Tips for flying into the sun
I recently became a private pilot and have begun instrument training. On a cross-country to the Quad Cities from Joliet Regional, I encountered the absolute most blinding sun you could have imagined. My direction was east to west. I tried to zigzag to avoid flying directly into the sun, but to no avail. Help?
Thank you,
Larry
Greetings Larry:
You want to do two things to solve this problem. First, clean and polish the airplane's windows. Next, carry more than one pair of sunglasses with you when you fly. Battling the sun requires an arsenal of weapons. In addition to your normal pair of green or gray sunglasses, carry a set of extra-dark green or gray glasses for those mid- to late-afternoon flights. This reduces the sun's intensity on your eyes and allows you to do a little arc welding aloft if you are so inclined. If you're planning on making a late afternoon or early evening flight to the west, then carry a pair of dark, reddish-brown glasses. This color combination helps your eyes better adapt to the dark for those after-sunset landings.
While you may consider using polarized lenses to help cut glare, this isn't a good idea. These glasses can show the strain patterns found in some windshields, which are a source of distraction. Polarized glasses also make it less likely that you'll catch any reflective glare off of another airplane, making detection and avoidance more difficult. Some pilots even carry a pair of yellow-tinted glasses for use when flying in haze. Yellow glasses make it easier to detect traffic in hazy conditions. They also make it easier for you to talk to any rock stars who might be aboard the airplane at the time.
Is flight above clouds legal VFR?
Dear Rod:
I am a VFR-only private pilot and have been attempting to fly to my work location near Washington, D.C., weekly, a trip of 275 nm. This effort is beginning to make a weatherman out of me.
On the trip in question, the ceiling was broken and low enough to make the trip across the Appalachian Mountains difficult, although mountain obscuration was not in the forecast. The tops were reported at 7,500 feet, there was enough clear air at my location to climb on top, and my destination was reporting better (scattered) than my departure point and was forecast to remain broken. So I elected to climb and make the trip at 9,500 feet. Tops were closer to 8,500 feet than 7,500 feet, and the broken condition was more like eight-tenths to nine-tenths coverage, meaning I could periodically see the ground. About 20 miles from my destination I found a hole and descended below the deck.
Was I legal? I have heard people say that to be VFR you must have a visual reference to the horizon. What constitutes a horizon? Is ground contact required? Can I legally overfly overcast conditions VFR? I'm not asking if this is smart, only if it's legal. Smart is a tough question as 40 minutes over obscuration in a two-hour flight may be acceptable depending on other conditions. If I were to continuously worry about my airplane breaking down, this would never be any fun!
Recently I made the trip back at 4,500 feet with conditions of four to six miles in haze, with the sky clear, along the entire route. This trip stretched my piloting abilities more than any other. I know I was legal, but I was really on instruments and required electronic navigation the whole way. Sure, I could see the ground and knew I was upright, but at times I made out reference points only because I have flown the route several times. To me I was legal VFR not because I could have flown and navigated by the seat of my pants as many infer. I used the capabilities VFR allows me, I think.
Can you comment? What is legal VFR beyond the typical definitions associated with the different classes of airspace?
Thanks,
Manny
Greetings Manny:
There is no requirement for a private pilot to have visual contact with the ground to fly VFR (this is called VFR over the top). There is for a student pilot, but not for a private pilot. Therefore, you are not in violation of any regulation when flying VFR over the top as you describe.
There is also no specific regulation stating that a pilot must have a definable, identifiable horizon when flying VFR, either. If there were such a requirement, then most VFR flights in desert areas on a moonless night would be illegal, given that an identifiable horizon under these conditions isn't likely. On the other hand, if you are unable to determine your attitude by some outside reference (city lights or moonlit foreground, for example), you'll often be forced to rely on flight instruments for attitude control. If so, in my opinion you should be instrument rated, current on instruments, and in an appropriately equipped airplane when flying in these conditions.
The only requirements for VFR flight are a minimum visibility and a specific cloud clearance (and a minimum cloud height for departure in surface-based controlled airspace). Technically, you are not in violation of any regulation when flying the route you described. On the other hand, the question of safety here is an important one.
If I were a noninstrument-rated private pilot flying VFR over the top of a broken cloud layer (that can cover up to 70 percent of the sky), I'd only feel comfortable if I positively knew there was a place where I could descend to an airport in VFR conditions that was within range of the airplane. It sounds like the broken condition was mountain obscuration and you were convinced that your destination would remain scattered (which can mean up to 40 percent sky cover). As a result, your flight wasn't illegal, necessarily unsafe, or even unreasonable.
It did, however, require that you tie your fortunes to the continued operation of your airplane engine. An engine failure over mountainous obscuration makes it unlikely that you'll have sufficient time and opportunity to select a suitable landing spot if you had to descend through the clouds. An engine failure under similar weather conditions when operating over non-mountainous terrain with a respectably high ceiling is a much safer proposition by comparison.
Regarding your most recent flight at 4,500 feet under an overcast, this too isn't illegal, necessarily unsafe, or unreasonable. You had more than the required VFR minimums and were flying over a route with which you were familiar (a key point, here). You could determine your attitude by ground reference, thus you didn't need to rely on instruments for attitude information. If there weren't sufficient weather reporting points en route, then I'd recommend flying the route only if there were a sufficient number of airports where you could set down if the weather got worse.
Manny, there's absolutely nothing wrong with flying under the conditions you mentioned (or similar weather conditions). In fact, the "look see" philosophy of weather flying is reasonable and respectable, but only-only!-if you always leave yourself a way out of any weather difficulty you might encounter (e.g., another airport at which you can land in VFR conditions).
Aptitude tests for would-be pilots
Dear Rod:
Is there any aptitude test that a young man can take before committing himself to a course that leads to a private pilot certificate and, eventually, a commercial certificate?
Thanks,
Rick
Greetings Rick:
I'm not aware of any professionally developed aptitude tests in use by anyone in the general aviation community. As I see it, the best aptitude test for obtaining a commercial certificate is probably the attainment of a private pilot certificate. And a student pilot certificate culminating with a solo flight might be the best test of a person's aptitude for obtaining a private pilot certificate.
When it comes right down to it, an aptitude test provides a very coarse idea of a person's potential for success in any particular field. If a person can do well in that field already, then this is in itself an aptitude test. In high school, I took a general aptitude test to help me focus on my career goals. It turned out that teaching wasn't the field the psychologist recommended that I pursue. Thank goodness I didn't listen to her. On the other hand, I'm glad I didn't pursue that career in garbage collection, either.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot for 32 years and a CFI for 28, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.
Related Articles
