VFR On Top

WAFlyBoy said:
So you were in the clouds for .2 hours? Or did you maintain VFR cloud clearance at all times?
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a climb in addition to the haze caused by the government initiated fires in the area. Add to the it was dark, there's my .2
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
True, but it's not usually the best idea to put evidence of an FAR violation in your logbook which is what the context of this discussion suggests.
Click to expand...

Who said it's a regulation violation if you're logging actual without an IFR clearance?

I've taken off plenty at BKL when it's overcast and I promise you, I never entered a cloud and never came within 3000' of a cloud vertically and there were no clouds anywhere near me horizontally but had to use the instruments to control the aircraft.

Whether or not I was on an IFR clearance (and I was...99% of the time) is irrelevant.

If you used the gauges to keep you upright and you couldn't use any outside references, to me that sounds like instrument time.

-mini
 
MFT1Air said:
Nice slippery slope. . .not. I won't go into the semantics of right/wrong, so help me, please. 'Source' the exact words of IFR climb in the FAR/AIM to perform an "IFR climb" when I'm on VFR traffic advisories. I need the insight.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that you can find an example in the AIM, other that the many examples of being "cleared" "IFR." The transition from VFR to IFR, even just for a climb or descent, is still a pop-up IFR clearance and you would know whether you got it or not. (Remember, you are the one who "can't say" whether your were given an ifr clearance or not.)

How did the rest of the flight go? Did it sound like you were IFR or VFR? Were you cleared for an approach at your destination (even a visual one)? Did you "cancel IFR" at some point?


I can give you a sort of example of the dialog in sa situation a bit opposite to yours.. Just after Christmas, I was on a VFR flight from Leesburg, FL to Boca Raton. Around Pahokee there were the typical small cumulus. I elected to go above (I know... I've learned more about Florida clouds since then) and ended up being caught on top. After making contact with Palm Beach Approach, I told them:

Me: We're VFR above scattered to broken clouds at 8,500 30 northwest of Boca Raton. Request IFR descent into Boca.

Palm Beach. Archer XXXXX is cleared to the Boca Raton airport. Turn right heading...
 
MFT1Air said:
Yep, it was a climb in addition to the haze caused by the government initiated fires in the area. Add to the it was dark, there's my .2
Click to expand...

LOL. I love how I asked the question as directly as possible and you can't seem to answer is succinctly without clouding (pun fully intended) what happened.

My advise: don't log any actual for this flight. (It's only .2, what's the big deal anyway?) It sounds like either you were not in IMC or your flight into IMC was a violation of FARs. Secondly, please review FAR 91.155 (VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements) prior to your next flight.

Are you instrument rated?
 
minitour said:
Who said it's a regulation violation if you're logging actual without an IFR clearance?
Click to expand...
I sure didn't. I am saying that there is areg violation if you're operating an airplane in "meteorological conditions less than those required for VFR flight" ("IMC") in controlled airspace when not on an IFR flight plan.

I used the word "context." The context of this discussion at least suggests that OP either entered the clouds or passed close enough in controlled airspace to have been less that 1000 above, 500 below, or 2000' away from them, in other words in IMC.

If that wasn't the case, then you are absolutely right - we don't have the clearance issue or a FAR violation for busing VFR minimums. Instead we would have the issue of whether the conditions, even though technically VFR, were such that the OP was able to keep the shiny side up without the instruments.
 
WAFlyBoy said:
LOL. I love how I asked the question as directly as possible and you can't seem to answer is succinctly without clouding (pun fully intended) what happened.

My advise: don't log any actual for this flight. (It's only .2, what's the big deal anyway?) It sounds like either you were not in IMC or your flight into IMC was a violation of FARs. Secondly, please review FAR 91.155 (VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements) prior to your next flight.

Are you instrument rated?
Click to expand...

Instrumented rated? No, but I answered you question directly. It took me 12 minutes from the time I hit the fire haze to ask Beaumont to climb higher through both haze and clouds to subsequently clear the clouds. So, no, I wasn't clear of clouds until I went higher.

