VFR over the top for sea planes?

[Cat Driver]

What do you all think of that?

[. ._]

All things in moderation. Popping over a bit of cloud when there's lots of clear around it, sure. Why not?

Planning a trip where it's solid overcast for a hundred miles, but clear at the destination- supposedly. Kind of risky.

I could be out to lunch on this one. I've never flown VFR OTT, or professionally.

-istp

[Blue Side Down]

I remember a fellow who departed Howey Bay on an IFR plan one dreary day a few summers back. No one batted an eye.

Re VFRott... why not? What difference does it make to anyone? A potential restriction might be the availability of navaids for when that GPS goes kaput halfway home, but figure that in, and why not? Just make sure you've got few or clear at your destination... no landings allowed with a scattered ceiling.

[StudentPilot]

I would be happy to fly VFR OTT commercially in a seaplane or landplane, but I would be certain the standard is met (be able to descend or continue the flight in VMC).

[AlXpat]

You wanna be gliding distance from water - or ground, if engine failure.

It's definitely safe and should be legal to VFR OTT where you got a broken ceiling in which you can pick spots on the water/ground for landing in case of need (engine failure). My opinion is, that's a solid and safe scenario.

Kind of contradictory opinion here I know, but...
If you really 'have to' push it... (and there SHOULD be no reason for) :
I'd say you can manage the risk as to how <thick> you gotta <cross> without <decent VMC> and you DEFINITELY need altitude between clouds/fog and water (Not a good idea over foggy/cloudy ground, right?). What am saying is, you need room for a flare - something solid you can rely on. No maybes here. Now, I wouldn't personnaly recommend this kind of VFR OTT flying, my point being anything under these limits, and you are NO DOUBT plain fool!

Hey, if you're not comfortable with; simply don't do!

[flyinhigh]

Personally I think that in a float plane you should be over water as much as possible or close to.
When I am on floats I like to see where I am going, If you lost an engine with floats your going to decend much faster meaning less time to react and think of your plan.

Keep the water in site and somewhat close you at least will have an out, IF required.

Thats just me though, and yes I have flown floats, and on the premises.

[flyincanuck]

The "Over The Top" part of VFR OTT isn't the problem.

VFR near the ground is, apparently.

[cessnafloatflyer]

So you're driving along over the water, passengers on board clear blue skies, vis is endless over the calm water also OTT and BANG now you're decending in to the fog which touches the water below and well you and your paying passengers are dead.

What you do with passengers is different than what you do alone. Right?

Show me a seaplane operation that has VFR OTT approved in it's COM.

Good question Cat.

On the other hand, all commercial seaplane pilots on the coast with experience have been underneath, vis is getting bad so you say to yourself, to hell with this and put the seaplane into a climb over the water looking at the moving map GPS and through to the clear blue sky.

Probably what happened last weekend with bad luck to a very experienced pilot and a hell of a nice guy and unfortunately also 6 paying passengers who had no idea the trouble they were in.

When you close the door and fire up all of the passengers are trusting your judgements and their friends and families are also along for the ride.

CFF

[flyincanuck]

Oh, so to answer the topic question: no.

I think VFR OTT should be all together eliminated. It allows for too many possibilities. In theory it works, reality not so much.

It's like allowing a pedophile to watch kids in a playground, but from across the street. Sooner or later, something's gonna happen.

[Bushav8er]

There are usually more landing options for seaplanes than landplanes, yet they get to do it. The requirements for VFR OTT, heck you may as well have an IFR rating.

There are many variables but how about these two;

1) I've seen overcast like a local blanket that is in one area but severe clear all around it...why fly around when you can see the ground 'over there' and the departure destinations are clear?

2) Why not allow it, no special rating, under these conditions: 3 miles/1000 feet AGL underneath minimum, out of controlled airspace and standard calls made - who, what, when, where, before climb/descent

departed Howey Bay on an IFR plan one dreary day a few summers back. No one batted an eye.

