Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:25:36 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3078568@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.158.62.67; envelope-from=cfi@instructor.net
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Ron Galbraith" <cfi@instructor.net>
Subject: VFR on top
In-Reply-To: <list-3076035@logan.com>
References:  <list-3076035@logan.com>

I'd like to clarify a misconception about flying VFR on top or OTP as the c=
ontroller sees it in his flight plan and on the data block on the scope.=A0=
 This clearance isn't a clearance for a free for all or going as low as you=
 can go.=A0 You are still on an IFR flight plan and must stay on the filed =
route.=A0 The ONLY thing that does for you is allow you to stay clear of cl=
ouds.=A0 You must still comply with VFR visibility, distance from cloud cri=
teria, and the minimum IFR altitudes.=A0 This last one is the biggy.=A0 It =
takes the burden off the controller to separate you from the ground with mi=
nimum IFR separation (1000' AGL or 2000' AGL in mountainous terrain), and o=
ther IFR aircraft unless in class B or C airspace.=A0 You are still require=
d to comply with this altitude.=A0=A0 I saw this as a controller on many ma=
ny occasions, and most controllers don't know what the pilot rules are (and=
 don't really care), so if they tell you go as low as you want, that is not=
 a clearance to break the FAR's.=A0 You can be violated if you do this. (I'=
ve seen it happen).=A0=A0 I'd really hate for someone to get a violation on=
 their record because they didn't understand the rules.=A0 If you want to f=
ly right right over Mt Rainier (less than 2000' AGL) and think you can do i=
t VFR on top, you better be canceling IFR first.=A0=A0 There are waivers th=
at the ATC facilities can get such as when flying over Pikes Peak just West=
 of Colorado Springs.=A0 The MIA (minimum IFR altitude) is 16000'MSL.=A0 Th=
is is less than 2000 AGL, but ATC has authorization to do this.=A0 Pilots d=
on't have this authorization via a VFR on top clearance.=A0 In this case yo=
u would have to be at least 16115' MSL (2000'AGL).
=A0=A0=A0 Another point I'd like to bring up that goes along with this disc=
ussion is that you are not allowed to go Direct using GPS (or other RNAV eq=
uipment such as INS) in any controlled airspace unless you are receiving ra=
dar monitoring(except when within navaid limitations and going direct to a =
navaid).=A0 What this means is that unless you are in radar contact, you ca=
nnot go direct.=A0 I'm sure this has happened to some of you and you were f=
rustrated by why you had to stay on an airway.=A0 This is a huge issue in A=
laska since there are so many non radar areas and so many remote airports.=
=A0 Alaska had a waiver to be able to do this, but it expired last month.=
=A0 I'm working on this very issue right now with flight standards and all =
the other affected offices here at the FAA, to allow GPS direct from airpor=
t to airport in non radar situations.=A0 Once this is approved, we will hop=
efully be able to apply it in the lower 48 and you will all be going direct=
 to your destination a lot more frequently.=A0 As a side note, a loophole e=
xists that allows you to go direct in non radar if you are on a VFR on top =
clearance, so keep that in mind and use the rules to your advantage when po=
ssible.=A0=20


Ron Galbraith


=A0
>i used to fly in this area of the Cascades all the time.=A0 If you are on =
an ifr flight plan with a "vfr on top" clearance, ATC will let you go as lo=
w as you want.=A0 One time, when on a VFR on top clearance near Mt Ranier,=
=A0 I asked how low i could go....they said "you can taxi from there to her=
e if you want".
>