Also, thoroughly read 91.155. No violations were applicable to me at the time I initially got my weather briefing. Additionally, that low overcast/haze rolled in unexpectedly given the fires that were being initiated in the area.

So, you're saying if flight into IMC was accidental, I show make an erroneous input into logbook?
 
another side lesson to be learned here:

"UNABLE"

remember, ATC cannot force you to bust a reg, so put that word UNABLE to good use!
 
MFT1Air said:
So, you're saying if flight into IMC was accidental, I show make an erroneous input into logbook?
Click to expand...

Negative.

Like others above, I would suggest not logging the "actual" because it sounds like there's a good chance it was a FAR violation. The fact that it was "accidental" doesn't make it legal, nor does it influence my decision on logging it.

Let's ignore the legality of the scenario for a moment. As mentioned before, the question becomes: did the flight conditions at the time force you to control the airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments? If so, then it would probably be appropriate to log it as "actual" instrument time.
 
MFT1Air said:
OK, I need more insight into your comment; elaborate please?
Click to expand...


in flying, you will encounter a time (or many times) when ATC will direct you to do something that is

a) unsafe
b) illegal
c) foolish
d) all of the above

such as directing a VFR pilot to make a climb into the clouds where he or she has no place going because it is (d) all of the above

in this case the proper reaction of the PIC would be "hey, i cant do that!... sorry atc, cessna 123 UNABLE"

another case that happened at my school recently, the tower asked a landing aircraft to turn off at a taxiway before the plane had slowed enough to do so safely... well... the pilot thought ATC was "the law" so he tried to make the turn, ended up taking out a runway entrance sign and going in the ditch.

you as the pilot IN COMMAND have to make the right judgement call, and for a variety of reasons, what ATC advises may not be the right thing to do!


hope that explains my post.
 
WAFlyBoy said:
It doesn't sound like he was assigned a higher altitude, but rather requested it while receiving VFR advisories.
Click to expand...


well.... that would be a poor request then.

my sidenote was not 100% relevant, but something that came to mind along the same lines :-D
 
TXaviator said:
in flying, you will encounter a time (or many times) when ATC will direct you to do something that is

a) unsafe
b) illegal
c) foolish
d) all of the above

such as directing a VFR pilot to make a climb into the clouds where he or she has no place going because it is (d) all of the above

in this case the proper reaction of the PIC would be "hey, i cant do that!... sorry atc, cessna 123 UNABLE"

another case that happened at my school recently, the tower asked a landing aircraft to turn off at a taxiway before the plane had slowed enough to do so safely... well... the pilot thought ATC was "the law" so he tried to make the turn, ended up taking out a runway entrance sign and going in the ditch.

you as the pilot IN COMMAND have to make the right judgement call, and for a variety of reasons, what ATC advises may not be the right thing to do!


hope that explains my post.
Click to expand...


Understand completely. . .and concur. Thanks.
 
MFT1Air said:
Also, thoroughly read 91.155. No violations were applicable to me at the time I initially got my weather briefing. Additionally, that low overcast/haze rolled in unexpectedly given the fires that were being initiated in the area.
Click to expand...
Let's go with that thought. Remember that you may violate an FAR in case of emergency. But there are two "gotchas." One is that you may only violate to the extent required to meet the emergency. The second is that you cannot have contributed to the emergency. That's a heavier burden than you might think.

So, for example, were you flying along in good VFR when all of a sudden, without warning, you were engulfed in the haze and smoke with absolutely no opportunity to see it in advance and turn around and go somewhere else? And then, once in it, did you determine that an immediate 180 would not have gotten you out of it, or did you ask for higher higher so that your planned route of flight wasn't disturbed?

Never mind the legalities. This is serious stuff from a safety standpoint. For those who have never heard it, this audio of a real VFR flight into IMC is an eye-opener:

http://www.midlifeflight.com/images/posted/flightassist.mp3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top