VFR over the top for sea planes?

[viccoastdog]

Patrick Swayze wrote:

It might seem ok until the one lone vacuum pump you have in your float plane packs it in and you are over a 3000' layer that hangs down to 300' agl

That's why even basic CPL curriculum has partial panel training. (I am aware that the Beaver, obviously a very common floatplane, was originally all vacuum instruments, but many have an electric TC now).

OTT not a good idea for seaplanes

Then by your analysis is isn't a good idea form ANY plane, land or sea.

We're talking VFR OTT not IFR, so only the legal VFR OTT weather requirements and forecasts should be applied to this discussion. A lot of the scenarios mentioned in previous posts such as floatplanes taking off from YVR IFR and going VFR later are not relevant to this topic. And I would say the same for descending through a 3000' overcast, and possibly freezing, layer to break out 500' above the ground/water: floatplanes are not typically going to be that high to start with, let alone above a freezing layer.

We can split hairs down to the molecular level and find something wrong with any regulation if we really try. But pragmatically and viewed in a likely context where VFR OTT (especially commercially) would occur, there are acceptable reasons for having VFR OTT. Just like basic VFR vis and ceiling requirements were pilots may not feel comfortable with 2sm vis below 1000', especially around terrain, a pilot should have their own minima for VFR OTT that might be less than what is written into the CARS.

[beaverbob]

I don't know what the discussion is about. you cannot fly VFR OTT unless you can see enough of the ground to enable a descent with visual reference to the ground. You cannot predict an engine failure so you tell me what are you flying over the top of if you are able to glide visually to the ground at any given time? How much cloud can you fly over? 4/8, I'd say 5/8 at the most if you want to follow the rules. Look it up in the cars and use your great pilot imagination.
Bob

[beaverbob]

Another thing, if you plan to use a GPS for emergency descent, you are most likely going to live a short life.
Bob

[AlXpat]

Interesting posts, all; keep them coming.

With your experience in the industry, Cat, what do you think?

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

many years ago, a female pilot flying a beech 18 for rusty myers flew on in worsening weather until , at treetops, it was reported by the passengers that she just let go of the controls and gave up flying, the plane crashed into the trees and ALL survived

Not sure why it matters it was a female pilot but whatever.

I flew on the BC coast for a good number of years and this is one thing that bothered me. VFR OTT is just a part of life out there. Especially in the fall when the sea fog blankets the entire ocean, but the harbours are clear blue. How in the world do you tell anyone they can't get to work when its a beautiful clear day at both departure and destination. If you won't fly over top of fog no-one would go anywhere from september to november on the coast. For the record, I did it and don't agree with it. Popping up through a layer to be in smooth air and sunshine when you know there's plenty of ceiling under you is one thing, but over top of fog is entirely different. I did all I could to take the long way and stay near open inlets and shorelines but its not always possible. Its gonna get somebody some day if it hasn't already. (I'm sure it was a factor in both pasco accidents and the accident at quadra island.) Its a fact of life that vfr ott is done almost every day on the coast and in a lot of cases its perfectly safe, but over fog is just asking for trouble.

[Hedley]

I always had an 'out' too but illegal approaches was never one of them

Ah, motherhood, baseball, and apple pie ... who can
possibly argue for homemade approaches?

A story for you, boys and girls. There once was an
un-named operator who was flying over Antarctica, and
one of the pilots noticed a particularly large, level expanse
of ice as he was flying over. So, he punched in the lat/long
and created a waypoint.

Then, one day, it happened. I know the law won't allow
it, but it was whiteout city everywhere. So this particular
operator flew to his waypoint, and did a glassy-water
letdown, and touched down blind - and safely - on the
large expanse of ice.

I know the legal beagles here would have preferred that
the aircraft crash after it encountered the wide-spread
whiteout conditions in flight - that would have been much
neater and tidier, and the paperwork would have been in
much better shape.

Thankfully the pilot had different ideas.