Why would they? Aircraft equipped, pilot rated, plan filed (if in controlled) - you don't need an approach at destination to fly IFR - just the conditions to make it work. They actually do approaches in some areas, shoot the approach, break out and turn for the water.

[Cat Driver]

This is what triggered my question.

It's on our OC, and we're floats only. We didn't ask for it when we applied for the OC, but they added it anyway (along with the extended duty day option, which we also didn't ask for...or want).

[Bushav8er]

Is there any operator out there that hasn't added the 'options' to their OC? Why make a regulation if you allow everyone to opt out through exemptions??? What surprises me is that more haven't added the OTT option.

[viccoastdog]

Cessnafloatflyer write:

Show me a seaplane operation that has VFR OTT approved in it's (sic) COM.

Um, as I posted earlier, it's on our OC and in our COM (section 4.7)

The original question was is VFR OTT a good idea for seaplanes? I would answer it's probably as good or safe (or unsafe if you prefer) for seaplanes as it is for landplanes. An example of where it works well is a seaplane over water, undercast layer below, but not extending to the surface (ie. not fog). Where it doesn't seem as safe is over a fog layer extending to the water. Where I don't like it much at all is over a cloud layer when you are over hilly or mountainous terrain.

A CPL pilot without an instrument rating has 25 hours of instrument training. In the event of engine failure or need to get below the cloud for other reasons, this is plenty of training to descend an aircraft through a cloud deck to VFR conditions below. And that's the crux of it; there has to be VFR conditions below. After that he's/she's in the same situation as if they the engine had failed while flying UNDERNEATH the cloud layer: To whit, if in a floatplane, I'd like to be over land-able water, or over ground that affords a forced approach, like a big wet grassy field. Conversely if in a landplane it would be great to be over some fields or something.

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]

viccoastdog, my post that I deleted before posting was not exactly word for word but the meaning precisely the same, so obviously I agree with what you are saying with the addition that I'm not really sure what the difference of VFR / OTT as compared to IFR / OTT come engine failure if we are talking the exact same aircraft. Like you said, over water I'd take the seaplane, over land the wheel plane and hopefully don't have myself in this situation in the rocks. And yeah I know there is not such thing as IFR / OTT... but what is it then?

[crazy_aviator]

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 , even with the post crash fire !! Years later, i flew with the same company on a beaver. I had designed a personal IMC approach onto the lake near the float base and tried it ( with GPS) and it worked well. I was able to simulate a blind landing including blind taxi to the floatbase and i put it in my hat to use on a rainy day IF i reallllly messed up and needed to do an instrument approach . She didnt have a back-up ,,, I DID and when i told other pilots about my approach,, they laughed ! Got a problem in the clag , POP up into the clear and pull the ace out of the sleeve or the hat ( In an emergency) and save the day and let the armchair quarterbacks with all the wisdom try to tell you how to fly !!!
OTT, sure why NOT ,,,Safety and options go hand in hand !!

[Patrick_Swayze]

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 and is over your destination you have to make a decent through the clouds. VFR OTT not a good idea for seaplanes unless it is less than a broken layer and you can maintain visual contact with the ground during the duration of your flight.

[Cat Driver]

I had designed a personal IMC approach onto the lake near the float base and tried it ( with GPS) and it worked well. I was able to simulate a blind landing including blind taxi to the floatbase and i put it in my hat to use on a rainy day IF i reallllly messed up and needed to do an instrument approach .

I would be really interested in how you flew that simulated blind approach and landing.

