Another VFR over the top question.

[Cat Driver]

I am rather surprised at a lot of the comments on the VFR over the Top thread.

That thread is going all over the spectrum of flying so here is a more specific question for commercial sea plane operations.

When deciding to fly on top of an overcast in a single engine sea plane with solid cloud below you how far would you be willing to fly with no ground contact, and what ceiling under the cloud cover would you accept as safe in case the engine quit.

When answering could you mention if you fly in the flat lands or in the mountains.

[AuxBatOn]

Take my reply for what it's worth, I do not fly floats.

I would not do it without a way to pinpoint my position and know the position of the lakes around. A map and a VOR receiver could do it provided you have VOR coverage along your whole route. An other, cheap, efficient, modern way would definately be a hand held GPS. That way, if I did have an engine failure, I could find my way towards a suitable lake (hopefully I would have done my homeworks before and I would know which lake is suitable, which isn't), get out of clouds and proceed out of cloud to a landing. The minimum ceiling acceptable would depends on the gliding capabilities of the airplane and type of terrain I'm overflying.

[Blue Side Down]

When deciding to fly on top of an overcast in a single engine sea plane with solid cloud below you how far would you be willing to fly with no ground contact, and what ceiling under the cloud cover would you accept as safe in case the engine quit.

Hmm, second cast... Isn't having a significant expanse of cloud cover below you the point of VFROTT? What difference would it make having 1000 feet or 100 feet of clear under the said cloud layer? Do single engine IFR drivers refuse to fly because the weather happens to be completely socked in between A and B? What happens if the trusty PT6 up front coughs itself up and out its pipe with nothing but a snow squall below? If there's space to go under the layer... go under... and keep an eye on that water to keep it from escaping. If you decide to go OTT, go over... it's the driver's call (Ops Manual permitting), no? Granted there is an extra variable in the mix, which may turn some pilots off after the idea of taking an extra risk and not being able to explain it to their passengers for whatever reason sets in.

If, after taking the big picture into consideration, you decide to go OTT, the details are fun to ruminate about but have little bearing on the outcome. There's a risk you accept at the get go in order to get to you destination at a certain time for whatever the reason (as opposed to waiting the weather out or taking the scenic route), and off you go. No different than for SEIFR, SE over the bush, in the mountains, etc.

[Youngback]

Popping out with 1000 feet between the clouds and ground will give you quite a bit more time and flexibility on where you are landing than having only 100 feet. Cat's asking a very valid question.

[StudentPilot]

That thread is going all over the spectrum of flying so here is a more specific question for commercial sea plane operations.

When deciding to fly on top of an overcast in a single engine sea plane with solid cloud below you how far would you be willing to fly with no ground contact, and what ceiling under the cloud cover would you accept as safe in case the engine quit.

The "correct" answer would be to grab a coffee and wait. Last I checked I could not descend in VMC through an overcast layer as the CARs require for a commercial operation.

If I had to go over an overcast layer for some reason, I'd be looking for 2-3000' AGL (1 minute+ visual glide) over the flatlands. Over the rocks I'd want TAWs, really good terrain on my GPS, or something similar so I don't hit a hill on the way through the cloud. If I had 2-3000' below the clouds I would most likely be down there anyways so I would always know where I'm heading if my engine fails.

[viccoastdog]

To quote myself from the other thread on the topic, here's a commercial ops example of when I think it's a acceptable idea:

Here's an example from our local area on Vancouver Island: Flying up the Cowichan valley to get to the west side side of the island. Lake Cowichan has a cloud layer over it at, let's say, 500' above the surface. The surrounding mountains are cloud-free. VFR OTT over the lake is probably a better option than flying amongst the rocks.

[sheephunter]

If I had what I'd like under me, that's where I'd be to start with. So, at 500' with unlimited vis. I'd stay under, 500' or less and crap, I'd most likley be looking for a hole and take a look on top and decide to proceed, land and wait or go back home. If 500' or less, solid and crap from the git go I'd have a couple of coffee, have lunch and at some point most likely call it a day and have a beer. One thing I just did was looked VFR / OTT in a quite old From the Ground up and I know it isn't CARS but nowhere does it say you need to have visual reference while OTT as implied somewhere above, other than VFR conditions to get on top and scattered or better at the other end. What it does say among other things is that the rating can be had with a minimum of 15 hours dual instrument time 5 of which can be ground time. I think that this should be looked at with consideration given to maintain the rating you are required to do a certain amount of IFR training per season whether this is 5 hours dual... 10, sim or whatever to maintain some form of proficiency. And no I don't think this is adequate to blast around IFR it is to hopefully keep you shiney side up for more than a couple seconds if things aren't as forecast when you arrive.

