand that there are basic PPL diferences, local rule differences, and IMC extensions to the UK PPL .

If this was an easy task I do not think there would have been two threads in short order on this subject, with a diversity of views.

The UK approach to European legislation has always been to search for the most restrictive interpretation of any rules, whereas most continental countries seek the most pragmatic interpretation. Perhaps this is the useful approach on this one.

distaff_beancounter

6th Aug 2002, 15:42

My apologies 2Donkeys . Obviously too many years of arguing the minutia, of obscure sub-sub-paragraphs of Finance Acts, with the Inland Revenue, have finally extinguished all my finely honed debating skills. :(

Mind you, perhaps it was all good training. Some aviation law appears to be just as obscure, as some bits of revenue law. :D

englishal

6th Aug 2002, 16:10

A couple of years ago, there was a report of a UK PPL+IMC (not me!) who flew the ILS perfectly into Le Touquet, with a cloud base of 600ft. ......

Sounds very familiar ;) ( though 10,000FF or Euro equiv, maybe not such a good idea :eek: ). I only paid 18 Euro's for approach and landing :D

EA

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 17:01

Lets take your specific points Bluskis, and try to draw a summary from them, to avoid going over the same ground in a loop:

in France the authorities have largely provided for their PPL's to fly at an altitude which is safe, whether they have provided this facility through airspace classification, or the PPL licence rules is not important. What is important is they have done it.

France and the UK are reasonably consistent when it comes to controlled airspace around busy terminal areas. Try finding a class E airway route of any description that goes into or near the Paris TMA. Check your maps and you'll find that in the Lower FIR, you will end up routing via REM (Reims). Take a close look at the airspace around RBT (Rambouillet), and tell me if it doesn't look a tad like the London TMA... Things are not a lot different really. Now look at the Lyon TMA, or the Rouen CTR, or the Bordeaux TMA... Not so different from Birmingham, East Mids or Newcastle are they?

France is a much bigger country than the UK and squarish in shape, with a similar population. It is not surprising that whilst the airspace is similar around the big terminals, there is more space in between.

Where such unrestricted airspace space exists in the UK (like up the entire east side of the country, much of the West Country and in most of Scotland), you can go all the way up to FL245 if you like (as opposed practically to FL115 in France) without a problem, in class G airspace. I admit that it might offer advantages to IMC holders if lower level airways became class D (or E even), but only at a cost to the current users. Our airways system is far more densely used than the French system, and our controllers are hard pressed to service it.

Which brings us to:

In the UK, in the region where a quarter of the population live, the provision for safe flying rests with the welcome help of the stretched ATC.

LARS is a welcome assistance, particularly to pilots flying in IMC outside the formal IFR system. This is a privilege that is unique to the United Kingdom. France doesn't have that problem, because it simply doesn't allow you to be in IMC on other than a formal IFR flight plan, in the airways system, with an IR. This again flys somewhat in the face of the line that you have taken, namely:

The UK approach to European legislation has always been to search for the most restrictive interpretation of any rules, whereas most continental countries seek the most pragmatic interpretation.

To be clear:

A French PPL is perfectly entitled to exercise his right to fly VFR "on top" in the UK, subject to the same restrictions as France. So we could not be said to be guilty of applying the "most restrictive interpretation".

IMC-rated pilots can't exercise their privileges abroad because the rating is not ICAO-approved, and foreign authorities (not our own: NOTE) are under no obligation to accept them. We have the most unrestricted approach to IMC/IFR flying in Europe, by a huge margin.

So summarising.

You claim that the Brits struggle under the tyranny of incredible controlled airspace

I, suggest that British airspace is no worse than France, having regard for the size and shape of the country. I would invite you to take a look at VFR in Italy if you want to know what restricted is. Or see how far you can get at night without an IR in Europe... France is pretty good there, others are not.

You suggest that our licencing system is draconian in its restrictions

I, suggest that nowhere else in Europe, if not the world, can a pilot fly in cloud, including instrument approach procedures, in an informal IFR system that does not require an IR, a full flight plan, and formal adherence to ATC procedures, routings, and slots.
There is a good argument about the accessibility and cost of obtaining an IR, but you haven't made that one. Here, the rest of JAR-land is in the same boat and has not taken the same pragmatic step as our CAA of introducing an IMC rating equivalent.

Still feel that the UK CAA are the baddies? I can't see why.

bookworm

6th Aug 2002, 18:16

2Donkeys wrote:

That the relevant legislation is poorly drafted does not take away the fact that the IMC rating, as a non-ICAO document, can only apply to pilots flying in the UK. Any privileges it might appear to confer in France, or in Germany (where it is accepted as equivalent to the CVFR rating) are accidental at best, and mythical at worst.

and then...

IMC-rated pilots can't exercise their privileges abroad because the rating is not ICAO-approved, and foreign authorities (not our own: NOTE) are under no obligation to accept them.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that only "ICAO-approved" ratings can be used to lift restrictions placed on UK licence holders, even if those restrictions are peculiar to the UK and are not restrictions of the ICAO licence itself.

2Donkeys

6th Aug 2002, 18:38

So let me get this straight. You're saying that only "ICAO-approved" ratings can be used to lift restrictions placed on UK licence holders, even if those restrictions are peculiar to the UK and are not restrictions of the ICAO licence itself.

