VFR on top question

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

Scenario 1....

Severe clear weather from point A to point B going east. MRA is 7000 in
which part of this area is below ATC radar coverage from past experience.
Highest OROCA enroute is 2600, filing is direct from airport to airport.

If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?


You can legally file anything, the question is can you legally be issued
what you've filed.

VFR-On-Top is still an IFR operation and all of the Instrument Flight Rules
apply to it with the exception of § 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight
level which directs pilots operating VFR-On-Top to comply with § 91.159 VFR
cruising altitude or flight level. You still have to comply with § 91.177
Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

Filing VFR-On-Top does not relieve ATC of the requirement to assign routes
on airways or within normal navaid usable limits if radar monitoring cannot
be provided. If you're assigned an airway while VFR-On-Top the lowest
altitude you can use is that which conforms to § 91.159 and is at or above
the MEA.

Why do you want to do this anyway? In areas below radar coverage VFR-On-Top
has nothing to offer. You aren't provided any separation or traffic
advisories but you're still tied to a route. Why not just go VFR?



Scenario 2.....

Throw in an active MOA to the above. I would assume that I would get
vectors or an amended clearance around the active MOA even though I am
"VFR on top". Would this be a correct assumption?


Yes.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:37:40 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why do you want to do this anyway? In areas below radar coverage VFR-On-Top
has nothing to offer. You aren't provided any separation or traffic
advisories but you're still tied to a route. Why not just go VFR?

First of all, thanks for the reference on my question as it answered it
perfectly. I was planning a flight from KMBO to KEDN today.

Several reasons why I wanted to do the original scenerio.

Winds aloft from 3,500 to 5000 made for a 15 minute difference in flight
time. Had I gone to 7000 feet to ensure radar coverage, it would have
added another 5 minutes. With passengers, that extra 20 minutes would have
been significant difference.

Going the victor highways would have added about 20 minutes as compared to
direct.

Most importantly, I love the second pair of eyes for traffic advisories.
Sure, I could do flight following VFR, but since I am already in the
system, might as well stay in the system without the risk of being dropped.

And the most fun of it all, it's nice to see my flight path at
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...752Z/KMBO/KEKY
when I return home. Another way of keeping track of my flight time :-)
Website doesn't track VFR flight following too well.

As it turned out, couldn't launch today as I think something went south
with my starter or whatever engages the propeller (Bendex?)

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
. ..

Several reasons why I wanted to do the original scenerio.

Winds aloft from 3,500 to 5000 made for a 15 minute difference in flight
time. Had I gone to 7000 feet to ensure radar coverage, it would have
added another 5 minutes. With passengers, that extra 20 minutes would
have
been significant difference.

Going the victor highways would have added about 20 minutes as compared to
direct.

Most importantly, I love the second pair of eyes for traffic advisories.
Sure, I could do flight following VFR, but since I am already in the
system, might as well stay in the system without the risk of being
dropped.


I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared
direct.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared
direct.

The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
so high when I don't need to.

Not quite sure why the outage, since it happens right around the MEI
airport who has approach controllers but it does. Terrain isn't a factor
since it's flat as a board.

Now, I probably could request 7000 for that short period of time when I
expect out of radar contact, but by the time I climbed to 7000 feet the
time gained in flying the lower altitude would be lost in the climb to 7000
feet.

In other sectors, I have flown outside of radar coverage, but had to report
when a certain distance of a VOR, but this particular sector doesn't work
this way.

Bottom line for "flight planning purpose" I am only out of the second pair
of eyes for a very short duration of the flight. It was more efficient to
select a lower altitude for passenger considerations and lose the second
pair of eyes in a part of the trip where traffic is very minimal at best.

So, I'd be willing to give up 20 minutes of non radar coverage for a more
direct and quicker flight. If I was by myself, this all would have been a
moot point as I would just fly the victor highways.

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
so high when I don't need to.


Because it's the only way to get what you want.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be
cleared
direct.

The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
so high when I don't need to.

It seems you need to. Not withstanding it is safer, cooler, smoother, and
usually more efficient to be higher.

Or, go IFR, and learn how to work with ATC better to get what you want.

Karl