Is the experienced scud runner safer than the rare instrument pilot?

Both will end up giving GA a bad name.
 
Yes and no. There are those who are very experienced doing it. And some of them have got bit doing it. As in trapped and crash. But the great majority of us (including myself) should not attempt it.

Rare instrument pilot? Why do you consider it rare? Many have an instrument rating. Many "scud runners" do too. Not really related to scud running.
 
What's a "rare instrument pilot"? One that's hard to find when you really need one? Or one that needs more grilling? :confused:o_O
 
mscard88 said:
Yes and no. There are those who are very experienced doing it. And some of them have got bit doing it. As in trapped and crash. But the great majority of us (including myself) should not attempt it.

Rare instrument pilot? Why do you consider it rare? Many have an instrument rating. Many "scud runners" do too. Not really related to scud running.
Click to expand...

I think he meant rare as in rarely flies IMC..
 
In most things aviation, experience counts. A lot. I suspect there's some pretty experienced scud runners in STOLs in places like Alaska. We have a few grizzled veterans that fly the mountain passes out where I live as well...but once again these are guys with both the airplane and the experience to put it down damn near anywhere there's a flat spot.

IMC with a low time instrument pilot? No thanks.
 
I don't know, I got a lot more CONSERVATIVE after getting my instrument rating than I was as an experienced scud runner. I'm less likely to do something foolish even when not current.
 
Successful scud running only builds false sense of security that the only skill is to know when to duck early and land. Really no skill behind that. Low time or rusty IR'd pilot can put one self several miles behind the A/C on a busy approach, but there should be some sense of skill keeping the wings level -- so looking at just those choices, 'B' for safer.
 
Neither would be ideal in my book, but I'm leaning toward the rare IMC pilot. If something turns amiss while attempting to scud-run, at least he/she will have some background and the abilities to continue into the IFR conditions and hopefully make a safe landing. The experienced scud-runner (assuming they're a VFR pilot) won't have those skills if they become trapped in the soup.
 
I'd think scud running is a lot harder than it used to be, cell towers are everywhere.
 
From my reading of the NTSB reports the impression I get is scud running and not being IFR current and or proficient appear to kill equally and often enough to not want to challenge the weather in my VFR aircraft.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'd think scud running is a lot harder than it used to be, cell towers are everywhere.
Click to expand...

That comes to my mind, too. A few weeks ago we flew the 414 home from NY to KS at 2,500 ft to stay below headwinds. This was 500-2,000 AGL over the route of flight, depending on the area. 500 in PA, but I know that area and it was clear and a million.

I had Garmin Pilot open with the obstacle warnings. I made a point of staying above where any towers even came up as yellow Xs. It amazed me how, once I got below a certain altitude, the Xs just popped up seemingly by the dozens.

I think a lot of it depends on how you define "skud running", because that also depends on where you are and what altitude you really are. If you're talking about <500 AGL vs. say 800 AGL, there's a significant difference in the number of towers and things you can hit. In PA, MVFR ceilings are usually a good way to hit things. I know what they do in Alaska is... different, but it doesn't interest me.
 
What are we really calling scud running?

That kind of needs to be defined first. Some folks look at almost any MVFR as scud running. Others see it as flying VFR in less than legal VFR conditions.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'd think scud running is a lot harder than it used to be, cell towers are everywhere.
Click to expand...
It's actually a lot easier and arguably safer than it used to be with the proliferation of in-cockpit weather combined with terrain/obstacle data and SVT.

I've done flights in MVFR in recent years that I never would have attempted back on the days without onboard technology to know what I was getting into.
 
I call scud running having to fly at altitudes below the VFR sectional sector altitudes. I don't like to fly very long in visibility less than 5 or miles. My eyes get too tired.
 
Well, MVFR is 1000-3000 ceiling and 3-5 mile visibility. I also believe scud running is not precisely defined. For me scud running is flying outside of the local traffic pattern at altitudes 1000 AGL or less under a low ceiling (while being simultaneously concerned about maintaining adequate separation from both the ground and the ceiling).
 
If you are over the inland passage and you can stay below the clouds at 500AGL with no ice. Better than being up there in the ice at the IFR levels for many. But with that one, you don't have to worry about towers. All the mountains are near the airports but there is a way in. Rains a lot. Want to be good at landing in the wind too.
 
somorris said:
I call scud running having to fly at altitudes below the VFR sectional sector altitudes. I don't like to fly very long in visibility less than 5 or miles. My eyes get too tired.
Click to expand...

IMO, you have to look at the charts. There are a couple of smokestacks and towers in the vicinity of my home field which drive the "safe" VFR altitude on the chart. That's the case in a lot of areas. As long as you're aware of and avoid the handful of tall towers, the safe altitudes come down significantly. That's where obstacle databases more than pay for themselves.

As for scud running vs sorta-current IFR? Not sure. I've never been trained for instrument flying. I have done a fair amount of flying in marginal VFR - ceilings below 1,000' or dodging cells, etc. My rule of thumb is that to make an X/C flight, I want a couple of thousand feet of ceiling. Otherwise, a minor drop in ceilings can give you a bad day. Also, at low, low altitudes, you don't have any time to rectify a simple problem, like accidentally running a tank dry.

One absolute is that I will not dodge thunderstorms in rotten visibility. Too easy to bumble into one. I spent a night somewhere in Illinois one year coming home from Oshkosh because the visibility was too bad to play "dodge the thunderstorm" visually. I've also landed at a crop duster strip due to unforecast low ceilings.
 
First, I believe this discussion is useless without a clear definition of scud running.