Homemade approaches are like teenage sex. Everyone
pretends it isn't going on, but ...

[sheephunter]

ABO - yes you are. I was referring to the statement made by P-S but actually misquoted him. He mentioned 3000' / 300' which is even worse than 500' and definitely isn't VFR conditions. I threw the ice in for good measures as we are getting well into that time of year. I think the question might better be do you agree if you can actually maintain VFR / OTT conditions because if not then it isn't VFR / OTT and is completely another topic. Do you do whatever you can in trying to complete a trip regardless of flight rules? NO

[jamesbay]

Flying VFR OTT is alot of times safer than trying to pick your way around less than ideal conditions below you provided that reference is maintained to ground, definately not a good idea over unfamiliar territory. I think if it were implemented commercially, an added electric attitude indicator would be a wise idea should the vacuum system fail.

[cplanedriver]

Hedley you are right on. Keep the "home made idea" in your back pocket and "use it when necessary". Allows you to come to the board here and chip in instead of friends sending condolences to your loved ones... Fly it and shut up....

Fly safe

[Cat Driver]

With your experience in the industry, Cat, what do you think?

AlXpat I will give you my thoughts on this soon when this thread and the other one about flying over the top spools down.

Flying is a learning experience from our first flight to our last flight and reading all these opinions is a learning experience.

By the way would what I think really be of value to you?

[Hedley]

Fly it and shut up

Indeed. Odd that you can't talk about what keeps you
alive, though, eh?

P.S. I personally think VFR-OTT is high risk. To reduce
that risk it should only be flown by instrument-rated pilots
in IFR equipped aircraft, with current IFR pubs on board, so
that they can easily pick up a clearance for an approach
if the wx is worse than forecast at the destination or
alternate ... especially when pax for hire are carried!

[Driving Rain]

Just from reading the replies to this and the other thread I've determined that out in the Rocks commercial seaplane operators as well as west coast commercial seaplane pilots are in favour of VFR OTT. Most of the our flat landers on the other hand would choose going IFR instead. I also see why. Our coast brothes and sisters are between a rock and a hard place . I also see that the TC approval is done for the Coast and mountain ops [just seaplanes] and they don't approve for the flat land ops.
I fly water bombers so we don't have any passenger considerations. Our planes are well equipped both in the avioncs and AHRS. We have a VFR only GPS. This presents a PITA when flight planning as we are limited to airways and airroutes on our longer deployments. Even though ATC knows this [we are centre stored} they still give us direct when it suits them... [it always suits me when they do that ]. I would like to go VFR OTT as it allows me the direct option as well as taking atvantage of winds on our long legs to and from the western provinces especially knowing our destination will be severe VFR when we arrive.
I believe we have the option of applying for the change to our ops spec. I don't know why we haven't, it saves time & money in the long run.

[Cat Driver]

Just from reading the replies to this and the other thread I've determined that out in the Rocks commercial seaplane operators as well as west coast commercial seaplane pilots are in favour of VFR OTT. Most of the our flat landers on the other hand would choose going IFR instead. I also see why. Our coast brothes and sisters are between a rock and a hard place .

Which brings up the problem that can easily be faced by a single engine sea plane of ending up in a situation where there is no fuel left in the airplane and they have two choices.

(1) Descend through the cloud layer and hope you see something to land on in this life.

(2) Land it up in the mountains that may be poking up through the cloud base.

[Driving Rain]

When I was young and stupid and long before there was legal VFR OTT in Canada I used to do it all the time in single engine sea planes. I admit I pushed wx all the time. I got away with it. I had a lapsed inrat and felt invincible... didn't we all. What made me stop was I just got sick and tired of scarring the shyt out of myself plus I had a family to consider.
Now that I'm older and I hope a little wiser I wouldn't do it in a single engine float plane for all the tea in China. There are some nice single engine amphib float planes that are very well equipped, I'm thinking of decked out Turbo Beavers and Cessna 208's that I would do it in. But like Hedley said I have a current ATPL and all the charts and plates for when the shit hit the fan. I believe that a functioning auto pilot is required equipment to be legal single pilot IFR. If you did find yourself in a situation where you had to file IFR to wiggle out of a prediciment without the auto pilot your not legal so why do it?

