"VFR" above the clouds.

[snoopy]

Grrrrr... this is a topic that I hashed out not too long ago, both on these forums and with a well respected member of these forums.

The definition of IFR and VFR concerns ALL airspace in Canada, and matters not whether the airspace is controlled or uncontrolled when it comes to fuel.

Without cluttering up this post with CARS, essentially VFR means the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface. If you are above a solid layer, particularly one that is thousands of feet thick, you are not VFR!!!

The difference being is when companies encourage IFR departures with subsequent "VFR" in uncontrolled airspace, they have set the bar to operate outside the law. This means they support the "good guys" who comply with this "grey area" and encourage their pilots to follow the party line. Then when the "bad guys" properly carry the IFR fuel safely and legally required to complete the flight, they are seen as a "problem". Because the company does not support these "bad" people, it allows for other company personnel, ie base managers, gate agents and everyone else within the organization, including the "good pilots" to put pressure on these "bad apples" to mend their evil ways or force them out.

What is worse is when both "good" and "evil" are working on the same day, and departing at the same time out of the same terminal. When the real good guy cuts the payload due fuel requirements for the actual IFR conditions present, the passengers suffer because either passengers and/or bags are cut from the flight and now all they see is the inconvenience to themselves. They take this out on the gate agent, who then blames the pilot and puts pressure on the base manager, who also blames the pilot and so on and so forth. Not exactly a supportive culture. Captain Fantastic then steps up to the plate and takes all his/her passengers because he/she plays within the company rules, and is rewarded for it.

I am the first person to support an IFR equipped/certified aircraft flown by an IFR certified pilot, attempting the flight VFR, and punching up through the clouds if the weather turns out to be worse than anticipated based on proper pre-flight planning. By all means, complete the flight under the safest means necessary. However if IMC conditions are experienced in the beginning of a long flight where it is still possible to return for more fuel, that solution would be wiser. This is where good pilot decision making comes in to play.

Having said that, knowingly departing with VFR fuel in IMC conditions, just so you can carry more payload is unsafe, illegal and completely unforgivable. This is intentional disregard for safety and the law unlike forgetting your landing gear, which although terrible, is usually not intentional.

Since Transport Canada will not oversee the industry and since many companies will support bad behavior in order to continue operating, it is up to YOU as the pilot (mechanic, or whatever) to conduct yourself in accordance with the law, safety, ethics and good airmanship until such time as conditions improve in the industry. Because whatever happens, it is you that will be hung out to dry at the accident investigation if you aren't already dead.

Conduct yourself responsibly, and if you are punished for it, keep looking until you find the rare company that will support your values and safe operating practices.

As more people do this, the industry will change over time. Of course a little enforcement from the regulator would go a long way to speed up the process.

Good on you for raising the question, both within yourself, and for discussion on these forums.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[_dwj_]

Your arguments are out to lunch today cat.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We also used asbestos to insulate our homes.

My arguments???

I am not arguing I am commenting and my comments are based on experience in the world of flying using navigation aids starting with THE RADIO RANGE / ADF /VOR/DECCA / OMEGA/ LORAN/ GNS / GPS / INS and in the last airplane RNS.

The secret to safety is not only understanding the equipment you are flying but having the mental discipline to safely use the equipment in the airplane based on all the factors for every flight...it was called airmanship and I was very successful in using all of the above.

Correct me if I'm wrong Cat, but you seem to be implying that we don't need to follow the CARs because back in the day when there were no CARs we all used our airmanship instead. And yet don't you also complain about TC not bothering to shut down all the cowboy operators who put their passengers in danger? You can't have it both ways.

From what I can tell, all of the large operators up north do follow the rules, so it's not true that you can't make a profit if you follow the CARs. I've spoken to quite a few scientists and engineers who fly charters up north, and none of them fly with these mickey mouse operators who break the rules. They (and their employers) are more concerned with safety than getting the cheapest deal. And if they have to divert, the customer just pays for the same flight twice.

