VFR Over the top.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR Over the top.
I have a bit of spare time due to the weather keeping me from a few tasks I need to finish so I thought I may as well get some of you to comment on VFR over the top.
I will share my opinion first.
I do not do it nor do I think it is safe, especially in single engine airplanes.
And you???
I will share my opinion first.
I do not do it nor do I think it is safe, especially in single engine airplanes.
And you???
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you fly IFR in singles? Do you fly over water in singles? I suppose it all comes down to risk management. I'll happily take a single into cloud over the sea but have a little more trepidation doing the same over mountainous terrain although I'll still do it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I fly IFR in singles?
No.
Do I fly over water in singles?
Yes if they are sea planes, if they are wheel planes only, no I do not unless I can glide to land should the engine fail.
No.
Do I fly over water in singles?
Yes if they are sea planes, if they are wheel planes only, no I do not unless I can glide to land should the engine fail.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR on top: yes, I have done it and would do so again.
If in a single, I ensure the ceiling is high enough that I can conduct an orthodox and planned forced landing after descending below the cloud base. Generally I plan to fly over suitable terrain or at an altitude that allows me to glide to suitable terrain.
VFR on top in a twin also seems fine to me, provided the pilot is qualified to descend through cloud at the destination if required.
If in a single, I ensure the ceiling is high enough that I can conduct an orthodox and planned forced landing after descending below the cloud base. Generally I plan to fly over suitable terrain or at an altitude that allows me to glide to suitable terrain.
VFR on top in a twin also seems fine to me, provided the pilot is qualified to descend through cloud at the destination if required.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: columbo and the city
Age: 41
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on top
How would one navigate when 'vfr on top'? What use then is a chart? How would you make sure that you are clear of controlled airspace etc?
Single engine over water, yes, only with the correct survival equipment. Single engine in cloud, maybe if the cloud had a base of<1000' agl....but how would you know this?
Single engine over water, yes, only with the correct survival equipment. Single engine in cloud, maybe if the cloud had a base of<1000' agl....but how would you know this?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order:
- Navigate with radio aids (including GPS)
- The chart shows where the controlled airspace is and tracks & distances to fly, assuming you know where you are...
- Remain clear of airspace by navigating with radio aids
- How do you know cloud base - by a combination of forecasts, reports and local knowledge. If cloud is few or scattered, you can often see where the base is.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Maastricht, Netherlands
Age: 61
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really want to avoid risk, don't get out of your bed in the morning and don't drive to the airport
. All of our activities go hand in hand with a certain amount of risk.
I have done a lot of VFR on top flights simply because it avoids poking around at 1500ft through controlzones and restricted areas often in marginal VFR. Flying high increases TAS, increases the radiohorizon and generally gives a smoother ride which is also nice for unexpierenced passengers. Good visibility on top increases situational awareness. However these flights must be planned very carefully in order to make sure that the cloudceiling is high enough to allow for a forced landing. For this reason I don't fly single engine at night or over mountains. VFR by day through the mountains is much more fun anyway.
. All of our activities go hand in hand with a certain amount of risk.I have done a lot of VFR on top flights simply because it avoids poking around at 1500ft through controlzones and restricted areas often in marginal VFR. Flying high increases TAS, increases the radiohorizon and generally gives a smoother ride which is also nice for unexpierenced passengers. Good visibility on top increases situational awareness. However these flights must be planned very carefully in order to make sure that the cloudceiling is high enough to allow for a forced landing. For this reason I don't fly single engine at night or over mountains. VFR by day through the mountains is much more fun anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm just picky:
As soon as you're no longer "in sight of the ground" you have to be IFR. So there's no such thing as VFR on top.
As for operating a single in IMC. I'm perfectly happy to as long as the cloud base is a reasonable distance from the ground (2-3000 feet) I want to be sure that if it all goes quiet I'll have time to find a field and land in it after gliding through the cloud. If I were flying over wide open flat terrain, then I'd probably reduce my minima.
