"VFR on top" clearance. . .

[SilverFlyer]

. . . and cloud minimums. Flying in Socal I often obtain a VFR on top clearance so that I can fly up through the marine layer and carry on VFR. My question is, before cancelling IFR don't I have to be 1,000 feet above the cloud layer? I'm usually asked to report the tops, but once I do I'm asked if I would like to cancel IFR. If I do isn't this breaking regs?

 

[81Horse]

. . . I'm usually asked to report the tops, but once I do I'm asked if I would like to cancel IFR. If I do isn't this breaking regs?

Probably. So don't do it.

It's not like you have to be spring-loaded to report the tops or cancel. Wait till you reach or climb through a legal altitude, then report what the tops were and cancel IFR. One transmission; simple.

 

[mar]

Two different things

There are two different operations:

1) VFR-on-top

2) VFR over the top.

The first one is an IFR clearance where you must maintain VFR cloud clearances.

The second one is a VFR operation where you must maintain VFR cloud clearances.

You can report the tops when you break out but hang on to your IFR clearance until you're in VFR conditions by advising ATC you're unable VFR at this time and would like to remain IFR.

 

[AC560]

My understanding has always been that if you are filed VFR on top you are still on a IFR plan just operating at VFR altitudes and rules, thus I never understood the point to it was.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to file, climb up, and then cancel when VFR as opposed to being filed VFR on top (why cancel in the first place considering you get direct almost anywhere with a GPS now anyways)?

 

[mar]

Flexibility

My understanding has always been that if you are filed VFR on top you are still on a IFR plan just operating at VFR altitudes and rules, thus I never understood the point to it was.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to file, climb up, and then cancel when VFR as opposed to being filed VFR on top (why cancel in the first place considering you get direct almost anywhere with a GPS now anyways)?

Not every corner of the nation is glowing with radar coverage and saturated with VOR coverage.

Sometimes you want the flexibility of flying VFR with the ability to remain IFR. It's the best of both worlds.

 

[SilverFlyer]

It's not like you have to be spring-loaded to report the tops or cancel. Wait till you reach or climb through a legal altitude, then report what the tops were and cancel IFR. One transmission; simple.

Now why didn't I think of that??? My take has been to report as soon as I break through, but waiting just makes sense. Thanks all for the replies.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Now why didn't I think of that??? My take has been to report as soon as I break through, but waiting just makes sense. Thanks all for the replies.

Remember, controllers are like mechanics (no offense intended to either, btw)...The requirements of Part 91 aren't necessarily what they're thinking about. It's your responsibility as PIC to maintain legality, which obviously you're thinking about by posting this question

Fly safe!

David

 

[AC560]

Not every corner of the nation is glowing with radar coverage and saturated with VOR coverage.

Sometimes you want the flexibility of flying VFR with the ability to remain IFR. It's the best of both worlds.

If you are VFR on top how are you going to navigate with no VOR? Plus I thought once you accept a VFR on top clearance you could no longer fly in IMC conditions so you really aren't IFR persay. I just really don't understand the benefit, seems it would be better to either stay IFR or cancel completely and refile if needed to get down.

 

[groundpointsix]

If you are VFR on top how are you going to navigate with no VOR? Plus I thought once you accept a VFR on top clearance you could no longer fly in IMC conditions so you really aren't IFR persay. I just really don't understand the benefit, seems it would be better to either stay IFR or cancel completely and refile if needed to get down.

How am I going to navigate without a VOR? Well, there's always GPS, NDBs, LORAN, ded reckoning, pilotage (ok, a stretch in this situation), and celestial navigation. I might have forgotten something. The point is there are pleanty of ways to do it.

One reason I might go VFR on top is that there is no airway between A and B that gives me a relatively straight course. Let's assume I'm in an area with reduced radar coverage. ATC is most likely not going to give me a random route in this situation. By going VFR on top, I've relieved them of the responsibility to separate me and I can now go direct by one of the methods I listed above.

