SHould I bother getting my OTT rating ?

[schmoo]

I'm not sure an IR is really safe for a weekend pilot. What we really need is a 2-class instrument rating, but I don't see that happening here any time soon.

Not that I'm in a hurry to spend the money, but how is it that an IR is not safe for a weekend pilot ?

Is it the false sense of safety that it would give the newbie ?

[Shiny Side Up]

Let's say you're flying over flat ground. Cloud bases
are 2k with >6 vis underneath. Piece of cake. You
can fly along on top of the layer, and when you get
uncomfortable being VFR there, you can safely duck
underneath the layer and safely fly VFR for the rest
of the trip.

I hope here that you're not suggesting that if that's an overcast layer at 2k agl that one can just descend through it. That is after all where the problem with VFR OTT exists is that a lot of people assume that's what the rating entitles them to do. Remember that penetrating cloud is someting we normally deem only acceptable for someone to do with an IFR rating after 40+ hours of instrument practice, and a minimum of 100+ hours of experience, not someone with a bare minimum VFR OTT rating which might be as little as 55 hours of experience and a whole 15 hours (some of which is sim time) instrument practice. I know of one fellow who admitted to doing this sort of descent and barely missing a church steeple on his level out when he got disoriented in the descent, with approximately that sort of experience level.

The main part of OTT that seems like a problem to me is by the time you have the experience to understand wx well enough to stay safe you probably have an IFR rating. Which is actually the best time to use such a thing much like the colonel's example.

And Beef hits the nail on the head. The big problem with VFR OTT I find is that while a few extra instrument hours is easy to aquire and so is a sign off, the meteorological knowledge to really make use of it and not get into trouble takes a lot longer to aquire. One should not that historically MET is routinely one of the sections on the PPL written that people do the worst with, despite that it is one fo those most useful of life skills.

It should. It's a last-ditch emergency procedure. Do
you have a better suggestion for a VFR pilot stuck
on top of an overcast layer that he doesn't have the
fuel to fly away from?

My suggestion would be to make sure pilots are more knowledgeable so they don't get into this sort of trouble in the first place. Not to say they shouldn't have the skill of flying the approach, but it should be noted that said skill might not be enough to save them if they really are at the end of a chain of bad decisions. It should be also their absolute last resort as well, not their "well I really need to get here for this meeting" plan. I mean here's a thought: why aren't we talking about how if you're planning to go somewhere VFR OTT you aren't thinking also in terms of planning for an alternate place to go. Why aren't we talking about how to divert while VFR OTT - easy as pie these days with all the gadgets available?

[Rookie50]

Yeah. Just don't get into that situation in the first place. Period, end of story. Don't skate close to the line. I know it sounds harsh, but these kind of accidents turn out fatal. Do you really want to spin the chamber even if it has only one round in it?

[Colonel Sanders]

Why aren't we talking about how to divert while VFR OTT

Not everyone has unlimited fuel after arriving at their destination.

make sure pilots are more knowledgeable so they don't get into this sort of trouble in the first place

If you're going to fly VFR-OTT, you'd better have a plan as to what
you're going to do when you get stuck up on top, because if you roll
the dice enough times, sooner or later, it's going to happen. The part
of the world that I live in, you just can't bet your life on wx forecasts.
They just aren't that reliable.

You don't have to fly an ILS through the layer. You don't have to spin
down through the layer. If you want, you can try a high-speed spiral
dive and see how that works out. Or if you have ejection seats, it
might be time to try that. But you'd better have some kind of a plan.

Personally, I think VFR-OTT is great, under certain circumstances. But
like anything else in aviation, if done badly, can really ruin your day.

[CpnCrunch]

I'm not sure an IR is really safe for a weekend pilot. What we really need is a 2-class instrument rating, but I don't see that happening here any time soon.

Not that I'm in a hurry to spend the money, but how is it that an IR is not safe for a weekend pilot ?

Is it the false sense of safety that it would give the newbie ?

The problem is that there are quite a few fatal accidents every year from non-commercial IR pilots with "deficient IFR technique". Quite a lot of these seem to be legal but not-very-proficient pilots tooling about at or below 200ft after doing an ILS approach to minimums, and then hitting something.

[Colonel Sanders]

legal but not-very-proficient pilots

This is exactly why the brain is the most important
piece of safety equipment ever invented.

Every pilot, before a flight, has to decide whether
or not there is any portion of the flight which (potentially)
exceeds either his, or his aircraft's capabilities. If so, don't go.