As soon as you're no longer "in sight of the ground" you have to be IFR. So there's no such thing as VFR on top.
As for operating a single in IMC. I'm perfectly happy to as long as the cloud base is a reasonable distance from the ground (2-3000 feet) I want to be sure that if it all goes quiet I'll have time to find a field and land in it after gliding through the cloud. If I were flying over wide open flat terrain, then I'd probably reduce my minima.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then we have ...
single engine at night.
For me in 33 years :
No single engine over water I cannot glide over
No single engine IFR without reasonable cloudbase over the entire route to enable a FLWOP in the event of... through / below/ "ontop" is irrelevent.
No icing conditions,
and .. no single engine at night .. except perhaps for very tight circuits.
I hold these opinions because they all killed people I knew, and rather than leave aviation decided that they had not perished for nothing.
Read the AAIB reports .. and don't get complacent.
For me in 33 years :
No single engine over water I cannot glide over
No single engine IFR without reasonable cloudbase over the entire route to enable a FLWOP in the event of... through / below/ "ontop" is irrelevent.
No icing conditions,
and .. no single engine at night .. except perhaps for very tight circuits.
I hold these opinions because they all killed people I knew, and rather than leave aviation decided that they had not perished for nothing.
Read the AAIB reports .. and don't get complacent.
Single engine at night.
What do you do in the case of a forced landing? One instructor I knew had this advice:
"Glide straight ahead. At 100' put the landing light on. If you don't like what you see, turn it off again!"
In my case, single engine at night is only with a parchute!
As for my other preferences, VMC on top: not a problem unless there's terrain sticking up into the clouds (thinking of the engine failure case) and SE over the water: only with lifejackets and a dinghy.
What do you do in the case of a forced landing? One instructor I knew had this advice:
"Glide straight ahead. At 100' put the landing light on. If you don't like what you see, turn it off again!"
In my case, single engine at night is only with a parchute!
As for my other preferences, VMC on top: not a problem unless there's terrain sticking up into the clouds (thinking of the engine failure case) and SE over the water: only with lifejackets and a dinghy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift is inevitable on these forums and usually bring in other interesting issues.
This subject of flying single engine over water is an interesting one especially when the subject of ditching comes up, if you ditch in open water that is very cold a life preserver will not keep you warm.
Personally I would rather have an engine fail in the mountains in cloud so I would die instantly instead of die slowly.
This subject of flying single engine over water is an interesting one especially when the subject of ditching comes up, if you ditch in open water that is very cold a life preserver will not keep you warm.
Personally I would rather have an engine fail in the mountains in cloud so I would die instantly instead of die slowly.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm just picky:
As soon as you're no longer "in sight of the ground" you have to be IFR. So there's no such thing as VFR on top.
As soon as you're no longer "in sight of the ground" you have to be IFR. So there's no such thing as VFR on top.
However, the UK issued PPL has a restriction which requires you to be in sight of the surface, unless you hold an IMC or IR rating.
In response to Chuck's original question - yes I have done so in the past, but as Teddy said I'd want a reasonable cloudbase.
Brooklands
I will fly singles over the top or IFR in IMC, if I feel the ceiling is high enough such that if the fan stopped, I would have enough time/room/hospitable terrain so as to give me a reasonable hope of making a survivable forced landing. That being said I much prefer flying a twin in these conditions. What I will no longer do under any circumstances is fly single engine aircraft at night. You can joke about turning the landing light on if you do not like what you see, but the reality is finding a survivable place to plop down after an engine failure is too dependant on luck for me. BTW the latest statistics from the USA show that you are 20 times more likely to kill yourself in a single engine aircraft (on a per hour flown basis) at night than during the day
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting how opinions differ. It seems those flying in relatively flat areas where there is a reasonable chance of putting it down safely are more reluctant to fly at night or/and over water, whereas those who regulary fly over high terrain in day are less concerned about flying at night or over open water. It seems the rights and wrongs are very subjective.