Of course there are always going to be cheap ass customers who don't mind flying in clapped out planes with minimum fuel under "VFR" if it means they can save a few bucks, and there will always be operators willing to service these cheapskates. But as a pilot you have a choice not to work for these operators, and as a customer you need to do a little research.

Bottom line: if you fly into the side of a mountain in below VFR visibility because you regularly and deliberately break the rules, nobody will have much sympathy for you. I just hope you don't take any passengers down with you.

[AuxBatOn]

I find it amusing that most people here argue that they are "professional" but many individuals think it's okay to disregard rules and safety to "get the job done".

Now, imagine if an engineer disregarded the fact that a bridge structure cannot be built to specs because there isn't enough material around at the time of construction and elected to oh, use less material because after all, there are safety margins and the job needs to be done.

Like I said, amusing! If you can't be disciplined enough to follow the rules and apply safety measures by yourself, without the oversight of the regulators, you are NOT a professional.

[HavaJava]

Ok...side track on this thread...

Granny Gas...It is NEVER ok to operate over the gross weight of your aircraft and justify it because you are carrying granny gas.

If you as PIC determine that due to the conditions you need more gas, then great! But if this extra gas puts you overweight then you must reduce your payload correspondingly.

Hiding granny gas is a stupid cop-out for pilots who are either grossly negligent or are unwilling or afraid to stand up to slime-ball operators.

[snoopy]

To add to my above post... It is perfectly acceptable to descend IFR to an IFR safe altitude at an airport where there is no approach, to "see" if you can see anything for a visual apprach. It is not ok to create your own unapproved BS approach to "minimums". Again, intentional disregard.... If a company wishes IFR access to airports without an approach, this is easily accomplished by creating a proposed approach/MAP and having the procedure authorized by Transport Canada/Nav Canada. All that is required is a little effort to legitimize the procedure.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Cat Driver]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cat, but you seem to be implying that we don't need to follow the CARs because back in the day when there were no CARs we all used our airmanship instead. And yet don't you also complain about TC not bothering to shut down all the cowboy operators who put their passengers in danger? You can't have it both ways.

I will correct you, nowhere ever on this or any other forum have I ever suggested any pilot operate outside of the rules...CAR's are Canadian regulations, I always try an council pilots to abide by the regulations that govern their airplane anywhere they fly on this planet.

Humor me _dwj_ and explain how a pilot makes decisions in the High Arctic under CAR's.

How do you fly a trip out of say Yellowknife to Borden Island to deliver an oil exploration company to a location where there is no airport nor anyone there to give you a weather report.

If Yellowknife is IMC but the high Arctic is forecast to be VFR to marginal VRF how do you plan and fly a trip such as that under CAR's.

I am asking you because I have never had any need to know what the CAR's say for the simple reason I have not flown commercially in Canada since the CAR's came into effect.

Before CAR's we had THE ANO's which outlined the rules for us.

[snoopy]

The answer Cat, should be that there is no difference pre-or post CARS, other than perhaps a legal formalizing of the fuel requirements. I am sure that back in the day you somehow calculated sufficient fuel, which included VFR/IFR alternates, point of no return, contingency fuel and the like... or did you just load 'er up and get 'er in? I hope you didn't - I rather suspect you made an educated guess as to how much fuel would be required based on forecast conditions and uncertainty at the destination, and adjusted your fuel load vs. payload accordingly, in order to ensure the safe completion of the flight, within the performance envelope of the aircraft.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

FYI, the following may be found in present-day CARS:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#602_88

Fuel Requirements

602.88 (1) This section does not apply in respect of any glider, balloon or ultra-light aeroplane.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall commence a flight or, during flight, change the destination aerodrome set out in the flight plan or flight itinerary, unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to ensure compliance with subsections (3) to (5).

(3) An aircraft operated in VFR flight shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter,

(i) when operated during the day, to fly to the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes at normal cruising speed, or

(ii) when operated at night, to fly to the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes at normal cruising speed; or

(b) in the case of a helicopter, to fly to the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 20 minutes at normal cruising speed.

