Hi, relatively new student pilot here...

Let's say you're flying along in clear sky and notice you are approaching an area with few or scattered clouds and they are directly between you and your destination.

If the clouds are at a lower altitude than you, and they are just few or scattered, what would you do? Fly around them? Descend and fly below? Can you legally fly above them, or is that considered VFR OTT?

I think I would descend and fly under but if they are too low that's cause to turn back.

With few or scattered clouds you could maintain visual reference to the surface and thereby remain VFR by keeping a vertical and horizontal distance to cloud of 500' and 2000' respectively.
Different ball game if it's a ceiling. While still a student pilot on my solo 150NM i saw a ceiling moving in from the right, i thought I would be able to pass it and be back home before it would pass my route. However it moved faster than i had anticipated, no biggy, I called Center and told them about my intentions to descend through clouds.

It would be considered VFR OTT if your vertical distance to cloud is 1000 feet or if youre flying between two cloud layers.

VFR-OTT is another example of Transport Canada insanity.

You keep flying VFR on top of overcast layers, sooner or later you're going to end up descending through one.

Gosh, it would be nice to be able to maintain aircraft control in cloud. To avoid hitting the ground, and maybe even landing on a runway, flying a published instrument approach could be a good idea. There might even be ice in the clouds. Are you prepared to deal with icing?

Sounds an awful lot like IFR to me.

IMHO, you are insane to fly on top of an overcast without an instrument rating in your pocket, an IFR-equipped aircraft, with current LO charts and CAP onboard.

Why Transport encourages low-time VFR-only pilot to do this, I have no idea, but nothing those crazy bastards do surprises me any more. It's almost as dumb an idea as mixing French and English on the radio. Who really gives a shit about safety? It's all about politics.

agreed

rotateandfly wrote:With few or scattered clouds you could maintain visual reference to the surface and thereby remain VFR by keeping a vertical and horizontal distance to cloud of 500' and 2000' respectively.
Different ball game if it's a ceiling.

Quite right. And flying over some white puffy clouds in the smooth air on a sunny day is definitely not a bad way to waste some time.

I agree with Hedley about VFR OTT though. Quite goofy. The only time I could have gone VFR OTT (according to the forecast conditions, and notwithstanding the nation over which I was flying), I was flying from New Laredo, TX to Columbus, OH in a Cessna 404 (I had however, filed IFR). When I got to Columbus (which was forecast to be clear) after watching half a continent of white underblanket go by, it was not so good. I was on vectors for the ILS, between cloud layers, and was given a report that 2 aircraft ahead of me experienced moderate clear icing on the approach. D'OH! Those 2 aircraft were a G5 and an Airbus of some sort. Double D'OH! Needless to say, I left the gear, flaps, and speed up on that approach. Gladly the ceiling was at 900 feet. It would have sucked to have been in a situation like that in a VFR single going VFR OTT.

It would have sucked to have been in a situation like that in a VFR single going VFR OTT

Yes, apparently no one at Transport has noticed yet that weather forecasts aren't always accurate

rotateandfly wrote:With few or scattered clouds you could maintain visual reference to the surface and thereby remain VFR by keeping a vertical and horizontal distance to cloud of 500' and 2000' respectively.

Just to clarify, keeping 500' vertically from cloud can be either below OR above? I've seen several pictures that visualize VFR minima, but they always show the sample airplane below the cloud with a 500' arrow indicating 500' vertical separation is required.

Yes, vertically means just that. Not above, not below, vertically.

Again if the cloud deck is few or scattered it is not a ceiling, and therefore you are still VFR.

Just to throw a wrench into this one:

What if you're flying along in the clear and start flying over a hilly area, ie north shore of Lake Sup. and it's foggy. The valleys are white, but the hill tops are clearly visible and well enough defined to navigate by. Is this OTT?? Assuming that there say 4 octas of the GROUND covered, what's the ruling?

mellow_pilot wrote:Just to throw a wrench into this one:

What if you're flying along in the clear and start flying over a hilly area, ie north shore of Lake Sup. and it's foggy. The valleys are white, but the hill tops are clearly visible and well enough defined to navigate by. Is this OTT?? Assuming that there say 4 octas of the GROUND covered, what's the ruling?

If the hilltops are visible then you are still maintaining visual reference to the surface of the earth. You are quite legal VFR.

Just remember -- the rules don't prohibit flying above a ceiling -- you need to maintain visual reference with the surface of the earth. If you are flying over a BKN layer that leaves only a square foot of open space, through which you can see the parking lot at the FBO, then you are still legally VFR. Not likely the wisest spot to be but it's not illegal either.

Hey KiloRomeoUniform, another thing to think about is any restrictions that your school may impose on students and few and scattered clouds. Sure it is legal VFR but many schools do not allow students to fly over such layers (scattered especially). Ask your instructor if they have any rules pertaining to this.

Fog counts as an obscuration and as noted earlier the fog would have to be less than 4/8, or the fog would be a ceiling.

also remember that VFR minima change according to your airspace and in uncontrolled you just have to be 'clear of cloud' and can fly with 1 SM visibility

here is a link to the TC weather minima..think you may have to scroll down

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... -1.htm#2-1