Clarification of VFR on top
My comments below relate to the UK only, VFR on top itself is not a term that appears in any UK rules and regulations that i am aware of, but if we assume that we are looking at being in compliance with the VFR rules above an overcast layer of cloud.
Puntosaurus seems to have it correct about the rules themselves. I think the new SERA which we get next year in the UK will change things subtly, and if I read them correctly will be more restrictive than we currently have now, I might be wrong and just don't know where to look, but at first glance it seems that way.
B73 Is correct about the subtle difference between in sight of the surface and with the surface in sight. The one currently used in the rules if the air in the UK means you need be able to maintain attitude by sole reference to the bit of the surface you can see and not by reference to instruments.
There is also an issue of what the privileges of your particular licence and whether the surface needs to be in sight or an IR held in some conditions, but these themselves are not the VFR rules.
Puntosaurus seems to have it correct about the rules themselves. I think the new SERA which we get next year in the UK will change things subtly, and if I read them correctly will be more restrictive than we currently have now, I might be wrong and just don't know where to look, but at first glance it seems that way.
B73 Is correct about the subtle difference between in sight of the surface and with the surface in sight. The one currently used in the rules if the air in the UK means you need be able to maintain attitude by sole reference to the bit of the surface you can see and not by reference to instruments.
There is also an issue of what the privileges of your particular licence and whether the surface needs to be in sight or an IR held in some conditions, but these themselves are not the VFR rules.
Last edited by VeeAny; 20th Feb 2013 at 14:32. Reason: Clarify UK only, and add a paragraph on licences.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, I've got a good one for you regulation hounds. If I'm flying outside controlled airspace in the UK in a single engined helicopter at 3000ft in clear skies over an undercast layer of fog from the ground to 1000ft amsl with no surface features in sight within 10nm, what Rule of the Air am I almost certainly breaking ?
Last edited by puntosaurus; 20th Feb 2013 at 18:18.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the Alps
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Switzerland, only flights in class G below 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL (whatever higher) require continuous visiblity of the ground for VMC. Otherwise, a vertical cloud distance of 1000ft applies for VMC minima.
Example: you fly at 4000ft AMSL/2000ft AGL, you can fly VFR over an inversion which tops at 1000ft AGL.
Ability to land is not a factor for VMC. And a VFR flight is by definition a flight in VMC conditions.
Example: you fly at 4000ft AMSL/2000ft AGL, you can fly VFR over an inversion which tops at 1000ft AGL.
Ability to land is not a factor for VMC. And a VFR flight is by definition a flight in VMC conditions.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: United kingdom
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
puntosaurus
Chances are you are going to impact some sort of settlement in the event of a power failure regardless of what height you're flying at in those weather conditions, and regardless of how good your Radalt is, so most likely "failure of a power unit", but again if you can't maintain visual with the surface all the way along your "VFR" route then you shouldn't have gone in the first place? Too many people think because they can see well ahead and laterally then it's fine to continue, until that one time when it will all go quiet, with no safe option below
Same as at night..........................
Chances are you are going to impact some sort of settlement in the event of a power failure regardless of what height you're flying at in those weather conditions, and regardless of how good your Radalt is, so most likely "failure of a power unit", but again if you can't maintain visual with the surface all the way along your "VFR" route then you shouldn't have gone in the first place? Too many people think because they can see well ahead and laterally then it's fine to continue, until that one time when it will all go quiet, with no safe option below
Same as at night..........................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bingo ! Failure of a power unit.
Everyone remembers the 500ft rule and the 1000ft rule, but because this one doesn't have a snappy title. it tends to get forgotten. Yet it's the first in the list of rules, and it's the one that carries the least exemptions.
(2) The low flying prohibitions
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event
of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to
persons or property on the surface.
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event
of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to
persons or property on the surface.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a Hangar
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a daft topic. Can't you just agree it's a bloody stupid thing to do in a single engined helicopter and not to be encouraged let alone discussed as if in some fairy world it might be acceptable.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(ii) Any helicopter flying over a congested area shall be exempt from the land clear rule.
