SHould I bother getting my OTT rating ?

[schmoo]

Newbie PPL...just got it this spring. Presently taking my night rating. Expect to be a weekend warrior for the rest of my life ( 46 now ! ).

Any significant advantage to getting my OTT rating ? Although every rating potentially improves your skill level, should I consider any further ratings a waste of money and time, and focus instead on improving basic skills ?

[Colonel Sanders]

Do the VFR-OTT with the same instructor
you're doing your night rating with right now.

All you need to get the paper is another 5 hrs
of hood time, after your night rating is done.

How useful the training is, is up to your instructor.

If he's an unimaginative dolt and just does you
have another 5 hrs of partial panel, well, that's
not good.

However. If your instructor has his instrument
rating, you could go shoot some ILS's in cloud
some night. Good training. Learn how in an
emergency you don't need an approach plate
for an ILS - all you need from ATC is the loc freq
(dial it into the VOR) and then get vectors and
fly the centered needles until you see the runway.

Good emergency training, in case you get stuck
up on top of a layer that doesn't have much
ceiling underneath.

[Shiny Side Up]

Good emergency training, in case you get stuck
up on top of a layer that doesn't have much
ceiling underneath.

True, but he should also go through all the other options you have too before you get to the point of having to do this. It should be abundantly clear by the time you finish your VFR OTT rating that it is not "IFR light" as many often think. While the rating only requires five more hours, take advantage of your instructor and do some ground time with flight planning around the idea of VFR OTT. VFR OTT is worth while but its what you and your instructor make of it. Generally I'll also tailor it to their own specific equipment since most rental places don't let their airplanes out into VFR OTT trips.

[schmoo]

Generally I'll also tailor it to their own specific equipment since most rental places don't let their airplanes out into VFR OTT trips.

I'll very likely be a renter for the rest of my days. Are you saying that, in my case, the OTT will likely just be an emergency fall-back and not something I would use when given the option to stay below cloud ? I was wondering / hoping that the OTT would be an advantage on those days when sky is broken and the ceiling is forcing me to stay at 2500'.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'll very likely be a renter for the rest of my days. Are you saying that, in my case, the OTT will likely just be an emergency fall-back and not something I would use when given the option to stay below cloud ? I was wondering / hoping that the OTT would be an advantage on those days when sky is broken and the ceiling is forcing me to stay at 2500'.

Well here you're giving us a good look into the window of how most people think about VFR OTT - in that its a fall back to press on in spite of deteriorating conditions - which it is not. For example; if you had planned to make the trip fully VFR and say part of that was flying above a FEW or SCT layer and at midpoint during that trip it became BKN you get below that layer then rather than say to yourself, "hey I got VFR OTT lets just keep plowing on" and wait until you get to destination over an OVC, then go "oops". You use VFR OTT to specifically plan to get from one place where the weather is nice to another where the weather is great and there is a specific known ammount of stuff you are intending to cross over. I know that difference is very subtle, but its all about planning. Yes the skills are good to have but its really the intent on how to use it that seems to be the trouble that people have.

Realistically in this country VFR OTT is really moot since you rarely get conditions that make it useful. In general you either are flying VFR or its IFR and three's not really that in between. In your example keep in mind that if that broken layer is over your departure or over your destination VFR OTT doesn't give you permission to penetrate it to get on top to where you want to go.

[schmoo]

Thanks Shiny. That does clear it up a little for me.

I am pretty wary of even contemplating a trip in weather that is less than perfect...even though I have been told that going beyond one's comfort zone is essential to becoming a better pilot. That said, I was only thinking of OTT as a novelty ~ that is, something that I would use while local just to change things up. I still recall the third or fourth lesson my instructor took us up through a hole and the view of the clouds below and the sun shining and the calmness of it all was just the coolest feeling for a ground dweller.

Probably a ridiculous perspective on it. Personally though, it was never to have an excuse to push through questionable weather.

