Flying on top of clouds...in VMC
 

This has probably been covered before and I did read a few threads but wanted to 'gauge' opinion on if it was executed correctly.

Last Sunday I flew with a fellow aviator on a DA40 G1000 - Glass Cockpit...I was in the RHS and responsible for RT and Nav. The DA40 has a Garmin equipped GPS in addition the PIC had Sky Demon.

I had an up to date chart so I could fly using visual references.

The cloud base was Few at 600ft around NW and then SCT at 1200 FT around London TMA and Stanstead CTA and then CAVOK across around Northampton Sywell, Coventry, East Midlands and Nottingham Tollerton.

Taking off at NW we remained clear of cloud and climbed to 1000ft to remain clear of the TMA and routed via the corridor at BPK VOR and towards Henlow.

Technically at 800ft (not very good for navigation) and a cloud base of 1200 ft above us - but seeing patches of 'blue sky'.

Pottering around at 1000ft wasnt very comfortable so talking to Farnborough North and notifying them of a "Request Climb to 2000ft".- Reply: "Roger".

The idea being to fly through the "blue hole" and come out on top of the cloud base knowing that flying towards stevenage, bedford we would have no cloud.

Maintained VMC at all times i.e. we were in sight of the surface and plenty of patches of blue sky to descend through should we encounter an engine failure.

Climbed to 2000 ft and then to 2500ft - approaching Northampton - CAVOK -no cloud and descent back to 2100ft where we continued our journey.

Was this OK i.e. legal to execute or illegal??

Scoobster

P.S The scenery was amazing.

If you were, at all times, below 140kt, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface, and with a flight viz of 1500m, you were legal.


MJ:ok:

Viz was >5km..

Speed was 120kt

Clear of all cloud and in sight of the surface... through patches of blue holes and seeing through the cloud separation.

As a New PPL just wondered if this something which is common that aviators would do?

It just occurred to me at the time of flying that 'What if we were to fly on top of the clouds?".

Just don't want to make a habit of it if it is not 'normal'... - but my instructor did often use the term 'character building' iif you are able to fly and assess situations and make a command decision.


Scoobster.

Just remember it's 'In Flight Viz' not Met Viz, so you have to be at least 1500m from the cloud in front of you at any time, and if you go above 3000' everything changes.

This kind of thing is 'normal' for some people, and not 'normal' for others. If you make a habit of it, and how far you push your luck is up to you.


MJ:ok:

The VFR "in sight of the surface" is no longer required for EASA PPLs - VFR above cloud is perfectly legal now. As long as you were VMC then no problems.

Just always remember that those blue patches, can always close up. That leaves you IMC. Particularly if you go away from base, and on your return, the field is socked in. Always have a Plan B, and a Plan C. It can catch you out. But hey, great flying and good experience. Enjoy...

You don't say whether your pilot was a PPL or whether he had any form of instrument qualification?

If the former - providing you remain in sight of the surface, perfectly legal. If you lose sight of the surface you require an instrument qualification (IMC / IR(R) / IR) to remain so.

WB9999 - Schedule 7 of the ANO still contains the "in sight of the surface" restriction. Am I missing something with the EASA transition?

Mach - Question - Am I correct in saying that the 1500m refers to 'cloud passing horizontally' i..e directly in front of the nose etc?

Also in a 'mental capacity' - if the viz was to change in flight - how does one make an assessment of how far 1500m is?

I mean its not like you can say 6 car lengths = 1000 m etc.

Just curious if things were to suddenly go bellyache.. then flight safety can easily be compromised so in flight viz is one thing i want to be able to build up a picture of.

@Chilli Monster - The PIC and myself both PPL's call in to F'Boro also mentioned 'PPL Qualified'.

I certainly would not have been happy attempting it if I thought we would go enter IMC conditions.

Just to clarify the discrepancy (forgive me, it is probably me being thick!) - wb9999 mentions the "in sight of the surface rule is no longer applicable.

Chilli Monster - mentions you enter IMC if you lose sight of the surface - I can see how this would apply as if all you see if cloud below you then no way to remain "VMC" in the event of a forced landing.

Which is correct?

Scoob.

Also - happy to look this up , might take me a while but will find it.

"Everything changes if you go above 3000 feet' - that's the transition altitude correct?

Changes in terms of you will need to fly according to Quadrant or Semi Circular rule?

Curious again..

Thank You.

Scoobs

Doesn't have to be cloud - heavy rain showers can reduce the visibility dramatically

Experience and practice

From an ATC point of view we're not interested in your qualifications and ability until the poo hits the proverbial.

I'm going by the latest copy of the ANO (CAP393), Schedule 7 (Licence privileges). If it has changed I'm happy to be corrected, but reading that it doesn't appear so.

No - it's just a level above which things change. Transition Altitude is totally different, and is higher under certain pieces of airspace (6000ft within the lateral dimensions of the London TMA for example).

Have a look at: The CAA VFR guide:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?pageid=5537

CM,

Thanks for that info! Very valuable.. will look up some information for own reference.

Final thing:

The route on the way back was slightly different to route via Wittering MATZ.

Leaving Nottingham we got East Mids Approach who cleared us and then released with Squawk 7000.

Day was Sunday. Time Approx: 16:20.

Contact Wittering MATZ for 'MATZ and ATZ' Penetration.. No Answer on any frequency.

Couldn't see anything in the NOTAM's and after multiple attempts.. I decided to go to London Information on 124.600 and opted to route around the MATZ/ATZ.

One can still fly though the MATZ but not the ATZ whilst making blind calls?

Correct?

It's academic anyway as we routed around the zone.. but just wondered about protocol!

Scoobster.

Correct - though once the RAF move the Wyton operation to Wittering expect the MATZ to be active (and that general area) to be active at weekends

Shouldn't that be 'with the surface in sight'? Or does 'the surface' have eyes…?

MATZs are civilian bin fodder...

The change only applies to EASA licence holders, and I can't remember if it's Part-FCL or SERA which brought in the change. Either way, EASA regulations take precedence over the ANO. For CAA PPLs, the ANO regulations on VFR applies.

The change you are thinking of was a Licensing change, and was the dropping, for JAA/EASA Licences, of the CAA requirement for PPL holders without Instrument Qualifications to maintain sight of the surface under all circumstances, and a minimum of 3km viz, regardless of the less stringent requirements for maintaining VFR.

The requirements for maintaining VFR have not changed:


If You want to take advantage of the reduced viz requirement of 1500m, and not have to maintain 1000' from cloud, then you have to be below 3000', below 140kt, and in sight of the surface.


MJ:ok:

Ps.

Talkdownman: I'm sure you are right. You could always ask all those people around airfields who constantly complain if the surface has eyes.

MJ

Am I glad that I don't have a CAA licence but an EASA PPL issued in Germany - VFR on top, even without ground visibility - has always been considered legal if you had an approved method of navigation above the clouds (ie, VOR, ADF - GPS wasn't accepted) and could be sure that you have the opportunity to descend to land in VMC at your destination.......

You are right MJ. I misread the OP - brain didn't compute that the OP was below 3,000 ft. It's too late in the week for me!

TFIF!


MJ:ok:

Soooo.... If you are over 3000ft you don't have to have sight of the ground?

Simon