Some people believe this sort of pilot decision making
is a bad idea, so they invent tens of thousands of regulations
that no one understands to try to deal with every possible
situation. Which is of course foolish.

This is not rocket science. For example, if you are a new
PPL with 50 hrs and a 172 that you just purchased, you
probably don't want to go flying when the wind is 15 knots
across the only runway.

I personally don't think we need a complicated matrix of
rules setting out the allowed crosswind component for
pilot experience for each type of certified aircraft.

Instead, use your brain. Make a decision. That's why
you're PIC.

[Shiny Side Up]

Why aren't we talking about how to divert while VFR OTT

Not everyone has unlimited fuel after arriving at their destination.

You're missing the point. Wouldn't you say having the skill to say "hmm, looks like its getting worse ahead, I should think about turning back/diverting while I do have fuel and options to do so" is equally important as "shit it looks like this layer didn't break up like I hoped, and I'm going to have to go through with that approach thing I learned to do"?

Lets review the requirements to go somewhere VFR OTT.

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.

Point (d) is the operative bit here. Now you and I know that weather is subject to change, and it is possible for it to change enough within the time frames specified above. That said though, I've seen guys more often than not planning to fly VFR OTT when one of the above does exist. As a renter of airplanes, we simply forbid them being authorized to go on flights where VFR OTT is planned for the most part because it saves me from having to argue the above points with people on a regular basis. I'm no longer suprised by what pilots don't know. You'd be suprised (or not, as usual) to discover the ammount of pilots who either don't know the above info - yet somehow we deem them good to go fly VFR OTT - or feel that the above restrictions don't apply to them for some reason.

Which is strange since every instructor to reccomend that someone is qualified to hold a VFR OTT rating should have made sure of the following:

3. Explain the correct interpretation of aviation weather reports, forecasts, pireps sigmets and notams and how they apply to VFR OTT flight situations, including determining

•the stability of the air mass(es) affecting the flight.
•weather trends and the suitability of departure, enroute and destination weather for the time of the flight.
•the bases and tops of cloud layers using the area forecast and understanding their significance to VFR OTT flight.

From the Instructor Guide — VFR Over-the-Top Rating (TP 12775)

Personally I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who hold VFR OTT ratings. Well either its not happening or too many pilots don't seem to understand the gravity of it. Which is just par for the course I suppose, its well proven that pilots just can't stay out of clouds. All that said, I am with you, I do show pilots how to do said ILS appoach, since I know that no matter how much I preach and hound them on becomming better with weather, way too many of them won't take advantage of the wisdom and have to go find it out the hard way.

[Colonel Sanders]

Agreed. VFR-OTT is like playing with a p1ssed-off
rattlesnake. I'm not saying it's not fun, but don't
be surprised when you get bitten.

[cgartly]

What you're doing....IMO.....not a chance for me.

Ever think of icing? Climbing to 12500 in a 172 -- what if the clouds out climb you, and there is ice?
What about a mechanical issue over the layer?

Yes I think of icing but have yet to hear of an aircraft icing up while flying in clear blue sky over top of a layer. If the clouds out climb me I either shuttle climb or return to Kelowna or divert, I don't ever leave myself without an out. My out on the flight I mentioned earlier was simply to return to Kelowna, it was CAVOK in Kelowna. This may sound reckless but if I worried about a mechanical issue every time I went flying I'd never go. I'm heavily involved in the maintenance of my 172 and am very confident in it's mechanical condition, not to say something couldn't happen but I've flow the same plane 300 hrs and monitored it's health.

You're done. Same with thinking you can do an approach. Approaches take time, my friend, and assuming you can keep it under control -- I could at that stage, sure-- there is tons of icing in BC.

This example is all that is wrong with the OTT.

I practice intercepting and flying the ILS at my home airport almost every flight and challenge myself to stay on glideslope while keeping speed up, while slowing down etc etc. I can keep the needles centered. Things would have to have gone really wrong for me to actually need to fly one and until I have my rating I do the best I can not to put myself in the position where I will have to.

I am looking at a BC relocation in the future, flying a HP (likely a turbo) AC, loaded, dual everything, I have a CPl, IFR, and some -- a little by the standards here --actual IMC time. And I've decided for mountain areas, I will follow some of the commercial operators, and stick to a vfr only operation.

That's me. I've had just enough actual IMC experience to realize, there are times you don't want to be there in any single engine piston aircraft.

While I agree single engine piston flying IMC is risky and requires careful planning and consideration of weather it is not impossible and is done safely more often than you may realize.

