Jose wrote in
. net:

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the
surface; or

While a student pilot flying "over the top" ("on top" is an IFR
clearance) is dumb, the rule cited above does not (IMHO) prohibit it.

What part of "may not" or "cannot" in the above rule permits VFR over the
top WITHOUT ground reference?

One can have visual reference to the surface while not legally being
able to fly to the surface due to cloud clearance or visibility
restrictions.

That is, a layer can be broken enough to provide visual reference to
the surface, but not broken enough to descend VFR through.

Entirely different sceneario what you have above. You say so yourself,
there is visual reference to the surface. The original poster gave me
the impression it was a solid cloud deck below him.

Bottom line would be VFR over a solid overcast would be a no no for a
student. VFR over the top over a broken overcast would be legal as long
as the student has the ability to identify surface features.

What you say is correct, doing a VFR flight over a broken cloud deck may
not be a wise decision, but as long as one has a visual reference to the
ground, the student pilot is following the letter to the law as he does
have ground references.

Smart no.....
Wise no.....

After all, the student may just have to descend through the crud....

Allen