VFR Over the Top

[deltafox]

Reference: http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine ... e_Top.html

Video Reference: http://youtu.be/RBFN---_ZGM

Is it legal?

[CTLSi]

......

[3Dreaming]

The article was written in 2001 before the sport pilot rule went into effect, so it was aimed at the private pilot. As for the video I didn't watch the whole thing, but as long as he had visual reference to the surface he was legal. The part of the video I did watch I kept seeing patches of ground, so I would say he was legal. With the somewhat flat camera angle it is hard to tell. The other thing that is hard to tell is if he maintained cloud clearances while descending. It is kind of hard to get out and measure 2000 feet while your flying.

[MrMorden]

The article was written in 2001 before the sport pilot rule went into effect, so it was aimed at the private pilot. As for the video I didn't watch the whole thing, but as long as he had visual reference to the surface he was legal. The part of the video I did watch I kept seeing patches of ground, so I would say he was legal. With the somewhat flat camera angle it is hard to tell. The other thing that is hard to tell is if he maintained cloud clearances while descending. It is kind of hard to get out and measure 2000 feet while your flying.

Yeah, I'd guess that was legal even for a Sport Pilot, with the possible exception of the decent through the hole in the clouds where horizonal distance to the clouds *might* have been less than 2000ft. But even if it was a little less, his exposure time was very brief, and I would probably have also made that descent, if I could reasonably say "I think it's 2000ft" (since those distances are all subjective anyway).

The only thing that makes me hesitate on situations like that is if traveling long distances you could end up with a hard undercast and no legal way to get down short of declaring an emergency (or turning around if fuel permits and the undercast has not filled in behind you).

[sandpiper]

Just have your passenger get out and measure.

[CTLSi]

......

[MrMorden]

The article was written in 2001 before the sport pilot rule went into effect, so it was aimed at the private pilot. As for the video I didn't watch the whole thing, but as long as he had visual reference to the surface he was legal. The part of the video I did watch I kept seeing patches of ground, so I would say he was legal. With the somewhat flat camera angle it is hard to tell. The other thing that is hard to tell is if he maintained cloud clearances while descending. It is kind of hard to get out and measure 2000 feet while your flying.

That's the point. He didn't have visual reference to the ground. And if he was flying as a sport pilot he was illegal.

You have no idea whether he had visual reference to the surface from a 90° straight-ahead video. What was to the left? Right? Behind? And as already mentioned, the shallow angle of the video does not give an accurate representation of what is visible ahead to the pilot.

[3Dreaming]

Even with the low angle of the camera I saw plenty of patches of ground show up through the clouds in the video. My point was sitting in the airplane he likely had more visual reference to the surface than what is seen in the video.

[designrs]

You have no idea whether he had visual reference to the surface from a 90° straight-ahead video. What was to the left? Right? Behind? And as already mentioned, the shallow angle of the video does not give an accurate representation of what is visible ahead to the pilot.

This is true. I've had a solid deck on one side and a nicely open scattered layer on the other side. Besides the legalities, it just feels good because there is the comfort of a continuous safe place to go. Eg. You don't have to worry about getting trapped up there!

Clouds building have unlimited power, and can change rapidly.
It's good to always be able to see scattered someplace.

[designrs]

This is really nice… a scattered layer to provide that "flying high" feeling yet completely safe and legal.

scat-IMG_3551.jpg (85.31 KiB) Viewed 7511 times

[designrs]

I've been reading a lot about VFR over the top. It really interests me. whenever I can legally get on top of anything with "visual reference to the surface" I typically do... with extensive checking of METARs and TAFs. It's a hell of a lot safer than getting stuck between mountains and low but legal ceilings. Of course it's a nicer ride too that really feels like flying!

At the moment my preferences are to be low for sightseeing and up high for "going places".

To Clarify (as I inderstand it from my humble experience):
"VFR ON TOP" is not Sport Pilot Legal (also requires IFR clearance, typically through IMC).
"VFR OVER THE TOP" is a solid deck, not sport pilot legal, maintains VFR rules at all times.
"VFR VFR OVER THE TOP WITH VISUAL REFERENCE TO THE SURFACE" is Sport Pilot legal.

Now with some experience and a lot of reading, apparently the biggest risk of any on-top is getting stuck up there or getting disoriented if caught in unexpected IMC. Of course if you always have "visual reference to the surface as a Sport Pilot" (and maintain that visual reference) you are not likely to get stuck up there.

Of course Dave's video example is not Sport Pilot legal (exercising private pilot privledges).

Yet it seems that risks are greatly reduced from what they were in the past by:
1) constant weather updates aloft from something like a Stratus 2
2) redundant GPS devices with battery power
3) redundant AHRS devices with battery power
4) redundant terrain information with battery power
5) autopilot (no battery / no redundant)

So it would seem that risks in light sport aircraft are:
1) icing (no protection)
2) autopilot failure in unexpected and still very, very deadly IMC
3) fuel limits if unexpected deck by surprise

So it seems that in recent days, due to electronic advances, a decent amount of risk for any type of over the top has been reduced.

Comments from the more experienced?

[SportPilot]

.......

[dstclair]

You really can't predict cloud coverage even with the various weather products: ADS-B weather doesn't give you satellite images for cloud cover and XM only shows cloud cover down to 5K feet and is only updated every 15 minutes. METARS are only for the immediate vicinity around the reporting terminal (although you can get a get idea of regional weather by looking at a collection of METARS in a given region).

So even with all the latest wizbangs, I think the biggest risk is getting stuck on top without the skills to cut through the layer. Once you have to go through the layer then many of your other risks come into play namely icing and fuel exhaustion.

The various wizbangs will certainly aide in cutting through the layer but i would not advise relying on them to bail you out. Also, remember that Center/Approach is your friend in these situations and they can help get you safely through a layer without running into someone else or terrain. Flying the airplane is your job, though

[designrs]

So if you get a whole wide trend of METARs near your destination (updated pretty much realtime on Stratus) and have plenty of fuel?

[CharlieTango]

There is a big difference in general between flying VFR over the top in the East vs the Far West.

In the far west we often have solid undercast but can always see terrain somewhere ( when its clear above which is typical )

With XM weather and big gas tanks I can fly for 1 1/2 hours on top knowing my destination or way point is clear and knowing that I have fuel to turn back as a back up.

Question: Does a mountain peak coming through a solid layer give you adequate 'horizon'? I believe it does but I can fly by referencing instruments as well.