VFR on Top

[MAKG1]

To answer the OP's question, if I can establish the clouds are not a factor at the destination AND I have an "out" (e.g., I can see the edge or have satellite evidence there is an alternative), then I'll fly over a cloud layer. This is extremely common with marine layer -- basically, fly inland and you're golden, and tops are seldom much higher than 2000.

I'll overfly scattered clouds as well, as long as I keep track of how densely packed they are. But, that's much less common around here. The occasional wispy mini-clouds are not clouds (the point of cloud clearance is to sight IFR traffic with enough time to avoid, so if a "cloud" can't hide an airplane, it's not a cloud).

In an emergency, you may have to descend through the clouds. That is indeed an additional risk.

Beware CAP rules; sometimes they are rigid to the point of absurdity. For instance, at my home airport, until recently, CAP ORM classified every eastbound sortie as moderately hazardous because you can't approach or depart that airport in a timely manner without flying over water out of gliding distance from shore for less than a minute (unless you bust Class B).

 

[Velocity173]

If you are flying IFR and you are above the clouds you are "IFR on top".

If I am flying VFR on top why would I need to climb through IMC?

Geeze, remember the KISS principle? Keep it simple stupid.

Why? Well it gives some altitude flexibility for the IFR rated pilot. Personally I've never needed to go OTP for weather but I've done VFR over the top several times.

VISUAL FLIGHT RULES-ON-TOP 10-42. Aviators on IFR flight plans operating in VFR weather conditions may request VFR-On-Top in lieu of an assigned altitude. VFR-On-Top is an IFR clearance allowing aviators to fly VFR altitudes, which permits them to select an altitude or flight level of their choice (subject to any ATC restrictions).

10-43. By requesting a climb to VFR-On-Top, aviators can climb through a cloud, haze, smoke, or other meteorological formation and then either cancel their IFR flight plan or operate VFR-On-Top. The ATC authorization will contain either a top report (or a statement that no top report is available), and a request to report upon reaching VFR-On-Top. In addition, the ATC authorization may contain a clearance limit, routing, and an alternative clearance if VFR-On-Top is not reached by a specified altitude

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

Sounds to me like the OP doesn't actually enjoy flying.

 

[flyingron]

Been there done that any times. I just dont get the "being scared of clouds" thing.

As long as you have an instrument rating (and current and equipped to use it) there's no need to be scared of clouds.

Prior to the IR, I'd not go over a broken layer, but I sure went underneath a lot.

 

[pilot_dude]

Been there done that any times. I just dont get the "being scared of clouds" thing.

Or being scared of using proper terminology or obtaining an IFR rating.

 

[silver-eagle]

I avoid broken to solid but have no issue overflying few to scattered. You really have to pay attention to the clouds, destination, and fuel state. If your destination is solid, you have to have enough fuel to get you out of trouble. Since most of my local flying is under 2 hours from home, and I have a 6 1/2 hour load, I think (maybe incorrectly) that I'm good.
Fly with an instructor and stretch your minimums. On those days when you question should you launch, take one with you.

 

[spcalan1]

I can't believe what I am reading.

"I won't fly if there is a cloud in the sky."
"I fly over clouds and get a funny feeling."

Even the FAA has minimums for VFR flight and dealing with clouds. 500' below, 1'000 above, 2,000' to the side. Why would you even want to fly and not deal with clouds?

I've flown VFR between layers, above clouds, below clouds, in rain, etc. Really guys, they won't hurt you. Just stick to your mins.

Seriously, grow a set or take up knitting.

Tough love... maybe that's what I need.

 

[Geico266]

Or being scared of using proper terminology or obtaining an IFR rating.

Look at my signature, get back to me when you fly all 50 states VFR.

The subject is about flying, not a ****ing match over terminology.

 

[Geico266]

Tough love... maybe that's what I need.

Start out by flying with a ceiling of 3,000'. Set that as your minimum. It won'tkill you to try flying in rain, low ceilings, low visibility in legal VFR. Its good practice and good knowledge. Getting an IFR and staying current is a PITA and the pocket book for me. Most who get it are not current. Just not worth it IMHO.

Generally, the FAA mins are 3 mile visibility and 1,000' ceilings. You should be able and "comfortable" flying in those conditions.

 

[roncachamp]

The subject is about flying, not a ****ing match over terminology.

According to the thread title the subject is VFR-on-Top, but it isn't.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm calling BS on this too. IMHO there is no difference in the terms.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the FAA defines the terms as roncachamp described. You can certainly make up any definitions you want for any terms you care to use, or use various terms to mean other than what their official definitions are, but that only makes it harder for you to communicate effectively.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are flying IFR and you are above the clouds you are "IFR on top".

If I am flying VFR on top why would I need to climb through IMC?

Geeze, remember the KISS principle? Keep it simple stupid.

I gather you don't like the FAA's definitions of those terms. In that case, the most effective course of action for you would be to petition the FAA to change those terms and/or their definitions. Until then, misusing or abusing them won't do anything except make it more difficult for you to communicate with the rest of the aviation world.

 

[rbridges]

to the OP, get your IR if you can. I have pretty conservative minimums, too, but the IR has helped me do trips that I would have cancelled in the past. Knowing that I can return home even if a little cloud cover develops has given me a tremendous amount of flexibility.

 

[eetrojan]

VFR-on-top. VFR-over-the-top.

I know that the AIM defines "VFR-on-top" for IFR purposes, but I cannot find a definition of "VFR-over-the-top" for VFR purposes.

Is there one?

Or is it simply that you folks in the know don't like to use the defined IFR term, albeit one that unfortunately has "VFR" in it, for an above-cloud situation while operating VFR?

