Rumour
 

I heard a couple of weeks ago that there had been a change to the VFR rules, appartently you can go above cloud (outta sight of surface), I disregarded this as someone not knowing what they were saying (how can you navigate visually without being able to see anything). I then heard this again a couple of days ago and it just made me wonder. I dont think there is any truth to it but just incase, replies welcome. What do you know?
:ok:

VFR on top maybe

I thought VFR on top has been a "normal" practice for ages already. No? :confused:

Never heard of that, elaborate please.

It' is different in many countries. VFR on top is no magic. You navigate using your radio navigation skills. An E-6B will tell you the ETA for the next VOR/NDB. In case of engine failure you could still fly straight ahead and use your "under-the-hood"-training you hoped you would never use. (or you've got Garmin some-thousand and synthetic vision but I'm not familiar with this concept yet... :sad: ) Of course you must be certain that you are able to descend at your destination and alternates.

What you describe has been legal practice by non instrument rated pilots in the US forever. Pilots have found that radioing ahead for weather data is often useful when committing to a segment of VFR on top. It can be equally useful to have local knowledge - for instance to know that while the coast is often fogged in, a few miles inland it rarely is. You surely don't fly VFR on top without proper consideration, but that doesn't make it an intrinsically dangerous practice. Just like VFR at night.

An ATP-rated friend of mine did a couple of hundred miles VFR on top last summer in a fast aerobatic aircraft with no gyro instruments. He did have on-board weather on his portable GPS and a cloud free desert ahead. When asked what he'd do in the event of an engine failure, the answer was "I'd jump out" Do they train you for that when you get your ATP? :)

You don't say which country's rules that apply to you.

It doesn't make much difference anyway as VFR out of sight of the surface has always been permitted subject to minimum separation from cloud and depending on the class of airspace.

VFR is there to allow you to maintain separation from traffic and terrain by visual means and has no relevance to being able to navigate visually.

Licence privileges without an instrument qualification may require you to remain in sight of the surface and there may be may be some difference in the specific requirements of EASA vs JAR that I haven't read up on. But licence privileges aren't the same as flight rules.

Thanks guys, was getting license privileges mixed up with rules.

At least over here, VFR on top is an IFR clearance where the pilot maintains his own clearance from other traffic, terrain and clouds. VFR over the top is when a VFR pilot flys over a cloud layer.

The above posts need to mention the country in question, otherwise they are meaningless!

In the UK, and all of Europe AFAIK, the holder of a JAA (now EASA) PPL can fly VFR above a solid overcast, as of April 2012.

Before that date, UK JAA PPL holders had to be in sight of the surface (exactly what that meant was never defined in the law).

The ability to fly VFR above a solid overcast is a basic ICAO position, worldwide.

How you climb up and down while maintaining VFR is another matter.

Unless you have an IMCr or IR(R) in the EASA world, personally I wouldnt suggest going on top of cloud unless they are clearly scattered and and remain so in the area you are flying (in front and behind). I think it's unsafe to be on top, in case the clouds do become overcast or you have cloud in front of you which you cant outclimb, and then you have no legal way (or practical experience) to go through those clouds back into a place where you can see the ground. As soon as you're qualified, start training for the IR(R) and then you can safely fly 'on top' and have the navigational skills to be able to deal with it as well.

Prior to EASA, all UK-issued pilot licences without IRs or IMCRs included Air Navigation Order defined VFR limitations which were more restrictive than ICAO limitations.

When this so-called 'safety agency' bludgeoned its unwelcome presence onto the UK scene, all valid JAR pilot licences were 'deemed' to be incompliance with Part-FCL. A corollary of this being that the previous restrictions no longer applied to JAR-FCL or Part-FCL licences. Hence holders of such licences which do not include instrument privileges may now fly down to ICAO VFR limits.

However, pilots with 'legacy' UK PPLs or NPPLs remain restricted to the ANO VFR minima appropriate to their licences.

piperarcher, that is quite an excellent piece of advice.

I have often found when I'm on top that the cloud just keeps going up and before long I'm starting to worry about airways. I have an IMCr and would hate to be up there without having the skills to let-down safely.

2high2fastagain absolutely – we British decided on have an IMC and the rest of the world allowed VFR on top on a basic license 50 years ago – dangerous I say. But hang on – it works for them, perhaps we are just not up to it…:rolleyes::ugh::ugh::E

Rod1

2high2fast

Not really much to do with the thread but just a point to make! Many pilots could get into a situation which is threatening the safety of themselves and the aircraft.
In that situation you are the Commander of the aircraft and your decision of how best to recover from a bad situation over rides any rules or regulations or CAS!

