vfr over the top
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: belgium
vfr over the top
Hi pilots ,
here is my questions because i realy need it to be sure ;
so i was planning to fly today since its beautiful outside exept for some cumulus below 2000 ft in a class G airspace , to my understanding even if there are few cumulus as long as i fly over it i should inform the AFIS and not request it since it s not a controlled airspace.
1st question being , is my understanding of the vfr over the top right?
2nt question , is there a vfr ott rating? never heard of this in here (belgium) and never did in my school , so im confused since i saw on google that it exist in some other countries..... couldnt find nothing about vfr over the top in the belgian aip
hope i've been clear enough since english is not my mother language .
thx for ur time
keep it fly
here is my questions because i realy need it to be sure ;
so i was planning to fly today since its beautiful outside exept for some cumulus below 2000 ft in a class G airspace , to my understanding even if there are few cumulus as long as i fly over it i should inform the AFIS and not request it since it s not a controlled airspace.
1st question being , is my understanding of the vfr over the top right?
2nt question , is there a vfr ott rating? never heard of this in here (belgium) and never did in my school , so im confused since i saw on google that it exist in some other countries..... couldnt find nothing about vfr over the top in the belgian aip
hope i've been clear enough since english is not my mother language .
thx for ur time
keep it fly
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,113
Likes: 2
From: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Assuming you don't have an IR the 'some cumulus' part in your post is important. As long as you are in sight of the ground you can be vfr on top of anything so 'some cumulus' wouldn't be a problem as long as you maintain your minimum distances from cloud.
Edit: I think your 'vfr on top rating' may refer to an 'IR lite' rating that EASA are proposing to introduce. It will allow you to be vfr on top of solid cloud cover as long as your destination airfield is vfr. Personally it sounds like an undertaker's dream to me but my opinions aren't based on much other than common sense, so they will obviously differ from EASA.
Edit: I think your 'vfr on top rating' may refer to an 'IR lite' rating that EASA are proposing to introduce. It will allow you to be vfr on top of solid cloud cover as long as your destination airfield is vfr. Personally it sounds like an undertaker's dream to me but my opinions aren't based on much other than common sense, so they will obviously differ from EASA.
Last edited by thing; 20th July 2013 at 14:48.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
As long as you are in sight of the ground
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Further to Whopity,
VFR (as in the Visual Flight Rules as recommended by ICAO and implemented nationally) has no restriction against operating VFR above clouds (just a cloud clearance and visibility requirement).
As far as I am aware, it is only the UK (for UK CAA NPPL and PPL licences not also holding an IR or IMCr) and South Africa that restricts their PPL's (with out an IR) to having the surface in sight when VFR (and I think South Africa actually defines that as no more than scattered cloud below). Specifically, I have never heard of any Belgian rule that prevent some classes of VFR operation and I can't see any Differences From ICAO Standards with respect to Rules of the Air in GEN 1.7 so would be very surprised if there was such a rule.
So, in general there is no legal restriction against operating on top. However, one typically needs quite a gap to get up or down legally VFR. Also, one needs to have a plan if the gaps close up.
VFR (as in the Visual Flight Rules as recommended by ICAO and implemented nationally) has no restriction against operating VFR above clouds (just a cloud clearance and visibility requirement).
As far as I am aware, it is only the UK (for UK CAA NPPL and PPL licences not also holding an IR or IMCr) and South Africa that restricts their PPL's (with out an IR) to having the surface in sight when VFR (and I think South Africa actually defines that as no more than scattered cloud below). Specifically, I have never heard of any Belgian rule that prevent some classes of VFR operation and I can't see any Differences From ICAO Standards with respect to Rules of the Air in GEN 1.7 so would be very surprised if there was such a rule.
So, in general there is no legal restriction against operating on top. However, one typically needs quite a gap to get up or down legally VFR. Also, one needs to have a plan if the gaps close up.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 20th July 2013 at 19:35.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Netherlands
To revert to the original poster.
"some cumulus below 2000 ft in a class G airspace"
well what does this mean? FEW, SCT or BKN. Base of cloud? And destination forecast? MET, TAF?
Seems to me a base of 1,000 ft and FEW or SCT is acceptable. BKN has the risk of becoming OVC. Of course near Cu can be bumpy.
Return trip? Cu can continue building as the afternoon continues . . .
Probably best to be high in smooth air if you can.
flyme.
"some cumulus below 2000 ft in a class G airspace"
well what does this mean? FEW, SCT or BKN. Base of cloud? And destination forecast? MET, TAF?
Seems to me a base of 1,000 ft and FEW or SCT is acceptable. BKN has the risk of becoming OVC. Of course near Cu can be bumpy.
Return trip? Cu can continue building as the afternoon continues . . .
Probably best to be high in smooth air if you can.
flyme.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,113
Likes: 2
From: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Now where did you get that from? The UK ANO - privileges of a UK PPL! Not really very relevant to a Belgian pilot who probably has a JAA or EASA licence with no such limitation.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Yes he can be. Note, I was very specific in the prior post. It is UK CAA issued PPLs and UK NPPLs (not JAA PPLs which automatically became EASA PPLs nor EASA PPLs) which have the ISOS restriction. Neither of these PPLs will be valid for EASA aircraft next year.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 21st July 2013 at 17:16.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
"VFR over the top" is a US definition. I used to know exactly what it meant.