[AlXpat]

Flying is a learning experience from our first flight to our last flight and reading all these opinions is a learning experience.

By the way would what I think really be of value to you?

Well put, and that was my reason for asking. I for myself consider mixing up opinions from experienced workers (hear : the Old School here) with ours (younger folks), to be probably the best way to improve the industry. Our training has been based on aviation's growing safety standards and newer equipment. We have learnt to operate seaplanes from experienced floatplanes operators (and you're one of them, right?). But I also consider some ways of operating could/should be retaught. Improving is good. I'm sure you, as much as I do, think we can both learn from each other, right? Yes, your opinion matter to me, Cat. It's a solid topic.

Now, am I wrong thinking that specific question about VFR OTT aims Coastal pilots more specifically?
Although am open to it, in some cases, one thing is clear to me : there is no way to make flying over solid fog in a SE safe, if there is no way to confirm there is adequate room underneat the layer to pick your spot, and land. Will that stop seaplane operations on the Coast from September to November, and should it?

[viccoastdog]

there is no way to make flying over solid fog in a SE safe,

If you're flying over solid fog without the ability to descend VFR if the engine fails, and you are not flying with reference to the ground, you are NOT, I say again NOT, flying VFR-OTT because you are contravening at least two of the clauses in section 6 of the CARS as they relate to VFR-OTT. Same if you are on top and run out of gas (although you have also broken a few more regs as well with that scenario).

The instances were VFR-OTT can be practically and legally applied are surprisingly limited. I posted the relevant CARS section re. VFR-OTT on the other thread CAT started on VFR-OTT. It is worth reading, but as CPL holders we should all know it anyway.

[Cat Driver]

Well put, and that was my reason for asking. I for myself consider mixing up opinions from experienced workers (hear : the Old School here) with ours (younger folks), to be probably the best way to improve the industry. Our training has been based on aviation's growing safety standards and newer equipment.

O.K. I see what you are trying to say, so lets examine this and see where we get.

First off the term "Old school" is transferable from generation to generation a great part of my learning curve was learning from the old school men an women pilots who I trained with and later flew with, and they of course had learned from their old school mentors.

I hope that some of my advice will resonate among the new school guys and gals out there because hopefully some day you may remember and not do something that is foolish just to get the job done.

A lot of bad decision making is arrived at by peer pressure, so as one of the members of the industry who is now past the peer pressure stage I hope you will at least examine what I suggest and if you think it is badly flawed then reject it.

By the way I'm really both old school and new school having flown most everything from the Bi-planes to the multi colored magic machines.

And I am not convinced that the amazing advances in technology in aircraft has made any real difference in the ability of pilots to make sound decisions when flying them.

[crazy_aviator]

I had a great dissertation all prepared , then went to hit the send button and POOF !!!! All went down the drain, so much for computers and me !!
To briefly answer , An ace up the sleeve is not a LEGAL measure , to be employed when playing a card game ,,it is a winning solution though,,when all else fails,,,including yours truly . Im not for contravening regs BUT im for living and giving my passengers the option of living !!!! BTW , I wasnt canned from any fluing job and NO, i didnt fly blind illegally for the IMC approach, the approach wasnt a teaching lesson but a verification test to determine its good worth in the event of failure !!

[AlXpat]

And I am not convinced that the amazing advances in technology in aircraft has made any real difference in the ability of pilots to make sound decisions when flying them.

Of course some folks might be tempted to push on weather more since they got that handheld GPS. Which is, I agree, not an advance in flying techniques or improvement in safety. Let's face it : GPS is a hell of an efficent way to save on time and fuel, and a pretty darn good back-up as well. It has to be back-up by something - visual references, in our case.

