VMC on top

[coopervane]

Fellow Flyers............can you shed some light on the subject of the legality of VMC on top??

Heard various stuff on the subject so what actually is legal?

If you are a PPL without IR or IMC, you should fly clear of cloud in the reqiured horizontal vis and IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE????

If you venture VMC on top then surely you can't remain within the rules?

Climb up in VMC conditions, go above the cloud and hope there is a gap before you get to your destination? Seems a bit dodgy to me.

This has probably been covered many times before but just for me, lets hear your comments

Coop & Bear

[benhurr]

VMC is VMC, there is no reason for debate and it has nothing to do with the destination conditions. To climb through a cloud layer and remain 1000 feet vertically from cloud requires an IMC at least.

[coopervane]

You may say there is no reason for debate but the more people I ask the more varied the story is. If it was set in concrete I wouldnt be asking.

The way I see it is that if you want to fly above or through clouds on purpose, the you need and IMC/ IR. Is this right???

PLEASE!!!

Coop & Bear

[jezbowman]

The way I see it is that if you want to fly above or through clouds on purpose, the you need and IMC/ IR. Is this right???

I'll stick my neck out and say "in the UK, yes that is correct". There is debate and qustion of what constitutes a cloud base - for example is it wrong for a vanilla PPL (i.e. no IR/IMCR) to fly above 2-4/8 of cloud? At what point is there enough cloud to no longer be in sight of the surface? But that debate has been done to death on these forums before...

I think this is the second confusion the Nice day for flying VMC on top thread has caused. As Aussie Andy pointed out on that thread recently -

The context here is properly trained and qualified UK IMC Rating holders who are able to conduct instrument let-downs. Of course appropriate weather decisions must be made - as with all flying - in accordance with experience (personal minima), aircraft capabilities, forecast outlook, etc

[Chilli Monster]

Coopervane

There are no grey areas - from the ANO, Sched 8, part 1 section "Privilieges of the Private Pilots Licence"

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:
(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than
3 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.

Now, as for flying on top - you have to ask yourself the question "How much cloud, as a PPL holder with no additional ratings, can allow you to do this?" It's very much up to the individual - the wording above is quite specific. However. as a rule of thumb before I got my Instrument qualifications I used to say FEW or SCT (1-4/8's cover) cloud was fine - BKN was a definite no as it can become OVC very quickly!

[IO540]

For what this is worth, I have never seen any official pronouncement on the maximum extent of the cloud cover above which a UK PPL can fly.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And don't forget that if any of this cloud is about 3000' you need a much larger gap to descend through than if it's all under 3000'. You can be legally flying above a cloud layer which you can't legally desend through, if it's lots of little clouds without any gaps large enough for you to have the 5km forward visibility you need above 3000'.

[Farrell]

This is always the subject of rather heated debate here in France. I know one individual who scared the proverbials out of me on a flight from Montpellier to Lyon a few months back. We took off in VMC and there was VMC at Lyon, however, he got caught up in cloud as we crossed Nimes.

The guy had a PPL, saw the front approaching and had ample opportunity to land at an airfield or to fly around it. He told me that it was ok because we could still see the ground in patches. He just ploughed on and on eventually into full IMC for about twenty minutes. I felt totally out of control, having a only a basic knowledge of instrument flying procedures from my ATPL groundschool, which I am only studying (i still have no ppl)

I knew this guy only a short time, but have never flown with him since.

When I spoke about the incident with another pilot in confidence, he told me that it's just the way it is in France and that the rule is open to interpretation.

[skydriller]

Farrell,

He just ploughed on and on eventually into full IMC for about twenty minutes.

Let me assure you that the above is definitely NOT 'the way it is' here in France. IMC is IMC, wherever you are, and not allowed for a basic PPL in France.

However, we are talking about VMC on top, which is indeed allowed in France if you hold a French PPL. This means you dont have to be able to see the surface, but you definitely have to remain VMC, ie clear of cloud by the distances required by the airspace you are in or altitude you are at.

In your example of a flight from Montpellier to Lyon, if you were clear of cloud as required to stay VMC, you were legal. You however, said you were IMC for 20 mins, which isnt legal.

Regards, SD..

[coopervane]

Well thanks guys for your info. I had a bit of a nasty experience myself whilst on my X country awhile back. Lets just say that I treat clouds with the utmost respect and always er on the side of caution. I will never be a "press on" flyer as minimums reduce.

I did learn about flying from that at that early stage and I think it was a most valuable experience.

The only thing I will add is that should I ever get in a position of being caught out in cloud and the decision has to be made to decend into unknown terrain or go up, then go up wins every time.

The pitfalls of entering cloud and becoming disorientated is a well covered subject. When I was presented with that experience it took every ounce of do or die I had in me to fly the aeroplane believing my instruments. A good scan and remember the good old aviate, navigate, communicate got me to a safe altitude all be it ON TOP!!! Attitude and airspeed are the killers but direction is a prime concern too. I headed for the lowest known terrain AFTER I had established a controlled climb with wings level. Ice is a concern too. Remember looking at the winscreen and seeing small ice chrystals forming. Pulling carb heat out in a full power climb is not an option so I listened to the engine and watched the RPM/T's & P's for any signs of distress. Popping out on top at 4500 feet into a beautiful blue sky was one of the most wonderful sights I had ever seen! Soon as I leveled off and settled into a cruise I gave the beast a well earned dose of carb heat and did my FREDAS. Good look out and then spoke to ATC about my predicament. Never be shy to tell them your dilema. They were most helpful and was happy to be radar identified so I wasn't a hazard to others.

