Do I file or scud run?

comanchepilot

comanchepilot

En-Route
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
4,018
Location
SoCal
Display Name
Display name:
Joe Farrell, yeah, him
Ceilings 2400 BKN. Flight distance 10nm. Forecast to break up by noon. Flight time 0915a. Not worried about the extra time in route. More concerned about delays. Field elevation 1000. Descending toward destination. Visibility 10nm.

Everybody has an opinion, lets hear it!
 
10nm over flat terrain? With a 2400ft ceiling, that's not scud running, just flying VFR :)

Even with CAVU, you'd likely not climb above 2400ft on a flight like that.
 
Fly it. Did that once from the avionics shop back to the home field.
 
I agree with all others, fly it. No need to file.
 
I'd VFR it provided there wasn't a terrain concern.
 
I'd probably file just so I could get the practice.

But i'd have no problem flying VFR below.
 
10 NM? I wouldn't bother with IFR as long as the vis is OK below. You're going to be at about pattern altitude for the trip anyway.
 
I'd prefer to transit at 1500 min altitude, more time to devise a solution if the engine quit. However, my home drome sites under a 1500 B shelf, so I transit the 5.7 nm at ~1300MSL to get to the practice area, which is an additional 8.3nm to get out of the B airspace. You'd be legal VFR in your scenario to go at 900, but it's a risk left to pilot discretion.
 
clouds up to 3000 . .. which means 4000MSL

Due to ONT airspace will not be able to climb above 2500 anyway VFR - I'd likely get 3000 anyway -

I was leaning toward just going VFR anyway -
 
I'd log the approach for currency's sake, if nothing else.
 
comanchepilot said:
clouds up to 3000 . .. which means 4000MSL

Due to ONT airspace will not be able to climb above 2500 anyway VFR - I'd likely get 3000 anyway -

I was leaning toward just going VFR anyway -
Click to expand...

Looks like VFR it is. your post beat my 2nd.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'd prefer to transit at 1500 min altitude, more time to devise a solution if the engine quit. However, my home drome sites under a 1500 B shelf, so I transit the 5.7 nm at ~1300MSL to get to the practice area, which is an additional 8.3nm to get out of the B airspace. You'd be legal VFR in your scenario to go at 900, but it's a risk left to pilot discretion.
Click to expand...

Geez, where'd I get that math???
 
comanchepilot said:
Ceilings 2400 BKN. Flight distance 10nm. Forecast to break up by noon. Flight time 0915a. Not worried about the extra time in route. More concerned about delays. Field elevation 1000. Descending toward destination. Visibility 10nm.

Everybody has an opinion, lets hear it!
Click to expand...

Mountains or flat country in between? 2400 over flat country isn't scud running. If it's mountains, then file.

edit: missed that it's 10 nm enroute, descending. That's VFR, no need to file unless you want to.
 
Flying 1900ft AGL is hardly scud running! (assuming intermediate terrain is not an issue)
 
I'm flying over the citified portion of Los Angeles - it might as well be the most inhospitable terrain you can imagine - few places to land in an emergency. Lots of people moving around. . .

Given that I prob would not go above 3000 anyway - going up to 2500 and staying there is not a big challenge- but the built up city should be treated them same as terrain . .. .

I'm going vfr . . .
 
In other words, it's a lot like flying over the suburbs of Detroit. ;) I treat that like open water, forced landing likely fatal. If I'm at least 500 feet above the tallest towers, I'm golden.
 
Depends.
We have a agl 1200' tower just north... with guywires going out.. it pokes into the clouds quite often. And he has 2 friends that are 900 and 1100. By the time you see it on some hazy or into-sun days, it could be bad.

If no obstacles and familiar with route, hell, fly it at 500' agl. But if its new to me area, I'd file and just go to MEA and back down.
 
Scud running is always the right answer :D

Actually, I wouldn't consider this scud running - its a normal day in many places in the country for flying.
 
I just ran scud for 200 miles down to 800' AGL. I tried going over the top but picked up ice at FL12.5 One thing is for certain, no one else was flying. :lol:
 
I guess I'm the lone contrarian on this thread. IFR, even if it's CAVU. For me it's about maintaining proficiency for the times that I really need it. I rarely fly VFR and don't regret one iota taking my CFII's advice on the day I got my ticket: always fly IFR, always. Of course I'll go VFR for local flights to do practice approaches for currency and jaunts in closed traffic for night landings, but otherwise, you'll see virtually every trip I take on FlightAware on an IFR flight plan.