Nope, and shame on you:cool: There is no such thing as an ICAO licence, as you well know. There are licences issued in accordance with ICAO, that must fulfil certain requirements. There is absolutely no problem with an ICAO-compliant licence such as the UK variant of JAR PPL with its small additional restrictions and qualifications, so long as it does not confer additional privileges over and above the ICAO standard.

The IMC rating is not ICAO-recognised for the self same reason, and the modifications which it makes to the basic PPL are *all* qualified with the "In the UK" phrase.

As I wrote, the legislation concerned is ambiguously drafted; something that most who have read it will agree. Leaving aside the possibility of a higher ruling, or even a case-law precident, we are then left with our own judgement.

My judgement, as you indicate in the second of my quotes, is that the basic PPL stands unaltered by an IMC rating, once the pilot and aircraft leave the UK. The wording of the rules is poor, but the "In the UK" qualifier which precedes the rating definition is pretty unambiguous.

Others will take a more optimisitic line, and good luck to them. So far, those who have taken this line during this thread, have all recanted when it has come to the question "would they use the 'privilege' in earnest, at the very least in a SEL.

lady_accountant:
we all seem to be agreed that it is therefore not prudent, to plan to intentionally fly VFR on top in France

bluskis:
As far as flying singles over inhospitable terrain is concerned, in my book that is what singles to a greater or lesser degree do all the time, day and night. I chose not to

So. I don't know, and as you know bookworm, don't really mind. :D Hearing the doubtful legal arguments and old truisms about French airspace trotted out again is always good for a quiet smile on a dull Tuesday :D:D

Keef

6th Aug 2002, 19:34

2Donkeys speaks great good sense, BUT...

The "how do I get below this overcast layer?" question also applies to the French-Licenced PPL who is entitled to fly VFR on top in France. But she's allowed. So am I?

We can debate the wisdom of that (and I fear we may do so...) but the law is what we were talking about.

Can I fly VFR on top in France with a CAA PPL/IMC? Can a French PPL (no IR)?

Don't know. Once we get the fair G-UTSY onto the N-reg, I won't care, either, because then my FAA IR will be valid and it will all be academic. Now there's a thing...

bluskis

6th Aug 2002, 21:42

2Donks

I note you said the legislation is ambiguously drafted. It is to the interpretation of such legislation by us as individuals that I referred to when I compared the pragmatic continental approach to the restrictive UK approach to interpretation.

This difference of approach is also evident fields other than aviation.

I do not see that I referred to the UK rules as draconian, nor do I see that I referred to the CAA as badies. If I expressed myself less than clearly I hope this clarifies those points.

I was not aware that a French PPL holder in the UK could fly what would be considered illegally on the part of a UK PPL (non IMC)holder, but I am sure you are correct. Another factor to confuse interpretation.

Overall your summary was clear, and I believe we agree that the different histories, and geographies go some way to explaining the differences in the rules.

Keef

6th Aug 2002, 22:31

Actually, I wonder if a French PPL holder could fly VFR on top in the UK.

I don't have Bookworm's or 2Donkeys' encyclopaedic knowledge of the rulebooks, but isn't "No VFR on top without IR or IMC rating" a restriction on ALL pilots flying VFR in the UK, regardless of country of origin?

2Donkeys

7th Aug 2002, 04:37

No Keef

The no VFR on top restriction is a licence restriction placed on a UK PPL holder. The rules of VFR flight adopted by the UK have no problem with "on top" flight under most circumstances. Blow the dust off Trevor Thom for details :D

Since a French PPL holder has no such constraint in his licence, he is fine to fly "on top" in the UK or anywhere else that VFR rules so permit.

This is a very common misconception, which was obviously shared by bluskis too.

I was not aware that a French PPL holder in the UK could fly what would be considered illegally on the part of a UK PPL

It is not surprising that the main debate of this thread about "on top" in France is tough for people to get their heads around when they are not aware of the reasons for the original restriction. It is all PPL syllabus Air Law though, and well worth revising.

distaff_beancounter

7th Aug 2002, 07:50

Keef You & I are obviously confusing logic, with air law. We should of course realise, that they are mutually exclusive, especially when we add a flavour of matters European to the debate. :D

I am surprised that a French PPL can fly "VFR on top" in the UK.

Question: Does the training for a French PPL, contain:-
- More instrument training than a UK PPL?
- As much instrument training as a UK IMC?

Aussie Andy

7th Aug 2002, 08:43

Its not just the FRench - I think I am right in saying that US and Australian (and probably others?) PPL holders also have this privelege.

englishal

7th Aug 2002, 09:18

Dosen't it depend on aircraft registration as well? For example, a non IR qualified UK PPL can quite happily fly VFR on-top in an N reg aircraft in the US?

Although the IMC is a useful rating to have, I would prefer to be able to achieve an IR in this country as a PPL, and keep current without paying through the nose. My mate in Norway got his Norwegian, ICAO, IR, cost was about £4000. Not bad for a country which charges £4 for a bottle of Becks;)

Cheers
EA:)

Aussie Andy

7th Aug 2002, 09:25

englishal - I don't think so. When we fly in the US on a Permit to Fly its "in accordance with" our UK license priveleges, so no I don't believe we are permitted to fly VFR on top when in the US.

