Australia is changing/rearranging its' airspace model to more closely
line-up with ICAO and also to be a _very_ close copy of the current
USA system.

Basically there will be a heck of a lot of class-E. (usually bottomed
at FL180, but in some areas down to A085).
Our radar coverage won't change much beyond the current (roughly) 200nm
band along the east and south coasts.


One of the new procedures is called 'VFR on top', whereby an IFR aircraft
can go into VMC at VFR levels and still receive traffic advisories
(but no seperation) from IFR or observed VFR traffic.

As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.
So my questions are ;
Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world ?
What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?

"MC" > wrote in message

>
> As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
> aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.
> So my questions are ;
> Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world
> ? What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?

You may be able to get a more direct routing by flying VFR on top (using
your own navigation) than you would by getting vectored by ATC.

You have a point about the extra eyes watching, but if the weather is
"severe clear" above the cloud layer, I don't see a significant
disadvantage. It's really a personal comfort factor.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________

I have used it a lot. You have more freedom to choose a cruising altitude
when on top. My most common use here in the US was two-fold...if I wanted to
punch out through a low overcast, I could simply ask ground control for a
clearance to VFR on top...the clearance would be something like "Cleared to
the Seattle VOR, climb and maintain 7000 feet; if not on top at 7000 feet
advise." Of course, I would be on top long before I got to 7000 feet...then
I would ask for a heading toward my destination "until receiving xxx VOR
suitable for navigation." This would cut the time from engine start to
enroute cruise by 25 to 50 percent. The second ploy was when I was taking
off from an airport in Eastern Washington where it was severe clear, knowing
that the Puget Sound basin was IFR. By filing for VFR-on-top I had the
freedom of taking off VFR and being VFR but I was in the system, so when I
saw the clouds beginning to peek over the top of the Cascade Mountains all I
had to do was ask the controller for a "hard altitude" to replace the VFR
altitude I had been maintaining. Bingo...I was ready to enter the terminal
area and shoot an approach with an IFR clearance.

Note that your Aussie regs, when finalized, might not match ours.

Bob Gardner

"MC" > wrote in message
...
> Australia is changing/rearranging its' airspace model to more closely
> line-up with ICAO and also to be a _very_ close copy of the current
> USA system.
>
> Basically there will be a heck of a lot of class-E. (usually bottomed
> at FL180, but in some areas down to A085).
> Our radar coverage won't change much beyond the current (roughly) 200nm
> band along the east and south coasts.
>
>
> One of the new procedures is called 'VFR on top', whereby an IFR aircraft
> can go into VMC at VFR levels and still receive traffic advisories
> (but no seperation) from IFR or observed VFR traffic.
>
> As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
> aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.
> So my questions are ;
> Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world ?
> What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?

"MC" > wrote in message
...
> Australia is changing/rearranging its' airspace model to more closely
> line-up with ICAO and also to be a _very_ close copy of the current
> USA system.
>
> Basically there will be a heck of a lot of class-E. (usually bottomed
> at FL180, but in some areas down to A085).
> Our radar coverage won't change much beyond the current (roughly) 200nm
> band along the east and south coasts.
>
>
> One of the new procedures is called 'VFR on top', whereby an IFR aircraft
> can go into VMC at VFR levels and still receive traffic advisories
> (but no seperation) from IFR or observed VFR traffic.
>
> As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
> aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.

But you will be told about that traffic, and because the IFR separation is
not required (it's visual separation!) the airspace is much more flexible.
And you remain in the system as IFR with all those advantages (like not
being dropped when things get busy) and can always request a clearance back
to an IFR altitude.

I've not used it as much as I should. I can think of a couple of times I
should have asked for it when someone's departure was waiting until I
cleared the area. Had I been asked for VFR-on-top the next guy could have
beparted as soon as I got on top of the low stratus....

-Greg

> So my questions are ;
> Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world ?
> What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?

