Why would someone choose to fly VFR on top?

For a non-IFR rated pilot, if departure and arrival airports are clear, they
can overfly a large area that is overcast/below minimums.

Opps, we're talking about U.S. "VFR on top" which requires a current
instrument rating and instrument able aircraft. You are speaking of the
Candian VFR-on-top rating, which is quite different.

In article ,
says...


So an American PPL (no IR) cannot fly "VFR" above an overcast layer?

If the above is true, where is a specification on the degree of
"overcastness" that is permitted?

Here in Europe, some countries permit a plain PPL to fly without
visual contact with the surface. France and Germany allow it I think.


In the US, there is a distinction between VFR "on top", which is an IFR
clearance, and VFR "over the top" which is VFR over a cloud layer, and is
legal for non instrument rated pilots. VFR "on top" requires an IFR flight
plan, and keeps the flight in the IFR system throughout the flight, but allows
pilot discretion in altitude selection, in exchange for "see and avoid"
traffic separation responsability for the pilot. VFR on top is not available
in Class A airspace, which in the US is at or above 18,000ft.

GF

So an American PPL (no IR) cannot fly "VFR" above an overcast layer?

In the U.S. "VFR on Top" has a VERY special meaning (in fact its not
really VFR and not necessarily "on top"). "VFR on Top" is a specific
ATC clearance. Flying over an overcast would be VFR that happens to
just be on top of an overcast

-Robert, CFI

"Peter" wrote in message
...

So an American PPL (no IR) cannot fly "VFR" above an overcast layer?


Yes, but that is not VFR-on-Top.

So an American PPL (no IR) cannot fly "VFR" above an overcast layer?

Yes, but that is not VFR-on-Top.

To clarify, yes he can fly VFR above an overcast layer, but doing so is
not called "VFR on top", rather, it is called "VFR over the top".

Confusing terminology - think
"VFR =on= top, your (IFR) clearance is ON"
"VFR =over= the top, your (IFR) clearance is OVER"

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Confusing terminology

Yep, kinda like PIC. On one hand it relates to logging time, on the
other it relates to responsiblity of the aircraft, but the two have
very little to do with each other. I guess the FAA thought they were
running out of words.

-Robert

Bob Gardner wrote:

Example: I know (or strongly suspect) that the tops at at 6000. I call
Ground and tell them that I want an IFR clearance to VFR-on-top. No flight
plan filed. Ground says "Whizbang 1234X is cleared to (nearby VOR), climb
and maintain 7000, if not on top at 7000 advise. Squawk 3456." Great time
saver.


What happens if there's a comm failure and you're wrong about the tops? Of
course, this is a general question about any clearance limit that's not an
airport or certainly VFR.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote:


Example: I know (or strongly suspect) that the tops at at 6000. I call
Ground and tell them that I want an IFR clearance to VFR-on-top. No flight
plan filed. Ground says "Whizbang 1234X is cleared to (nearby VOR), climb
and maintain 7000, if not on top at 7000 advise. Squawk 3456." Great time
saver.



What happens if there's a comm failure and you're wrong about the tops? Of
course, this is a general question about any clearance limit that's not an
airport or certainly VFR.

First off he doesn't want VFR on top but rather an IFR climb to VFR.
VFR on Top is an IFR clearance. As to your question you would handle it
like any opther lost comm, that's why you were cleared to a point,
that's the point you will go to and then pick an approach and land, and
because there's no filed clearance you go right to the VOR and then
directly to whatever approach you want.

Newps wrote:

AsÂ*toÂ*yourÂ*questionÂ*youÂ*wouldÂ*handleÂ*it
like any opther lost comm, that's why you were cleared to a point,
that's the point you will go to and then pick an approach and land, and
because there's no filed clearance you go right to the VOR and then
directly to whatever approach you want.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the VOR not near the destination
airport.

If a clearance is to an airport, I understand the "pick an
approach" ...um... approach. But it's when the clearance limit is to a
waypoint that's not an airport (ie. some VOR somewhere) that leaves me
puzzled. Recall that there's no specification within "the system" as to
the final destination in that case.

Obviously, the first/best course is to maintain VFR. But if the VOR (at the
assigned altitude) is not VMC (despite the expectation/hope that led to the
request), then what?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Newps wrote:


As to your question you would handle it
like any opther lost comm, that's why you were cleared to a point,
that's the point you will go to and then pick an approach and land, and
because there's no filed clearance you go right to the VOR and then
directly to whatever approach you want.


Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the VOR not near the destination
airport.

In his particular example the VOR is very close, certainly in approach
controls airspace.



If a clearance is to an airport, I understand the "pick an
approach" ...um... approach. But it's when the clearance limit is to a
waypoint that's not an airport (ie. some VOR somewhere) that leaves me
puzzled. Recall that there's no specification within "the system" as to
the final destination in that case.

Obviously, the first/best course is to maintain VFR. But if the VOR (at the
assigned altitude) is not VMC (despite the expectation/hope that led to the
request), then what?

Pick an approach and land. And do it now, we are holding up everybody
else while you figure out what to do.