VFR 'On Top'
Just to stir the pot, over here "VFR on top" is an IFR clearance where the pilot is responsible for maintaining terrain, traffic and cloud clearances. "VFR over the top" is the act of flying over an undercast while operating under VFRs.
Can you clarify the last 2 posts with ref to lifetime PPLs...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is that the new EASA licence is likely to allow the standard VFR on to as per the rest of the world. For those that think this is a bad thing, I would point out that this is allowed almost every ware else and provided you check met and have a good diversion plan / plenty of fuel it works.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People must avoid mixing up legality and practicality/sensibility.
Flying above a solid overcast which extends all the way to ground is no worse risk-wise than flying on a real proper night.
I almost never fly at night, but I will fly above an overcast. 99% of the time the IMC does not extend to ground but if it did, one can run a GPS with a terrain map and glide down into a valley - sounds very dodgy but it is still better than flying at night
The finer legalities like whether a distant hill is sticking up through the cloud, or whether you are meeting cloud spacing requirements, are completely unenforceable. The important thing is to stay safe. Obviously one cannot navigate with map+stopwatch above an overcast but most pilots who actually go places have moved on long ago.
Flying above a solid overcast which extends all the way to ground is no worse risk-wise than flying on a real proper night.
I almost never fly at night, but I will fly above an overcast. 99% of the time the IMC does not extend to ground but if it did, one can run a GPS with a terrain map and glide down into a valley - sounds very dodgy but it is still better than flying at night
The finer legalities like whether a distant hill is sticking up through the cloud, or whether you are meeting cloud spacing requirements, are completely unenforceable. The important thing is to stay safe. Obviously one cannot navigate with map+stopwatch above an overcast but most pilots who actually go places have moved on long ago.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least here in Sweden, while VFR on top is allowed, and VFR at night is allowed (with an NQ), VFR on top at night is not allowed. Not sure what to make of that, or if that's a local thing...
Various well defined weather planning minima also apply, including forecasts of no more than 4/8 cloud at the destination at the planned landing time. A rather peculiar national regulation is that it is illegal to depart cross country without weather forecast printouts onboard, if forecast weather is below 8 km visibility and 2,000 ft cloud base (not ceiling!) along the planned route...
On the other hand, if the forecasts show that the cloud cover and layering is such that VFR on top is allowed (and planned), the normal legal planning minima of 1,000 ft ceiling and 5 km visibility along the entire route are relaxed to only apply to the destination area.
So a lot of hoops to jump through to legally go cross country when WX is less than perfect... As it should be, IMHO.
In those situations when it is allowed, VFR on top seems like a sensible thing to me! I'd be a lot happier at FL085 above the clouds, than at 800 ft AGL below them...
Various well defined weather planning minima also apply, including forecasts of no more than 4/8 cloud at the destination at the planned landing time. A rather peculiar national regulation is that it is illegal to depart cross country without weather forecast printouts onboard, if forecast weather is below 8 km visibility and 2,000 ft cloud base (not ceiling!) along the planned route...
On the other hand, if the forecasts show that the cloud cover and layering is such that VFR on top is allowed (and planned), the normal legal planning minima of 1,000 ft ceiling and 5 km visibility along the entire route are relaxed to only apply to the destination area.
So a lot of hoops to jump through to legally go cross country when WX is less than perfect... As it should be, IMHO.
In those situations when it is allowed, VFR on top seems like a sensible thing to me! I'd be a lot happier at FL085 above the clouds, than at 800 ft AGL below them...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the OP, it sounds like you'd be OK on the basis that you're flying over <some> cloud, but still in sight of ground. If it's solid undercast, you're flat out of luck - it's not legal.
As IO540 said, legality and sense/safety are two separate issues.
As IO540 said, legality and sense/safety are two separate issues.
The good news is that the new EASA licence is likely to allow the standard VFR on to as per the rest of the world. For those that think this is a bad thing, I would point out that this is allowed almost every ware else and provided you check met and have a good diversion plan / plenty of fuel it works.
Rod1
Rod1
The NPPL is different - it is a VMC licence so, for example, above 3000' a pilot must be 1000' vertically from cloud and 1500 metres horizontally away from it.
The EASA proposals are vague in this area and in responding to this consultation organisations such as the BGA have assumed that EASA is a VMC only licence with the lesser privileges of the present NPPL.
This is a serious limitation for gliders as the best lift is often less than 1000' below cloud base.
The consultation seems to specifically exclude any flight by PPLs in IMC as indicated in the extract below...