It'll be the same for me when I am in Australia later this year where I'll be flying on what they call their a SPECPL (Special Pilots License). Again, it lets me do what my UK PPL allows me to do - so even though Australian ualified PPLs can fly VFR on top there, I believe that I cannot unless I gain an Australian license.

Generally, I believe my licenses dictates what I can / can't do.

Cheers,

Andy

englishal

7th Aug 2002, 12:00

now I'm really confused :confused:

We do fly in the US subject to the limitations of our licence, but then again, VFR minima is different in the US. Does this mean we should apply the UK VFR minima? We also have to comply with the FARs, which allow VFR ontop...???

Its understandable to have such drastic differences in licence privileges, between different systems, eg FAA / CAA, but between two fully paid up JAA members???

Its boll@cks !:D

Cheers
EA;)

Aussie Andy

7th Aug 2002, 12:11

Best solution to this would be to go on one of Irv Lee's excellent one day seminars (http://www.higherplane.flyer.co.uk/seminars.htm) - I believe there's one coming up at White Waltham soon. Maybe check his website - he goes over a lot of practical airlaw. There's a lot to be confused by!!! :)

2Donkeys

7th Aug 2002, 16:26

It is interesting to see how this discussion has moved on. It transpires that the IMC rating is not the thing which people are confused about, it is the basic rules of VFR flight, and licence limitations. It is tough to see how you can argue about the validity of the IMC rating without this basic understanding, but there you go.... FWIW this is all within the PPL airlaw syllabus....

So, without whingeing on, let me try to put forward a simple explanation, which should address the questions put forward in the last few posts.

Simply put, a pilot must obey two sets of constraints when he goes flying.

1) He must obey either the VFR or IFR, depending on his flight;

2) He must adhere to the restrictions of his licence.

So, taking the two constraints in order:

VFR/IFR CONSTRAINTS

Rather than debate IFR flight, if we stick to VFR (the main subject of this thread), ICAO has put forward a definition of VFR. This lays down certain cloud separation and visibility minima that a flight must obey in order to comply with VFR. These minima change according to the class of airspace being flown in, but ICAO defined those too, so no problem.

Individual countries can apply more restrictive definitions of VFR minima if they wish. In the UK, our VFR is however not materially different to ICAO. France and the US (the two examples chosen above), are pretty much the same, with only cosmetic differences.

Under the ICAO definition of VFR, flight above a closed layer is perfectly possible if the flight is above 3000 feet AMSL. For those that need to revise this fact, check out the AIS leaflet on the subject.

http://www.ais.org.uk/VFR/VFR.PDF

So, now we have dealt with whether a VFR flight can be out of sight of surface. Answer: Yes it can. BUT- If you happened to be flying in a country which has chosen to add restrictions to the ICAO definition of VFR flight, then you would be required to obey those additional restrictions when flying within that country's airspace. This is not a problem in the UK or France or the US though.

Now we come to the second constraint:

LICENCE CONSTRAINTS

This is the important one for the purposes of this conversation.

When you get your shiny new UK JAA PPL, the privileges of the licence are that amongst other things, you can only fly during the day, not for hire and reward, and only single engined aircraft etc etc etc. However, crucially, you will also note that you must fly "in sight of the surface". This key fact is to be found in Schedule 8 of the ANO, section 1, part 2c(iii).

If you are lucky enough to hold a French JAA PPL, it contains other constraints, but none relating to being in sight of the surface. One of the French constraints it that they may only fly under VFR, unless they hold an Instrument Rating. So, a French PPL holder may not file IFR in the UK, in circumstances where even a basic UK PPL holder could file IFR (namely circumstances that permit the flight to be conducted in VMC outside controlled airspace).

So, for this reason, a French licence holder must comply with the local definition of VFR, wherever he is flying. He may therefore fly out of sight of the surface in the UK, because like most other places, our version of VFR permits it.

The Brit with his PPL must also obey the local definition of VFR wherever he is flying, but must not fly out of sight of the surface. He may not therefore fly out of sight of the surface anywhere in the world.

Now... if you are a Brit with a US Private Pilots Certificate issued on the basis of FAR 61.75, that certificate carries the word "restricted". It does so, because you are constrained to obey any limitations contained on your underlying UK licence.

Once again then, a basic UK PPL holder, may not fly out of sight of the surface in his N-reg aircraft in the US or anywhere else, on the basis of his restricted US certificate, because it relies on the limitations of his UK licence, which as we have seen, prohibit such a flight.

All clear so far?

Finally then, if you hold an IMC or instrument rating on your UK licence, the "out of sight of surface" constraint is removed from the UK licence. Some would argue that either rating removes the constraint wherever you are flying. Others such as myself, say that the IMC rating stops working outside the UK, and you are back to relying on your underlying PPL, complete with all its constraints.

That is the body of knowledge around which this debate hangs. Nothing more and nothing less. Having read this and understood it, you are ready to engage in a discussion about the validity of the IMC rating for flights above cloud in France :D Otherwise....
:cool:

sennadog

7th Aug 2002, 16:56

2Donkeys. Please apply for a position with the CAA and teach them some plain English.

If I've understood your post correctly, then what you are saying is that you are restricted to flying within site of the surface by your UK PPL anywhere in the world, regardless of whether you have an IMC rating or a reciprocal licence which is ultimately based on the UK PPL.

