I recently completed my CPL qualifying cross-country flight which included a leg from Weston, Ireland (near Dublin) to Stapleford, UK (near London). As I approached the Welsh coast, I could see there were clouds over much of Wales. The MSA for that portion of the flight was 4400. I climbed to FL75 and was hoping that the layer beneath me (at about 5500’) would be scattered and that I could remain in sight of the ground. Unfortunately, as I progressed, the layer became overcast and I elected to fly north to the coast, descend, and follow a river valley until I was clear of all high ground. The cloud base was high enough that I could safely navigate the river valley, but I have two questions that I hope members of the EuroGA flight can answer.
(1) Would it have been legal to fly VFR above the overcast layer?
(2) If it were legal, would it have been a good idea?
Some of my thoughts so far are:
(1) A quick internet search suggested that under the old UK Air Navigation Orders, this would not have qualified as VFR, but under the new EASA Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA), it appears the restriction to remain in sight of the surface does not apply (to EASA licence holders) if one is above 3’000 feet AGL or in Class A,B,C,D (not sure about E) airspace. I’m not sure I would trust that something is legal simply by the existence of an omission in a regulation. Has anybody found anything more definitive? Also, is there some other aspect of the regulations that might make it illegal? (Say, a requirement to be able to land clear in the event of an engine failure, etc.)
(2) I knew the weather was very good to the east of the high ground, and I had lots of fuel. Northern Wales is pretty inhospitable to a forced landing in good weather. How much extra risk would I be taking by flying over the overcast layer? I have a lapsed IMC rating, so legally I could not switch to IFR. For those of you with an Instrument Rating, would you fly in a single engine plane (I was in a Warrior) over northern Wales above an overcast layer? How does the risk of an engine failure in these circumstances compare to the extra risk I took of flying closer to the ground, in bumpy air, with more traffic around, and more challenging navigation?
1. It would have been legal so long as you met the cloud separation requirements. The old rule was one that only applied to UK PPLs. That restriction is not contained in EASA PPL’s, but I think it might still exist in UK National licences.
2. Flying over a solid over cast carries risk. More so for a VFR flight than an IFR one. In my opinion, the risk of engine failure isn’t all that high. But the risk of getting stuck with no way back down other than going through it is high for a VFR flight. I won’t do it unless I have a way back down that is 100% guaranteed. (Eg flying over an over cast where I can see that out over the coast it’s clear and I can easily go over there and descend if necessary).
Yes; VFR above an overcast has been legal for UK issued PPLs since early 2012 or so.
To get back down, pilots usually find a “hole” in the cloud 
but you obviously must do it safely, and the best way is as DP says: over the sea. You do need to be instrument flight capable to do this. But often you can establish there is no (or scattered) cloud cover from metars and tafs, at the destination, before the flight.
There is a “VFR in Europe” presentation here which I did back in 2012 and which is still current in most respects (I think there are errors in there in the way Schengen works for Norway and Switzerland) and it’s worth a quick read.
Thank you very much for the responses and the link.
Personally, faced with this choice, I would prefer above the overcast rather than trying to scud run through the high ground in Wales. Engine failures are rare so long as you keep fuel supplied to the engine, but cumulogranite takes no prisoners. Don’t forget about better radio range with altitude – you can often get quite distant ATIS broadcasts which will give you an idea about whether you’re heading into worsening or improving weather, which will help you make a decision whether to divert or continue.
In retrospect, if I had been more certain that it was legal, I would have opted to fly over the layer. The flight was last Friday (3 days ago) and the METARs and TAFs were VFR for pretty much the whole of the UK. I had about 4 hours of fuel left, I was over 2000’ above the layer, and there was no cloud above me.
The main question for me is the ceiling above the ground. If it’s comfortable VFR below and you know you can get through at or before the destination, why not? I don’t have a magical hole maker though, which does mean I make sure I’ve got fuel to return if necessary.
This sort of thing is a tactical decision depending on the terrain, actual and forecast cloudbases at various airports nearby, and the distance of the destination from the coast.
For me, for a coastal or coastal-ish destination, and instrument capable, VMC on top would be the obvious way, and I used to do the same (illegally) outside the UK before I had the IR, on the IMCR. Always safely though.
The next stage is going to say Seething EGSJ which is about 15nm inland. I would still go VMC on top, because a descent over the sea and 15nm over the ground is trivial.
But places in most of Wales are not doable that way, due to terrain – unless you are happy to prepare a DIY letdown, which is not quite trivial because you need to design a missed approach also. I did that a while ago for Welshpool, when I had a customer nearby, but in the end I never flew that in actual IMC. In these cases I would not go VMC on top but instead stay low. For example Shoreham to Wellesbourne is most simply done that way. Drawbacks include (a) you need the discipline to turn back if the cloud-ground separation gets too tight and (b) you will be dodging half of UK GA which flies mostly at 1000-2000ft, with most of the nontransponding (not showing on TCAS etc) crowd in the 1000-1500 region (c) it is likely to be a rough flight.