(4) An aircraft operated in IFR flight shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes; or

(b) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane or a helicopter,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes, or

(ii) where an alternate aerodrome is not specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 30 minutes.

(5) Every aircraft shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to provide for

(a) taxiing and foreseeable delays prior to take-off;

(b) meteorological conditions;

(c) foreseeable air traffic routings and traffic delays;

(d) landing at a suitable aerodrome in the event of loss of cabin pressurization or, in the case of a multi-engined aircraft, failure of any engine, at the most critical point during the flight; and

(e) any other foreseeable conditions that could delay the landing of the aircraft.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#703_20

703.20 No air operator shall authorize a flight and no person shall commence a flight unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the fuel requirements of Part VI and to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of an aeroplane operated in IFR flight,

(i) to descend at any point along the route to the lower of

(A) the single-engined service ceiling, or

(B) 10,000 feet,

(ii) to cruise at the altitude referred to in subparagraph (i) to a suitable aerodrome,

(iii) to conduct an approach and a missed approach, and

(iv) to hold for 30 minutes at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome selected in accordance with subparagraph (ii); and

(b) in the case of a helicopter operated in night VFR flight, to fly to the destination aerodrome and then to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#704_20

704.20 No air operator shall authorize a flight and no person shall commence a flight unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the fuel requirements of Part VI and to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of an aeroplane operated in IFR flight,

(i) to descend at any point along the route to the lower of

(A) the single-engined service ceiling, or

(B) 10,000 feet,

(ii) to cruise at the altitude referred to in subparagraph (i) to a suitable aerodrome,

(iii) to conduct an approach and a missed approach, and

(iv) to hold for 30 minutes at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome selected in accordance with subparagraph (ii); and

(b) in the case of a helicopter operated in night VFR flight, to fly to the destination aerodrome and then to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#705_25

705.25 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no air operator shall authorize a flight and no person shall commence a flight unless the aircraft

(a) when operating in VFR flight, carries sufficient fuel to fly to the destination aerodrome and thereafter to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed;

(b) when operating in IFR flight on designated routes or over designated areas as defined in the Commercial Air Service Standards, carries an enroute fuel reserve of five per cent of the fuel required to fly to the destination aerodrome; and

(c) when operating in IFR flight, except when complying with the Safety Criteria for Approval of Extended Range Twin-engine Operations (ETOPS) Manual, carries sufficient fuel to allow the aircraft

(i) to descend at any point along the route to the lower of

(A) the one-engine-inoperative service ceiling, or

(B) 10,000 feet ASL,

(ii) to cruise at the altitude referred to in subparagraph (i) to a suitable aerodrome,

(iii) to conduct an approach and a missed approach, and

(iv) to hold for 30 minutes at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome selected in accordance with subparagraph (ii).

(2) An air operator may be authorized in an air operator certificate to reduce the enroute fuel reserve required by paragraph (1)(b) where the air operator complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

[Cat Driver]

The answer Cat, should be that there is no difference pre-or post CARS, other than perhaps a legal formalizing of the fuel requirements. I am sure that back in the day you somehow calculated sufficient fuel, which included VFR/IFR alternates, point of no return, contingency fuel and the like... or did you just load 'er up and get 'er in? I hope you didn't - I rather suspect you made an educated guess as to how much fuel would be required based on forecast conditions and uncertainty at the destination, and adjusted your fuel load vs. payload accordingly, in order to ensure the safe completion of the flight, within the performance envelope of the aircraft.

When I was flying in Canada I very early in my career learned to protect myself and anyone in an airplane I was flying by following the rules Snoop.

In fact I was terminated by a few companies for refusing to break the rules.

And in 1975 the only way I could find to stay within the regulations as chief pilot for an airline was to bring a charge of failing to back me up with regards to the regulations against T.C.in the flight operations of the airline

As to flying over the legal gross weight of an airplane I considered one pound over the legal weight to be in contravention of the rules...except on long over ocean ferry flights where the fuel required put us thousands of pounds over the legal weight.

There is a way to do that legally...we received an over weight ferry permit from the regulator.