Thanks again

Coop & Bear

[FlyingForFun]

As already said (see Chilli Monster's post, and quote) - you must remain in sight of the surface, so no, it's not legal.

Reasons for possible confusion:

- It is legal to be VFR in VMC above the clouds if you have an IR or an IMC rating.

- I think the rules are different in the USA, so you may be confusing the two countries' rules.

FFF
-------------

[DFC]

Gertrude the Wombat said;

And don't forget that if any of this cloud is about 3000' you need a much larger gap to descend through than if it's all under 3000'. You can be legally flying above a cloud layer which you can't legally desend through, if it's lots of little clouds without any gaps large enough for you to have the 5km forward visibility you need above 3000'.

You seem to have confused the visibility requirement with the distance from cloud requirement. What you said is along the right lines however, if at or below 3000ft, the desceding spiral through the cloud must remain clear of cloud, when above 3000ft, that same spiral must keep the aircraft 1500m horizontally from all cloud.

It does require a big hole but not quite as big as you thought!

-----

The law does say that a basic PPL must remain in sight of the surface. Thus a basic PPL could quite legally fly down a 10nm wide valley at 1500ft just above a fog bank and remain legal because they can see the mountains on each side.

What is legal and what is sensible are too different things.

Flying a C170 over an overcast with a base of 1500ft AGL make far more sense than flying 3000ft over a fog bank 200ft thick even if one has an IR!

Regards,

DFC

[Farrell]

skydriller......

I was quoting someone else when I said that.....

I have flown many times in France with highly competent pilots and wasn't being judgmental in any way.

sorry if I offended you

wayne

[FlyingForFun]

And again, regarding Gertrude's quote about being over 3000'......

No, I don't believe you do need a bigger cloud above 3000'. The only reason being above 3000' would make any difference is that the rules for maintaining VFR change at this altitude. However, there is nothing to stop a PPL, even without an IMC rating or IR, flying IFR... in which case, above or below 3000', there is no need for any specific separation from cloud. The only requirement, if flying IFR, would be the restriction on your license to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

Not that I'm suggesting anyone should actually try doing this, though.....

FFF
--------------

[boomerangben]

If you are below 3000ft and flying at less than 140kts, you need a flight viz of 1500m or more. If you are descending through a hole, then this hole should in theory at least be 3km in diameter.

My own personal interpretation of the VFR rules is that you can fly above clouds providing that if the donk stops, you can get to the ground without losing sight of it.

[IO540]

If you are below 3000ft and flying at less than 140kts, you need a flight viz of 1500m or more.

3000m for a UK PPL (no IMC or IR) at all times.

My own personal interpretation of the VFR rules is that you can fly above clouds providing that if the donk stops, you can get to the ground without losing sight of it.

I think this is debatable because it would be an emergency, and in those there is no need to be legal. A bare ICAO PPL doesn't prohibit flight above an 8/8 overcast layer. The need to be in sight of the surface is an additional requirement imposed by the UK CAA, and a few other countries.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, that's an interesting collection of different opinions as to how large the hole needs to be ...

I wasn't really after starting another of those letter-of-the-law debates, I was just musing about how odd it was that it could be legal to fly above cloud through whose gaps it would be illegal to descend (which, whatever the figures, nobody has disagreed with).

[Chilli Monster]

I was just musing about how odd it was that it could be legal to fly above cloud through whose gaps it would be illegal to descend (which, whatever the figures, nobody has disagreed with).

Which brings us nicely to the main point of the sensible things that have been said:

It's up to the individual to always fly or be in a position to always fly within the privileges of his/her respective licence

morals:

1) If you've flown on top, then bust licence minima on the way down then you've left it too late to descend, or shouldn't have been there in the first place.

2) You can never think far enough ahead when flying

3) You'll always be better off staying within the rules, than thinking of ways to get round them (which is what half of these debates, when you get down to the nitty gritty, are what people are trying to do)

[Ojuka]

Without having the relevant rules to hand, I seem to recall the "in sight of the surace" rule only applied when one is below 3000'. Over 3000' there are just distance from cloud requirements and in flight vis requirements. So theoretically you can fly above an 8/8ths layer out of sight of the surface so long as you can descend through it eventually, remaining out of IMC. Unless the laws have changed.

[IO540]

Ojuka - not in the UK. Here a plain PPL has to be in sight of the surface regardless.

Re the other opinions - I am not sure I agree there is a minimum hole size. Is there a minimum cloud clearance requirement while climbing or descending?

On the more general point (that people shouldn't try to get around rules) I think a better way to see it is that there are rules saying what one CANNOT do, and everything else one CAN do. People like the word "loophole" but there is no such thing. If something isn't explicitly illegal then it is legal.

We pilots already face a vast quantity of restrictions, many of them so complex or arcane that almost nobody can remember them (how many instructors know how the SVFR visibility rules change from a PPL to a PPL+IMCR??) so let's not get bogged down in inventing some more.

None of this matters unless you are being closely followed by a plane with CAA employees and they are videotaping it.

Obviously an individual should use their judgement as to whether they feel safe doing something. How many fresh PPLs could (should) fly in 3000m vis? One can only just barely visually navigate in those conditions (and only at a low level - dangerous in itself), but it's 100% legal and nobody here would dispute that. Instrument flight and navigation are required to fly in such conditions - it's IMC as near as dammit. What's the difference between that and flying above scattered (or perhaps "only just" scattered) clouds?