Climb to VFR on top

airplanerik

airplanerik

Well-Known Member
Do you have to file an IFR flight plan before requesting a climb (through a fog layer) to VFR on top? Once you are in the air, I know you have to abide by both IFR and VFR rules while flying at a VFR altitude once you are in VFR conditions, however, do you have to follow your filed IFR route? ...or is it similar to being VFR with flight following at that point?
 
ArchieLeague

ArchieLeague

New Member
airplanerik said:
Do you have to file an IFR flight plan before requesting a climb (through a fog layer) to VFR on top? Once you are in the air, I know you have to abide by both IFR and VFR rules while flying at a VFR altitude once you are in VFR conditions, however, do you have to follow your filed IFR route? ...or is it similar to being VFR with flight following at that point?
Click to expand...

Here is what the FAA rules for controllers says:


faalogo.gif
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION​
ORDER
JO 7110.65SEffective Date:
February 14, 2008 Subject: Air Traffic Control
Includes Change 1 Effective July 31, 2008​


Section 3. VFR-on-top

7-3-1. VFR-ON-TOP
a. You may clear an aircraft to maintain "VFR-on-top" if the pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests the clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY-
MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP.
NOTE-
1. When an aircraft has been cleared to maintain "VFR-on-top," the pilot is responsible to fly at an appropriate VFR altitude, comply with VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria, and to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft. The pilot is also responsible to comply with instrument flight rules applicable to the flight (e.g., adherence to ATC clearances).
2. Although standard IFR separation is not applied, controllers shall continue to provide traffic advisories and safety alerts, and apply merging target procedures to aircraft operating VFR-on-top.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-21, Traffic Advisories.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-8, Merging Target Procedures.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-1-1, Class A Airspace Restrictions.
AIM, Para 5-5-13, VFR-on-top.
14 CFR Section 91.157, Special VFR Weather Minimums.
14 CFR Section 91.159, VFR Cruising Altitude or Flight Level.[/SIZE]
b. You may clear an aircraft to climb through clouds, smoke, haze, or other meteorological formations and then to maintain "VFR-on-top" if the following conditions are met:
1. The pilot requests the clearance.
2. You inform the pilot of the reported height of the tops of the meteorological formation, or
3. You inform the pilot that no top report is available.
4. When necessary, you ensure separation from all other traffic for which you have separation responsibility by issuing an alternative clearance.
5. When an aircraft is climbing to and reports reaching "VFR-on-top," reclear the aircraft to maintain "VFR-on-top."
PHRASEOLOGY-
CLIMB TO AND REPORT REACHING VFR-ON-TOP,

and

TOPS REPORTED (altitude),

or

NO TOPS REPORTS.

IF NOT ON TOP AT (altitude), MAINTAIN (altitude), AND ADVISE.

MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP.
c. Do not clear an aircraft to maintain "VFR-on-top" between sunset and sunrise to separate holding aircraft from each other or from en route aircraft unless restrictions are applied to ensure the appropriate IFR vertical separation.
PHRASEOLOGY-
MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP AT OR ABOVE/BELOW/BETWEEN (altitudes).
EXAMPLE-
"Maintain VFR-on-top at or above one three thousand five hundred."

"Maintain VFR-on-top at or below one two thousand five hundred."

"Maintain VFR-on-top at or between six thousand and one zero thousand."
d. When, in your judgment, there is reason to believe that flight in VFR conditions may become impractical, issue an alternative clearance which will ensure separation from all other aircraft for which you have separation responsibility.
PHRASEOLOGY-
IF UNABLE, (alternative procedure), AND ADVISE.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 9-3-3, VFR-on-top.[/SIZE]
7-3-2. ALTITUDE FOR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT
Inform an aircraft maintaining "VFR-on-top" when a report indicates the pilot is not complying with 14 CFR Section 91.159(a).
NOTE-
As required by 14 CFR Section 91.159(a), the appropriate VFR altitudes for aircraft (not in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or turning) operating more than 3,000 feet above the surface to and including 18,000 feet MSL:

Magnetic courses 0-179- odd cardinal altitudes plus 500 feet; e.g., 3,500, 5,500.

Magnetic courses 180-359- even cardinal altitudes plus 500 feet; e.g., 4,500, 8,500.
PHRASEOLOGY-
VFR-ON-TOP CRUISING LEVELS FOR YOUR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT ARE:

more than 3,000 feet above the surface to FL 180:

ODD/EVEN ALTITUDES/FLIGHT LEVELS PLUS FIVE HUNDRED FEET. ​





 
Xcaliber

Xcaliber

El Chupacabra
airplanerik said:
Okay... but do I still have to follow my IFR route, or am I free to go wherever I want once in VFR?
Click to expand...


Flights to VFR on top, you could probably just open a local IFR flight with ground (if you're at a towered airport) with the intention of climbing till on top, then, once you're there, cancel IFR. Then you can do whatever you want (except go back into the clouds :D)
 
tgrayson

tgrayson

New Member
airplanerik said:
Okay... but do I still have to follow my IFR route, or am I free to go wherever I want once in VFR?
Click to expand...

If you filed a route and received a clearance "as filed", then you're expected to fly it. Only the altitude is at your discretion.

You don't need an OTP clearance in order to get "on top". I just request an IFR clearance from approach and a block altitude around a certain location for "maneuvers". They will clear me to an arbitrary airport "via radar vectors" and let me do whatever I want in my block of airspace. They will sometimes require me to stay within a certain arc of radials, or they may move me occasionally due to traffic, but most of the time they just call traffic and don't interfere.
 