[snoopy]

And that is the only answer I had hoped you would give...

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[PT6-114A]

There is a way to do that legally...we received an over weight ferry permit from the regulator.

Because a piece of paper makes the plane fly better over weight. Sorry I get it is crew only and why you are doing just is a funny comment about how a paper makes it ok to be over weight.

[Cat Driver]

I am having difficulty understanding your comments, so I will try and answer.

Because a piece of paper makes the plane fly better over weight.

It was not my experience that the airplane flies better over weight, in fact quite to the contrary, the risk factor goes way up when flying over weight on the last flight we did out of Dakar to Natal Brazil we would have had a considerable drift down to the surface for the first five hours of flight had we lost an engine.

Sorry I get it is crew only and why you are doing just is a funny comment about how a paper makes it ok to be over weight.

I was explaining that there are times when you must carry an over load due to fuel needs on long over ocean ferry flights, the regulator will issue a special ferry permit for a given flight and yes it is crew only......and it by having the ferry permit you are flying legally.

Does that explain it better?

[_dwj_]

Now, imagine if an engineer disregarded the fact that a bridge structure cannot be built to specs because there isn't enough material around at the time of construction and elected to oh, use less material because after all, there are safety margins and the job needs to be done.

And in some countries that is exactly what happens on a regular basis. And guess what? The buildings fall down! It happens in Canada, but only very rarely. Luckily most professionals here are very aware of their responsibilities and there isn't a general culture of cutting corners to make a buck. But for some reason certain sectors of aviation seems to be different.

[AuxBatOn]

And when that happens in Canada, guess what. The engineer will probably lose his job and suffer consequences. In Canada, some aviation companies ENCOURAGE breaking the rules. Not likely to see that in the engineering world.

[crazy_aviator]

Edited

As far as flying OVER gross weight ,,,it is LEGAL with the appropriate permit AND it is SAFE
if done properly ( not AS safe as flying well under gross doing circuits at your home AP with 2 hrs fuel lol)

[HavaJava]

Ooooh!...bordering on personal attack...

Wish I had gotten home in time to have caught that one!

[hz2p]

.

[Oor Wullie]

I'm sure he is aware of the requirements of VFR OTT.
HOWEVER, this is NOT the argument at hand.

Nowhere in the requirements in VFR OTT does it allow climbing through OVC or BKN cloud layers, then descending through a OVC or BKN layer at your destination. As you quoted above. VFR OTT applies to the cruise portion only. Therefore, VFR flight rules in Controlled/uncontrolled apply at departure and destination airports. That IS the argument.

[Donald]

Then consider a composite flight plan, VFR departure from your controlled airport/airspace and then when in uncontrolled, change to IFR flight. No clearance required, and as long as you have return fuel to the VFR departure airport, that covers your alternate.

Departing SVFR is when you need to have more of a contingency plan. Up north, always have outs.

[Cat Driver]

Therefore, VFR flight rules in Controlled/uncontrolled apply at departure and destination airports. That IS the argument.

Lets not forget this argument also is about flying where there may not be an airport within a hundred miles of the place you are planning on landing.

In fact there used to be large areas of the maps that had no terrain mapping period, and the magnetic compass does not work.

But sometimes we could draw pictures on the windshield using St. Elmos fire.

And if we could identify a beacon on the ADF but the needle just went round and round we could use the BFO function to fly to the beacon.....radar vectors were not an option.

When we flew down south to Whitehorse we also could fly the twilight zone on the radio range leg once in range of the station.

And we did all that VFR on top.

[snoopy]

Very well h2zp, I'm not sure of the reason for your thinly veiled sarcasm but this time, here are a few CARS to clutter up my reply. As the previous poster mentioned, this discussion is not about legitimate VFR OTT, it is about the practice of KNOWINGLY departing IFR with VFR fuel using supposed grey areas that in fact are not grey at all, and KNOWINGLY conducting BS (unapproved) approaches without IFR fuel reserves.