It sounds like an Ontarian, who probably won't fly more than 4 hours each way doesn't have a whole lot of use for OTT. Maybe I'll just sit on it for a while.

[Shiny Side Up]

Personally though, it was never to have an excuse to push through questionable weather.

No one ever says they're going to use it this way, but I know of way too many people whom have, most who don't seem to have really been aware of the gravity of their situation. While it is good to have the skill that the Colonel suggests one should have - and I agree with him - if you end up having to do that, you really really f@cked up somewhere along the line. I'm reminded of one fellow, when he recounted the story about how he had to ask for help and how on the way through the layer his poor little cherokee packed on an inch of ice before he broke cloud, told it like he was exceedingly clever, like he cheated the system or something. Like it was getting out of a parking ticket. In his mind it was something to be repeated (because he did frequently) there after. Sadly his story isn't unique, and I know of a few who weren't as fortunate.

It sounds like an Ontarian, who probably won't fly more than 4 hours each way doesn't have a whole lot of use for OTT.

Well that's the thing. Anything less than four hours in a typical bugsmasher isn't going to be transitting across different weather systems to get where weather is different between where you are departing from, en route and where you want to end up. If its not good VFR the whole way in the first place, there's probably a patch of IFR in there, or at least unless one starts flying stuff with some turbo, you won't have the performance to get "on top".

[Rookie50]

Shiny side is absolutely correct on all counts.

Vfr ott -- it is very useful to do the extra 5 hours -- if your instructor plans them wisely, like some hood time at night, some approaches to sharpen your aircraft handling, some actual if you can ect....Here's where it will help you -- IMO some summer nights in southern Ontario, the haze is so bad -- ESP above 4000 feet is it effective close to IMC, although perfectly legal VFR. More instrument time helps in such conditions.

Do not EVER use an OTT privaledge to fly over a broken or overcast layer, only scattered. I know that sounds strict, but it saves the possibility of getting stuck on top and a possible loss of control accidident. Trust me -- flying in cloud and maintaining control is a whole different story than a hood.

You might think there is a nice big old hole in that broken layer, and you can just climb through the hole and be cruising on top. What a feeling, sure. First, those holes can and do close, and second, it is really tough to tell how high the top of a layer goes -- usually higher than you think.

So imagine this, you climb towards a hole, it closes or you accidentally turn in the cloud, bang you are in IMC, trying to climb out it, the panic rises, you start to turn, and try to force the climb by
raising the nose.......and you spin. Trust me, can happen just like that.

If you can, work towards the full IFR rating. That is the only safety out in case you really need it -- it takes 40 hours but one really needs that much ( I certainly did!). I have another 40 simulated and actual IFR, and still, IMO, I am a green rookie in IFR conditions.

Just my thoughts. Fly safe and never stop training!

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.

[schmoo]

Oh great....I was wondering whether I should spend another $3K on an OTT and now I'm spending $8K on an IR.

When will I learn to keep my mouth shut ?

[Rookie50]

Yeah, it's rough. There is only one way to say this, so I'll say it. Moving from the vfr world, to the IFR world, takes time, commitment and $$$$$.

And, in my view, its a world you don't play around with, which is the temptation with the OTT. Just because its legal, to fly 200 miles over an overcast layer because the destination is supposed to be scattered, doesn't mean its real smart.

Sorry, but the more experience I get, the more careful I've become. To those who would call me chicken, that's cool. Works for me.

Take care.

[tonyhunt]

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.

[Colonel Sanders]

Do not EVER use an OTT privaledge to fly over a broken or overcast layer

Uh, no. I fly VFR-OTT all the time. One morning recently I
was trying to get to Gatineau, north of Ottawa, and it was
severe clear at Gatineau, as it was at my home airport.
Ottawa in the middle was below IFR. Off I went. Nice flight.