Why don't I cancel and just refile? Sure, I could do that, but now I have to call flight service and file a second flight plan or try to work it out with the center controller, which he may or may not have time for. By going VFR on top all I have to tell him is I'm ready to go IFR again and I'm back in the system with one radio call instead of having a conversation or giving a 30 second radio call with all my flight plan information.

 

[A Squared]

My understanding has always been that if you are filed VFR on top you are still on a IFR plan just operating at VFR altitudes and rules, thus I never understood the point to it was.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to file, climb up, and then cancel when VFR as opposed to being filed VFR on top (why cancel in the first place considering you get direct almost anywhere with a GPS now anyways)?

As mar said, it's a matter of flexibility. Most of the time under Part 121, you are required to be IFR, so cancelling is not an option, usually. One example. you are descending to a non-radar destination on a VFR day. Another IFR plane has already departed, headed toward you. ATC will assign altitude restrictions to both plans until passage is assured, usually by DME reports. Now, if you are cleared "vfr on top", you may descend at your discretion, and you are not given altitude restrictions which conflict with your plan for descending into the airport.

Another advantage is that under Part 121 (but interestingly, not under part 91 or 135) you may descend below the MEA on a "VFR on Top" clearence. AN example of where this is useful is coming into Anchorage eastbound on V319, the MEA is 12,000 until 50 west of ANC, even though the mountains are *well* behind you. (WEstbound you may cross 50 west of ANC at 8100 headed *toward* the mountains, but easbound away from the mountains, they keep you at 12K, go figure) Anyway, it's very difficult to lose 12,000 ft in 50 nm in hte DC-6 and still observe all your limitations and proper engine management, especially with a tailwind. However, if you're VFR on Top, you can start your descent from 12K much earlier, and make it easier on the engines.

 

[mar]

Let me think...

If you are VFR on top how are you going to navigate with no VOR? Plus I thought once you accept a VFR on top clearance you could no longer fly in IMC conditions so you really aren't IFR persay. I just really don't understand the benefit, seems it would be better to either stay IFR or cancel completely and refile if needed to get down.

...ok, ok, I can see you're gonna make me work for this one. I was just hoping you'd take my word for it, but let me think of an example...

Let's say you're in a training situation and you want to do some airwork. The airport is IFR, so you file a flight plan from airport XYZ to ABC VOR, when you contact departure you explain you're in VMC and would like to manuever in a block of airspace and then return for the ILS at airport XYZ.

Since the primary purpose of ATC is to separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft, you get *some* separation service (probably not in the "block" but at least that airspace is set aside and he knows about you) and then when you're ready to return all it takes is a call to report the latest ATIS and a request for the ILS. You already have a squawk, he already has a flight data strip, radar contact is already established. All you need is a vector.

In an enroute scenario, your airway might actually be defined by an NDB. Don't laugh. They're out there.

Or maybe there's icing at your assigned altitude and you want to climb out of it but you don't want to cancel your flight plan because you know you'll need it later on....

There are just dozens of scenarios that you can run into. It's worth knowing about it.

Good luck.

 

[A Squared]

Plus I thought once you accept a VFR on top clearance you could no longer fly in IMC conditions so you really aren't IFR persay.

If you're on a VFR on top clearence, you'd better believe that you are IFR, You are flying by Instrument Flight Rules (that's what IFR means, IFR isn't a weather condition) The only difference is, you can pick your own altitude, you fly at VFR altitudes and you must comply with VFR cloud clearences, other than that, *all* of the instrument flight rules are in effect and you are obligated to comply with them.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

AS I understand it, even though you're VFR-On-Top complying with IFR and VFR rules, ATC no longer provides the same traffic separation.

 

[A Squared]

AS I understand it, even though you're VFR-On-Top complying with IFR and VFR rules, ATC no longer provides the same traffic separation.