Obviously, this changes completely with the IR rating.

2Donkeys

7th Aug 2002, 17:04

You've got it Sennadog, and thanks. :)

Of course, whether or not the IMC rating removes this restriction once you are outside the UK is the real heart of this debate (at least, it was at the start!).

I think it doesn't, some think it does, and I tried to hold separate that bit of my personal opinion from the rest of that last long post which is simply a restatement of the "facts" in as plain English as I can manage.

Aussie Andy

7th Aug 2002, 17:10

2Donkeys - crystal clear, well said that man!

My view on the IMC rating question then is that it is not valid outside of the UK because a) it is not in accordance with any ICAO standards, and b) to my knowledge no other jurisdiction has stated that they recognise this rating. Unless they do so, then it is meaningless in any other jurisdiction.

As I said before, I think it could be very dangerous to ignore this constraint as you may not be aroudn to argue the toss after an accident - your widow may be left arguing with the insurers..!

englishal

7th Aug 2002, 17:20

Excellent, cheers 2D !

so my understanding is it now seems possible TO fly out of sight of the surface, at least in then US with an IMC rating, as the restriction in the licence has been removed and their PPL allows it.

Mind you I wouldn't recommend it to a 'basic' PPL holder, you may not get a hole to come back down through ;)

Cheers
EA :)

2Donkeys

7th Aug 2002, 17:34

Englishal wrote:

so my understanding is it now seems possible TO fly out of sight of the surface, at least in then US with an IMC rating, as the restriction in the licence has been removed and their PPL allows it.

This is the debate. I would argue that the IMC rating explicitly only removes that restriction "within the UK". To see what I am getting at, you need to look at ANO Schedule 8 Part B, section 1(a).

Instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes) shall within the United Kingdom:

subject to paragraph (c), entitle the holder of a United Kingdom Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) or a United Kingdom Basic Commercial Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane without being subject to the restrictions contained respectively in paragraphs (2)(c) and (f) of the privileges of the United Kingdom Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) or (2)(b)(vii) or (ix) of the privileges of the United Kingdom Basic Commercial Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes).

Decoding this, you will see that it removes the "out of sight of surface constraint" (2)(c) within the United Kingdom

Good arguments are put forward by Bookworm in particular that attempt to prove why "within the United Kingdom" does not mean "within the United Kingdom", for certain carefully selected privileges within the IMC definition. In particular, the position they argue form isthat the IR is similarly poorly defined, and they go on to rely on this to infer the extention of the IMC-rating's applicability outside the UK. I find those arguments unpersuasive, and believe that they rely on the inadequacies of the drafting of the law, rather than a sensible reading of the IMC rating's intent.

Englishal also wrote:

Mind you I wouldn't recommend it to a 'basic' PPL holder, you may not get a hole to come back down through

Just in case that was a serious comment, I hope that it is now obvious why a "basic" UK PPL holder cannot fly out of sight of the surface under any circumstances at all. Period.

sennadog

7th Aug 2002, 17:42

When I get my IMC rating I shan't be exercising those priviledges abroad, quite simply because as it's such a grey area and open to interpretation, if things do go pear shaped then I don't want to run the risk of being held legally responsible.

If PPL pilots can interpret the priviledges in different ways, I wouldn't want to be around when a Lawyer gets involved.:eek:

bookworm

7th Aug 2002, 19:41

I find those arguments unpersuasive, and believe that they rely on the inadequacies of the drafting of the law, rather than a sensible reading of the IMC rating's intent.

Well you've saved me some retyping at least. :)

So your argument is that a sensible interpretation of the intention of the IMC rating legislation is:

i) there is an international standard of licence and licence privilege that permits a PPL to fly out of sight of the surface anywhere in the world

ii) the UK authorities choose to impose a further restriction on its licence holders

iii) the UK authorities lift this national restriction after a course of instrument flying training called the IMC rating

iv) the UK authorities choose deliberately to reimpose the restriction on the group of pilots for whom it was lifted in iii) when they are flying outside the UK.

I find iv) a step beyond sense.

Your position seems to rely on a curious intermediate between the literal interpretation of and the spirit of the law.

GRP

7th Aug 2002, 20:22

Bookworm,

Your assertion that this is barmy is spot on in my view, but nevertheless I can't find a way to read the ANO that doesn't appear to mean that an IMC only removes a UK-imposed restriction when you are in UK airspace. It does seem ludicrous, but there you go! I spoke to a commercial pilot/instructor in France last year about their attitude to all this and was given the distinct impression that not a lot of pilots there really care one way or the other and will happily let down through cloud with a basic PPL having sat on top and out of sight of the surface. As he pointed out, the controller can't see the clouds!

GRP

7th Aug 2002, 20:29

I've also wondered why somebody doesn't just ask the CAA to clarify this! Maybe AOPA UK or some such should get it cleared up! When I got my IMC I imagined that it would allow me to fly 'proper' VFR anywhere and also allow me to fly in IMC in the UK and IFR in UK controlled airspace. I was quite surprised to find that the 'UK imposed' restriction on VFR was only lifted from me when in the UK. It really makes no sense at all.

