Paul Smedshammer wrote:
How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying VFR over
the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at night when you are
out of gliding distance to a lighted airport runway. The only difference I
can come up with is at night if your engine quits you should be able to find a
non-populated area to come down in.

Actually, I think flying low IFR is more similar to flying at night over
dark terrain. In both situations, an engine failure is reasonably likely
to end very badly.

Flying VFR over the top has the above problem (engine failure likely to
end badly, particularly for a non-instrument-rated pilot) and the
additional problem that if the overcast doesn't clear you may be unable
to get down safely if you are not competent to land on instruments. I've
certainly flown a number of times where the forecast was for a layer
below me to clear when instead it became more solid in all directions
(and I needed an IFR clearance to get down).

But all of flying involves balancing risks. Personally, I was never
willing to fly over a solid overcast until I had my instrument rating,
but if there were definite clear conditions in reach in several
directions I don't think it would be an insane thing to do. Flying from
Boston to Long Island, for instance, there is frequently a solid layer
near the coast, with the layer dissipating both as you go a little
inland and as you reach Long Island. It's reasonable to want some
altitude while crossing the LI Sound, so you might not want to fly
beneath the layer. Hard to argue that flying over such a layer is really
that much more dangerous than flying at night.

--
David Rind