48. Finally, the Agency considers it necessary to refer here to the more general issue of the qualifications required for flying an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). This issue was raised several times during the development of the implementing rules, both by members of the FCL.001 rulemaking group and by stakeholders contacting the Agency independently. In this context, the most controversial issue was the future of the UK IMC rating, which allows the holder of such a rating to fly in IMC in certain UK airspace categories without having an instrument rating. After discussions with the FCL.001 rulemaking group, the Agency has decided to initiate a new rulemaking task on this issue, which has already been included in the Agency’s Advance Planning
68 and will be started after the summer. The working group for this task will review the existing instrument rating requirements and the training syllabus of the UK IMC rating. The Agency decided furthermore not to develop a specific cloud flying rating for sailplanes, which exists in several Member States to allow its holder to enter clouds with sailplanes and fly in IMC conditions. It is envisaged to include this issue when drafting the ToR for the new task mentioned here above.
The impact of the EASA PPL being pure VMC will leave holders of the JAA and UK PPL in a worse position than now and in the same position as the NPPL holders. Back to the point - if you are flying over broken cloud with the tops above 3000' there will need to be a very large holes for you to climb up through, or descend down, without going within 1000' vertically of the cloud, or 1500 metres horizontally.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the IMC option was crippled off the LPL by the committee which was loaded with VFR-only industry interests and which wanted the easiest passage for a VFR-only license for its plastic sports products.
As soon as the word "IFR" is mentioned, things get very political. All the time you talk "VFR only" there is no problem because there is no implied access to CAS; ATC can always say "keep out" and that sidesteps the whole issue.
However another EASA committee has been set up recently to re-examine the private IFR issue, and it looks pretty hopeful. It probably won't be an LPL add-on though.
As soon as the word "IFR" is mentioned, things get very political. All the time you talk "VFR only" there is no problem because there is no implied access to CAS; ATC can always say "keep out" and that sidesteps the whole issue.
However another EASA committee has been set up recently to re-examine the private IFR issue, and it looks pretty hopeful. It probably won't be an LPL add-on though.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 63
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vfr/ifr
Had the time of my life when I used too live in L.A. flying vrf over the San Fernando valley, as a student pilot. My instructor and I got "partially IFR" as luck was in my favour there was a "hole" in the cloud cover I could decend through.
Returned to SMHO no problems.
Bilko
Returned to SMHO no problems.
Bilko
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you desscribe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in
The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175
of Section 1 of JAR–FCL 1.
of Section 1 of JAR–FCL 1.
So, as I understand it, UK issue JAA PPLs are just like everyone else's PPL and not allowed to operate IFR - regardless of the weather. (Note given UK IFR in VMC is almost identical to UK VFR - this shouldn't present an issue when the weather is VMC)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: N/A
Age: 34
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone, I have been reading all comments and I am learning so much from it all.
I think I can now clear this up after a bit of reading.
To remain VFR above 3000' AMSL you do not need to be in sight of the surface and below 3000' AMSL you do need to be in sight of the surface and if flying less than 140kt IAS you can fly in only 1500m visability.
However the 'privileges' of a PPL are different.
Basic PPL;
Minimum flight visibility 3km
Remain in sight of surface at all times
Minimum visibility 10km and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Flight in circumstances which require compliance with IFR not permitted
PPL with IMC Rating;
Minimum flight visibility 1500m to maintain VFR
Minimum flight visibility 3km, clear of cloud, and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Minimum visibility below cloud 1800m for any take-off or landing
It is safe to assume that you can fly VFR on top if above 3000' but not with a basic UK PPL.
I think I can now clear this up after a bit of reading.
To remain VFR above 3000' AMSL you do not need to be in sight of the surface and below 3000' AMSL you do need to be in sight of the surface and if flying less than 140kt IAS you can fly in only 1500m visability.
However the 'privileges' of a PPL are different.
Basic PPL;
Minimum flight visibility 3km
Remain in sight of surface at all times
Minimum visibility 10km and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Flight in circumstances which require compliance with IFR not permitted
PPL with IMC Rating;
Minimum flight visibility 1500m to maintain VFR
Minimum flight visibility 3km, clear of cloud, and in sight of surface on an SVFR clearance in a CTR
Minimum visibility below cloud 1800m for any take-off or landing
It is safe to assume that you can fly VFR on top if above 3000' but not with a basic UK PPL.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you can fly above a solid overcast, VFR, at any altitude, so long as your PPL does not have the UK "sight of surface" requirement, or (if it has) if you have an IMCR or an IR.
But like I said, these rules are meaningless except for the navigation and risk management aspects.
But like I said, these rules are meaningless except for the navigation and risk management aspects.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR over the top is quite useful sometimes. For example, I once left Big Bear in California, 6700' altitude, and it was solid IMC down at around 2000' despite us being in glorious sunshine. I flew to the coast 50 odd miles away which was also in sunshine, and landed without having to file IFR.