Having said all this I really can't imagine at the moment wanting to fly VFR on top without being ready to do an instrument approach or let down somewhere, so the fact that I can't do this in France means that I would not actually want to be out of sight of the surface in case it never came back into sight!

Keef

7th Aug 2002, 21:55

I have this bemusing thought: maybe UK pilots with IRs can't fly VFR on top either ;)

GRP is right - why don't we just ask the CAA to clarify. 2D makes a good case for how the law is "meant" to be interpreted,. but it does rather fail the test of common sense (I know, when did the law ever pay any attention to common sense).

I'd like to ask AOPA-UK to sort it out, but I doubt they'd venture into that territory...

Who's going to ask?

2Donkeys

7th Aug 2002, 22:35

Bookworm wrote:

Your position seems to rely on a curious intermediate between the literal interpretation of and the spirit of the law.

Rubbish! ;)

The IMC rating definition is completely unambiguous as quoted in the section above. That statement makes it quite clear that the 2(c) limitation is removed "in the United Kingdom".

The phrase you are relying on says

He shall not, unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an
instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command
of such an aeroplane....out of sight of the surface

Now then.

There is one way to read those two propositions that makes them entirely semantically consistent.

That reading is that:

a) an IMC rating removes the restriction in the UK only and;
b) an IR removes the restriction without geographical limit (since the IR definition in Schedule 8 part B contains no geographical constraint)

There is another reading which you prefer which gives rise to a problem.

You read above quote as suggesting that should a pilot hold an IMC rating, the "sight of surface" constraint is now dropped in all geographies.

By contrast to my reading of the law, your interpretation can *only* be valid if you choose to read the law as being drafted with a deliberate inbuilt conflict, and if you choose to ignore the "within the United Kingdom" constraint which qualifies the entire IMC rating section.

So, which is it to be if challenged. The interpretation that makes the law as drafted make sense, but which does not please IMC rating holders - or some bizarre reading of the law which pleases IMC holders, but requires you to ignore key paragraphs...

Seems like a no brainer to me....

I think you are in danger of confusing the way you would like the law to work, with the way it has actually been written and passed.

If we are arguing about what might be desirable and reasonable in your opinion, as opposed to what *is*, then that is a different conversation.

bookworm

8th Aug 2002, 07:34

[Done to death by now, but in case you have any tedious meetings today, I'd better offer some light entertainment.:)]

There seem to be two ways of looking at the potential conflict between Schedule 8 Part A and Part B.

1) Treat the limitations in Part A as authoritative and complete and Part B as incomplete amplification.

2) Treat Part B as authoritative and complete and the limitations in Part A as incomplete amplification.

I've already set out the absurd conclusions which one would draw from approach 2.

Put another way, faced with the premises:

a) Elephants may not, unless they are pink, eat from a Pokemon tree.
and
b) Pink elephants may eat from a Pokemon tree within the inner garden

would you convict Nellie, the well known pink elephant, for eating from a Pokemon tree in the outer garden?

GRP

8th Aug 2002, 08:59

On asking the CAA about this... there would probably be a lot of people who would not welcome a clarification!! Equally I can't imagine a rational person on being presented with this actually saying that they intended it to mean what it appears to mean! It's difficult to believe that they really meant to stop you doing something that everybody else appears to be able to do without a rating after they have given you a rating allowing you to do it in your own country!

distaff_beancounter

8th Aug 2002, 09:08

2Donkeys Just to clarify my original question (or add more confusion :D ), I only added the fact that I had an IMC rating:-
To make it clear that I am competant to fly "out of sight of the surface"
And, to confirm that I am well aware the the IMC rating is not valid outside the UK

The bit I still find confusing, is that, when in France, I have to obey its Visual Flight Rules, yet according to most posters on this thread, I cannot fly "VFR on top" in France.

BUT, it seems that a French PPL, who may well have had a lot less instrument training than me, CAN fly VFR on top in both France AND the UK. :confused:

englishal

8th Aug 2002, 09:41

Any mention of how much of the surface you have to see?

EA
;)

bluskis

8th Aug 2002, 10:58

When the UK decided to 'unrestrict' the PPL as long as an IMC rating was also held, and as 2Donks pointed out, added the ability to carry out instrument approaches, they had to word the rules such that they were not encroaching on other jurisdictions legislation. Hence the limitation of the privileges to the UK.

I agree with bookworm that it seems unlikely they intended to prevent a UK PPL/IMC holder from doing what the licence allows IF another jurisdiction allows those . In France they allow their PPL holder to fly on top, but not let down.

It would only confuse the thread to spend too much time discussing whether or not an IMC rated pilot should be able to determine their route weather and diversion weather, thus deciding if their destination and alternate is clear.

2Donks, I believe you mentioned a concession by Germany for PPL/IMC. Could you give any more details?

distaff_beancounter

8th Aug 2002, 12:15

englishal Any mention of how much of the surface you have to see? Just the bit, where the CAA man is standing, with his binoculars pointed at your aircraft :D

Final 3 Greens

8th Aug 2002, 14:30

I have an FAA licence that allows VFR on top.

IMHO it is a crazy privilege. I have no IR and would certainly get into trouble letting down through IMC if conditions at destination do not follow forecast.

Also, what if the engine stops? Forced landing through IMC?

No thanks. IMHO flying above a cloud deck is for pilots with currency and training on instruments, using IFR.

