Without visual reference to the surface

[dstclair]

No way. A Sport Pilot cannot fly above a broken ceiling.

The only restriction is in FAR 61.315(c)(13) and states nothing about a ceiling, broken layer, etc. You're extrapolating what may have been intended and, certainly, could be a best and safe practice.

That makes no sense. How would he get up there and how would he get down.

Multiple ways, depending on the weather pattern. One way could be ascending to your cruise altitude in a less than broken area then cruise above the broken layer (with reference to ground ) then descend on the other side. Yes -- there is the same risk for an SP as PP in that the layer may close in and there is no clear way down.

That would be considered VFR on top because a broken layer constitutes a ceiling.

Technically, this would be VFR over the top. And, yes, you are correct but there is nothing in regs that prohibit an SP operating VFR over the top.

[FastEddieB]

I think the risk here is the more and more Sport Pilots try to push the envelop, the more likely it would be for someone to decide Sport Pilots really want to be Private Pilots, so lets just do away with the Sport Pilot thing.

I know what you're saying - I guess the intent is to emphasize that Sport Pilots are, or should be, fair weather flyers.

It seems logical that Private and Commercial and ATP's exercising Sport Pilot privileges sans medicals should have some of their prior privileges grandfathered over on the basis of previously acquired and demonstrated skills. Which seems very different from someone only trained to Sport Pilot standards in the first place.

But, again, it is what it is, I've written the FAA about it, and it does not cramp my style in any major way. Just seems silly, is all.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[MrMorden]

I think I would not focus so much on whether the METAR said "BKN", "OVC", or "SCT", and would instead look at the conditions. I have seen "broken" layers that were in fact about half coverage, and almost got my ass in a jam recently when the "SCT1500" layer I was above turned out to be a near undercast.

I think just because you can see one tiny patch of brown in a sea of gray/white, that does not constitute visual reference to the ground". If you can see some landmarks and get a general sense of direction, that *does* qualify, IMO. I think if we use common sense and can at least justify why we have some navigable reference to the Earth, we can stop getting hung up on what the weather report says.

[dstclair]

What Andy said!

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[deltafox]

"Climb, Conserve, Confess" If you find yourself VFR on top stay out of the clouds, reduce power to save gas, and TELL SOMEBODY! Let ATC know that you need help. They know where the holes are and WILL help you to get down. DON'T try to penetrate the layer to get down by yourself.

[FastEddieB]

I remember FOUR "C's":

Climb...

Communicate...

Confess, and...

Comply.

[deltafox]

You are right Eddie, but I have trouble remembering 4. So I always combine the communicate, confess & comply figuring if I've confessed the other two will come naturally. (BTW, I also have SIX Ts at station passage...use Time twice.)

[Jim Stewart]

"(13) Without visual reference to the surface."

It doesn't say continuous visual reference to the surface.

My brain does an excellent job of correlating and averaging. As long as it knows where the surface is, I'm good. If I fly over a few fluffy clouds, it still knows where the surface is. YMMV.

[CharlieTango]

"(13) Without visual reference to the surface."

it doesn't say continuous and it doesn't say surface below your position.

If I cross the Cascades from the south east and arrive on the west side over a solid under cast I can still see the surface where the Cascades penetrate the layer and I can even see the coastal mountains but I can't see the surface of the Willamette valley. I know my destination is clear and within an hour I will see the surface below me as well as the valley's perimeter of mountains.

Flying over a large valley with a solid layer below feels as though it violates on the spirit of the rule.

[Jack Tyler]

Interesting discussion.

It does seem to miss an important point or two. First, there is no guarantee there will always be only a single layer, scattered or otherwise. Nor is it likely all the layer's holes will line up. I think even the FAA will have to stipulate to that. So I think it is reasonable (so I would expect my attorney to argue...) that the FAA was well aware that writing the rule the way they did included the possibility for SP rated pilots to fly legally without 100% reference to the ground. There really is no other logical conclusion given the earth's meterology and the language of the FAR in question (my attorney will conclude convincingly). Of course, I don't want to be paying for this attorney nor attending this enforcement hearing, so it would be better if I were to know just how much leeway (to ground reference) I'm legally allowed in practice.

That's the bigger missing piece: These discussions serve a useful purpose because they get us all to think about what can be included in our decision making when flying. So far, so good. But they are academic in the sense topics like this live in a vacuum whereas the flight where we apply what we've learned here - and how it will be viewed by the FAA - will exist in a context. By that I mean the FAA is not in our right seat, it is not seeing how big a hole or how many holes we are using for ground reference, and so they will only be able to evaluate our decision making in the context of what happened during and at the end of the flight that they became aware of, from their proverbial Monday Morning perspective. FAA enforcement actions usually (99%?) result from an in-flight emergency in which they play a role or an FAA employee seeing something s/he believes is unsafe/non-compliant. In either case, I'd say we start off holding the short end of the stick. So rather than viewing the FAR in question as 'assuring' me I can fly over a scattered or broken layer (or not), I think a more workable perspective is that I'm adding an additional element of risk to the flight. It may be a legal rather than flight safety risk, or it may turn out to be both...but risk it is. How many holes? How big were the holes? What were we seeing vs. what does the forecast say (which by definition either relates to a small core of airspace around an airport or a forecast area of immense size and is not exclusively the weather we happen to be flying in). Was this the only way we could have conducted the flight? Was the flight even necessary (of course not)? Lots of questions with which the FAA can tinker with.

Example #1: Cop stops you and announces 'You ran that red light.' From that moment onward, you ran that red light, even if you end up escaping a ticket. The context is that the policeman's judgement prevails in such circumstances.
Example #2: After landing you call the Tower as requested. 'I know you're a SP flying an LSA and you should not have been in the position to penetrate that layer as you did. That was an unsafe act on your part.' From that moment onward...

I appreciated the earlier comment about not all clouds being in distinct layers. Yesterday we were on our final leg into Jax from Montana and we had to fly along the back side of an ugly, convective black mass and eventually penetrate it once ADS-B, the Stormscope and ATC were all in agreement. Somewhat like the OP's circumstance, we did have an almost 360 degree consistent view of the ground throughout but were surrounded by clouds that obscured any hint of what was up and what was down. We never felt a bump, never saw a drop and, had I been SP rated, were always - based on what seems to be the prevailing view here - complying with the FAR in question (tho' I was flying as a PP with IR). But it would have been a stupid place for a SP and also PP to find him/herself in...and that's an example of the context I was referring to earlier.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[drseti]

That's my interpretation too. But, I'm not about to ask FAA Legal for a Letter of Interpretation.