We take our DA40 from KRBD to KDTO for scheduled maintenance, a 15-minute trip and I always file IFR direct for that little hop. Sometimes they shoot us right over DFW.
 
Last edited:
DrMack said:
I guess I'm the lone contrarian on this thread. IFR, even if it's CAVU. For me it's about maintaining proficiency for the times that I really need it. I rarely fly VFR and don't regret one iota taking my CFII's advice on the day I got my ticket: always fly IFR, always. Of course I'll go VFR for local flights to do practice approaches for currency and jaunts in closed traffic for night landings, but otherwise, you'll see virtually every trip I take on FlightAware on an IFR flight plan.

We take our DA40 from KRBD to KDTO for scheduled maintenance, a 15-minute trip and I always file IFR direct for that little hop. Sometimes they shoot us right over DFW.
Click to expand...

I can see favoring IFR flight, but one can certainly be VFR just as safely.
 
DrMack said:
IFR, even if it's CAVU. For me it's about maintaining proficiency for the times that I really need it. I rarely fly VFR and don't regret one iota taking my CFII's advice on the day I got my ticket: always fly IFR, always.
Click to expand...

What about losing VFR proficiency? There are skills involved with planning and executing a VFR flight that can also atrophy with disuse, perhaps not as quickly as IFR skills, but still. Some day, when you're in a situation where VFR might really be the more efficient option, you're going to file anyway and endure an excruciatingly long IFR delay on a CAVU day because you haven't flown a VFR flight in so long you don't feel comfortable doing it anymore.
 
DrMack said:
I guess I'm the lone contrarian on this thread. IFR, even if it's CAVU. For me it's about maintaining proficiency for the times that I really need it. I rarely fly VFR and don't regret one iota taking my CFII's advice on the day I got my ticket: always fly IFR, always. Of course I'll go VFR for local flights to do practice approaches for currency and jaunts in closed traffic for night landings, but otherwise, you'll see virtually every trip I take on FlightAware on an IFR flight plan.

We take our DA40 from KRBD to KDTO for scheduled maintenance, a 15-minute trip and I always file IFR direct for that little hop. Sometimes they shoot us right over DFW.
Click to expand...
That would be like filing IFR to go from VLL to PTK. You then have two choices: pick up your clearance on the ground or in the air. If you pick up on the ground, you will probably have to hold 5-10 minutes for release and then be given a 3 minute window to depart starting 5 minutes from now. (It can take up to 3 minutes after power on for my 480 just to acquire satellites.) If you try to pick up in the air, you'll likely be in the pattern at PTK before you get your clearance.

I'm all for filing on every cross country flight within reason, but a 15 minute flight is outside the "within reason" limits, for me anyway given that the airspace around here is quite busy. YMMV, depending on where you are.
 
I have the opposite view. Never file IFR unless it's necessary to execute the flight for weather, TFR's, whatever. Especially departing busy airports, I can almost always go to the front of the conga line as the lone vfr departure.
 
DrMack said:
I guess I'm the lone contrarian on this thread. IFR, even if it's CAVU. For me it's about maintaining proficiency for the times that I really need it. I rarely fly VFR and don't regret one iota taking my CFII's advice on the day I got my ticket: always fly IFR, always. Of course I'll go VFR for local flights to do practice approaches for currency and jaunts in closed traffic for night landings, but otherwise, you'll see virtually every trip I take on FlightAware on an IFR flight plan.

We take our DA40 from KRBD to KDTO for scheduled maintenance, a 15-minute trip and I always file IFR direct for that little hop. Sometimes they shoot us right over DFW.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. But being just outside the SFRA, filing makes flying much easier, and is a layer of insurance against the inadvertant bust. But in Joe's case, this flight is about what I do to warm the oil before a change.
 
The only time I'd file IFR on a 10nm trip in these conditions over flat terrain is if I wanted to practice approaches. In this scenario it seems unnecessary.
 
