Subject line says it all. In light of the fact that VFR on top subjects
you to both VFR and IFR constraints, why would anyone ever choose to fly
VFR on top? I can only think of two possible reasons:

1. There happens to be clear air at a +500 foot altitude and not at the
corresponding even-thousand altitude (though how would know that without
popping up 500 feet to have a look is still a mystery).

2. You can get a more direct routing because of the less restrictive
separation requirements.

Have I missed a possible reason?

rg

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:
>Subject line says it all. In light of the fact that VFR on top subjects
>you to both VFR and IFR constraints, why would anyone ever choose to fly
>VFR on top? I can only think of two possible reasons:

You can fly IFR thought the clouds, come out on top in clear skies,
cancel IFR and then fly VFR (VFR over the top). Or you can fly IFR
through the clouds and remain 'in the system' as you fly VFR (VFR on top)
and if there are more clouds ahead or at your final airport you don't have
to call ATC again.

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.

Example: I am in Spokane, or somewhere else where it is severe clear and I
want to go to Seattle or somewhere that I know is VFR. I file an IFR flight
plan with VOT in the altitude block. I am cleared to operate VOT and cleared
for takeoff. Because I am on an IFR flight plan, I make all required reports
and stay in communication with Center until I can see over the tops of the
mountains that there is nothing on the other side but white puffy stuff. I
say "Center, Whizbang 3456 requests a hard altitude." Center gives me an IFR
altitude. Voila....I am back to "normal" IFR for the rest of the trip. I
used to carry packages from SEA to OAK and back in the middle of the night
and used VOT more often than not.

Bob Gardner

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Subject line says it all. In light of the fact that VFR on top subjects
> you to both VFR and IFR constraints, why would anyone ever choose to fly
> VFR on top? I can only think of two possible reasons:
>
> 1. There happens to be clear air at a +500 foot altitude and not at the
> corresponding even-thousand altitude (though how would know that without
> popping up 500 feet to have a look is still a mystery).
>
> 2. You can get a more direct routing because of the less restrictive
> separation requirements.
>
> Have I missed a possible reason?
>
> rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Subject line says it all. In light of the fact that VFR on top subjects
> you to both VFR and IFR constraints, why would anyone ever choose to fly
> VFR on top? I can only think of two possible reasons:
>
> 1. There happens to be clear air at a +500 foot altitude and not at the
> corresponding even-thousand altitude (though how would know that without
> popping up 500 feet to have a look is still a mystery).
>
> 2. You can get a more direct routing because of the less restrictive
> separation requirements.
>
> Have I missed a possible reason?

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


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> For a non-IFR rated pilot, if departure and arrival airports are =
clear, they=20
> can overfly a large area that is overcast/below minimums.
>=20
> ---------------------=20
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Land-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO=20
>

The non-IFR-rated pilot can do that only as VFR-over-the-top.
VFR-on-top requires an IFR flight plan, a privilege of the Instrument =
Rating.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> For a non-IFR rated pilot, if departure and arrival airports are clear,
> they can overfly a large area that is overcast/below minimums.
>

They can do that VFR, but not VFR-on-top. VFR-on-top is an IFR operation.

Ok, I understand the first example - you just want to go through the
cloud deck, no flight plan, no hassle, as you said - great time saver.

What is the good part about the second way? I mean - how is it really
different from flying it at a hard altitude? You still had to file the
flight plan, you still have to file the assigned route. The only benefit
I see is being able to change altitudes at your discretion. Is this what
you're after or am I missing something else?

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.
>
> Example: I am in Spokane, or somewhere else where it is severe clear and I
> want to go to Seattle or somewhere that I know is VFR. I file an IFR flight
> plan with VOT in the altitude block. I am cleared to operate VOT and cleared
> for takeoff. Because I am on an IFR flight plan, I make all required reports
> and stay in communication with Center until I can see over the tops of the
> mountains that there is nothing on the other side but white puffy stuff. I
> say "Center, Whizbang 3456 requests a hard altitude." Center gives me an IFR
> altitude. Voila....I am back to "normal" IFR for the rest of the trip. I
> used to carry packages from SEA to OAK and back in the middle of the night
> and used VOT more often than not.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

Great time saver compared to what? What are you going to do when you reach
VFR conditions?


>
> Example: I am in Spokane, or somewhere else where it is severe clear and I
> want to go to Seattle or somewhere that I know is VFR. I file an IFR
> flight plan with VOT in the altitude block.
>

Put OTP in the altitude block. VOT is "VOR test signal" or "vorticity".

Yes, I missed the distinction.
Thanks


"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> For a non-IFR rated pilot, if departure and arrival airports are clear,
> they
> can overfly a large area that is overcast/below minimums.
>
> ---------------------


The non-IFR-rated pilot can do that only as VFR-over-the-top.
VFR-on-top requires an IFR flight plan, a privilege of the Instrument
Rating.

In article >, says...
>
>
>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.



If you want IFR just to get on top, you can get a tower en-route clearance,
then cancel, and you're on your way, VFR. That could be a time-saver, because
you can probably do it without a flight plan.

If you want to stay in the system, then I don't see the time-saver, unless
your altitude flexibility happens to allow you to get a more direct routing.

GF

> 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.

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.
>
> 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.

Well, you shouldn't accept a clearance limit without an EFC. And you
have your flight plan, so you fly to the clearance limit, hold until
your EFC and then proceed per your flight plan and fly an approach. At
least that is what I'd do.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, you shouldn't accept a clearance limit without an EFC. And you have
> your flight plan, so you fly to the clearance limit, hold until your EFC
> and then proceed per your flight plan and fly an approach. At least that
> is what I'd do.
>

Every IFR clearance has a clearance limit, an EFC is issued only if holding
is anticipated.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Well, you shouldn't accept a clearance limit without an EFC. And you have
>>your flight plan, so you fly to the clearance limit, hold until your EFC
>>and then proceed per your flight plan and fly an approach. At least that
>>is what I'd do.
>>
>
>
> Every IFR clearance has a clearance limit, an EFC is issued only if holding
> is anticipated.

Yes, but typically the clearance limit is an airport. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, but typically the clearance limit is an airport. :-)
>

Yes, but clearances with non-airport clearance limits do not include an EFC
unless holding is anticipated.

Canada makes the same distinction.


All the best,


David

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, but typically the clearance limit is an airport. :-)
>>
>
>
> Yes, but clearances with non-airport clearance limits do not include an EFC
> unless holding is anticipated.
>
>

OK, but I was taught to always ask for an EFC if given a clearance limit
that wasn't an airport.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, but I was taught to always ask for an EFC if given a clearance limit
> that wasn't an airport.
>

Did your teacher say why?

Peter wrote:
> As a related question, does the USA permit a plain PPL holder (no IR)
> to fly above an overcast layer?

yes.

(might or might not be a good idea, depending on your point of
view; there are a few other things that are legal and might
not be a good idea either, but I really like making my decisions
for myself)

--Sylvain

Peter wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
>
>>>OK, but I was taught to always ask for an EFC if given a clearance limit
>>>that wasn't an airport.
>>>
>>
>>Did your teacher say why?
>
>
> As a related question, does the USA permit a plain PPL holder (no IR)
> to fly above an overcast layer?

Yes.

Matt

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> As a related question, does the USA permit a plain PPL holder (no IR)
> to fly above an overcast layer?
>

Yes.