LawnGnome

LawnGnome

Well-Known Member
Yes...please don't request a VFR on top....no controller knows how to do it, and if you insist on it, we have to look it up in the book just to remember what to do, then look up frequencies to the VFR on top reporting point VORs and what not...just go IFR...or VFR and bust through the thin layer of clouds....wait...i didn't tell you to do that.
 
M

matt152

Well-Known Member
If you are in uncontrolled airspace, just fly through the fog layer and proceed VFR. No clearance is required for IFR in class G. But make an announcement on the CTAF with your intentions please.
 
M

minitour

New Member
matt152 said:
If you are in uncontrolled airspace, just fly through the fog layer and proceed VFR. No clearance is required for IFR in class G. But make an announcement on the CTAF with your intentions please.
Click to expand...
Not a good idea. I'm sure someone has the document where the FAA crucified someone for doing that.

-mini
 
M

minitour

New Member
matt152 said:
Agreed, it is legal but...
Click to expand...

but is it? Sure nothing says you need an IFR clearance in class G airspace, but they sure had an easy time violating poor George on the whole 91.13 thing. To me, that screams "illegal".

I, too, once thought it was legal. Not anymore.

-mini
 
M

meritflyer

Well-Known Member
It appears from my brief reading that Class E existed at 700 AGL in the NTSB case. My thought is, would the outcome have been different if the class G went up to 14,500 rather than the pilot entering controlled airspace where IFR conditions were thought to exist while he was still VFR?
 
mooneyguy

mooneyguy

been around forever
minitour said:
but is it? Sure nothing says you need an IFR clearance in class G airspace, but they sure had an easy time violating poor George on the whole 91.13 thing. To me, that screams "illegal".

I, too, once thought it was legal. Not anymore.

-mini
Click to expand...

It is legal, they violated him on being CARELESS. Fact is they can and will violate you any time they WANT to. They can find a way. He called and ask for the IFR and was refused so he thought he would be "smart" and do it anyway. He Ticked someone off, and they got him.

Launching into a low cloud layer with controlled airspace at 700 is careless IMO, I would imagine if it was out west and golf went up to 14.5 it would have been no big deal!
 
tgrayson

tgrayson

New Member
mooneyguy said:
It is legal, they violated him on being CARELESS.
Click to expand...

A remarkably confident statement, given that the only evidence we have says it's not legal.
I would imagine if it was out west and golf went up to 14.5 it would have been no big deal!
Click to expand...
1) Many IFR flights with clearances have routes through G airspace.
2) Other aircraft might be operating without clearances in G airspace.
3) The aircraft will likely have to enter controlled airspace at some point.

A bigger problem is if E didn't start to 14.5, that means 1) mountainous terrain, and 2) no IFR procedures into or out of the airport. The lack of an IFR departure procedure could make leaving safely difficult.
 
M

matt152

Well-Known Member
I'm not a judge or a lawyer. This NTSB decision really pisses me off. It seems the FAA could make a case for anything being careless or reckless.

I've taken off into 300 foot overcast (with an IFR clearance) in a Cessna 152 several times. It was legal to the best of my knowledge. Now some FAA inspector could come in and make a stink saying "yeah, you were technically legal, but that was careless and reckless and endangered lives." Ok. What if the ceiling was 500 feet? Or 400 feet but the vis was 10 miles?

"With regard to respondent's assertion that, "f anytime
an aircraft enters clouds in uncontrolled airspace it is careless
without a clearance then the FAR's should be changed," we note
that it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to attempt
to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considered
careless."
​

But this is exactly what government does. That's how we end up with regulations saying you need to plan your day-VFR flight with a 30 minute reserve. Or you need an IFR flight plan and a clearance to operate in IMC in controlled airspace.

The guy they violated in this decision took what I thought to be appropriate precautions.

Ok. I know this is an argument that is moot at this point.
 
M

minitour

New Member
mooneyguy said:
It is legal, they violated him on being CARELESS.
Click to expand...
Good attitude to have if you want to get violated.

"I don't care what the NTSB said even though they make the rules...this is what is right and wrong"

Anti-Authority?

I'm not trying to be a d*ck to you or anyone else, but really, neither you nor I get to interpret the regulations. The guys that came up with this decision do. They interpreted that what he did was illegal. Whatever regulation they got him for, it's illegal. Period.

If you get your certificate suspended, the application doesn't say "have you had your certificate suspended or revoked for violating an actual rule or just for 'careless and reckless' operation?" It just says "...suspended or revoked". Good luck explaining that.

Conservative approaches. Works good, last long time.

-mini
 
M

minitour

New Member
matt152 said:
I'm not a judge...
Click to expand...

and that's the key. Few, if any of us on here are. We don't get to interpret the regs. Neither do our chief pilots or POIs or FSDOs. That's up to the judge. If the judge says it's illegal (for whatever reason - careless & reckless) then it's illegal. Period.

Be safe out there folks. True story. I was two thirds of the way to fat, dumb and happy today (er...yesterday now) when I had a "close encounter" with someone popping up through a cloud. The traffic alert was "traffic 12 o'clock 2 miles opposite direction type and altitude unknown". Either no transponder or no Mode C (or the mode C turned off). popped up at my 1:00 really close. It was a blue and white mooney.

Granted, this was class E airspace, but imagine now you're shooting an approach into some west bumble-fudge airport. You're PT inbound and all of a sudden out of the undercast/fog, pops up a skyhawk (he's still in the class G, say you're 500' above him in the class E). He can't see you cuz he's a high wing and you're in his "blind spot". Hope you can see and avoid him.

Two weeks ago we were having fun missing on ILSs when it was VV001 and 1/2 FG when someone checked in on approach VFR in the climb about 10 miles away looking for an IFR clearance. I'm convinced now that it happens all the time.

That's why this is illegal. Be careful.

-mini
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top