Why would someone choose to fly VFR on top?

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

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".

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

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.