[Driving Rain]

Only if the company ops spec allowed it which it appears most operators don't have.
And only if the sky conditions were scattered to broken.

[Blue Side Down]

The "correct" answer would be to grab a coffee and wait. Last I checked I could not descend in VMC through an overcast layer as the CARs require for a commercial operation.

One if the premises of VFROTT is that the destination's cloud cover is scattered or clear- otherwise the type of flying you'd be doing would be regarded as 'IFR'. I'd have to verify, but I seem to remember that there are similar VFR restrictions on the departure side too.

+1 on sheephunter's and coastdog's comments- VFROTT turns out to be the best solution for certain situations, but generally it's used to avoid other more dangerous courses of action. It's sort of like best angle of climb... which you only use (at increased risk) when the possible outcomes of not using it pose a greater hazard, ie dragging your feet through the trees at the departure end.

[viccoastdog]

Sheephunter wrote:

that the rating can be had with a minimum of 15 hours dual instrument time 5 of which can be ground time

Cat started this alternate VFR-OTT thread for commercial seaplane ops, so the pilot will have a CPL, and therefore 25 hours instrument time and the VFR-OTT privileges (as dubious as they may be!). I believe annual under-the-hood training for a commercial VFR operation should be part of a company's pilot training.

Here's the CARS on VFR-OTT (and section 7, which applies to commercial ops refers to this part of section 6):

VFR Over-the-Top

602.116 Notwithstanding paragraphs 602.114(a) and 602.115(a), an aircraft may be operated in VFR OTT flight during the cruise portion of the flight during the day if

(a) the aircraft is operated at a vertical distance from cloud of at least 1,000 feet;

(b) where the aircraft is operated between two cloud layers, the vertical distance between the layers is at least 5,000 feet;

(c) flight visibility at the cruising altitude of the aircraft is at least five miles; and

(d) the weather at the aerodrome of destination is forecast to have a sky condition of scattered cloud or clear and a ground visibility of five miles or greater with no forecast of precipitation, fog, thunderstorms or blowing snow, and those conditions are forecast to exist

(i) where the forecast is an aerodrome forecast (TAF), for the period from one hour before to two hours after the estimated time of arrival; and

(ii) where an aerodrome forecast (TAF) is not available and the forecast is an area forecast (FA), for the period from one hour before to three hours after the estimated time of arrival.

Noticed the 'nothwithstanding clause I underlined above. It refers to:

602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless

(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;

So there it is. To legally operate VFR-OTT you must do so with reference to the surface, must be able to descend VFR in the event of the fan quiting (even though you might not want to if doing so puts you near rocks), and a destination forecast that is better than scattered for quite some time. This means no 'poking up through a hole to see how it looks'.

I think there is a general misunderstanding of what VFR-OTT is, and many of us are defining it as flying above a cloud layer or deck with little regard to the other regulations pertaining to it.

[xsbank]

One time I tried an OTT flight, to avoid a trip through the rocks at low altitude (Chilcotin Plateau, Homathco Valley to Bute Inlet), as I was climbing to get on top I had an electrical fire, had to turn off all electrics (all gyros, turn and bank etc. were electric! ) and I had to do a descent back down through the same clouds right away before the gyros spun down and before I got too close to the rocks. That was a largish but antique twin.

Haven't done OTT since and I had only done it on floats previous to my twin days in those foggy days where the fog was solid past Chatham Point, YBL was open but everything north was socked in.

Its just too iffy and too changeable on the coast (IMHO) to allow OTT, or should I say, make OTT commercially into a legal operation.

I can think of three accidents on the coast where the pilot likely lost visual reference during low-level flight, commenced a climb to look for clear air and found some cumulo granite in a cloud.

I was taught to offset my route offshore far enough so that if I lost forward visibility I would commence a turn towards the shore to keep visual reference then I could reverse course without losing visual reference. I could get closer to the shore if I lowered flaps!

[viccoastdog]

I seem to be flogging a dead horse here, but if XSBank climbed up through the cloud layer, had electrical failure, and needed to descend back through the cloud layer, then he wasn't VFR-OTT to begin with. Read the CARS. The same for flying along on floats low and slow, over the water, when all of a sudden the vis goes down to nothing and you commence a climb to blue above. That isn't VFR-OTT, that's pushing the weather too much from the get-go.

Please everyone, read the CARS requirements for VFR-OTT requirements before commenting on whether it's good, bad, or ugly.

[Cat Driver]

From reading the CAR's I understand that you can fly VFR OTT as long as you are licensed to do so on top of a solid under cast as long as your point of departure allows you to climb on top visually and the weather forecast is calling for xxx weather for a stated time frame.