[Rookie50]

All I can say to that... Is the responses ought to be good. Popcorn in hand.

[cgartly]

Might as well provide some pictures:

Taken on the flight I mentioned previously where Vancouver Center assisted me in directing me to clear sky near KBLI instead of my original alternate of returning back to CYLW







Another flight I went OTT instead of flying in moderate turbulence underneath. I know what my airplane can do, have a look at the altimeter. Perhaps this one isn't considered OTT given the layer isn't solid and there were quite a few places ground could be seen.

[Rookie50]

Ps. Switch to a class 2 instructor or above, preferably one with other line experience. Sorry to anyone offended, but I don't train with green instructors for IFR training.

What is a green instructor? Don't assume a Class 1 or Class 2 instructor has IFR experience. They will have lots of experience sitting beside a student who is wearing a hood, but that may be all. There are many senior FTU instructors who have not flown in IMC.

If my student owns his own aircraft and flies regularly, we progress through the ratings on the route to getting his/her IFR done properly. Learn to use the GPS and autopilot, do the hood time at night or above a cloud layer. A cross-country, at night, with an ILS at Mirabel, then a return to Ottawa, another ILS at CYOW and then an RNAV back at Carp or Gatineau. Two evenings should cover the requirements for the VFR OTT.

I'll probably never become a Class 1 or Class 2 instructor since I rarely fly with green students.

I meant to get back to this one, as this issue really sticks in my craw. It's really not about class 1, 2 or 20. Whatever. Its all about the FTU industry, in which puppy - mill instructors turn out puppy mill pilots that don't know how to make decisions!

Like IFR instructors teaching without having any actual IMC time themselves. How ridiculous is that?

What gives you the right, to risk students lives through poor training, because It was too much trouble to gain a little actual experience, to know a little in real life instead of out of a textbook. Too many instructors, sitting in the right seat, figuring if they prevent the plane from crashing and train the student to pass a government test, while looking at their watches and wondering when they can get out of this horrible job.

No desire or love to teach, no committment to excellence, just watch the PIC hours build up while crisscrossing the same 20 odd miles of farmland. That's experience??

Where are the great instructors that desire to Mentor pilots, that wish to develop how to think in their students, and not go through the govt required motions?

I learned far, far more from my commitment to self - study about all facets of aviation, and from 2 friends -- and great mentor pilots -- than from almost every instructor I've encountered.

Most simply don't care. And if that's you, you should take a hard look in the mirror about why you are teaching.

[Colonel Sanders]

In Canada, everyone gets upset when you fly
VFR-OTT over an overcast layer (referring to photos)

In the USA, it's perfectly normal to fly along VFR,
and when the layer underneath thickens, ask ATC
(because you've already got flight following) for
vectors to the ILS and down you go. Completely
legally.

This is known as "pop-up IFR" in the USA, and is
business as usual, because so many private pilots
have their instrument ratings, as opposed to Canada
where you need to be some kind of fighter pilot slash
astronaut to get an instrument ratings.

If you ask for a pop-up IFR clearance in Canada,
ATC will ask you if you are declaring an emergency,
and when you say no, you will have to switch over
to 126.7 and spend 5 minutes air-filing IFR, then
switch back to ATC. A bit of a Monty Python skit.

In the USA, every private pilot gets his IFR before
he gets his commercial ticket. You simply can't
get an instructor rating in the USA without an
instrument rating.

Contrast that to Canada where few instructors
have their instrument ratings, and nearly zero
have seen the inside of a cloud. Again, you have
to be a fighter pilot slash astronaut to have an
instrument rating in Canada.

Sigh.

[Colonel Sanders]

Where are the great instructors

uh, 99% of flight instructors in Canada are 200hr
wonders that are only instructing to build time and
will move on to the right seat of a twin the instant
they can.

They instruct for peanuts because they are also being
compensated with time in their logbook, which is
far more valuable than their below poverty-level
wages which they are happily willing to accept. They
could probably earn more money per hour down the
street at MacDonald's, asking "Would you like fries
with that?"

This drives the price down for flight instructor wages,
so why would anyone with half a brain do it, if they
have any other choices?

Every once in a while, you get what you pay for. And
when it comes to flight instruction in Canada, you don't
get much.

[Rookie50]

Re the pics::: Ok. You got away with it. And if you lose comms? Sorry, not seeing it at all. And I sure hope that is not a sunset in the first three pics, in which the layer looks pretty solid to me.

[Colonel Sanders]

Don't worry, he must be a fighter pilot slash astronaut

[Rookie50]

His alt looks like he as 17500. No 02.