Yes you will have to answer for your actions and yes you should inform the relevant ATC of your intentions but NEVER get into a situation where you crash due to say icing because 1000 feet above is clear air which also happens to be in an airway!

Declare your problem and what you need to do and you will be cleared there!

Pace

If you have an IMC rating why not just fly through it if there's an airway bothering you? Depending on icing levels etc yada yada.

Is it just me that finds instrument flying very satisfying? :confused:

I would only add that some may hold on to their life CAA licenses - you will remain restricted to in sight of the surface.

There are plenty of opportunities to fly safely over / on top, but as ever experience is everything and as many opportunities to get "caught out".

At least with the base being at a good height and tops not too far above these days most PPL's should be able to manage a controlled descent on instruments, the problems start when the base and the ground close in, or the descent through IMC becomes longer. If you are climbing to stay on top and / or there is any indication the base is descending thinking very carefully about your next course of action. Equally monitor your destination through out the flight.

I went VFR on top over the Blue Mountains West of Sydney during my training as one of my solo cross country trips. We had actual weather that showed CAVOK west of the mountains. It was fine. Terror regarding VFR on top is a UK thing. Of course you need to be careful.

thing,

No, it's not just you.

The UK ban on VFR on top may have had something to do with the prevalence of banks of stratus at low level in the UK due to frontal systems making it very unlikely once on top you could get back down. Certainly that was a major factor in my decision to get an IMCR which if anything is more use in the summer - low cloud but no icing risk - than the winter.

Tim

In most Southern European countries, the VFR cloud ban it quite clear: whether below (if very low) or on top, you can't fly VFR. That's because there're plenty of clear days to fly, so they've limited the risk this way. But try doing this in, say Luxembourg, and you'll never get off the ground.

The answer lies in the licence privileges. Schedule 7 applies to a UK PPLNow compare that with the EASA licence privileges in Part FCLSo you will see if you hold a JAA now EASA PPL there is no 3 Km restriction, neither is there any requirement to remain in sight of the surface. You are limited only by the VMC minima.

And you are now forbidden to operate IFR without an IR.

OLD UK PPL (without an IMCr or IR)
Can operate IFR or VFR
Can operate in some but not all IMC conditions
Can't operate in some VMC conditions

New EASA PPL
Can operate only VFR
Can operate in only VMC
Can not operate in any IMC or IFR

Note - VMC and IMC as used above are defined as
VMC = conditions which meet the ICAO conditions of being 'VMC',
IMC = conditions which are not VMC.

True, but only if it is optional. So must be in VMC conditions

Since IMC conditions make IFR mandatory I don't agree
with this. Curious - Can you give any examples?

Not so.

Flying an aircraft at greater than 150 KIAS in a visibility of 3 km in class G
Flying an aircraft within 1000 ft of a cloud layer while above 3000 ft amsl in class G

Both are technically IMC, require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules, but both are permitted to a UK PPL without an instrument qualification.

bookworm thank you

Having now re-checked: Mandatory IFR in airspace Class A, B, C, D & E was
not allowed but, as you point out, in Class G (&F) it was.

Indeed. As for "mandatory", I've never really understood the phrase "in circumstances that require compliance with the IFR". If you accept an IFR clearance to enter controlled airspace, are you not flying "in circumstances that require compliance with the IFR"? Or is there a suggestion that a UK PPL could accept an IFR clearance in class D in VMC?

Bookworm,

Thank you for providing the answers to the type of IMC UK PPLs can fly in.

I also was amused by the 'in circumstances...' language and asked SRG for an answer. They basically indicated that it included (at the time) the obvious examples of
1 - flight in IMC
2 - flight at night not under a SVFR clearance

And then additionally, their logic was that even on a CAVU day, once you where granted an IFR clearance you were then in circumstances requiring compliance with IFR until you cancelled IFR.

So in a very catch 22 sense, on VMC day a UK PPL in controlled airspace can fly IFR (because the circumstances allow it) but can not accept the IFR clearance necessary to fly IFR (because he would then be in circumstances requiring compliance with IFR in CAS ) - clearly Joseph Heller was a consultant on drafting this piece of legislation.

A very complicated way of saying IFR forbidden to PPLs in controlled airspace.

I'll miss these esoteric air law discussions... But not very much. ;)