Flying under IMC

Ditch wrote:

Is that likely to work?

I fly IFR into Ontario, California IFR on my run and do it VFR on top as
much as possible. It cuts down on our run time as we fly a more direct
route, and since we are on a schedule it helps a lot.

ATC may, after all, deny the "on top" clearance.

They can, but unlikely. It frees up the controller to focus on other
things.


That certainly makes sense. But what about when I want to return to (let's
call it) "full IFR". I could be well off my flight plan at that point,
right? It may mean less work in the short term, but possibly more work
long term (for the controller).

Of course, perhaps the controller can hope that this'll be the next guy's
problem laugh.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
That certainly makes sense. But what about when I want to return to
(let's
call it) "full IFR". I could be well off my flight plan at that point,
right? It may mean less work in the short term, but possibly more work
long term (for the controller).

It's more of a problem for you than the controller. The controller will
only provide a clearance that he is able to provide. If you put yourself
into a position where he's unable to provide you with a new clearance,
that's your problem, not his. He's not obligated to cancel the "VFR on top"
clearance, as far as I know.

In other words, it's more work for YOU, if you make it more work for anyone.
Personally, I recognize the issues of getting back on a non-"VFR on top"
clearance and make sure that when it's time to get back to regular IFR, it's
easy to do.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

He's not obligated to cancel the "VFR on
top" clearance, as far as I know.

Ah, I'd not thought about it that way. It's not a comforting thought: that
I could be above a ceiling and unable to return to full IFR. There's no
regulatory requirement that would force a controller to let a VFR-on-top-er
back into the system?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Ah, I'd not thought about it that way. It's not a comforting thought:
that
I could be above a ceiling and unable to return to full IFR. There's no
regulatory requirement that would force a controller to let a
VFR-on-top-er
back into the system?

Not as far as I know. But, it's not an issue of the controller "letting you
back in the system". You ARE "in the system". You've just chosen to apply
VFR rules to your IFR flight, in addition to the usual IFR rules.

Also, remember that the previous concern was regarding when you fly way off
your route using the "VFR on top" rules. I wouldn't say that's an advisable
use of "VFR on top", for the very reason that it might be more difficult to
get back on route.

Now, all that said, just as I've never had any trouble asking for "VFR on
top", I've also never had any trouble cancelling "VFR on top". I stay
reasonably close to my originally filed route, or I plan my deviation so
that I have a good nav signal back to my route, and acceptable terrain
clearance.

I suppose it's possible you could ask for "VFR on top" to a particular
waypoint, giving ATC some prior notice of where you plan to return to
conventional IFR flight. That might give you some reassurance that you
wouldn't lose your status as a non-"VFR on top" flight.

But honestly, I can't think of any reason ATC wouldn't cancel "VFR on top"
for you. You never lose your status as an IFR flight, so it seems to me
that the worst that could happen is that a) you remain responsible for your
own off-airway navigation for some time (if you're out of radar coverage,
for example) or b) ATC vectors you in an inconvenient way for a little
while, as they work you back into their normal traffic flow. You still have
a valid IFR clearance and are still "in the system".

I didn't mean to scare anyone off of "VFR on top" by my comment. It was
more along the lines of "I'm not aware of any regulatory requirement that
ATC grant ANY request by a pilot". ATC won't grant a request that they
cannot accomodate with respect to the other traffic, but otherwise they
generally allow pretty much whatever you ask for.

Pete

duniho wrote:

[...]
Now, all that said, just as I've never had any trouble asking for "VFR on
top", I've also never had any trouble cancelling "VFR on top". I stay
reasonably close to my originally filed route, or I plan my deviation so
that I have a good nav signal back to my route, and acceptable terrain
clearance.
[...]

This has been confusing me since the thread a few weeks ago. I looked through
several reference sources, and cannot find an explanation of the "vfr-on-top"
IFR clearance that implies authorization to depart from the route one was
earlier cleared via. Where may one find this?


- FChE