Actually, I would say that engine failure at night is worse than an engine
failure in IMC or VFR on top. At night you will never be able the see the
details of the terrain until after you have landed. You can head towards an
unlit area, but you don't know if that is an open field or a mountain. In
instrument conditions you will not know where to head towards, but at least
you will see the last few hundred feet and should be able to maneuver
around obstacles, unless you have zero/zero conditions all the way to the
surface.


(Paul Smedshammer) wrote in
. com:

In article , Newps
wrote:

a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet
with visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me
if I'm wrong but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this
situation. It might not be smart but it is legal. Let me know if
I'm wrong.

It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

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.