Advice on VFR ontop.

Dmitri Scheidel

Dmitri Scheidel

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
53
Location
Northern California
Display Name
Display name:
NorCali.Pilot
Hello everyone!
This Thursday Ill be taking a Piper PA 28-140 from KCCR to KSLE to visit a friend. I have 2 routes planned out, one that goes over Redding and past Mt. Shasta. And one that goes west over Eureka and Coos Bay.
I really want to take the Eureka and Coos Bay route because terrain wont be an issue in such a small plane, and it will be beautiful. But there is one issue- weahter. Eureka has bad weahter all the time, but its always low level fog.
QUestion is, should I take the chance and go VFR 6,500 over Eureka to Coos Bay, with overcast conditions up to 1,000 feet (only for the 35 minute leg), or go over Redding and through the mountains past Shasta with no clouds at all.
I know an engine out in the mountains would not be pretty, but I would be following the freeway, but an engine out over the clouds I could maybe glide over since I'll be high.
As the pilot I would be willing to do it if it was only for the short leg with clear skies all other parts of the route - but I'm also a freshman pilot without and instrument rating, and some advice on 'VFR ontop' would be great!

THanks.
 
Edit: I would need to stop in Eureka for fuel. So such conditions would automatically void the route.
Also if anyone is used to the area, do more systems of fog come inland after he morning marine layer, or does it only clear up more as the day goes.
 
This is called "VFR over-the-top." The term "VFR-on-top" refers to an altitude assignment you can receive while flying IFR.

The presence of overcast conditions for a prolonged distance along your route of flight with underlying low-level fog is a condition that Flight Service would be mandated to say "VFR not recommended." Given all of the variables you have provided above -- VFR-only, single-engine airplane, low-time pilot -- I would not recommend flying over those conditions if they are present or forecast at the time of your departure.
 
Yeah seeing that I got VFR ontop wrong probably means I should go Inland. I had a feeling. Thanks Harold and kgruber.
 
If you are going over and overcast there should be VFR conditions under it. I wouldn't do it otherwise. My thinking is in an emergency hopefully you can keep the shiny side up for the trip through the clouds to the VFR conditions below. You should definitely not fly over IFR conditions unless you are trained and equipped to make an instrument approach at need. Otherwise, any kind of problem you've no out.
 
The highest elevation on I-5 along that route is 4310 at Siskiyou Summit, near the California-Oregon border. I copied that off a road sign on one of my road trips years ago. Besides the safety issues that have been mentioned regarding flying over a low cloud layer, I'd want to be able to see the scenery, and the scenery along I-5 is definitely worth seeing. My last trip along that route was in a Skycatcher, which is a light sport airplane.
 
Palm Pilot how was ur time through the pass? I'm not a big fan of large terrain and a small sport plane is the closest to my small 150 hp piper.
 
Dmitri Scheidel said:
Yeah seeing that I got VFR ontop wrong probably means I should go Inland. I had a feeling. Thanks Harold and kgruber.
Click to expand...
Learning the terminology is just another part of the "license to learn" aspect of the private pilot certificate. Don't worry about it.

Flying near mountains is one of the nicer things in aviation. We get views few other people get. If you haven't done so, spend some time learning mountain flying with a qualified instructor. It is worth the time and expense to increase your knowledge before heading through the taller hills on your own.
 
Dmitri Scheidel said:
Palm Pilot how was ur time through the pass? I'm not a big fan of large terrain and a small sport plane is the closest to my small 150 hp piper.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a problem. I wasn't actually down in the pass, and on the return trip, I had it above 10,000 MSL at times (in locations where the terrain was high enough to make that legal under sport pilot privileges). The published service ceiling of the aircraft is over 14,000 feet, and it didn't seem like it would have been a problem to get up to that altitude.

The Skycatcher has similar performance to the 160 HP Cessna 172s that I've flown. (Of course you can't carry as much weight as a 172.)
 
Go inland. There are few places along the coast to put an airplane down in an emergency. When I was in the less-than-200-hours category back in the day I scared the living daylights out myself trying to follow the coast from San Francisco to Seattle. Those are cliffs, not beaches, that line the shore.

"VFR on top" is an IFR clearance, and you do not have an instrument rating. "VFR over the top" is what you are contemplating, and many a pilot has come to grief trying to find a hole to descend through. I would fly over-the-top only if I knew for sure that there was a thousand feet or so of clear air between the base of the clouds and terrain.

Ask yourself "What could possibly go wrong?" and choose the conservative plan.

Bob
Dmitri Scheidel said:
Palm Pilot how was ur time through the pass? I'm not a big fan of large terrain and a small sport plane is the closest to my small 150 hp piper.
Click to expand...