That's your opinion to which you are entitled: many of us would disagree
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
This is one of those things, which is often taught wrong in flying schools, so the student only knows part of the rules, which then gets handed down when they go on to teach and becomes the gospel.
There a lots of things we should not do perhaps out of common sense in a single which the rules might permit us to do.
This is one of those things, which is often taught wrong in flying schools, so the student only knows part of the rules, which then gets handed down when they go on to teach and becomes the gospel.
There a lots of things we should not do perhaps out of common sense in a single which the rules might permit us to do.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a daft topic. Can't you just agree it's a bloody stupid thing to do in a single engined helicopter and not to be encouraged let alone discussed as if in some fairy world it might be acceptable.
To be isolated on the top side of an overcast layer for anything more than a few seconds transit is IFR territory even if you are VMC and anyone flying for longer periods over a solid or near solid undercast (especially in a single) is a bleddin' idiot!
Exceptional mil operations, yes. Exceptional civvie ops (such as a PAN type situation when you know you are transiting to an area which is clear of cloud), yes. But anything else, no.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Far from home, but not far from here
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for the input. Not sure about the comment that this is a daft topic. The reason I wanted to clarify it was due to the AIB Preliminary Report on Rocket 2. Ok so he's in a twin, with and IR rating, but, when asked if he wants to transit IFR he says no he's ok he has good VMC on top. At this stage he's heading back to Redhill all looking good. Now regardless of whether he's a twin or a single, I think this was a safe place to be.
Now in a different scenario when I'm pootling along in my single continually ****ting myself that the engine is going to stop at any moment (cos they do all the time!!) and the weather starts to change let's say as I approaching Birmingham, I'm at 1500ft QNH and I'm transiting up the west side of the zone, I know there's some high ground coming up I'm being forced down to stay clear of the broken cloud. In order not to hit anything, I climb through a hole to 2,800ft, I'm still in sight of the surface and can fly without reference to my instruments (but why would I not use them?) am I not safer here than skud running with very little vis?
So if the weather gets worse and I'm stuck on top, and let's hope my planning has given me sufficient fuel to divert, I can talk to Birmingham and get help from them to find an airfield to land at.
At least I'm in a helicopter and I could auto down through a hole when my engine fails, better than a fixed wing which has to glide and find a field big enough to land in.
Cheers
Chippy
Now in a different scenario when I'm pootling along in my single continually ****ting myself that the engine is going to stop at any moment (cos they do all the time!!) and the weather starts to change let's say as I approaching Birmingham, I'm at 1500ft QNH and I'm transiting up the west side of the zone, I know there's some high ground coming up I'm being forced down to stay clear of the broken cloud. In order not to hit anything, I climb through a hole to 2,800ft, I'm still in sight of the surface and can fly without reference to my instruments (but why would I not use them?) am I not safer here than skud running with very little vis?
So if the weather gets worse and I'm stuck on top, and let's hope my planning has given me sufficient fuel to divert, I can talk to Birmingham and get help from them to find an airfield to land at.
At least I'm in a helicopter and I could auto down through a hole when my engine fails, better than a fixed wing which has to glide and find a field big enough to land in.
Cheers
Chippy
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least I'm in a helicopter and I could auto down through a hole when my engine fails,
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have it good in Australia, VFR over the top is great in places like Melbourne where it might be impossible to get over the mountain ranges without this rule. Otherwise you might be stuck for days. Not sure 100% on heli's, however for fixed wing, you need to have a positive position fix every 20 minutes or the pilot and aircraft must be night rated as a minimum with VOR or similar plus pitot heat etc. When I say the pilot must be night rated, that's how to ensure that the pilot is signed off for a VOR or similar.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: United kingdom
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chippy
If you pop up through a hole and either convert to IFR or remain VFR with a Traffic Service is not going to save you in a single engined helicopter. Yes, you will stay clear of the hard stuff but when it all goes quiet that little hole you popped up through is not going to be as big as it was or as big as you would hope it to be, and it certainly is not going to be where you thought it was.
You had one option - turn around and go back! It is easier to explain to a customer why you could not get there than it is for your family to hear the bad news of your last decission.