Aussie Andy

8th Aug 2002, 15:02

Probably more useful in countries with better weather...! :)

englishal

8th Aug 2002, 17:15

Probably more useful in countries with better weather
:confused: :confused: :D

One very useful tool the US use a lot is IFR to VFR ontop. Allows an IR pilot to get through the clag, then continue VFR should they wish, then if its overcast at arrival aerodrome, request a pop-up IFR clearance in. Can cut down a lot of time wasting, especially where arrival procedures are designed for faster aircraft and end up taking you 30 nm in the wrong direction before vetoring you back 30 nm....

Cheers
EA:)

2Donkeys

8th Aug 2002, 19:38

2Donks, I believe you mentioned a concession by Germany for PPL/IMC. Could you give any more details?

In Germany, in addition to VFR and SVFR, there is a thing called Controlled VFR.

Before airspace was classified in the international A-G classes, certain zones in Germany were designated CVFR zones. These typically surrounded large airports. CVFR zones can be entered (subject to clearance) under IFR or VFR (IFR only if you have an IR), but pilots entering the zone under VFR could expect to be forced to follow certain rigid routings and might also be expected to follow a vector (providing it didn't take them into cloud).

In order to ensure that only reasonably skilled pilots were permitted this close to such airports, the CVFR zones could only be entered VFR by a pilot with a special CVFR Rating. This is also a non-ICAO rating, and has no validity outside Germany. The syllabus for the CVFR rating is not onerous, but includes some basic VOR tracking and heading and altitude holding. It does not give any of the IMC/IFR/Instrument Approach privileges that the IMC rating gives in the UK.

However, the German CAA regards the IMC rating as being equivalent to the CVFR rating, and therefore UK IMC rating holders can enter such zones without a problem.

CVFR zones were reclassified as Class C (I think), in Germany once we went to class A-G airspace. And the rules as described above still apply.

Once again though, this extended use of the IMC rating is a special concession granted by the Germans, and it should not be taken to imply any kind of International applicability for the IMC rating.

Hope this helps.

Keef

8th Aug 2002, 20:14

You can't use your FAA PPL (no IR) to fly VFR on top of an overcast. For that, you need an IR. There is a lot of sense in that!

In fact, under the US rules, "VFR on top" is an IFR clearance.

The good news is that an FAA IR is achievable by any competent pilot who flies enough to keep the skills honed.

2Donkeys

8th Aug 2002, 21:25

Keef wrote:

You can't use your FAA PPL (no IR) to fly VFR on top of an overcast. For that, you need an IR. There is a lot of sense in that!

In fact, under the US rules, "VFR on top" is an IFR clearance.

I love this thread. It is flushing out so many misunderstandings.

In the USA, two terms are in common use...

VFR "over-the-top" (of a covered layer); and

VFR "on top"

Keef is confusing these in the above quote.

"VFR on top" is actually an IFR clearance in the USA, which permits a pilot who has climbed through clouds (under IFR), to then cruise at a VFR level above a cloud layer. The pilot then becomes responsible for ensuring his own separation from other aircraft, and for ensuring that he respects the normal VFR cloud separation minima. Such a clearance offers the pilot a free choice of appropriate VFR cruise levels, and offers advantages to ATC by unburdoning them of separation requirements in some classes of airspace, but the clearance request must be initiated by the pilot. Because it is effectively a slightly odd part of an otherwise IFR flight, the pilot must hold an instrument rating to request and accept such a clearance. The expectation is that the pilot will revert to a normal IFR clearance for his more conventional descent through cloud for an instrument approach to land.

By complete contrast, VFR over-the-top, refers to a VFR flight which manages to initiate a climb in VMC, to the point that it comes to be above a solid layer of cloud whilst still obeying the VMC cloud separation and visibility minima. As we have seen, ICAO VMC minima include the perfectly legal possibility of being both VFR and above a solid layer.

Such a flight is not operating on an IFR "VFR on top" clearance, as in the previous example. It continues to be perfectly legally VFR, and, if it can descend without going through cloud, need never become IFR. If this is the case, then the pilot does not need to hold an IR, although it may be advisable for him to do so for the reasons we have talked about on this thread. You never know what the weather will do to you. Many FBOs prohibit hirers of their aircraft from going "VFR over-the-top" unless they hold an IR.

An aircraft must however contain a certain minimum level of equipment before it can go VFR-over-the-top. This level of equipment is practically the same as the level of equipment required for IFR flight.

If an aircraft is operated in any form of public transport, some of these requirements are beefed up somewhat, but the situation as I describe it above is good for private operations (part 91).

Better start swotting for the BFR Keef ;)

Aussie Andy

8th Aug 2002, 22:04

Is VFR-over-the-top just a Canadian thing? All the references I see on a quick check on this on Google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&q=VFR%2Dover%2Dthe%2Dtop) seem to be Canadian..?

Keef

8th Aug 2002, 23:34

Well, 2D, I don't remember seeing VFR-over-the-top in the PPL or IR study notes. VFR-on-top is there, for sure, and came up in my IR checkride oral.

Canada has a "VFR over the top" rating, which isn't a full IR but allows VFR over the top. Sort-of Canadian equivalent to the IMC rating perhaps?