We don't speak the same language.

[cgartly]

His alt looks like he as 17500. No 02.

We don't speak the same language.

So let me get this straight, you have an IFR Rating and are calling me crazy for flying OTT but you can't read an altimeter accurately?

Where did I say I flew without O2? I have O2.

Also before it comes up, yes I can fly up to 17,999 in the USA without being IFR.

If comms were lost I would venture back to Kelowna if I didn't see the ground at YXX where I'm sure YLW tower would be happy to provide my light gun signals. BTW - I'd also squak 7600.

The one place that I didn't leave myself an out is in regards to daylight. It was legally daylight when I landed in the lower mainland but if I had to return to Kelowna I would've been OTT at night. OTT is only allowed during the day.

[Rookie50]

Ok, 16500. Can't read obviously . Whats the service ceiling of this 172? Ok. Have a good one, hope you don't end up in the other section of this forum.

Legal doesn't mean smart. Should be engraved in every hanger.

[cgartly]

Is the service ceiling in the POH a limitation or a reference in regards to performance? If the latter than why is it relevant to this conversation? As I stated earlier I know what my 172 will do.

The OTT flight in the first 3 pictures was a learning experience (every flight is), I didn't leave myself an out in regards to daylight. I won't repeat that mistake. I try and learn something and get better with each flight I make.

Each of us has different levels of risk we are willing to accept with our flying. I've been called crazy for flying night VFR as well.

I don't just blindly venture out at night or OTT without giving careful consideration to the weather conditions, both actual and forecast. I've learned to depend less on the forecast.

[Rookie50]

Oh, I forgot. To get up to 16500, unless you have one heck of a 172, I'm thinking it's pretty cold. Where was the freezing level? Above or below the layer? Lets just forget it's getting dark, and over terrain....

I don't do night IFR, period, (actual IMC ) and I live in the flatlands. And in terrain -- no night for me, period. Not either in a single engine piston. And I simply don't fly often enough. -- which means not professionally.

It's not just a function of the risk you will accept ( and place upon innocent passengers, perhaps). It's about your level of training, proficiency, and equipment. The lower the margins there, the less room for error -- any error.


I think saying this is a waste of time, except maybe for others reading and considering their risk limits.

[cgartly]

You're getting the two flights mixed up. The first flight to the lower mainland was at 8,500, the flight in the USA was at 16,500.

Freezing level of the 16,500 flight would've been around 4,500 asl.

Each flight needs to assessed on its own merit. As you stated above, pilot experience, level of training, equipment, weather etc.

I've made flights from Kelowna to the Lower Mainland many of times, own my own aircraft which I am very familiar with and fly at least once a week most weeks. Almost all 475 hrs of my flying has been done in the mountains.

I won't fly night or OTT east of Kelowna or in areas I am not familiar with. Well that's not entirely true, I will fly night VFR in the prairies in areas I am unfamiliar with. My weather minimums are quite high for both, at least in my opinion.

I'm far from an astronaut / fighter pilot.

[AEROBAT]

What we really need is a 2-class instrument rating

No, we don't. Long before you got into aviation, we had one,
and it was a royal pain in the @ss.

Well it works incredibly well in the UK, and appears to be safer than the alternative. How exactly was it a pain in the ass?

Ther used to be two classes of IFR but the minimums were so high for the lower one it did not make much sense. You might as well get your commercial if you want to bother with VFR OTT.

[shimmydampner]

This is exactly why the brain is the most important
piece of safety equipment ever invented.

Every pilot, before a flight, has to decide whether
or not there is any portion of the flight which (potentially)
exceeds either his, or his aircraft's capabilities. If so, don't go.

Not just before the flight. Those parameters as well as the ongoing availability of "outs" must be constantly monitored and evaluated to determine how the flight is to be completed safely.
Unfortunately the accidents/incidents forum is chock full of proof that a huge number of PPLs and an alarming number of CPL/ATPLs are fatally deficient in this area.

[cgartly]

This is exactly why the brain is the most important
piece of safety equipment ever invented.

Every pilot, before a flight, has to decide whether
or not there is any portion of the flight which (potentially)
exceeds either his, or his aircraft's capabilities. If so, don't go.

Not just before the flight. Those parameters as well as the ongoing availability of "outs" must be constantly monitored and evaluated to determine how the flight is to be completed safely.
Unfortunately the accidents/incidents forum is chock full of proof that a huge number of PPLs and an alarming number of CPL/ATPLs are fatally deficient in this area.

Agreed!