Greg Goodknight wrote:
>
> "MC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Australia is changing/rearranging its' airspace model to more closely
> > line-up with ICAO and also to be a _very_ close copy of the current
> > USA system.
> >
> > Basically there will be a heck of a lot of class-E. (usually bottomed
> > at FL180, but in some areas down to A085).
> > Our radar coverage won't change much beyond the current (roughly) 200nm
> > band along the east and south coasts.
> >
> >
> > One of the new procedures is called 'VFR on top', whereby an IFR aircraft
> > can go into VMC at VFR levels and still receive traffic advisories
> > (but no seperation) from IFR or observed VFR traffic.
> >
> > As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
> > aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.
>
> But you will be told about that traffic, and because the IFR separation is
> not required (it's visual separation!) the airspace is much more flexible.
> And you remain in the system as IFR with all those advantages (like not
> being dropped when things get busy) and can always request a clearance back
> to an IFR altitude.
>
> I've not used it as much as I should. I can think of a couple of times I
> should have asked for it when someone's departure was waiting until I
> cleared the area. Had I been asked for VFR-on-top the next guy could have
> beparted as soon as I got on top of the low stratus....
>
> -Greg
>
> > So my questions are ;
> > Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world ?
> > What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?


Thanks for all the replies folks.
In Oz we don't have quite the same volume of traffic
(or radar coverage) as that in the USA, and it's
usually not a problem getting the altitude or track
you want.

Where I used it was in the following situation. 3000 OVC at takeoff, tops
5000. Same at destination.
But the MEA was 11k or so. Ill fly VFR on top at 8k and never leave the
system.

Scott


"MC" > wrote in message
...
> Australia is changing/rearranging its' airspace model to more closely
> line-up with ICAO and also to be a _very_ close copy of the current
> USA system.
>
> Basically there will be a heck of a lot of class-E. (usually bottomed
> at FL180, but in some areas down to A085).
> Our radar coverage won't change much beyond the current (roughly) 200nm
> band along the east and south coasts.
>
>
> One of the new procedures is called 'VFR on top', whereby an IFR aircraft
> can go into VMC at VFR levels and still receive traffic advisories
> (but no seperation) from IFR or observed VFR traffic.
>
> As I see it, the procedure seems odd to me, because the requesting IFR
> aircraft loses the safety of being seperated by ATC.
> So my questions are ;
> Is 'VFR on top' used a lot in the USA ? In the rest of the world ?
> What practical advantages are there from a pilots' POV ?

>Where I used it was in the following situation. 3000 OVC at takeoff, tops
>5000. Same at destination.
>But the MEA was 11k or so. Ill fly VFR on top at 8k and never leave the
>system

Interesting.
I was in IMC at 6000. Asked for higher response "unable"
Next controller same response and so it went for 2 hours and 30 minutes. Then I
saw a hole and it looked pretty good at 3000. I ask the controller for a desent
and cancelled IFR.
I should have ask for VFR on top 2 hours ago, but it have been denied?
Hank

You have to be VMC to be VFR on top.
So if you were IMC at 6000, VFR on top was not an option.

Now if you meant, you were IFR in VMC at 6000, and wanted higher
and could maintaint VFR conditions, then yes, that would of been fine.

Scott
"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
> >Where I used it was in the following situation. 3000 OVC at takeoff,
tops
> >5000. Same at destination.
> >But the MEA was 11k or so. Ill fly VFR on top at 8k and never leave the
> >system
>
> Interesting.
> I was in IMC at 6000. Asked for higher response "unable"
> Next controller same response and so it went for 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Then I
> saw a hole and it looked pretty good at 3000. I ask the controller for a
desent
> and cancelled IFR.
> I should have ask for VFR on top 2 hours ago, but it have been denied?
> Hank

"Scott Aron Bloom" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where I used it was in the following situation. 3000 OVC at takeoff, tops
> 5000. Same at destination.
> But the MEA was 11k or so. Ill fly VFR on top at 8k and never leave the
> system.
>

You must still comply with FAR 91.177 when operating VFR-on-Top as well as
FAR 91.159. It appears your operation violated both.

"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting.
> I was in IMC at 6000. Asked for higher response "unable"
> Next controller same response and so it went for 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Then I
> saw a hole and it looked pretty good at 3000. I ask the controller for a
desent
> and cancelled IFR.
> I should have ask for VFR on top 2 hours ago, but it have been denied?
>

You have to be in VMC to operate VFR-on-Top.