 

[GeorgeC]

14 CFR 1.1.

 

[roncachamp]

VFR-on-top. VFR-over-the-top.

I know that the AIM defines "VFR-on-top" for IFR purposes, but I cannot find a definition of "VFR-over-the-top" for VFR purposes.

Is there one?

Or is it simply that you folks in the know don't like to use the defined IFR term, albeit one that unfortunately has "VFR" in it, for an above-cloud situation while operating VFR?

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

§1.1 General definitions.

As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

IFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top on an IFR flight plan when cleared by air traffic control to maintain “VFR conditions” or “VFR conditions on top”.

Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.

VFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over-the-top under VFR when it is not being operated on an IFR flight plan.

 

[spcalan1]

Thank you everyone for their responses.

I am going to ask a CFII to join me on a flight where the weather is below my personal minimums to get a feel for what a true 3-152 looks like.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thank you everyone for their responses.

I am going to ask a CFII to join me on a flight where the weather is below my personal minimums to get a feel for what a true 3-152 looks like.

I did a flight as a pre-solo student in 5mil vis. 3-152 should be very eye opening.

BTW, I prefer to see 6+ on a METAR with TAFs trending upwards. I haven't done 5 since that day and I may take your suggestion of a VFR dual flight in 3 miles.

 

[eetrojan]

Thanks. On top, over the top. Sigh.

It's unfortunate that two phrases that mean essentially the same thing in normal English, i.e. above, were arbitrarily defined to specifically refer to two two different circumstances of operating in the clear above clouds, one IFR and one VFR.

Noted.

 

[flyingron]

to the OP, get your IR if you can. I have pretty conservative minimums, too, but the IR has helped me do trips that I would have cancelled in the past. Knowing that I can return home even if a little cloud cover develops has given me a tremendous amount of flexibility.

Of course my visual mins got a lot more conservative after I got the instrument ratings. While scud run along at 1100' or whatever when you can file and get above it. Oxygen and lots of fuel helps make long trips more reliable and comfortable.

 

[coma24]

3sm and 1000ft ceiling, I wouldn't wish that on any VFR pilot. Staying safe in those conditions can be considerably harder than going IFR.

In 700' Class E areas, you'd need to flying at 500' AGL to be legal. In 1200ft Class E areas, you'd need to fly along at 700' AGL. Combine that with minimum safe altitude rules and the working definitions of 'congested areas' and it quickly becomes a bad idea. Oh, that and you can only see about 60-90 seconds in front of you with that visibility.

My guess is that if you start working on your instrument, you will become less concerned about clouds and will be more comfortable doing VFR flights in less than absolutely perfect weather. That was certainly the case for me.

 

[steingar]

3sm and 1000ft ceiling, I wouldn't wish that on any VFR pilot. Staying safe in those conditions can be considerably harder than going IFR.

In 700' Class E areas, you'd need to flying at 500' AGL to be legal. In 1200ft Class E areas, you'd need to fly along at 700' AGL. Combine that with minimum safe altitude rules and the working definitions of 'congested areas' and it quickly becomes a bad idea. Oh, that and you can only see about 60-90 seconds in front of you with that visibility.

My guess is that if you start working on your instrument, you will become less concerned about clouds and will be more comfortable doing VFR flights in less than absolutely perfect weather. That was certainly the case for me.

Throttle back. Not going to hit anything that fast doing 80 mph. I don't set out to fly conditions like that, but they aren't a no go item if I hit them enroute.

 

[pilot_dude]

Throttle back. Not going to hit anything that fast doing 80 mph. I don't set out to fly conditions like that, but they aren't a no go item if I hit them enroute.

 

[roncachamp]

3sm and 1000ft ceiling, I wouldn't wish that on any VFR pilot. Staying safe in those conditions can be considerably harder than going IFR.

In 700' Class E areas, you'd need to flying at 500' AGL to be legal. In 1200ft Class E areas, you'd need to fly along at 700' AGL. Combine that with minimum safe altitude rules and the working definitions of 'congested areas' and it quickly becomes a bad idea. Oh, that and you can only see about 60-90 seconds in front of you with that visibility.

No, you'd be legal just beneath the Class E floor where you'd be in Class G airspace.

 

[rbridges]

Of course my visual mins got a lot more conservative after I got the instrument ratings. While scud run along at 1100' or whatever when you can file and get above it. Oxygen and lots of fuel helps make long trips more reliable and comfortable.

I agree. even if the clouds are a little higher, it's nice to get above them where it's smoother and not get bumped around for the whole trip.

 

[MAKG1]

No, you'd be legal just beneath the Class E floor where you'd be in Class G airspace.

Not at night.

Not that I'd be comfy at all scud running like that at night. Well, not in daytime either unless I was real familiar with the terrain and obstructions.

Frankly that 700 AGL class E floor is more than a bit scary. It's entirely possible to fly an instrument approach to a class G airport, break out at 700 AGL, and encounter legal VFR traffic with no electrical system right in your face, in a non radar environment. It's hard to see how see and avoid can possibly work in that situation.

 

[roncachamp]

Not at night.

It's an airplane operating in the airport traffic pattern within 1⁄2 mile of the runway.

Frankly that 700 AGL class E floor is more than a bit scary. It's entirely possible to fly an instrument approach to a class G airport, break out at 700 AGL, and encounter legal VFR traffic with no electrical system right in your face, in a non radar environment. It's hard to see how see and avoid can possibly work in that situation.

Yes, it's also entirely possible to fly an instrument approach to a class G airport, break out at 700 AGL, and encounter legal VFR traffic with an electrical system right in your face, in a radar environment.