What method did you use to make sure you could see nothing outside the airplane when you did

[jspitfire]

The way I see it, There isn't too much difference from a landplane, other than you will descend faster. With an engine failure in a landplane VFR OTT, breaking out to find a nice field or road to land on would be amazingly good luck. Likewise, in a seaplane, you'd be very lucky to find a nice patch of water. So, whether you're in a landplane or seaplane, when there's a problem and you break out below the layer, you may or may not like what you see, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

[mag check]

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 , even with the post crash fire !! Years later, i flew with the same company on a beaver. I had designed a personal IMC approach onto the lake near the float base and tried it ( with GPS) and it worked well. I was able to simulate a blind landing including blind taxi to the floatbase and i put it in my hat to use on a rainy day IF i reallllly messed up and needed to do an instrument approach . She didnt have a back-up ,,, I DID and when i told other pilots about my approach,, they laughed ! Got a problem in the clag , POP up into the clear and pull the ace out of the sleeve or the hat ( In an emergency) and save the day and let the armchair quarterbacks with all the wisdom try to tell you how to fly !!!
OTT, sure why NOT ,,,Safety and options go hand in hand !!

Ummmm, so you would knowingly press on into IMC in someone elses aircraft, rather than turn around? I curious what kind of "emergency" would warrant that.
I think I know why all the other pilots laughed at you
More than likely, those guys are still flying there, and you probably got caned for thinking you were better than everyone.

[sheephunter]

P - S, Exactly.... what you are describing does not meet VFR / OTT standards. What you desrcibe is IFR and some of these 185 & 206 are fairly well equipped for IFR as you likely know. So it isn't really relavent to the original question. If it's not VFR, it's just not VFR. So if you are not IFR rated and your plane isn't IFR rated you shouldn't be flying IFR. As for VFR / OTT on floats without being hypocrytical I would have to say yes I agree with it because I do it. But I also have my own personal comfort zones. Coming down through 3000' / 500' ceilings isn't one of them under any circumstance especially if you're picking up ice. So, yes if it actually meets VFR / OTT conditions and have the rating I'm for it.

[Bushav8er]

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 , even with the post crash fire !! Years later, i flew with the same company on a beaver. I had designed a personal IMC approach onto the lake near the float base and tried it ( with GPS) and it worked well. I was able to simulate a blind landing including blind taxi to the floatbase and i put it in my hat to use on a rainy day IF i reallllly messed up and needed to do an instrument approach . She didnt have a back-up ,,, I DID and when i told other pilots about my approach,, they laughed ! Got a problem in the clag , POP up into the clear and pull the ace out of the sleeve or the hat ( In an emergency) and save the day and let the armchair quarterbacks with all the wisdom try to tell you how to fly !!!
OTT, sure why NOT ,,,Safety and options go hand in hand !!

I always had an 'out' too but illegal approaches was never one of them. Decision making and good judgement mean using your options before you need such a 'backup'...and that doesn't always mean returning to base, sometimes it just means taking another route. I know of other pilots that do what you did, one even landed in fog...but consider, as was he's case, a boat on the lake! (he didn't hit it but the fisherman thought he might have to swim)

Flight Training - Forget flying lessons beyond 25 hours...monkeys can fly, include 50 hours of decision making / judgement and attitude training - with exams - fail them and no license (to kill).

[Labour Board]

Could a IFR certified amphibian aircraft ie. Caravan, Twin Otter, Beech 18 or a Goose take off from Vancouver international IFR on a flight plan to Campbell River (or any other coastal destination) once on top request visual on top to another destination as long as enough fuel is carried for a alternate and cancel when VFR? would this be a better solution then VFR/OTT?

[Patrick_Swayze]

Anythin is better than what C A had to say.

[AuxBatOn]

I had designed a personal IMC approach onto the lake near the float base and tried it ( with GPS) and it worked well. I was able to simulate a blind landing including blind taxi to the floatbase and i put it in my hat to use on a rainy day IF i reallllly messed up and needed to do an instrument approach .

Coming down through 3000' / 500' ceilings isn't one of them under any circumstance especially if you're picking up ice. So, yes if it actually meets VFR / OTT conditions and have the rating I'm for it.

Aren't you supposed to remain out of cloud for VFR OTT? Climb VFR to cruising altitude, cruise on top and descent VFR?

[Cat Driver]

I should have limited this discussion to commercial operations.