Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts

[Mark Hubbert]

Oh the list
These sorts of topics are going to get merged into CBTs I am hoping

Maybe Dhruv, Ryan and Chris would be willing to do another online class on this topic?  Instead of a CBT.  Would be nice if Shane would also do a class.   

[Matthew Kosmoski]

...and we know what authority the AIM actually has.

From one of the first few pages in the AIM:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications."

No authority. The AIM has no authority.

That's my point ;-)

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Let's take a look at 7110.65, shall we?

7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS

Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.

Gliders usually operate in accordance with a LOA and the facility/agency will block airspace (i.e ATCAA).

Sure, the JO can say that, but the JO isn't law nor does it require the rulemaking process.  It seems like an interesting case where the law says its okay, but the FAA is telling you not to do it anyways.  I can see why it'd be frowned upon operationally, but I'm curious to understand why the JO takes that position more than "because it does."

[Dhruv Kalra]

Sure, the JO can say that, but the JO isn't law nor does it require the rulemaking process.  It seems like an interesting case where the law says its okay, but the FAA is telling you not to do it anyways.  I can see why it'd be frowned upon operationally, but I'm curious to understand why the JO takes that position more than "because it does."

If I can lose my certifications or career for not following it, I’m pretty sure it’s law.

Also, you can be OTP all day long above FL180...as long as you’re also above FL600 and therefore in E airspace, which is where 91.159 would apply in reference to a flight level.

[Mark Jeffreys]

Sure, the JO can say that, but the JO isn't law nor does it require the rulemaking process.  It seems like an interesting case where the law says its okay, but the FAA is telling you not to do it anyways.  I can see why it'd be frowned upon operationally, but I'm curious to understand why the JO takes that position more than "because it does."

91.135 Operations in Class A Airspace.

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person operating an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation under instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the following:

(a) Clearance. Operations may be conducted only under an ATC clearance received prior to entering the airspace.

(b) Communications. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft operating in Class A airspace must be equipped with a two-way radio capable of communicating with ATC on a frequency assigned by ATC. Each pilot must maintain two-way radio communications with ATC while operating in Class A airspace.

(c) Equipment requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment specified in §91.215, and after January 1, 2020, §91.225.

(d) ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. In the case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.

[Ryan Geckler]

VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

[Don Desfosse]

VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

This is VATSIM... Can't you just spawn there?   

[Ryan Geckler]

VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

This is VATSIM... Can't you just spawn there?   

It's one of those VATSIM golden rules... be nice, don't spawn on a runway, don't spawn above a cloud layer VFR...

[Matthew Kramer]

VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

Bingo.  Nothing in 91.135 would prohibit VFR-on-top.

VFR in class A in general would require an LOA as previously discussed (eg for gliders), unless they were IFR and given a block and area to play in...  But VFR-on-top, despite the name, isn't a VFR operation.  VFR-on-top is referenced in only one section only of 14 CFR 91 -- 91.179, IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  It's one of the clearer parts of the law.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

It's defined as an IFR operation. The AIM isn't regulation or law, and this is one of the many cases where it oversteps and says something that isn't substantiated by law or reg.

If it was a VFR operation, you wouldn't be constricted to your route as you are with VFR-on-top.  You're thinking about climbing and cancelling, as VFR-over-the-top, which is a VFR operation.

VFR-on-top only gives you altitude discretion, subject to VFR wx mins.  Otherwise, to cite your beloved AIM:

5-5-13(a)2: (c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

[Matthew Kramer]

VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

It's defined as an IFR operation. The AIM isn't regulation or law, and this is one of the many cases where it oversteps and says something that isn't substantiated by law or reg.

If it was a VFR operation, you wouldn't be constricted to your route as you are with VFR-on-top.  You're thinking about climbing and cancelling, as VFR-over-the-top, which is a VFR operation.

VFR-on-top only gives you altitude discretion, subject to VFR wx mins.  Otherwise, to cite your beloved AIM:

5-5-13(a)2: (c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the 7110 also prohibits VFR-on-top in Class A airspace.

7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE
RESTRICTIONS
Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.

It might not be specifically prohibited by regulation, but you need clearance into Class A airspace, and outside the exceptions talked about (LOA, etc.) you're not going to get this clearance. This topic deserves its own thread if we continue to discuss it.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

It's defined as an IFR operation. The AIM isn't regulation or law, and this is one of the many cases where it oversteps and says something that isn't substantiated by law or reg.

If it was a VFR operation, you wouldn't be constricted to your route as you are with VFR-on-top.  You're thinking about climbing and cancelling, as VFR-over-the-top, which is a VFR operation.

VFR-on-top only gives you altitude discretion, subject to VFR wx mins.  Otherwise, to cite your beloved AIM:

5-5-13(a)2: (c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the 7110 also prohibits VFR-on-top in Class A airspace.

7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE
RESTRICTIONS
Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.

It might not be specifically prohibited by regulation, but you need clearance into Class A airspace, and outside the exceptions talked about (LOA, etc.) you're not going to get this clearance. This topic deserves its own thread if we continue to discuss it.

I don't think anybody is arguing the need for the clearance.  My point is that the only thing that is actually law permits for it.

[Dhruv Kalra]

I don't think anybody is arguing the need for the clearance.  My point is that the only thing that is actually law permits for it.

The law permits for lots of stupid things (like helicopter Special VFR in 0/0). Can we get back on topic?

[Mark Jeffreys]

VFR-on-top is using both IFR and VFR rules. The reg that I quoted says that you must be operating under IFR, not conducting an IFR operation (such as VFR-on-top).

Since you're being picky, you must follow VFR weather minimums while VFR-on-top. Where can I find the VFR weather minimums for class A? There aren't any because you cannot operate VFR in class A airspace.

Anyways, why the heck does it even matter whether it's "legal" or not. You won't get it.