"VFR over the top" appears in FAR 135.159 and thereafter, where the requirements for aircraft systems for commuter and on-demand operations are set out, but I've not found an FAR that says what the requirements are for the basic PPL flying under Part 91. Can you give a pointer to them? I'd be a bit miffed if a CFII asked that in a BFR and they weren't in the FAR/AIM!

The "instruction" I received (somewhat longer ago) was that an FAA PPL/No IR should not continue to fly over an overcast. I can't find that in the FARs, but it seemed logical at the time. May, as you say, have been the FBO's rule rather than the FAA's.

Other than that - 1000 feet above cloud and you're VFR. That's in the FARs.

2Donkeys

9th Aug 2002, 06:18

OK

The Visual Flight Rules permit flight above a covered layer in the USA. We know this because we can check in the VMC table, and hey presto. We also know that a Private Pilot is entitled to fly under VFR because we can look that up in FAR 61. So, there is no problem with a private pilot being over a closed layer of cloud, providing he got there and can get down again whilst continuing to respect the VFR minima that relate to the airspace he is in. When he is above a closed layer, whilst he may feel special, he is not in any particularly "special" condition from the point of view of the FARs, and the term "over-the-top" is used to describe the state, in order to distinguish it from a "VFR-on-top" IFR clearance. You say you can't find it in the FARs, it is there in the Definitions section under Subchapter A FAR 1.1

Compare and contrast this with the "Recreational Pilots Certificate" defined in FAR 61.96 and further This places certain constraints on the less-well-trained pilot, one of which is that he must at all times fly with "visual reference to the surface" [FAR 61.101d(10)]. No such constraint exists on the Private Pilot.

So, a Private Pilot operating under Part 91 can fly VFR over the top of a covered layer. This is implicit in the VFR minima, and does not need spelling out, so it isn't. There is simply an absence of constraint. This is the same as the French position. The privileges and limitations section of the French PPL simply relate to flying VFR. They do not go on and duplicatively spell out what VFR means.

As you correctly say though, for Part 135 (commercial commuter and on-demand) operations the situation is different. Flying VFR over-the-top, (note that it is a different terminology to VFR-on-top, which is an IFR clearance) requires additional equipment, and indeed for the crew to carry IFR approach plates... just in case. There is no such requirement for Part 91 operators. This lack of restriction is very common in Part 91 ops. There are no take-off visibility minima for Part 91 IFR ops, as you will certainly remember from your recent IR. There are numerous contraints around commercial operators.

On the subject of Canada, the reason for the Google references is that Canada places a restriction on its PPLs prohibiting them from flying "out of sight of the surface", just like our own CAA. This restriction is removed with the addition of a "VFR over-the-top" rating, which unlike the IMC rating consists of only 5 additional hours training in instrument techniques, but does not allow flight under IFR or in IMC. A so-rated Canadian pilot can then exercise the same privileges as his US private pilot counterpart.

englishal

9th Aug 2002, 09:09

"VFR-on-top" IFR clearance

Its probably just words but.....

This is not actually an IFR clearance as such. "IFR to VFR on-top" is an IFR clearance though. Once on-top, IFR is quite happily cancelled by the pilot, and then you are under normal VFR again...

You are under IFR until IFR is cancelled by the pilot, which is normally as soon as reaching VMC. Your clearance limit includes instructions as to what to do in case you do not reach on-top, for example "If not on-top by 3000', maintain 3000', turn left 270°, intercept XYZ YYY°R and hold at BIBBLE...etc...."

Cheers
EA:)

2Donkeys

9th Aug 2002, 09:21

Its probably just words but.....

This is not actually an IFR clearance as such. "IFR to VFR on-top" is an IFR clearance though. Once on-top, IFR is quite happily cancelled by the pilot, and then you are under VFR again...

It is probably just words, but you too need to be careful that you don't fall into a common trap.

VFR-on-top is an IFR clearance. For details, I refer you to the formal definition contained in FAA AIM 5-5-13

Section 2c of this confirms that a VFR-on-top clearance must

comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e. minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clerarance, etc

So, once the pilot operating under VFR-on-top clearance has broken through cloud and established in his VFR cruise, he must comply with both VFR and IFR rules. He has not cancelled IFR.

If he does, he is then flying VFR in a state that is described as "VFR over-the-top", although this status has no particular bearing on his operation.

So, a request for a VFR-on-top clearance is a request for an IFR clearance. The pilot will not necessarily cancel IFR when he breaks out on top, and must comply with IFR as well as VFR rules until such time as he either descends again, in compliance with his IFR clearance, or, he elects to cancel IFR.

englishal

9th Aug 2002, 12:49

He has not cancelled IFR

I think the wording is interchangable to an extent, even by ATC. I have requested IFR to VFR ontop, and been told to 'report cancelling IFR', ie. they expect me to cancel as soon as in VMC. Normally the extent of the clearance is to a nearby fix, so unless in VMC and IFR cancelled, then a further IFR clearance will be needed to continue the flight under IFR. Normally if unsure, I'll file IFR to the destination, then once up there if the weather looks suitable and I feel like it, I'll then just cancel IFR and continue VFR(Then again, flying IFR in VMC is useful if the airspace at the destination is complicated, or there are lots of class B areas to negotiate)....