Took off. Did not see Chino til 4 NM. No biggy. Gear up. Wait, I'm too fast. Reduce to 15" of MP. Still too fast. Damn Comanche. Wait. What did I say? Ok. Gear down. Time o land. Ok.

What's up at chino? I repeat back the taxi clearance, "right on kilo, left alpha, cross 21, 90 papa" and I get 90p repeat crossing clearance". Hell, I just did.

Then, chino tower, 90p 26R at alpha, ready for take off". Hold short 26r landing traffic". Roger, 90 pop, hold short 26r. "90p state full call ign and hold short".

Omg, the last three jets to take off just said the same thing but, okay.
 
JHW said:
I have the opposite view. Never file IFR unless it's necessary to execute the flight for weather, TFR's, whatever. Especially departing busy airports, I can almost always go to the front of the conga line as the lone vfr departure.
Click to expand...

I have found that at some large airports (ie KLAS), they seem to be a bit "confused" on how to handle VFR traffic. From my experience, VFR traffic is told to "go away" more often. For example, I was coming into LAS and was told that there would be a "90 minute delay" for VFR arrivals. WTH!?
 
Fly it VFR.

Only flying IFR is as bad as only flying VFR, it's good to keep proficient looking out the window and not at the panel too
 
Several have pointed out that the OP VFR alternative is not scud running. It is not even close to scud running. Scud running has a negative emotional context for many people. It would have helped promote an objective discussion if the alternatives and altitudes were given without the erroneous and gratuitous reference to scud running.
 
I consider flying under a 3000' ceiling to be scud running. You need to be 500' under, and stay 2000 feet away from structures, etc., when you are at 2500' up and the ground is from 600-1000msl is scud running. Ymmv.
 
JHW said:
I have the opposite view. Never file IFR unless it's necessary to execute the flight for weather, TFR's, whatever. Especially departing busy airports, I can almost always go to the front of the conga line as the lone vfr departure.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on this. Yes, it can aid a departure - I'll sometimes ask for a VFR departure & get the release in the air (works at an airport where they are waiting a cancelation from an inbound). But living in the DC SFRA & being in the system anyway tends to have me file IFR for most trips.

YMMV, and it depends on where you are.
 
comanchepilot said:
I consider flying under a 3000' ceiling to be scud running. You need to be 500' under, and stay 2000 feet away from structures, etc., when you are at 2500' up and the ground is from 600-1000msl is scud running. Ymmv.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, obstruction clearance is 2000' horizontal, 1000' above.
 
comanchepilot said:
I consider flying under a 3000' ceiling to be scud running. You need to be 500' under, and stay 2000 feet away from structures, etc., when you are at 2500' up and the ground is from 600-1000msl is scud running. Ymmv.
Click to expand...

AC 60-22
e. Scud Running. Pushing the capabilities
of the pilot and the aircraft to the limits by trying
to maintain visual contact with the terrain while
trying to avoid physical contact with it. This
attitude is characterizedb y the old pilot’s joke: “If
it’s too bad to go IFR, we’ll go VFR.”

We have a case where there is 10 nm vis, the weather trend is improving and there is no description that there is a lot of "scud" or low hanging clouds.

YMMV indeed.
 
So we're all agreed that VFR is ok and this is not technically scud running - can we all agree that flying at 2500'MSL with ground level between 600 and 1000' and a cloud deck at 3000' leaving you anywhere from 1900 - 1500 of space beneath you is not the safest VFR evolution in the event of engine malfunction -

Assume that I'm traversing the distance at about 135-140knots IAS from gear up to level off at my destination, I'm light at about 2400lbs - so - I'll buy some distance slowing from 140kts to 75 or so which is Vg in the event of engine failure so I have maybe 2 minutes to find a place to land . . .

Thats scud running in my book - when you have 2 minutes to set up a place to land in the event of engine failure means you have no options essentially.

We can play a technical name game all we want - but if you have 120 seconds [and likely less] to find a place to land in the event of loss of engine power - you have significantly lowered your safety margin in the Los Angeles basin.

This might not be anywhere near as dangerous in Kansas or Nebraska, Iowa or Illinois where there are open fields everywhere - but being at such a low altitude adds significantly to the risk and why I refer to it as scud running - the risk is from the lack of a place to land safely not from the low cloud level - but the combination of MVFR and lack of places to land . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top