Correct. For purposes of traffic seperation see and avoid applies

 

[81Horse]

SilverFlyer, it seemed like the scenario you were asking about was something like: "Cleared to ABC, report reaching VFR conditions on top ... if not on top at/by xx00, maintain xx00 and advise ..."

In other words, a clearance designed to be cancelled as soon as you reach VFR conditions. So of course, the controllers are just waiting on you to break out and cancel.

And the others here are quite correct -- VFR-on-top is an IFR clearance, with instructions to maintain VFR conditions in lieu of a hard altitude.

 

[727gm]

You may also want to stay out of the clouds UNDER an overcast that the normal enroute clearance would put you in, if you are flying an aircraft without anti/de-icing equipment. Nothing about VFR-on-top says you have to be ABOVE the clouds. VFR-on top allows you to stay IFR, without trying to work out a new clearance while enroute.

 

[C-141/C-5]

WHY DON"T YOU JUST FILE A RADIAL DME OF A VORTAC?? You stay on an IFR flight plan and make your own straight line point. If you have an IFR rated GPS then i would just file direct.

VFR on top makes no sense to me. You don't have another set of eyes helping you clear and isn't VFR flying using pilotage and dead reckoning??? Kind of hard to do when you can't see the ground.

 

[81Horse]

VFR on top makes no sense to me.

VFR-on-top takes the place of a hard altitude -- what's the mystery? You retain your IFR clearance and routing, while maintaining a VFR altitude (and VMC). It can be a handy way to bypass or work around other IFR traffic -- which is no doubt the reason it came into being to start with.

 

[727gm]

WHY DON"T YOU JUST FILE A RADIAL DME OF A VORTAC??

Many light aircraft do not have DME installed(or GPS for that matter).

VFR-on-Top is an IFR clearance. No need to see the ground, and no need for dead reckoning, radio navigation is normally used.

 

[mar]

So don't use it.

VFR on top makes no sense to me.

I thought Asquared gave a good example of when it comes in handy.

Nobody is forcing you to request this service.

Just because you don't have a use for it doesn't make it senseless.

 

[A Squared]

You stay on an IFR flight plan and make your own straight line point. If you have an IFR rated GPS then i would just file direct.

As someone else has already pointed out, you may not do this outside of radar coverage, unless you are cleared VFR on TOP.

VFR on top makes no sense to me.

You've been given at least 4 different scenarios in which there is an operational advantage. I would have to ask, what does "make sense" mean to you?

You don't have another set of eyes helping you clear.

Uhhh, sure you do. You're still in radio contact with ATC, they are still giving you traffic advisories. If you're in Visual Conditions, you should be exercising see and avoid anyway, regardless of whether "VFR on Top" or on a "hard" altitude. The *only* difference is that ATC is not actively seperating you from other IFR traffic. Your seperation from VFR traffic is *exactly* the same; ATC advisories supplementing see and aviod.

and isn't VFR flying using pilotage and dead reckoning??? Kind of hard to do when you can't see the ground.

1) VFR flying is not exclusively Pilotage and Dead Reconing.

2) Dead Reckoning does not depend on seeing the ground

3) What makes you think you can't see the ground? "VFR on TOP" is just a phrase, often you are not "on top" but are actually in conditions which are VMC all the way to the ground.

 

[Hold West]

WHY DON"T YOU JUST FILE A RADIAL DME OF A VORTAC?? You stay on an IFR flight plan and make your own straight line point. If you have an IFR rated GPS then i would just file direct.

VFR on top makes no sense to me. You don't have another set of eyes helping you clear and isn't VFR flying using pilotage and dead reckoning??? Kind of hard to do when you can't see the ground.

Because in high/mountainous terrain the airway MEAs may be 5, 6, or 7 thousand while the minimum IFR altitude on a direct route may be 12, 14 or 16,000 feet. In order to go more direct on a nice, clear day without having to climb way higher than you want to go (or can go) in a light single.