The terminal controller was very surprised to have a VFR flying
over an airport which was below IFR limits. I explained to him
that there was a swath of undercast perhaps 5 miles wide
extending from the northwest to the southeast over Ottawa,
and that it would burn off in one to two hours. He apologized
and said that he was in a dark room hundreds of miles away
and didn't know what the weather was like.

VFR-OTT is great when the wx is improving. It's very bad
when the wx is getting worse. This is not rocket science.

PS I still think learning to do a buckshee ILS (asking ATC
for the loc freq and vectors, with no approach plate) is a
great skill to have in your back pocket, for when you get
stuck on top of an overcast.

[Rookie50]

CS you are highly experienced and have your IR. You have the experience to interpret weather. Different rules then a low time pilot without an IR.

That's also a really, really short flight with a small area of overcast, over familiar terrain, that you likely know every inch of too. Different than 100 miles over a solid layer, for example, in an unfamiliar area, without an IR, maybe only over uncontrolled airports.

Lots of variables.

[Colonel Sanders]

If there was ONE thing I could teach the newbies
about VFR-OTT flying, it would be ...

The height of the cloud bases - and the vis underneath
them - determines if VFR-OTT is going to be boring or
hairy.

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.

However, let's say that you are still over flat land,
but the bases of the cloud are 200 feet with 1/2
mile vis. You really, really don't want have to try
to descend through that layer. If you do, you'd
better be able to fly a buckshee ILS to minimums.

You really need to have a pretty good understanding
of the weather to fly VFR-OTT. Is it getting better,
or worse? I might suggest using VFR-OTT to fly
out of bad wx, to good wx.

A few (ok, maybe more than a few) years back I
was flying west to Muskoka in the Maule, which is
IFR equipped. I had current pubs and a current IFR
rating.

I was tooling along VFR on top of a layer. More
flexible, didn't have to talk to anyone. Music playing
on the intercom. I hate all the yammering on the VHF.

Wx was getting worse as I flew west - HINT HINT -
and there was quite a clusterf__k on the MF at
Muskoka. Various clowns in plastic airplanes were
flailing around VFR around the airport, telling FSS
harrowing stories about how bad the vis was, etc.

Yawn.

FSS notices me tooling along inbound VFR at 4500
east of the airport, not talking. Queried me, and I
said the wx was fine here. At some point, I picked
a hole, dipped down through it, and continued my
flight to Muskoka under the layer. Pretty boring.

With the tools that pilots have these days - GPS
with huge databases, moving maps, realtime wx -
it's really pretty easy to fly x/c. A lot easier than
in the old days.

[cgartly]

Everyone in Kelowna told me not to bother getting my VFR OTT as it would be useless here. Yet I have used it several times to fly to the coast. The valley here is mostly clear and the Lower Mainland is mostly clear but there's cloud in between the valley edge and Hope. Yes I could fly under the cloud or I can climb to sometimes as high as 12,500-13,500 and go over the layer for 20-30 miles and drop down in the lower mainland. I really enjoy being on top of a layer, it's nice and calm generally.

I was almost caught once so am now a little more conservative with my destination weather. CYXX was forecast to become few/sct 2 hours before my arrival and an hour after. The flight is 1.5 hrs in my 172 and upon departure the latest metar was showing marginal signs of improvement. I launched. Upon arriving in the lower mainland it was covered in ovc however 15 miles south over KBLI was clear sky, with the help of ATC (the new BLI was clear) I diverted south a bit and dropped below the layer. Not a big deal that time but next time I won't launch (on such a short flight) unless I am more certain it will be few/sct at the destination. I'm certain with two VOR's/Glideslope's/ADF a GNS430 and a portal 496 I could've flown an approach with the assistance of ATC without much difficulty but don't ever want to have to declare that emergency. They did ask if I was IFR equipped and if the pilot was IFR rated. I had to answer yes/no.

Next task for me is the IFR rating. Unfortunately in Kelowna the school does not put on an IFR ground course at all so I am debating between doing Harv Air's online one or going to one of Pro IFR's crash course weekends.

