I’ve Never Done VFR OTT

[Slick Goodlin]

I asked because VFR OTT is already a tool I have in my toolbox of flying qualifications but one I’ve never ever used. Traditionally I’ve had the same stance as Scud on it but was looking for input in case I was wrong.

For those who have regularly done it, are there any traps to OTT flying?

[CpnCrunch]

for sure I have flown single engine VFR over the top of low stratus between Vancouver Island and the mainland as shown in the above picture.

And for sure I climbed high enough to easily glide to land in the event the engine failed.

I used to wear a lifejacket crossing the strait. Now I don't bother, as I always make sure I'm well within gliding distance of land when I cross. I don't really like the idea of having to get out of a plane (which might be upside down) in the cold water.

[CpnCrunch]

For those who have regularly done it, are there any traps to OTT flying?

Well, the potential trap is that the weather at your destination might not permit you to get through the clouds if you didn't check the forecast properly, or if it's worse than forecast. In the times I've used it, a few times the destination has been socked under the low stratus, so I've turned back. It wasn't really a big deal as it was just 30 mins back to my point of departure and it was forecast to be good VFR. If you're doing a long flight you obviously need to be more careful about the weather at your destination. And then, what do you do if you need to divert for any reason?

[Liquid_Charlie]

I guess flying in areas where VFR on top was not an issue (uncontrolled airspace) and never flying a private aircraft VFR on top was never an issue for me.

I will relate an event I overheard on new york centre. Guy stuck on top VFR and was trying to get centre to help him. The controller who was very busy gave him a heading and said that 100 miles ahead was the last reported area of good vfr - "have a safe flight" - I never heard of an accident so I guess he made it.

What I could never figure out that in uncontrolled airspace guys who were "IMC" still insist at flying +500' -- I was never comfortable with 500' separation in an area where altimeter settings were sparse.

[Slick Goodlin]

the potential trap is that the weather at your destination might not permit you to get through the clouds if you didn't check the forecast properly, or if it's worse than forecast.

Yeah that’s a big one.

What do you guys do in regards to alternate planning? Just stick to trips where a 180 back to the departure airport is an option or what?

[Squaretail]

The main thing to remember is that VFR OTT isn't "IFR light". It gives you no permissions to penetrate cloud, so the forecast for your destination has to be pretty solid vfr. As I recall, effectively it has to be better than vfr, with a large window either side of your eta. If part of your plan enroute is to fly over a layer, then there can't be that layer forecast at destination. Again, you have no penetration permissions.

VFR OTT is useful depending on your circumstances, as some of the posters above have shown. Hopping over some localized low cloud or fog is the most often use, especially if you're an early morning flyer.

[Liquid_Charlie]

So you are motoring along and you chance on a undercast layer and you can see the other side. What do you do. Me i would just motor on.

If you are IFR rated does that give you VFR on top ability. I know commercially you are not allowed VFR Ott ( not sure if TC would approve the authority if requested but it's not automatic and you can't use it.

Of course uncontrolled airspace is still the wild west.

[CpnCrunch]

So you are motoring along and you chance on a undercast layer and you can see the other side. What do you do. Me i would just motor on.

If you are IFR rated does that give you VFR on top ability. I know commercially you are not allowed VFR Ott ( not sure if TC would approve the authority if requested but it's not automatic and you can't use it.

Of course uncontrolled airspace is still the wild west.

With a CPL you automatically get the ability to do VFR-OTT. IFR doesn't give you the ability, although you can file "1000 feet on top" when you're IFR, but that's a different thing (and not terribly useful from what I can see). Yeah, I only use VFR-OTT if I can see ground on the other side of the layer, or can turn back.

[John Swallow]

The Rating:
A VFR OTT rating will be required by some pilots to fly VFR OTT. This rating can be applied to a Private Pilot Licence – Aeroplane and to a Private, Commercial or Airline Transport Pilot Licence – Helicopter. The privilege to fly VFR OTT will be give automatically to anyone who holds a Commercial Pilot Licence – Aeroplane or AN INSTRUMENT RATING…

More at:

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... 12775e.pdf

[Liquid_Charlie]

The training and rating looks to me that in the long run if you chose to opt out how could anyone know if you were not rated. The other issue is your champ or cub outfitted instrument wise - not likely unless you have put "glass" in it. I can't see any requirements to actually file a VFY OTT flight plan and as far as flight plans are concerned a flight itin fills the requirement.

Obviously southern ontario would be restrictive but if I was going from Timmins to T-Bay and encountered a stratus or fog layer below me I would continue on, depending on aircraft type. One does not want an engine failure under those circumstances.

The point I'm trying to make is that VFR OTT in most parts of canada is un-enforceable and a lot of money to spend for a private recreational pilot and common sense will keep you out of trouble. To me if I was in a cub or similar aircraft I would want to be in gliding distance of clear skies, just like flying over open water on wheels in these types, but that's me.