That said, an experienced pilot flying at legal visibility minimums with adequate ceiling to always be at legal minimum altitudes can be significantly safer than one who ventures intentionally in the clouds with bare minimum recency. In fact, I've spent significant amounts of time VFR down low when it probably would've been fatal for me as a very proficient instrument pilot to venture in the clouds.

Jeff Cutler said:
Successful scud running only builds false sense of security that the only skill is to know when to duck early and land. Really no skill behind that. Low time or rusty IR'd pilot can put one self several miles behind the A/C on a busy approach, but there should be some sense of skill keeping the wings level -- so looking at just those choices, 'B' for safer.
Click to expand...

There are significant skills beyond being able to "duck early and land". Can you plot your position with a pencil point as you fly, or do you have a larger margin of error in your navigation? Do you fly the magenta line or just follow roads to navigate, or do you adjust your route to make it more advantageous? How's your weather knowlege? Can you say with confidence that this minimum weather will stay the same or improve rather than getting worse? How do you evaluate that in flight? What's your plan if you're wrong? If you have to land, can you safely select from any number of terrain options, or are you limited to runways?

The list goes on for quite a while. If you haven't even thought about those issues, yes, you're unsafe. And not "just" for low VFR...I've seen my share of 2000 & 5 forecasts that became a 300 & 1 reality without nearby airport options.
 
MauleSkinner said:
First, I believe this discussion is useless without a clear definition of scud running.

That said, an experienced pilot flying at legal visibility minimums with adequate ceiling to always be at legal minimum altitudes can be significantly safer than one who ventures intentionally in the clouds with bare minimum recency. In fact, I've spent significant amounts of time VFR down low when it probably would've been fatal for me as a very proficient instrument pilot to venture in the clouds.



There are significant skills beyond being able to "duck early and land". Can you plot your position with a pencil point as you fly, or do you have a larger margin of error in your navigation? Do you fly the magenta line or just follow roads to navigate, or do you adjust your route to make it more advantageous? How's your weather knowlege? Can you say with confidence that this minimum weather will stay the same or improve rather than getting worse? How do you evaluate that in flight? What's your plan if you're wrong? If you have to land, can you safely select from any number of terrain options, or are you limited to runways?

The list goes on for quite a while. If you haven't even thought about those issues, yes, you're unsafe. And not "just" for low VFR...I've seen my share of 2000 & 5 forecasts that became a 300 & 1 reality without nearby airport options.
Click to expand...

Great points and conditions, equipment and proficiency make the list endless. I just assumed the term scud running was known flight in less than VFR conditions (forecasted or not). Not counting Bush flying, icing, mountainous, convective, towared, windmilled, megentad areas to see and avoid... altitude is always your friend. 1000 ft can give up to 4 minutes of time to work a problem in most light GA planes. If you can't fly the weather that your training and skills can master, why would you consider launching in less than desirable conditions, yet we've all seen (and possibly heard on the comm) pilots get themselves in trouble - gets back to having personal minimums and having the discipline to follow, doesn't it?
 
Stewartb said:
Silly topic. Scud running is an imaginary exercise for most of you. Weather and visibility are relative to the airplane speed. What I can do in a Cub has little to do with what you go-fast guys think you can't do.
Click to expand...

Or over water
 
If your going to scud run on a regular basis,i would hope you have the ability to transition to IFR,if the need arises.
 
Jeff Cutler said:
I just assumed the term scud running was known flight in less than VFR conditions (forecasted or not).
Click to expand...
Again, defining terms is important..."VFR conditions" actually means different things to different people. 500 & 1, 1000 & 3, and 3000 & 5 are all define a minimum VFR condition for something, and obviously there's a large disparity in those definitions. ;)
 
frfly172 said:
If your going to scud run on a regular basis,i would hope you have the ability to transition to IFR,if the need arises.
Click to expand...
Except that one good reason for "scud running" is that IMC would be fatal for one reason or another.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Except that one good reason for "scud running" is that IMC would be fatal for one reason or another.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I was doing what some would call scud running in my Waco once flying it home from Tennessee. Ceilings were lower than forecast and the terrain was rising going east. I followed the highway hoping to break through, but the ceiling wasn't lifting and terrain continued to rise. Even though I knew it was only about 15 miles to VFR conditions, there was no way I was going to climb into the clouds in an airplane that wasn't equipped for
IFR and temps were right around freezing.

My only choice was to turn back.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. I was doing what some would call scud running in my Waco once flying it home from Tennessee. Ceilings were lower than forecast and the terrain was rising going east. I followed the highway hoping to break through, but the ceiling wasn't lifting and terrain continued to rise. Even though I knew it was only about 15 miles to VFR conditions, there was no way I was going to climb into the clouds in an airplane that wasn't equipped for
IFR and temps were right around freezing.

My only choice was to turn back.
Click to expand...

Your only sensible choice was to turn back.
And you left yourself ample margin so you could make that choice.
And that may be the difference compared to the pilot in the incident that led to this thread in the first place.

Our club lost a very experienced and active member in a CFIT accident about a decade ago. Trying to clear a high mountain pass under an overcast. IFR rated, and he had flown that same C182 to Europe and back. He was about the last member we would have expected to perish that way.

That margin, leaving room for making choices, is itself a judgement call.
 
I kinda consider MVFR to be, well, VFR - it didn't bother me to launch into it. I just kept an "out" in mind. Truthfully, I think scud running probably is no worse than single pilot, single engine, IMC without an autopilot/wing leveler.

Once I was instrument rated, I was less likely to scud run; it's just easier to file, then not have to worry about the ceiling. Though I could see reverting to it, if icing up. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top