[Rookie50]

Everyone in Kelowna told me not to bother getting my VFR OTT as it would be useless here. Yet I have used it several times to fly to the coast. The valley here is mostly clear and the Lower Mainland is mostly clear but there's cloud in between the valley edge and Hope. Yes I could fly under the cloud or I can climb to sometimes as high as 12,500-13,500 and go over the layer for 20-30 miles and drop down in the lower mainland. I really enjoy being on top of a layer, it's nice and calm generally.

I was almost caught once so am now a little more conservative with my destination weather. CYXX was forecast to become few/sct 2 hours before my arrival and an hour after. The flight is 1.5 hrs in my 172 and upon departure the latest metar was showing marginal signs of improvement. I launched. Upon arriving in the lower mainland it was covered in ovc however 15 miles south over KBLI was clear sky, with the help of ATC (the new BLI was clear) I diverted south a bit and dropped below the layer. Not a big deal that time but next time I won't launch (on such a short flight) unless I am more certain it will be few/sct at the destination. I'm certain with two VOR's/Glideslope's/ADF a GNS430 and a portal 496 I could've flown an approach with the assistance of ATC without much
difficulty but don't ever want to have to declare that emergency. They did ask if I was IFR equipped and if the pilot was IFR rated. I had to answer yes/no.

Next task for me is the IFR rating. Unfortunately in Kelowna the school does not put on an IFR ground course at all so I am debating between doing Harv Air's online one or going to one of Pro IFR's crash course weekends.

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?

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 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.

[2550]

The idea of a vfr pilot even thinking of requesting an ils to get down scares me. How many hours of hood time is required for this rating? Is it enougt to even get a scan dialed in? And then two years later when it hasent been practised since the rating you think your going to survive an emerg ils??

Or imagine this...a few minutes after the clouds below you close up, even though your destination is still fine, your engine fails. Gonna glide down and break out? Remember the gyros are going to topple halfway there. If you think thats going to work out well for any low time pilot, your wrong.

Somebody post the cars re: vfr ott. Its so restrictive as to be almost no different than vfr, and theres a a good reason for that.

A very different story if course with a current ifr rated pilot in an aircraft thats equiped for it.

[rtyb]

I just ran across this thread and I am also interested in this rating, possibly after a night rating. What if someone was thinking about pursuing a Commercial license? Could the training for OTT be applied to the commercial requirements?

[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.

[Colonel Sanders]

The idea of a vfr pilot even thinking of requesting an ils to get down scares me

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?

In the past, I have suggested spinning down through
the layer. Far safer than a high-speed spiral, but not
according to the experts here on AvCan, from previous
discussions.

PS Long before you were all born, the RCAF recommended
the "spin down through a layer" technique.

[Colonel Sanders]

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.

Here's a novel idea: more brains, less legislation. I know that's
not a very Canadian approach, but if you try it sometime, you
might find that you like it.

[Pratt X 3]

I just ran across this thread and I am also interested in this rating, possibly after a night rating. What if someone was thinking about pursuing a Commercial license? Could the training for OTT be applied to the commercial requirements?

If you are pursuing a Commercial licence, there is no need to get the OTT rating as you automatically get it when the Commercial is issued.

401.30(1) Subject to subsection (3), the holder of a commercial pilot licence — aeroplane may, by day or night,
(b) exercise the privileges of a VFR OTT rating;

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#401_30

[Beefitarian]

Here's a novel idea: more brains, less legislation. I know that's
not a very Canadian approach, but if you try it sometime, you
might find that you like it.

The Canadian way is for government cronies and their pals to be the only one's allowed to own planes. Then make further laws to let them decide what foreigners are allowed to fly the planes for sweat shop wages. Pretty close?

[CpnCrunch]

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?

[Beefitarian]

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.

The main part of two classes of instrument rating here that seems like a problem would be trying to deal with TC.