So am I to take it that I could take off in a Cessna 185 from Nanaimo Harbor and climb VFR and level off 1000 feet above an overcast that tops at lets say 5000 feet with five miles vis on top. And I could do this all the way to Bella Coola as long as the Bella Coola forecast met CAR's?

And this is O.K. flying a charter with passengers?

Or have I read it wrong?

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

From reading the CAR's I understand that you can fly VFR OTT as long as you are licensed to do so on top of a solid under cast as long as your point of departure allows you to climb on top visually and the weather forecast is calling for xxx weather for a stated time frame.

So am I to take it that I could take off in a Cessna 185 from Nanaimo Harbor and climb VFR and level off 1000 feet above an overcast that tops at lets say 5000 feet with five miles vis on top. And I could do this all the way to Bella Coola as long as the Bella Coola forecast met CAR's?

And this is O.K. flying a charter with passengers?

Or have I read it wrong?

You've got it right. Except I believe there is a provision that you have to be able to descend and land vfr at any point along the route.

Everybody seems to be quoting the CARS and I assume we can all read, so we all know already what the CARS say. I thought the question was not what do you think in principle of VFR OTT but what are your limits and what actually happens on a daily basis.

[StudentPilot]

So am I to take it that I could take off in a Cessna 185 from Nanaimo Harbor and climb VFR and level off 1000 feet above an overcast that tops at lets say 5000 feet with five miles vis on top. And I could do this all the way to Bella Coola as long as the Bella Coola forecast met CAR's?

Privately, that works. Commercially, it doesn't. The key is CARs 723.33. "For single-engined aeroplanes, descent under VMC if its engine fails." If you know how to glide through an overcast layer but stay in VMC, let me know.

[Cat Driver]

O.K. then Studentpilot let me change that a bit.

As long as there were mountains sticking out of that cloud layer topped at 5000 feet and I was high enough to glide to one then I would be legal to carry passengers VFR on top correct?

As I recall there should be lots of mountains that are above 5000 feet on that route.

I have sort of lost interest in reading CAR's lately but from the little bit I remember I do not believe that CAR's defines what the landing area should be as long as it is visual...Correct??

[sheephunter]

Glorified, we are all reading Cars right now and "to believe there is a provision that you have to be able to descend and land VFR anywhere along route" is nowhere I read. Which Cars do you refer to? So, is it making up rules as we go the problem? Vivcoastdog, I'm with you. The rules are not being followed or poorly interpreted. I'm going for some cocktails so disregard anything else I have to say tonight. Of for that matter up until now. I now what I'm up to. And ., you sure have created a monster, I haven't had this much to say in months only to know you will shoot me down.

[viccoastdog]

. wrote:

As long as there were mountains sticking out of that cloud layer topped at 5000 feet and I was high enough to glide to one then I would be legal to carry passengers VFR on top correct?

That sounds legal according to CARS definition of VFR-OTT. The mountains are your VFR landing point if the engine quits, and the mountains are what you are flying in reference to (must be able to fly with reference to the 'ground'). I don't think I'd want to do this flight though!

See my scenario earlier about flying over an undercast (with 500' below the clouds to the water) that only existed over a big big lake with the mountains around the lake in the blue and no clouds around them? VFR-OTT over the lake sounds better than over the mountains only because I can land on the lake, even if doing so I break the CARS by flying down through the undercast. But it was a legal VFR-OTT flight until that point because I could have made it to the mountains! Goofy eh?

[viccoastdog]

So am I to take it that I could take off in a Cessna 185 from Nanaimo Harbor and climb VFR and level off 1000 feet above an overcast that tops at lets say 5000 feet with five miles vis on top. And I could do this all the way to Bella Coola as long as the Bella Coola forecast met CAR's?

As Student Pilot said, not commercially. I should have posted the CARS standard 723.33 with my post quoting CARS 602. Here it is for what it's worth:

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.

So the regs are more cautious with paying passengers on board!

[xsbank]

Vic, a hole in an overcast into the clear is VFR OTT. Why are you so quick to condemn me, just to point out your superior knowledge of aviation?

I gave my example of an unforeseen situation that could have ruined my day - I don't know about you, but landing on the Homathco Glacier, while legal, might be something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

Most float planes have minimal instrumentation and maybe not even pitot heat (what caused my fire in my example). Fine if all goes well, but they suck if it doesn't.

I still think its a bad idea. Wait til the w/x gets better - it always does on the coast, sooner or later. "If you don't like the w/x on the coast, just wait an hour." My mother who lives in Vancouver on the North Shore has a foolproof way of w/x forecasting - she says: "... if you can't see Vancouver Island, its raining. If you CAN see Vancouver Island, its going to rain."

[Cat Driver]

And ., you sure have created a monster, I haven't had this much to say in months only to know you will shoot me down.