Don't get hung up on the "on top" part of the clearance - you don't have to be on top of anything, just operating in VMC.

The advantage is you still get all the services an IFR flight does in terms of traffic advisories, weather information and SAR services.

VFR-on-top is highly underutilized if you ask me, probably because it's misunderstood by pilots and controllers both.

 

[C-141/C-5]

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.
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."​

MY 2 CENTS:
1. Personally, I'd rather ATC give me proper IFR seperation with me ultimately agreeing with it.
2. I interpret this reg as there is some sort of meterogical condition that you are climbing through to get on top of.
3. I must of been a BAD flight instructor back in the day because I taught pilotage and dead reckoning as VFR navigation with Navaids as a backup Situational Awareness tool.
4. So, what it boils down to is little bug smashers getting impatient getting the VFR on top and screwing up the airspace up more for the bigger jets. Reminds me of the idiots on the road in the left lane and going 5mph below the speed limit and you can't get by.

SERIOUSLY CORRECT ME IF I"M WRONG BUT THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THIS REG. I'VE NEVER REQUESTED IT OR EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

 

[81Horse]

You're confusing two different situations, as referenced.

A pilot on an IFR flight plan may request VFR-on-top in lieu of a hard altitude, if operating in VMC. Pilots may opt to do this for a variety of reasons (and, as Hold West said, it's an underutilized option). The pilot's responsibility to see and avoid while in VMC remains exactly the same as if he were at a hard altitude -- and he continues to receive ATC services, and can revert to a hard altitude at his request.

For IFR departures -- at pilot request -- a controller may issue a clearance to climb to VFR conditions on top (handy for climbing through coastal stratus, for instance); in this case, the controller issues a clearance limit and alternate instructions (and the reported tops) -- the expectation being the pilot will cancel when reaching "on top," and will proceed under VFR.

VFR-on-top operations pose no impediment to other traffic -- quite the reverse: requesting VFR-on-top can expedite your own flight, and others.

<edit to add my personal favorite use of VFR-on-top: departing IFR from an airport below the radar environment. You taxi out for takeoff, and tell ATC "requesting VFR-on-top; we're on top now." And, wah-lah! "Maintain VFR-conditions-on-top, cleared for takeoff." Traffic is issued as appropriate, everybody gets to keep moving, and you can shortcut an onerous departure procedure. It's a beautiful thing.>

 

[C-141/C-5]

I understand what your saying, but I think it's really not worth the trouble. Besides departure procedures are terped so you know you have ground clearance and you know the climb gradient required if you lose an engine. If you do your own thing you have to do more ground planning to make sure you meet requirements. Thanks for the info.

 

[AC560]

Let's say you're in a training situation and you want to do some airwork. The airport is IFR, so you file a flight plan from airport XYZ to ABC VOR, when you contact departure you explain you're in VMC and would like to manuever in a block of airspace and then return for the ILS at airport XYZ.

This is the part where I really am not clear on. Basically you just ring up center and say you want to go back to IFR and you can re-enter IMC conditions?

I can see to some extent what A-Sqaured is saying about the ability to naviagate a block of altitude but just seems to me to be a lot easier to either cancel or just remain on the IFR clearance given the type/size of planes I fly.

In any case this thread has been pretty informative, agree with Hold West about a lot of people (myself included) not really understanding this.

 

[A Squared]

MY 2 CENTS:
1. Personally, I'd rather ATC give me proper IFR seperation with me ultimately agreeing with it.

That's fine, if that's your preference. It is the height of arrogance to claim that others with a much broader level of experience, who do not share your preference are senseless.