By the way, someone who has a foreign IR is excempt from the "in sight of surface" requirement because holding a foreign IR allows one to fly IAW IFR outside CAS without holding an IMCr or UK IR.
By the way, someone who has a foreign IR is excempt from the "in sight of surface" requirement because holding a foreign IR allows one to fly IAW IFR outside CAS without holding an IMCr or UK IR.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious Question!
Excuse my ignorance guys, but my understanding of VFR is such that, by definition, VFR over the top cannot technically exist?? Or is it a case that I need to get the books out again?
BB
BB
Not True.
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you describe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in
The Old CAA PPL DOES provide the privilege as you describe
The UK issue JAA/PPL has almost the same wording, but adds in
The Air Navigation Order below states the legal position and makes the old UK PPL (that I hold) and the JAA PPL privileges the same. Only the NPPL has a prohibition on IMC outside controlled airspace as long as one is clear of cloud with the required flight visibility.
So is the ANO the law or a remark in a JAA licence? I think I give up!
Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) 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 sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface;
(f) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules; or
Section 2 – JAR–FCL Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplane)
(3) The holder shall not:
(a) 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 sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface.
(b) unless his licence includes an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.
Section 3 – National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) as pilot in command of any such aeroplane:
(i) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km;
(ii) out of sight of the surface; or
(iii) at night; or
(d) as pilot in command of any such an aeroplane in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) 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 sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface;
(f) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules; or
Section 2 – JAR–FCL Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplane)
(3) The holder shall not:
(a) 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 sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface.
(b) unless his licence includes an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.
Section 3 – National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
National Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(c) as pilot in command of any such aeroplane:
(i) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km;
(ii) out of sight of the surface; or
(iii) at night; or
(d) as pilot in command of any such an aeroplane in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim,
In your quote of the JAA PPL privileges in the ANO you have started at para 3, it is para 2 where the FCL1.175 restriction is mentioned - in the ANO. (I should have been clearer, there is no wording on the licence itself re. 1.175 it is in the ANO).
It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)
Babybear,
You do need to get the books out. VFR doesn't require you to be able to navigate by looking at features on the ground. It is primarily about the flight rules when in sufficiently good visibility for see and avoid and visual terrain separation to work (if you are 1000 ft above the clouds you wont hit the ground and have a chance to see anyone climbing up through the clouds (they would of course be IFR))
In your quote of the JAA PPL privileges in the ANO you have started at para 3, it is para 2 where the FCL1.175 restriction is mentioned - in the ANO. (I should have been clearer, there is no wording on the licence itself re. 1.175 it is in the ANO).
It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)
Babybear,
You do need to get the books out. VFR doesn't require you to be able to navigate by looking at features on the ground. It is primarily about the flight rules when in sufficiently good visibility for see and avoid and visual terrain separation to work (if you are 1000 ft above the clouds you wont hit the ground and have a chance to see anyone climbing up through the clouds (they would of course be IFR))
In your quote of the JAA PPL privileges in the ANO you have started at para 3, it is para 2 where the FCL1.175 restriction is mentioned - in the ANO. (I should have been clearer, there is no wording on the licence itself re. 1.175 it is in the ANO).
It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)
It is very sneaky the way this privilege is removed via a reference to a section of a separate document. It was only when someone else pointed the implication out that I twigged. I agree whole heartedly that the whole set of drafting is way too complex for the average person (and probably too complex for the regulator as well!)
Thanks for pointing out the restriction on JAA licences. I stand corrected. As you say very sneaky!
This only confirms the fact that the EASA licence will, like the NPPL, be strictly VFR in true VMC and that existing UK PPL licence holders will probably loose more than the option of an IMC rating in the spring of 2012, they will also loose the option to fly IMC as long as clear of cloud.
I did respond to the EASA consultation (with nearly 90 personal comments and suggestions) including a strong objection to the loss of the above limited IMC privilege; I hope enough others did as well to make them think again.
Jim.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they will also loose the option to fly IMC as long as clear of cloud.
In the UK you could have done that up to about 1965.
Unless one defines "IMC" as anything technically not VMC e.g. 2999m vis on a JAA PPL, etc, but that is meaningless.
And IFR in VMC, plain PPL, is a waste of time anyway. VFR, OCAS, the sky is all yours!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A UK PPL holder (JAR or CAA) can fly in a flight visibility of not less than 3km in uncontrolled airspace (privilege of license). Below 3000ft this is a penalty as VMC criteria are 1500m, above it is a bonus as the criteria for VMC are 5kms/1500m/1000ft. Consequently, a PPL can fly IMC (ie not VMC) in Class G above 3000ft without an instrument qualification.
Dog's dinner springs to mind.
Dog's dinner springs to mind.