Hey sheepherder how do you think I have created a monster? I didn't write the CAR's, all I am doing is getting people to examine what they say and use their imagination as to what kind of a position they could put them self in and still be legal.

[viccoastdog]

XS, No condemnation implied. Your post said

as I was climbing to get on top

, which I took to mean you were climbing through a layer to get on top.

I profess no superior knowledge of aviation matters, but this thread was started with a question to the effect of what we all think about commercial VFR-OTT.

I want to make sure that we all know how restrictive VFR-OTT regulations really are and that a lot of the flights mentioned in these posts as being VFR-OTT really weren't because they didn't meet many of those regs. If due consideration is given to what the restrictions actually are then we might have different opinions about whether VFR-OTT is a good idea or not.

[hawkerdriver]

Short version ;10 years ago when i was thinking i was a king pin i take a c-206 on float with 2 pax for a 125 nm flight .After this flight go for inspection 50hr.The weather was so so ,lot of fog patch on the ground with a blue sky,hey good enough.50 nm before destination start to see a full cover of cloud maybe at 2000 feet under me but a king pin (+-400hr)can do that,start the descent (ground level is about 1000 feet ) enter in the cloud at 3000 feet and cntinue the descent to 1500 feet an then another 100 feet .No ground no prob max pwr an climb out.Vfr again heard a plane not to far and it was sky clear ,go that point and see the ground go underneath finish the trip and go for the inspection.The AMO tell me after the inspection ,hey buddy you have to sleep here you're #6 cyl have a crack 6 inches long around the cyl and i am surprise this engine still running!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep a good lesson from that ;if we have emergency procedure it is because they know it is always a risk that an engine can break no mathers how you take care of it or how many hr on the engine.Better be safer then sorry(from Mike B. my salutation by the way.)Try to think you have both of you're parent on board, or you are sitting on the back of the plane who fly in this condition,why take a chance live is too short.

THE HARDEST THING IN AVIATION IS ; WHEN TO SAY NO,but thats what companies pay you for...........
If you think safety is expensive try an accident.
fly safe bunch of biatch.lol.

[xsbank]

Fair enough, Vic. I suppose if this language was more precise we wouldn't need these discussions.

I really don't know why some of us got away with years and years of flying on the coast in some of the most challenging conditions anywhere, yet some of the guys just didn't make it. Its really easy to do and I'm inclined to say that they had inferior skills or were somehow deficient and caused their own demise. I used to think that with the (relative) collapse of the coastal float industry and the metamorphosis into a taxi/tourist industry that all the senior guys who mentored guys like me had either retired or gone to fly Airbusses and left nobody with any experience to bring along the newbies.

But I don't think that way anymore.

When I was a beginner, only the most senior guys could fly a Goose, but then I search my memories and I guy I worked for in the 80's thundered in near Squamish ..-running in a Goose and another hit the top of Mayne Island in a DC-3 doing BS IFR and both of these guys were senior. I got my first job at a place where the son of the owner had just killed himself and a handful of others, in a Mallard.

Why are we having the same types of accidents with high-timers in this day and age? Why are guys trying to outrun the weather and still getting caught? Two Goose crashes where serviceable a/c hit the ground, arguably ..-running, Widow's accident with still no real closure. Why haven't we been able to close this chapter? Even the so-called modern bush planes like the Caravan have records no better than their predecessors, so patently its not the aircraft. I know this is very anecdotal and its only my own thoughts, but the common thread here is qualified, experienced, high-time pilots that are taking plane-loads of people to their graves for no explicable reason.

Maybe we get too complacent, we have done it before and gotten away with it so many times that we feel that bad weather is no big deal? How much room do you need to turn around a loaded Goose? How well will a Loaded Goose climb? I am not trying to impugn the guys who died this year, or any other year, cause I really don't know what happened, even though I suspect, but there is a common thread here and I wish I could fix whatever is happening out there.

We used to say a guy who had reached a thousand hours on a plane and a company that had reached a million dollars revenue were both at the highest risk they would ever be. I wish there was some advice I could pass on that would be some useful catch-word that would keep you all safe out there.

This is a close as I can get. Just wait for the weather - it will be better tomorrow and instead of dying you can spend that crappy, foggy, windy, soggy day at home with your family.

[Cat Driver]

Xsbank, the guy who flew into Mayne island was a very high time pilot with over 9000 hours on the DC3 alone and he was a friend of mine from the Arctic flying days.

He had flown the route so often he just must have become complacent because he chose to skud run in the dark rather than wait for an IFR clearance.....how in hell does one explain something like that?

Like you I am unable to understand why these accidents keep happening over and over and over......

Would it help if ATC quit approving SVFR departures out here on the coast and only approve SVFR arrivals?