You will note that I said "essentially" - not definitively - in the post you quoted. And I cannot find a statement in any of my posts in which I have claimed to be an expert on the CARS. I do believe that it is our duty as an aviation professional, to be well-versed, and aware of our responsibilities.

BTW, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... ry-207.htm is not a source for legal definitions. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... bpart1.htm is a start, however the legal definitions are interspersed throughout the CARS.

A point that must be raised about conducting BS approaches with VFR fuel: how does one determine and adhere to minimums? If the pilot self-determined the unapproved manoeuvre in the first place, what's to stop them from breaking their own minimums to get in? Its a pretty bad scenario to arrive at your destination, conduct a BS approach only to find you can't get in and have nowhere to go because you don't have the fuel. Or did the pilot over gross the a/c with hidden IFR fuel and hope to get away with it? Maybe suck up a few seat cushions on the third attempt and then breathe a sigh of relief when they get away with it.... THIS time. Where does it end?

As an aside, VFR OTT must be approved for each operator, and strict criteria must be met - most operators don't bother adding it to their certificate because it is a lot of hassle/criteria for very little gain. Usually it is simply easier to obtain approval for, and file, IFR. 705 operations are simply not allowed VFR OTT (unless you're operating a helicopter).

Cheers,
Kirsten B.
____________________________________________________

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#703_33

VFR OTT Flight
703.33 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR OTT flight unless the person

(a) is authorized to do so in an air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... tm#723a_33

723.33 VFR OTT (Over the Top) Flight

The following standard shall be complied with for flights operating VFR OTT:

(1) the flight shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 602.116 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations;

(2) for multi-engined aeroplanes where the pilot holds a valid Instrument Rating for the group of aeroplane, the flight shall be operated under conditions allowing descent under VMC or continuation of the flight under IFR or VMC if its critical engine fails;

(3) for multi-engined aeroplanes where the pilot does not hold a valid Instrument Rating for the group of aeroplane, or that can not comply with (2) above, and for single-engine aeroplanes, the flight shall be operated under conditions allowing:

(a) for multi-engined aeroplanes, descent under VMC, or continuation of the flight under VMC conditions if its critical engine fails;

(b) for single-engined aeroplanes, descent under VMC if its engine fails.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#704_28

VFR OTT Flight

704.28 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR OTT flight unless

(a) [Repealed 2007/06/30; previous version];

(b) the person is authorized to do so in an air operator certificate; and

(c) the person complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... tm#724a_28

724.28 VFR OTT Flight
(amended 2007/06/30; no previous version)

The standard for operating VFR OTT is:

(1) the flights shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 602.116 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, and

(2) the flights shall be operated under conditions allowing for descent under VMC, or continuation of the flight under VMC if its critical engine fails.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#705_36

VFR OTT Flight

705.36 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR OTT flight unless

(a) the aircraft is a helicopter;

(b) the person is authorized to do so in an air operator certificate; and

(c) the person complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards. (note, I don't see an airline standard for helicopters VFR OTT)

and then, don't forget:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#605_15

Power-driven Aircraft - VFR OTT

605.15 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of VFR OTT flight unless it is equipped with

(a) the equipment referred to in paragraphs 605.14(c) to (j);

(b) a sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure;

(c) a means of preventing malfunction caused by icing for each airspeed indicating system;

(d) a gyroscopic direction indicator or a stabilized magnetic direction indicator;

(e) an attitude indicator;

(f) subject to subsection (2), a turn and slip indicator or turn coordinator;

(g) where the aircraft is to be operated within the Northern Domestic Airspace, a means of establishing direction that is not dependent on a magnetic source;

(h) radiocommunication equipment adequate to permit two-way communication on the appropriate frequency; and

(i) radio navigation equipment adequate to permit the aircraft to be navigated safely.

(2) Where the aircraft is equipped with a third attitude indicator that is usable through flight attitudes of 360o of pitch and roll for an aeroplane, or ±80o of pitch and ±120o of roll for a helicopter, the aircraft may be equipped with a slip-skid indicator in lieu of a turn and slip indicator or a turn coordinator.
(amended 2006/06/30; previous version)