All instrument rated pilots are familiar with the term “chop it and drop it.” If the runway environment comes into sight just as the missed approach point is reached, the pilot can cut the power, enter a slip and drop it like it’s hot – or so the theory goes. Although widely practiced and propagated by many a CFI, is it really safe? Furthermore, is it even legal?

Take a look at 14 CFR 91.175: Takeoff and landing under IFR – Operation below DH or MDA:

(c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot…

“Normal maneuvers” are just what you might think: any maneuver one would perform during a stabilized approach and landing. This includes normal heading and altitude bracketing, minor airspeed adjustments and ordinary descent rates (no more than 1,000 feet per minute in most airplanes). If you wouldn’t do it in a run-of-the-mill visual approach, then you shouldn’t do it on an instrument approach. With these standards, the old “chop it and drop it” just doesn’t cut it. The prudent pilot ought to realize when landing with a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers cannot be accomplished. A missed approach is the appropriate response.

Ah hangar talk. The endless B-S-fest that us pilots just can’t seem to get enough of. I heard an interesting bit of hangar talk the other day.

An experienced flight instructor, let’s call him John Doe, steps into the FBO with his student and notices the manager looking rather flustered on the phone.

“Hey John, it’s for you. It’s the FAA, and they ain’t too happy.”

“Were you flying in the vicinity of ____ Municipal Airport fifteen minutes ago?”

“Yes.”

“What type of airplane were you flying Mr. Doe?”

“A Cessna 152.” An increasing feeling of dread came over John, but he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong.

“And what color was that Cessna?”

“White and Brown.”

And that was all they needed. The conversation got ugly from that point on. And John remained clueless until the accusation came:

“We have several witnesses claiming that a small high-wing aircraft, brown, dropped solid objects on the ___ University campus.”

John argued that it wasn’t him. After all, he was only practicing maneuvers with his student.

“I don’t think you understand how serious this is Mr. Doe. Two students were hit by falling objects.”

John was in deep. Not only was he looking at losing his license, there were threats of criminal prosecution. Serious stuff, and it seemed as though the committee had already made up it’s mind.

While John was turning whiter than a ghost, he overheard laughing and carrying on. At least someone was having a good day. He glanced out the window only to see another brown Cessna parked on the ramp.

“Hm.”

John began to ignore the FAA’s call and focus intently on the conversation in the pilot’s lounge.

“Yeah, it was great! We leafletted our frat house and dropped toy footballs all over the school!”

A sigh of relief escaped John’s lips.

“Mr. Doe?” said woman who had been leading the FAA’s inquisition.

“One moment ma’am, I believe I have your culprit.”

John was off the hook.

A lot of VFR pilots talk about punching through holes in the cloud deck and flying on top. This usually raises a few eyebrows, and brings up a few questions. Is this legal? And more importantly, is it safe?

To answer the first question, yes it is perfectly legal to fly VFR above a cloud layer. In fact VFR over the top has a specific FAA definition under 14 CFR 1.1:

VFR over the top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the operation of an aircraft over the top under VFR when it is not being operated on an IFR flight plan.

A lot of pilots prefer to fly cross country on top to avoid low-level turbulence which usually stops above the bases of cumulus clouds. Keep in mind that VFR flight visibility and cloud clearance rules still apply, so you can’t get too close to those clouds.

Is it safe?

This is a difficult question to answer, and it depends on the pilot’s individual experience and decision making skills.

As a VFR pilot, flight on top presents a variety of new hazards. Without reference to ground landmarks, a pilot must maintain a higher level of situational awareness through onboard navigational aids. It’s easy to get lost up there.

Cloudscapes can be a hazard of their own. VFR pilots are trained to fly the airplane primarily by reference to the horizon. Sloping cloud layers can create false horizons which may lure the pilot into a descending turn. The attitude indicator and heading indicator will be your best bet to notice and rectify the situation.