Are you saying that VFR OTT, as per the CARs goes, is never a good idea on floats? Because I wouldn't agree, then.
Maybe if you were implying that VFR OTT is an open door to get stuck in a bad situation, some day, because it might be tempting to push on when weather deteriorates below VFR OTT ? Then, I'd totally agree; technology didn't help in pilot's ability to make sound devisions when flying that said plane.

The industry keeps on looking for other ways to get that trip done, i guess. From the most part of what I've seen, this includes safety first.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Are you saying that VFR OTT, as per the CARs goes, is never a good idea on floats? Because I wouldn't agree, then.

For me VFR OTT is only acceptable when there is a safe place to land within gliding distance that does not involve descending through cloud should the engine quit...like flying over water on wheels.

And on the west coast I do not feel the side of some mountain sticking up through the clouds is where I want to force land.

[sstaurus]

there is no way to make flying over solid fog in a SE safe,

If you're flying over solid fog without the ability to descend VFR if the engine fails, and you are not flying with reference to the ground, you are NOT, I say again NOT, flying VFR-OTT because you are contravening at least two of the clauses in section 6 of the CARS as they relate to VFR-OTT. Same if you are on top and run out of gas (although you have also broken a few more regs as well with that scenario).

The instances were VFR-OTT can be practically and legally applied are surprisingly limited. I posted the relevant CARS section re. VFR-OTT on the other thread CAT started on VFR-OTT. It is worth reading, but as CPL holders we should all know it anyway.

I still never understood this completely... if you still have visual reference to the ground at all, why bother with VFR OTT? When the CARs talk about VFR a/c having to keep visual contact with the ground, how close does the 'visual reference' have to be? within gliding distance? Can you fly over an overcast layer as long as you can see the ground some distance from you? I'd appreciate a link to the other thread you're referring to if you have it... thanks.

[sheephunter]

I guess I'm screwed. I always thought that this visual stuff re: VFR / OTT is subsection da, da, da was in a control zone?? ( exception being getting up there and decsending) Hmmmm I'll go read some more.

[Spokes]

I don't know what the discussion is about. you cannot fly VFR OTT unless you can see enough of the ground to enable a descent with visual reference to the ground. You cannot predict an engine failure so you tell me what are you flying over the top of if you are able to glide visually to the ground at any given time? How much cloud can you fly over? 4/8, I'd say 5/8 at the most if you want to follow the rules. Look it up in the cars and use your great pilot imagination.
Bob

I cannot find VFR-OTT Cars that requires this. Specifically:

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

The paragraphs listed refer to the requirement to operate with visual reference to the ground. If you were flying with reference to the ground (water?) then you would simply be flying VFR. Since a sct layer does not represent a ceiling, 4/8 or better below you is still VFR. 5/8 to 8/8 is VFR OTT.

The conditions requred to fly VFR OTT have to do with wx at destination, how far above the layer you must fly, vis, and distance between layers, etc. Nowhere does it say you must be able to glide visually to the surface.

All of the training you need to do for this rating is instrument training. I would assume this is in aid of the event that you might have to glide down through if you loose an engine.

A thought, how many people who would shun flying VFR OTT in a float plane (And I confess I in many cases I would not do this), would fly over open water (VFR) when it is far to rough to land safely on the open water without upsetting? I seem to see many floatplanes go between Rupert and the Charlottes in some pretty heavy wind.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

A thought, how many people who would shun flying VFR OTT in a float plane (And I confess I in many cases I would not do this), would fly over open water (VFR) when it is far to rough to land safely on the open water without upsetting? I seem to see many floatplanes go between Rupert and the Charlottes in some pretty heavy wind.

I wouldn't do either for the simple reason if the engine quits you will not have a very good chance of living.

[Doc]

Seems VFR under the bottom is the problem?