On Top…Of What, Where?
Thanks for Joe Shelton’s article on VFR-on-top operations in the August, 2013 issue. Your information was excellent and quite helpful.
I have found VFR-on-top very useful out here in the mountainous western U.S., where MEA’s are high and some bumpy cumulus buildups make flying uncomfortable or even impossible at IFR altitudes in my aircraft.
When in these conditions, I’m often under a scattered or broken cumulus layer, requesting VFR-on-top. I then have used hemispheric altitudes and assigned routing, but these are often below MEA’s, which are often governed by terrain well away from my route. My question concerns the legality of flying in good VFR conditions but below the MEA while VFR-on-top. I am easily able to avoid terrain with approved heading changes in visual conditions, so am comfortable doing this. What are your interpretations?
Readback: October 2013
Key Takeaways:
- Pilots operating VFR-on-top are ultimately responsible for terrain separation in VMC and should consider IFR minimums (MRA, MOCA) for safety, despite regulatory ambiguity concerning minimum altitudes below MEA, while also ensuring 1000 feet of cloud clearance.
- For non-precision RNAV approaches, the Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) is a mathematical construct providing obstacle clearance only to the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA); it does not guarantee clearance below the MDA to the runway, as that segment lacks a surveyed glidepath.
- While some FAA guidance suggests pilots can shorten outbound legs in holding patterns (including holds in lieu of a procedure turn) unless ATC specifies a minimum length, it is best practice to always confirm expectations with Air Traffic Control.
Key takeaways sponsored by Aviator Pro | Start Your Training ->
See a mistake? Contact us.
