Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Scud Running

@LeSving I see what you are trying to do but as I wrote, it’s an approach/ departure. You can use it just like you could an ILS, that is go down and then scud run to your destination. But that doesn’t solve the “EIR problem” as it’s an approach and you can’t do those with just EIR. However, IR rated pilot can effectively avoid this issue by doing the flight entirely under IFR, because PINS gives him instrument departure and approach from/ to places that wouldn’t normally have instrument procedures. So it allows them to operate in conditions they couldn’t otherwise operate in (they wouldn’t be able to depart from the base or return back).

As I tried to tell you, the last bit of an approach is typically visual (that’s why HD/ HA or MAPt is there). This isn’t any less difficult than an APV, there are just different rules used to design them. As I understand it, whether you can continue visual or have to go VFR depends on the landing site. It has to meet certain criteria, otherwise you have to go VFR at (or before) the MAPt. A proper heliport should meet them.

As I don’t speak the language, I have no idea what was said in that video. I would hazard a guess that the equipment they lack is an SBAS receiver.

A useful classic training movie that is on topic.



Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Who has the patent on that de-icing system ?

EBST, Belgium

As mentioned many times, the definition of scud running is very personal and probably depends on what type of flying you normally do.

Personally I would not call anything where you have a clear horizon and safe separation from ground and structures scud running. It may not be as perfect VFR at you had hoped, but scud running for me is when you’re uncomfortable. With 500ft being minimum VFR in most o Europe I regard scud running to be beyond the strictly legal. Oh, and a chute is not going to help you at the height your likely to be at.

As said, how dangerous it is depends on the plane you fly. If you fly a Cub or similar that fly slow and can land safely in a field (and you have plenty of fields) it is a different matter from a TB20 or Cirrus that can do neither….you are too fast and precautionary landing sites are too far between.

One word of advice if you ever find yourself scud running. Go as LOW as you can ! Most people will try to stay as high as they can either because they want to get away from the ground or because they think it is more important to stay legal than to stay alive. Visibility improves the further you get away from the clouds and it is better to fly around the wind turbines you can see than to hit the mast you didn’t see…..and remember that tall masts will have supportive wires, so don’t get too close.

I once did a precautionary landing at a small strip in Germany to wait for better weather and only then realized that it was in the middle of an army training ground. While I had prepared to be questioned by the local commander, we were instead invited for a cop of coffee, a taste of the German rations and generally had good company for a couple of hours. I don’t recommend scud running, but that is one of my most memorable flying experiences.

EGTR

As I operate out of a controlled airport with a CTR, our limit to get in and out of there is 1500 ft ceiling and 5km visibility. For myself, I do regard that as my personal limit when flying VFR over a whole route.

The GAFOR, where available, gives a pretty good indication of that, if used properly. O and D are mostly flyable, M and X not. However, there are differences which need to be considered, particularly in the vicinity of mountains, where the reference heights for the GAFOR may be much higher and may give a pessimistic forecast, if e.g. the reference height for a route is 4500 ft and you get a D, you still will get at least 5500 ft AMSL ceiling and 5 km vis. If you can fly that route at 4000-4500 ft, then that is still quite ok, even an M can be flyable under certain conditions. But for the general VFR pilots, who plan quite easily, D is a good indication and M and X a no go.

A lot also depends on the training pilots receive. Some schools I know will actively train people in marginal conditions, first of all to show them what to look for and avoid it but also to be able to fly certain well known routes if they feel comfortable with them. I’ve done several such training flights in the vicinity of my then training airport and it became useful later on.

Still, it is not something to be trifled with as yet another recent event shows.

2 people killed near Koblenz

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 14 Dec 09:27
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

As I operate out of a controlled airport with a CTR, our limit to get in and out of there is 1500 ft ceiling and 5km visibility

FWIW M_D this is also what I would regard as minima for VFR planning purposes, perhaps lower ceiling with better visibility if I know, and can see, am flying towards blue skies in a few miles from my departure airfield. Also there is the need to factor rising terrain squeezing down the ceiling and compromising safety altitude – the Alps have Gafor, so this needs to be factored in the planning in other areas.

Last Edited by RobertL18C at 14 Dec 09:33
Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

But for the general VFR pilots, who plan quite easily, D is a good indication and M and X a no go.

That is true generally, and while it is a good tool for a first planning start, GAFOR should be supplemented with other sources for weather. I’ve had situations where it turned out to be safer to overfly an area that was X due to low stratus, but had good weather above, than to fly around this area through some D weather with bad visibility and rain. In that case, it was helpful to call a weather briefer to discuss the options. Also one should know the reference heights, as you state, and whether GAFOR is edited for an area (as in Germany) or a route (as in Austria and Switzerland).

Last Edited by Rwy20 at 14 Dec 11:20

It depends on the area where you fly, too. 1500ft/5km is something completely different in Koblenz and in Oldenburg…

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Rwy20 wrote:

GAFOR should be supplemented with other sources for weather.

Absolutely.

Rwy20 wrote:

I’ve had situations where it turned out to be safer to overfly an area that was X due to low stratus, but had good weather above, than to fly around this area through some D weather with bad visibility and rain.

Yes. That would be on top then rather than scud running which is what we are discussing here. I fully agree though, have had that too, especcially in the Alps.

GAFOR in the Alps can be misleading when there are valleys involved which go X due to LC but are free above and easy to overfly. The trouble with crossing the Alps in that regard is mostly that you actually need 3 sectors which need to be flyable: North of the Alps, the Alps themselfs and South of the Alps. To get the 3 of them together is a challenge at times :)

Rwy20 wrote:

In that case, it was helpful to call a weather briefer to discuss the options.

You’re welcome any time. We are there 24 hours a day :)

Rwy20 wrote:

Also one should know the reference heights, as you state, and whether GAFOR is edited for an area (as in Germany) or a route (as in Austria and Switzerland).

Of course. Without the reference heights, GAFOR is next to useless. I’ve had the South Bavarian Areas 83 and 84 XXX’d many times while flying in and out of SZG was possible without a problem. They are 6500 ft reference, so even a M gives you a 7000 ft ceiling (AMSL). In the case of an XXX, it is useful to look at the 81/82 sectors, which have a reference of 3300 ft / 2500 ft respectively, to get a forecast for the ceiling. Of course there are other sources too for the ceiling, such as the METARS on available airports.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

JasonC wrote:

I cannot believe people contemplate flying below a 1000ft cloudbase VFR. They must have a death wish.

It’s all about risk management. I would counter your statement with the earlier post:

Rwy20 wrote:

It really depends on the circumstances of the situation. Especially three factors come to mind:
- Are you flying into deteriorating or ameliorating weather, or don’t you know?
- Do you know the area well?
- What’s the visibility?

I can think of a few more factors:
- How is your aircraft control? Is maintaining straight&level accurately (+/- 50’) a low workload for you?
- How much experience have you got with the local weather patterns/movements.
- Any unserviceabilities of the aircraft that add to the workload?
- Any personal issues (IMSAFE) that add to the workload?
- How fast is your aircraft? Do you have a “bad weather configuration” that allows you to slow down and assess the weather more precisely.
- Have you got an out? This is the most important one. Always keep at least one guaranteed option open. Never commit to having no options.
- What is the need for the flight? Private: stay home. Commercial: you might go out and take a look.
- Do you know your aircraft well?

I’ve flown a couple of days at 500’ for hours. But it is quite stressful, and the above questions all need to be answered. If those flights hadn’t had a commercial purpose, I wouldn’t have gone flying.

You do still need to comply with the VFR minima.

Last Edited by Archie at 14 Dec 20:42
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top