It is not necessary to fly "through the pass." I've made the same trip dozens of times in everything from Cherokees to 421's and was seldom below 8000'.

Bob
 
We fly up to Arlington fly in this week every year but at 12,500'. That 35 minutes you mention is what I call "pucker time"....
Have done it several years when from the border on to Eugene all you see is mountain tops. Gave up following 5 and went direct to reduce that time. Unless you really think you can glide down through a couple thousand feet of IFR by GPS and find 5 at the last minute to dead stick on the road. Possible...
Have also gone up the East side in clear weather and across at Klamath across the lake ans into the clear valley. ALWAYS early as the thunder bumpers can come from the east and cover the whole route in the PM.
Good luck, have fun!
 
Put me on the list that says doing it over the top don't sound like a good idea. I did the I5 thing a few years ago. I did a fuel stop at RBL and was prepared to spend the night. It was late afternoon. Asked around and got some local knowledge and pressed on to MFR. The rule of thumb seems to be don't do it if the winds get over 25. I went over at 10,500. I was able to get a winds aloft from another plane who had the equipment to do so. They were about 20 out of the west. Got bumped around a little but not to bad
 
Gotta strike a balance between stretching a bit, and/or being too timid. Early on, it's hard to know the difference. Heck, it can be hard to know the difference later on, too. . .you should be uncomfortable some of the time - maybe not scared spit-less, but not bored, either. If flying is strictly for fun for you, no serious travel, no advanced ambitions, then maybe you shouldn't be too aggressive; on the other hand, taking on a challenge and doing it well can build your skills and confidence.

Do you think you could descend through a layer, maybe taking 5 minutes or more to do so, and keep control of the airplane, in IMC? Likely you aren't sure if you could? Not talking the rule book here, or an instrument rating - just real world - could you do it? I bet you think you probably can, and you're probably right. There is room for doubt, though.

Engines don't fail often, and weather reporting and forecasting is pretty good now; think about how to escape if either goes bad, before you depart, then do what feels right for you.
 
It's been pretty well covered, but I won't fly between SFO and PYE on the coast in bright perfect VMC. There is NOWHERE to set down, not even offshore. Big rocks and cliffs. If you survive the ditching, you'll get ripped to shreds by the surf.

Not all of it is quite that bad, but it's a LOT worse than following I-5. Stay above upwind peaks and it will be fine. Go west of Shasta unless the winds are weird.
 
"VFR over the top" is not an official term although everyone uses it and understands it. It simply means you get on top of a cloud layer and stay VFR hoping that you can get down on the other end. "VFR on Top" is an official term and has a specific meaning. "VFR on top" is the altitude portion of an IFR clearance, which always includes three parts, the clearance limit, the route, and an altitude.

As a pilot, like every scenario, you must make a calculated, rational, judgement as to what you can safely do. There have been many times down through the years that I have had to rescue a VFR pilot stranded on top of a cloud deck because of poor planning or unexpected circumstances.

There is nothing more scary to a VFR pilot than to have to be vectored down through a cloud deck in an emergency situation as a last resort to getting on the ground.

Know you limitations.

tex
 
I guess it is?!! I never found it in the AIM or .65 and just thought it was a slang we all use.

Well!

tex
 
For VFR only ops, if you're going to go I'd err on the side of scud running before I risked getting stuck ontop.

All else fails you can always land, be it at a airport, a road or a field with little issue, VFR into IMC has not had the same record of success.
 
James331 said:
For VFR only ops, if you're going to go I'd err on the side of scud running before I risked getting stuck ontop.

All else fails you can always land, be it at a airport, a road or a field with little issue, VFR into IMC has not had the same record of success.
Click to expand...

That is what scared me on my one and only scud-running (<200 hours, remember) trip up the coast from San Francisco. I could see the cliffs but there was very little beach.

Bob
 
I expect that the amount of beach depends on whether the tide is in or out.
 
I have flown my Cherokee to MFR from LHM. It is a pretty flight over Shasta and you can stay over valleys for the most part. I have also flown to Eureka, but I was pretty lucky on weather. The Arcata-Eureka airport was actually originally built by the military to test anti-fogging systems, due to its reliable fog. Time magazine has named it the "Worlds Foggiest Airport".
 
bobmrg said:
That is what scared me on my one and only scud-running (<200 hours, remember) trip up the coast from San Francisco. I could see the cliffs but there was very little beach.

Bob
Click to expand...


There's always the other IFR, I Follow Roads
 
You answered the question yourself "QUestion is, should I take the chance and go VFR6,500 over Eureka to Coos Bay, with overcast" the magic word was taking a "chance". If your double thinking it then maybe you should listen to yourself lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top