Perhaps the greatest hazard is that of getting stuck on top. There is no guarantee that the hole you climbed through is going to be there when you want to come back down. Pilots need to monitor the weather and get back down before the broken layer becomes an overcast.

Flying VFR on top is as safe as you can to make it. If you’re new to the game, then might I suggest that you stay below the deck for a while. For those of you going up top, keep your guard up and fly safe!

The Pilot / Controller Glossary in the AIM defines minimum fuel as an indication that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. It is important to keep in mind that a minimum fuel advisory is not an emergency; it is only an advisory that an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. But when should you declare minimum fuel?

The Federal Aviation Regulations (14-CFR) shed little light on the matter. 14 CFR 91.151 outlines fuel requirements for beginning a flight under VFR conditions. Pilots are required to have enough fuel to fly to their destination at normal cruising speed, then fly for an additional 30 minutes by day, or 45 minutes by night in an airplane.

§ 91.151   Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

For IFR flights, 14 CFR 91.167 requires that pilots take off with enough fuel to fly to the destination, continue to the alternate airport (when an alternate is required), then fly for an additional 45 minutes in an airplane, all at normal cruising speed.

§ 91.167   Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:

(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and

(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:

(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.

(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.

This is all good and well, but we are no closer to quantifying precisely when to declare minimum fuel. Enter the airlines: those aviation leaders who improve safety by documenting each eventuality of a flight within their FAA approved manuals. You have not flown “by the book” until you have flown for an airline.

Indeed, a quick look at my company’s manuals reveals an exact time and procedure for declaring minimum fuel. It states that a minimum fuel condition exists only after two conditions are met:

1. The expected fuel on arrival based on the flight’s expected route will only allow for 30 minutes of flight after arrival until fuel exhaustion.
2. All available options to reduce fuel required have been used, such as slowing down or changing altitude to reduce fuel burn, or flying a more direct route to the airport.

Keep in mind that these two conditions are an airline’s policy for IFR flights, but I feel that they are a useful and conservative target for any IFR traffic approaching a fuel situation. VFR pilots may be able to skimp a bit more, say 20 minutes fuel reserve, since they have no need to shoot time consuming instrument approaches.

Ideally pilots will travel with a plentiful reserve of fuel, precluding the need to declare minimum fuel, but weight limitations and operational needs will occasionally force us to operate closer to the margin. Always maintain awareness of your fuel situation and do not hesitate to declare minimum fuel should the need arise.

A few weeks ago I was doing my normal routine preparing the airplane for a short haul from Memphis to Chattanooga when the altimeter setting floored me. “Altimeter 30.82,” the ATIS read. That was one mighty high pressure system we were under. In fact, 30.82 is a whole 900 foot difference from the standard altimeter setting of 29.92! This reminded me of the elusive FAR Part 91.144.

A quick look in my handy-dandy FAR / AIM 2009 reveals:

Temporary restriction on flight operations during abnormally high barometric pressure conditions.

(a) Special flight restrictions. When any information indicates that barometric pressure on the route of flight currently exceeds or will exceed 31 inches of mercury, no person may operate an aircraft or initiate a flight contrary to the requirements established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen issued under this section.
(b) Waivers. The Administrator is authorized to waive any restriction issued under paragraph (a) of this section to permit emergency supply, transport, or medical services to be delivered to isolated communities, where the operation can be conducted with an acceptable level of safety.

In English, if the altimeter is near 31.00, the normal rules for setting the altimeter might not apply. It is the responsibility of the pilot in command to check the NOTAMs and comply with the special rules implemented for this weather condition. In fact, you can not legally fly unless you have complied with the NOTAM.

It is also important to keep in mind that not everyone will have checked the NOTAMs, meaning that you should be particularly suspicious when you hear that weekend-warrior state that he is “maneuvering at 3,000 feet”. He may have set his altimeter to the limit (31.00), or he may have assumed that it would be wise to fly around at 29.92. That’s a potential difference of 1,080 feet from your indication of 3,000 feet.

Keep your eyes open and fly safe.