2. I interpret this reg as there is some sort of meterogical condition that you are climbing through to get on top of.

THere are several concepts being disussed, it seems that you are a little confused by them. The "VFR-on-Top" I'm talking about is this one, from the pilot controller glossary:

VFR-ON-TOP- ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR conditions at any appropriate VFR altitude (as specified in 14 CFR and as restricted by ATC). A pilot receiving this authorization must comply with the VFR visibility, distance from cloud criteria, and the minimum IFR altitudes specified in 14 CFR Part 91. The use of this term does not relieve controllers of their responsibility to separate aircraft in Class B and Class C airspace or TRSAs as required by FAAO 7110.65.

3. I must of been a BAD flight instructor back in the day because I taught pilotage and dead reckoning as VFR navigation with Navaids as a backup Situational Awareness tool.

I have no idea whether you were a good or bad flight instructior. My point was that, for what it's worth, Dead Reckoning does not depend on seeing the ground. All you need is a known position, knowledge of your ground speed and ground track and a timer.

4. So, what it boils down to is little bug smashers getting impatient getting the VFR on top and screwing up the airspace up more for the bigger jets. Reminds me of the idiots on the road in the left lane and going 5mph below the speed limit and you can't get by.

Huuuhhh????? Where in the He11 did you pull that out of? You say that you have no experience with VFR on top, and it seems very likely that you really don't grasp the concept, yet you feel justified in making a ridiculous statement like this? Just for the record, the vast majority of my experience with VFR on Top, and likely, most of mar's, took place flying 4 engine transports. The fact that you think this is somehow "screwing up the airspace" shows that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. In most cases, VFR on top will make things easier for everyone, including the controller and other IFR traffic.

 

[Metro752]

this is very informational

ty guys

 

[Hold West]

MY 2 CENTS:
1. Personally, I'd rather ATC give me proper IFR seperation with me ultimately agreeing with it.
2. I interpret this reg as there is some sort of meterogical condition that you are climbing through to get on top of.
3. I must of been a BAD flight instructor back in the day because I taught pilotage and dead reckoning as VFR navigation with Navaids as a backup Situational Awareness tool.
4. So, what it boils down to is little bug smashers getting impatient getting the VFR on top and screwing up the airspace up more for the bigger jets. Reminds me of the idiots on the road in the left lane and going 5mph below the speed limit and you can't get by.

SERIOUSLY CORRECT ME IF I"M WRONG BUT THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THIS REG. I'VE NEVER REQUESTED IT OR EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

Most of your misconceptions have already been addressed, so I won't reiterate what's already been said.

What I find fairly humorous is that your screen name indicates you must be an AF pilot, and (your "little bug smashers" comment notwithstanding) the last OTP clearance I gave was to a KC-135.

We get a lot of military types that come out for a few days, and while they are here, they will take a trip down to one end of the island chain and back up to the other, just to admire our lovely state. This particular 135 came out a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday, doing exactly that, at 5,000 feet. The problem I had was he was headed toward a 12,000 foot MEA in another 50 miles or so. I told him he'd have to climb, and he came back with "Oh, OK, request VFR-on-top, and we are on top at this time". I say, "Roger, maintain VFR conditions on top" and just like that, we're done! Everyone's happy.

It's just on more tool in the box.

 

[Hold West]

For IFR departures -- at pilot request -- a controller may issue a clearance to climb to VFR conditions on top (handy for climbing through coastal stratus, for instance); in this case, the controller issues a clearance limit and alternate instructions (and the reported tops) -- the expectation being the pilot will cancel when reaching "on top," and will proceed under VFR.

I learned this when I was flying off my instrument rating in Wisconsin, way back when. On those overcast MVFR days with a layer at 1000 or so with tops around 3000, we'd go out to train, and call for an "IFR clearance to VFR conditions on top and cancel" We'd get a clearance to the Green Bay VOR via radar vectors, climb to and maintain VFR conditions on top, if not on top by 6000, maintain 6000 and advise. Off we'd go, break out on top, cancel, and go do our hood work, then when we were done, call and get clearance back in for a couple of approaches. Worked great, got to log a little actual each time, and was no extra workload for anyone.