"VFR on top" was the UK PPL-with-IMC-rating added privilege. EASA PPLs are allowed it without any added rating. The pilot still needs a way to get down in VMC, though.
"VFR on top" was the UK PPL-with-IMC-rating added privilege. EASA PPLs are allowed it without any added rating. The pilot still needs a way to get down in VMC, though.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 236
Likes: 1
From: belgium
I have flown VFR Over the top many times on longer nav trips from and to Belgium. It's only a term, no need for a license. VFR rules state a vertical and/or horizontal clearance from clouds and a visibility. Only G airspace below 3000ft needs you to have ground surface in sight.
So imagine taking off from EBAW with no clouds and great visibility; you climb south to FL65, and abeam the french border the clouds are building in an overcast layer between 2000 and 3000ft. You loose sight of ground, but when preparing your nav, you found that the destination aerodrome was cavok and you know the cloud layer will dissappear again going further south towards the destination. You did a takeoff in VFR conditions, and you can land in VFR conditions. The flight itself above the clouds is also in legal VFR conditions. Technically of course there was no way to navigate with your visual charts since you had no sight of ground marks. This is VFR OTT. No problem to fly this with GPS and VOR, but one can ask the question, what in case of engine failure during cruise over the overcast layer?
VFR on top is not the same as VFR over the top. An aircraft flying IFR in VMC conditions can in certain airspaces request VFR on top, so they can choose altitudes themselves according to VFR rules, and navigate as a VFR aircraft, thus avoiding IFR routings. If you are a PPL without IFR license, you cannot fly VFR on top.
So imagine taking off from EBAW with no clouds and great visibility; you climb south to FL65, and abeam the french border the clouds are building in an overcast layer between 2000 and 3000ft. You loose sight of ground, but when preparing your nav, you found that the destination aerodrome was cavok and you know the cloud layer will dissappear again going further south towards the destination. You did a takeoff in VFR conditions, and you can land in VFR conditions. The flight itself above the clouds is also in legal VFR conditions. Technically of course there was no way to navigate with your visual charts since you had no sight of ground marks. This is VFR OTT. No problem to fly this with GPS and VOR, but one can ask the question, what in case of engine failure during cruise over the overcast layer?
VFR on top is not the same as VFR over the top. An aircraft flying IFR in VMC conditions can in certain airspaces request VFR on top, so they can choose altitudes themselves according to VFR rules, and navigate as a VFR aircraft, thus avoiding IFR routings. If you are a PPL without IFR license, you cannot fly VFR on top.
Last edited by Piper19; 21st July 2013 at 23:14.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Netherlands
This is becoming more complex by each post.
Flying in G class airspace: above 3,000ft vis 8 km, horz 1500m from cloud, 1,000 ft vert from cloud. Off you go. One also needs a horizon (unless IMC/IR).
Of course consideration should be given to the destination MET, TAF and to making a cloud free climb and descent (unless IMC/IR).
Then contingency planning: 1. engine failure emergency - need some blue patches to make descent 2. cloud becomes OVC below - this is more serious - is the TAF reliable or should one turn round.
Original poster stated some Cu and was looking for some guidance per go/no-go. Trust this helps.
flyme
Flying in G class airspace: above 3,000ft vis 8 km, horz 1500m from cloud, 1,000 ft vert from cloud. Off you go. One also needs a horizon (unless IMC/IR).
Of course consideration should be given to the destination MET, TAF and to making a cloud free climb and descent (unless IMC/IR).
Then contingency planning: 1. engine failure emergency - need some blue patches to make descent 2. cloud becomes OVC below - this is more serious - is the TAF reliable or should one turn round.
Original poster stated some Cu and was looking for some guidance per go/no-go. Trust this helps.
flyme
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
VFR on top is not the same as VFR over the top. An aircraft flying IFR in VMC conditions can in certain airspaces request VFR on top, so they can choose altitudes themselves according to VFR rules, and navigate as a VFR aircraft, thus avoiding IFR routings.
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 2
From: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Thing, whenever you have a serious worry about the weather the best approach is to sit by the window of the nearest bar and sip on a beer while watching the weather develop.
a pint of a rather nice beer is one of the best weather solutions known to the VFR pilot.
a pint of a rather nice beer is one of the best weather solutions known to the VFR pilot.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Piper 19
You have nicely described the EASA En-Route IR
Quote:
No problem to fly this with GPS and VOR, but one can ask the question, what in case of engine failure during cruise over the overcast layer?
You have nicely described the EASA En-Route IR
Quote:
No problem to fly this with GPS and VOR, but one can ask the question, what in case of engine failure during cruise over the overcast layer?
Setup a straight glide and hope you see the ground before you leave the cloud.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 236
Likes: 1
From: belgium
Setup a straight glide and hope you see the ground before you leave the cloud.
And even if there is enough space between clouds and ground, high chance that the pilot pulls the yoke full aft on seeing ground and overstresses the aircraft.
Last edited by Piper19; 31st July 2013 at 22:32.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: UK
This thread has gone through the full circle
Piper19's last post ties in nicely with what Thing said in the last sentence of his first post (post no 2):
'Personally it sounds like an undertaker's dream to me but my opinions aren't based on much other than common sense, so they will obviously differ from EASA.'
I agree completely with both posters!!
'Personally it sounds like an undertaker's dream to me but my opinions aren't based on much other than common sense, so they will obviously differ from EASA.'
I agree completely with both posters!!
Last edited by 119.35; 1st August 2013 at 15:09.