However, I think the confusion has arisen when a non IR pilot goes 'on top' (or 'over the top') from an area of reasonable weather, and so no IFR clearance has been given. The VFR pilot continues the flight VFR but on-top / over the top....

Cheers
EA:)

2Donkeys

9th Aug 2002, 17:51

I think the wording is interchangable to an extent, even by ATC. I have requested IFR to VFR ontop, and been told to 'report cancelling IFR'

Categorically, VFR-on-top and VFR-over the top are not interchangeable. Suggesting such a thing in an oral exam would not assist your likelihood of securing a pass ;)

Where you are perhaps blurring the line is in your examples which constantly refer to a request for

"IFR to VFR on top"

This is quite a specific circumstance which does not illustrate the differences in terminology well.

This request for "IFR to VFR on top" would typically be used by a VFR flight that wished to climb through a layer of cloud (hence becoming temporarily IFR) in order to cruise under VFR once above the cloud.

Such a request poses a problem to ATC because to climb through cloud, the VFR flight must become IFR and must submit to positive control. Once a flight is under IFR, the flight may only become VFR again at the pilot's request. A controller cannot unilaterally "cancel IFR" for you.

As a result you will be given an IFR clearance and instructed to climb to you desired VFR-on-top level. At this point you will be under an IFR "VFR-on-top" clearance, and obliged as I wrote earlier to obey both VFR and IFR rules. Should you wish to revert to being an uncontrolled VFR flight again as you were when below cloud, you will then need to "cancel IFR", and you will become VFR "over-the-top".

None of this should be allowed to confuse the fact that:

a) VFR-on-top is an IFR clearance
b) VFR over-the-top is not a clearance, but a state that a VFR flight finds itself in when it flies in accordance with VFR but above a closed layer.
c) They are in no way interchangeable.

The important difference is that whilst on a VFR-on-top clearance, the flight remains under IFR, under positive control, must obey the relevant VFR and IFR rules, and must obey any ATC instruction which is issued to it. When flying VFR over-the-top (having elected to cancel IFR in this case), the aircraft will not necessarily be in communication with anybody, will not necessarily be operating on a flight plan, must only obey VFR cloud and visibility minima, and does not require the pilot to hold an Instrument Rating.

Keef

9th Aug 2002, 19:17

I was right royally grilled on my IR checkride earlier this year, and had made myself extremely familiar with the relevant FARs (as one does). I am under no doubt whatever that "VFR on Top" is an IFR clearance. Anyone who thinks different is likely to be asked for "chapter and verse".

VFR over the top didn't even come up in the IR checkride - but then, it wouldn't have. On my PPL checkride, I was asked vast amounts about the definitions of all sorts of pieces of the FARs, including detailed explanation of VFR minima. Again, VFR over-the-top didn't come up, although the "distance from cloud" minima for the PPL certainly did!

So ... "VFR on Top" is an IFR clearance. You can cancel IFR and become "VFR over-the-top" if you wish. Personally, I wouldn't. Why give up on that excellent IFR service you are getting for free? ;)

My particular "no VFR on top" confusion stems from a BFR in 1986 (when I could have been mistaken for a young man). The school I was planning to rent from back then obviously had a "rule" about no VFR over the top, and I was led to believe that was the FAR requirement. Understandable, and thanks to 2Donkeys for clarifying the position.

Not an issue any more, as I'd file IFR anyway these days.

2Donkeys

9th Aug 2002, 19:33

My particular "no VFR on top" confusion stems from a BFR in 1986 (when I could have been mistaken for a young man). The school I was planning to rent from back then obviously had a "rule" about no VFR over the top, and I was led to believe that was the FAR requirement.

Keef

Unless I am much mistaken, in 1986 you would have only had a "restricted" FAA ticket issued on the basis of your UK PPL.

As we have discussed earlier in this thread, your restricted ticket would have reflected the contstraints on your UK licence, which include inter alia, no flying out of sight of surface.

So, you would have certainly not been able to go VFR over-the-top for licensing reasons, even had the FBO not had such a rule.

Funny how circular these threads become isn't it. Very soon. We will arrive back at the start again :D:D

Keef

9th Aug 2002, 19:42

2Donkeys - too long ago to be sure, but wasn't that before the "VFR on top" privilege was taken away from CAA PPLs? I dunno. I doubt the CFI doing the BFR would have known either.

As you say, circular. And irrelevant now!

englishal

10th Aug 2002, 09:57

Why give up on that excellent IFR service you are getting for free?
When I was initially training for my PPL several years ago, in California, IFR to VFR ontop was a useful tool for my instructor to get us 'VFR over the top';) to carry out general training (stalls / steep turns etc) when a marine layer was hanging around. Since getting my IR I have never used it though (except for my CPL VFR qual X/C, to get out of LGB ;)), I'll either fly VFR for a 'jolly', or IFR if I want to get from A to B....unless the MEA's enroute are too high, then I might leave VFR, squeeze through the mountains, then file IFR en-route....

Although what 2D says is correct regarding 'VFR over the top' and 'VFR ontop', in my experience if you request "VFR ontop" (correct you are IFR) ATC tends to EXPECT you to cancel IFR as soon as practical, (otherwise they may get upset and you can find yourself holding and waiting for your new IFR clearance....in which case you may as well have filed IFR all the way) :D

Cheers
EA;)