EFR rating: When VFR rating is not anough and IFR rating is too much.

[WLIU]

The Canadian situation might be self-inflicted. In the US I can depart VFR, climb on top through legal holes, and so long as I know that my destination is VFR and open enough so that I can legally descend, I can fly VFR on top. If I understand correctly, in Canada that is a no-no. If my understanding is correct, the first step might be to remove the prohibition against VFR-on-top. With modern navigation, that is GPS and moving maps and instant enroute weather, VFR-on-top can be done safely.

Best of luck,

Wes

[mmarien]

In Canada we have VFR OTT and Night endorsements, both of which require more instrument training. A PPL requires a minimum of five hours instrument training. A night rating requires 5 more hours instrument training "under the hood" for a total of ten hours instrument training. VFR OTT requires five more instrument hours on top of Night for a total of fifteen. I have both my Night and VFR OTT endorsements and fly OTT all the time. I've been caught a couple of times and had to climb over ten thousand feet to stay out of the clouds. I've also turned back when I couldn't get through VFR. I would be a lot more cautious if I didn't have an AP. I would like to see a further step with more training without going to full IFR. The training should include some training for approaches and holds. Your destination could be VFR (in a couple hours) but the diversion (for what ever reason) may not be.

[martymayes]

A night rating requires 5 more hours instrument training "under the hood" for a total of ten hours instrument training. VFR OTT requires five more instrument hours on top of Night for a total of fifteen.

In the US, the FAA made it easier to obtain an instrument rating. That sorta obviates the need for all those increments !

[mmarien]

I was just correcting the misinformation from WLIU. Every few years I get some additional training to keep from forming bad habits. If I obtain an endorsement or two on the way all the better.

[martymayes]

I was just correcting the misinformation from WLIU. Every few years I get some additional training to keep from forming bad habits. If I obtain an endorsement or two on the way all the better.

But at some point, does it not make more sense to get an instrument rating? [ I dunno how difficult it is to obtain an instrument rating in CA].

[FlyingRon]

In the US, there are no VFR over-the-top rules. The FAA would prefer VFR only pilots not fly VFR OTT but it's not illegal. The US does have VFR on top which is done on an IFR clearance.

Really, where did the FAA make that preference known? It's not even an event if you're instrument capable and even if not, it's just another thing you have to do adequate planning for.

[Mike M]

"where did the FAA make that preference known?" I infer that from the FAA restrictions on over the top flight for Pt135 ops. Might be wrong.

[FlyingRon]

"where did the FAA make that preference known?" I infer that from the FAA restrictions on over the top flight for Pt135 ops. Might be wrong.

Lots of additional restrictions for 135 ops, but that doesn't mean the FAA is against the alternative for non-commercial ops.

[Mike M]

If the FAA was "against" VFR OTT for Pt91 pilots, I believe they'd issue a NPRM. If they "prefer" no VFR OTT they'd keep the restrictions on it for "for hire" ops and talk up the dangers when giving Pt 91
training presentations.

[martymayes]

Just to clarify, I originally said: "would prefer VFR only pilots not fly VFR OTT" We know it shouldn't substantially increase risk for an IR pilot.

The FAA has restricted student pilots, recreational pilots and sport pilots from flying VFR OTT. That wasn't always the case for student pilots. The FAA slipped in a change when nobody was looking. Looks like they prefer student pilots not do that.

The preference became known to me at a safety meeting several yrs ago when it was indicted by an FAA rep. while giving a presentation.