My Second Solo X-Country

"A Lieberma" wrote in message
. 18...
"CareBear" wrote in
:

everywhere! The MEF for this quadrant is 2200 feet. So now I got to
make a decision since the clouds were about 2300 feet. I decided to
go above the clouds. I talked to Huntsville Center and informed them
of my intentions. They had no problem with my decision but cautioned
me to get below the clouds when I see land again. I was above the
clouds about 10 minutes although it seemed like forever!

Having been there and done it, I would never suggest going above a cloud
deck that you cannot see the other side where it may be clear.... I did
this after getting my VFR license and instead of Owensboro KY where I was
headed, I ended up in Lawrencville IL to wait out the weather (couple of
hours). Needless to say, after that trip, I got a'workin on my IFR
ticket.

The forecast in my trip was nothing compared what I experienced and I had
to divert. I fessed up to center as I had flight following too and they
were graceful enough to help me find a VFR airport.

I thought students had to have a constant visual ground reference and were
not to do VFR over the top, but I could be mistaken.

First of all congratulations on safely completing the flight...

Second of all, I hate to be the "spoil sport", but Allen is correct, and I
was going to say something too, but Allen kind of beat me to it.... These
do exist for a reason... mostly safety.

From the Student Pilot section of the FARs...

61.89 General limitations.
top
(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

(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by
an authorized instructor.

(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.
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.

Any FAA decisions to the contrary?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

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

The fact that you can SEE the ground (have ground reference) through a
broken layer if it's "not that broken", even though you can't legally
descend through it VFR.

The original poster gave me
the impression it was a solid cloud deck below him.

In that case he not only would not be over the top, but he would also
not have ground reference. Two different things at the same time.

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.

Yep. My point exactly.

the student pilot is following the letter to the law as he does
have ground references.

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

Ayup. "What's legal isn't always safe, and what's safe isn't always legal."

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.