I firmly believe that ALL single engine helicopter pilots need to think twice about the consequences of flying anywhere were they can't safely land that helicopter if the engine decides it has had enough, or you get an emergency which will eventually require YOU to shut it down. You'll buy yourself an extra couple of minutes in the later case but from experience, there's never too much time on your hands before flicking that off switch. Whether that is above cloud or over water etc, always ask yourself the question, "have I got a safe option if I need to land in 90 seconds", if you do carry on! If you don't and you still carry on, please do us all a favour and please take a different career path because we all already have enough reports to read without reading yours.
If you pop up through a hole and either convert to IFR or remain VFR with a Traffic Service is not going to save you in a single engined helicopter. Yes, you will stay clear of the hard stuff but when it all goes quiet that little hole you popped up through is not going to be as big as it was or as big as you would hope it to be, and it certainly is not going to be where you thought it was.
You had one option - turn around and go back! It is easier to explain to a customer why you could not get there than it is for your family to hear the bad news of your last decission.
I firmly believe that ALL single engine helicopter pilots need to think twice about the consequences of flying anywhere were they can't safely land that helicopter if the engine decides it has had enough, or you get an emergency which will eventually require YOU to shut it down. You'll buy yourself an extra couple of minutes in the later case but from experience, there's never too much time on your hands before flicking that off switch. Whether that is above cloud or over water etc, always ask yourself the question, "have I got a safe option if I need to land in 90 seconds", if you do carry on! If you don't and you still carry on, please do us all a favour and please take a different career path because we all already have enough reports to read without reading yours.
Well, I have spent quite a lot of hours in cloud in a single engine helicopter, as have many military pilots and don't recall a single engine failure amongst them.
Our IF EOL drill was initially normal auto speed, then once below 1000' agl come back to 40Kts and be prepared for a constant attitude (ie no flare) EOL - which we used to practice in case anyone asks.
The only difference is that the mil pilots all did it with an instrument rating but it is essentially the same level of risk/exposure.
Our IF EOL drill was initially normal auto speed, then once below 1000' agl come back to 40Kts and be prepared for a constant attitude (ie no flare) EOL - which we used to practice in case anyone asks.
The only difference is that the mil pilots all did it with an instrument rating but it is essentially the same level of risk/exposure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Far from home, but not far from here
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm 2F1B I guess what you're saying is those 350's flying around in the Alps and elsewhere, like in the jungle doing seismic, like in the Arctic, Antarctic, lifting over forests and GOM should all be banned. Do you have shares in a company selling twins? Oh and that's only a twin engine not a twin gearbox, tail rotor or main rotor head. Let's have a look at the stats over the last couple of years. How many crashes were due to engine failure? I know of 2 109's sadly that crashed into something solid with both engines running a Super Puma that parted company with its rotor head and Robinsons that got into cloud and lost control. Mate I'm about risk management but this whole twin thing does make me wonder. Isn't the Bell 206 the safest aircraft in the world by hours v incidents or did I read that wrong?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: United kingdom
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your examples given is not exactly flying around highly populated areas where there's a great risk of endangering innocent people when you pop out the bottom... If there is a bottom and you don't meet a decent field first now is it.
As pilots we're paid to take the risks, but we should also be capable of managing those risks to ensure we don't put others at risk to.
As I said, it is MY opinion, just like everyone else has theirs.
Crab, we've all done it, and we were well practiced in it, but if there was never a risk of it happening then why practice it. Unfortunately we're discussing VMC on top where people can be suckered up with no options and not IFR where it's planned and the risks accepted.
All I'm saying is it would not be my decission to continue "over" those weather conditions with no ground within 10 nm in a single because you never know!
Anyone want to go halfers on a twin I've seen?
As pilots we're paid to take the risks, but we should also be capable of managing those risks to ensure we don't put others at risk to.
As I said, it is MY opinion, just like everyone else has theirs.
Crab, we've all done it, and we were well practiced in it, but if there was never a risk of it happening then why practice it. Unfortunately we're discussing VMC on top where people can be suckered up with no options and not IFR where it's planned and the risks accepted.
All I'm saying is it would not be my decission to continue "over" those weather conditions with no ground within 10 nm in a single because you never know!
Anyone want to go halfers on a twin I've seen?