When discussing night flying with the AME during my initial medical he, with tongue in cheek, questioned if anyone intending to fly singles at night should pass the medical as being of sound mind.
When discussing night flying with the AME during my initial medical he, with tongue in cheek, questioned if anyone intending to fly singles at night should pass the medical as being of sound mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When making decisions regarding " Right or Wrong " one should examine the issues objectively rather than subjectively.
VFR over the top is safe as long as one has planned the flight being 100% sure you can land safely should the engine quit. I wish I had a dollar for every time I was on top of scattered clouds that slowly became broken then overcast as I flew over them, what does a pilot who can not fly an instrument approach do if he/she gets to their destination and finds a solid layer of cloud under them?
True there is some level of risk involved in all flying, the secret to a long life is examining the risks then making decisions of where and how you will fly based on the level of risk for that flight.
I personally prefer two of everything including engines and pilots.
I do not fly single engine IFR.
I do not fly single engine beyond gliding distance of land.
I do not fly single engine at night except maybe for training flights at an airport...hell I can't remember the last time I did that though.
Note that that is only my personal limits but in retrospect it has worked quite well for me.
Here is a true story.
I have been flying for fifty six years and never had to land a single engine airplane with zero power until two summers ago. We were trying to decide which route to take back to B.C. from Toronto. After some thought on it I said to my friend lets go the long way so we don't have to fly over all that water just north west of us just in case the engine quits, he said hell this is a brand new airplane.
We ended up having a complete engine failure but fortunately we were within gliding range of an airport. Had we went the short way we would have been over water.......
VFR over the top is safe as long as one has planned the flight being 100% sure you can land safely should the engine quit. I wish I had a dollar for every time I was on top of scattered clouds that slowly became broken then overcast as I flew over them, what does a pilot who can not fly an instrument approach do if he/she gets to their destination and finds a solid layer of cloud under them?
True there is some level of risk involved in all flying, the secret to a long life is examining the risks then making decisions of where and how you will fly based on the level of risk for that flight.
I personally prefer two of everything including engines and pilots.
I do not fly single engine IFR.
I do not fly single engine beyond gliding distance of land.
I do not fly single engine at night except maybe for training flights at an airport...hell I can't remember the last time I did that though.
Note that that is only my personal limits but in retrospect it has worked quite well for me.
Here is a true story.
I have been flying for fifty six years and never had to land a single engine airplane with zero power until two summers ago. We were trying to decide which route to take back to B.C. from Toronto. After some thought on it I said to my friend lets go the long way so we don't have to fly over all that water just north west of us just in case the engine quits, he said hell this is a brand new airplane.
We ended up having a complete engine failure but fortunately we were within gliding range of an airport. Had we went the short way we would have been over water.......
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck, the other consideration is terrain. My operating environment, like many, is rather hilly/boggy/full of small fields with dry stone walls. An engine failure and subsequent forced landing would almost certainly result in a very bent aircraft. To manage the risk to the point where I could always guarantee a totally viable forced landing site would make the whole concept of single-engine untenable.
I'm about 30 years short of your 50+ and have yet to suffer a failure in an SEP. That doesn't stop me thinking about the scenario though.
I'm about 30 years short of your 50+ and have yet to suffer a failure in an SEP. That doesn't stop me thinking about the scenario though.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck, I agree that there is a difference between risk and calculated risk, however the point I am making is that in some areas of the world the criteria some use for calculated risk cannot be applied. So the choice is not to fly, or to take a greater, less calculated risk. To this end being objective is likely to keep you firmly on the ground.
When you say you never fly outwith gliding distance of land, do you mean land, or land suitable to make an emergency landing?
When you say you never fly outwith gliding distance of land, do you mean land, or land suitable to make an emergency landing?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baby Bear, I mean a suitable place to make an emergency landing where I wont die of hyporthermia should I land in cold water.
As to flying in difficult terrain I live and fly in B.C.
As to flying in difficult terrain I live and fly in B.C.