Depends where you are.
Scud-running: Definitely Bad, but is it legal?
- Thread starter SbestCFII
- Start date
azure
Final Approach
Was like that late this morning around MPV too... ceilings between 500 and about 1500, too low for safe VFR (imo), but perfect for practice approaches in actual I'd have been up there for sure, except I had an appointment at the dentist.
By the time I got out, it was noon, and the overcast was breaking up. If I'd hustled I might have gotten one approach in before everything went VFR.
It's the way my luck has gone all summer.
JHW
En-Route
Let's start with the title. Scud running is not "definitely bad". It's a tool in your toolbox. Some tools are more appropriate in some circumstances than others, but the tool itself is not "good" or "bad"
azure
Final Approach
Yup. In flat country without any towers nearby, could be safe. Would not do it in the mountains (including here in VT).
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
You have to change the definition of scud running in the mountains. 3,000 AGL ceilings can be about right....
gitmo234
Line Up and Wait
Launched into low ceilings in Low Country fog, SC. Ceilings were reported 1800, more accurately 1200-1500.
Getting closer to the destination there were a lot of towers, thankfully strobe lit but the ceiling kept dropping. Vis was great below. We were 10 miles from the airport and I told my wife if it dropped any lower it was 180 turn and find somewhere else or return to destination.
Didnt drop any further, got the field in sight. Had some issues after fueling, by the time we were ready it had baked off into a nice hot, choppy day with heat swells.
After that experience I have no problems with diverting, not going, turning around, etc. We were safe, and I was calm and I only made the decision to go because it was low country coverage, not a storm/rain/etc, knew the weather and knew it would bake off.
I can easily see now how in those circumstances it can go nasty real quick.
Getting closer to the destination there were a lot of towers, thankfully strobe lit but the ceiling kept dropping. Vis was great below. We were 10 miles from the airport and I told my wife if it dropped any lower it was 180 turn and find somewhere else or return to destination.
Didnt drop any further, got the field in sight. Had some issues after fueling, by the time we were ready it had baked off into a nice hot, choppy day with heat swells.
After that experience I have no problems with diverting, not going, turning around, etc. We were safe, and I was calm and I only made the decision to go because it was low country coverage, not a storm/rain/etc, knew the weather and knew it would bake off.
I can easily see now how in those circumstances it can go nasty real quick.
Thunderstorms were all over LI today. Me and my CFI were going to finish up my IPC and file but we ended up getting grounded due to convective activity near JFK. We finally got to go out around 2pm and got practice approaches in.Was like that late this morning around MPV too... ceilings between 500 and about 1500, too low for safe VFR (imo), but perfect for practice approaches in actual I'd have been up there for sure, except I had an appointment at the dentist.
By the time I got out, it was noon, and the overcast was breaking up. If I'd hustled I might have gotten one approach in before everything went VFR.
It's the way my luck has gone all summer.
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
This.
I've seen days where I could run up and down the Sacramento Valley following the interstate for hundreds of miles with the clouds at 1000-1200
feet. Perfectly safe.
peerlesscowboy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Location
- Peerless, Montana
- Display Name
Display name:
John C Saubak
MOST of that airspace is already Class E. The old class G below 14.5k out west is disappearing at an alarming rate.
DeckardTrinity
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 82
- Display Name
Display name:
DeckardTrinity
On our trip down to Myrtle Beach last fall there was marginal all up and down the east coast - had a solid 2+ hours in and between IMC layers for the first leg to N. NC. Decided I'd had enough of flying in the clouds and launched without an IFR clearance into what should have been 1500' ceilings trending toward 2000'... instead kept getting squeezed lower, and lower... finally all I could see in front of me was a wall of fog so did a 180 back to an airport I knew was still VFR, landed, and picked up the clearance. Probably should have accepted the advice of the Class D whose airspace we went around to get me an IFR clearance in the air.
msupples1
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 124
- Display Name
Display name:
MSup
I (may have, theoretically) done something similar as a brand new PPL as well. With building thunderstorms. At night. And no GPS.
Of course it was all unintentional, and was a good lesson in go/no-go decisions. Had another pilot (student, though) helping work the second VOR to keep updates on our position and any obstacles on the sectional.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Yes, the cold front was pushing down from the NW, so it would have reached you later than it did us. Up here it was perfectly benign by sunrise, though low enough until 9am to worry about getting back in at home.
I did think about going south to chase the IMC, but there were still convective cells moving through southern NH and I didn't see much in the way of low ceilings between there and here after about 1300.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Had to descend to 50' AWL (above water level ) headed to Ketchican from Washington up the inside passage. No towers over the water. I just looked out for boats. 
The cloud layer was thin and narrow and I could confirm weather on XM and ATIS to the destination airport and secondary Canadian airports along the way.
Set personal minimums and stick to them. I usually don't launch with anything less than 1'000' agl, and recently updated obstical data bases.
Better to scud run (with personal minimums) that try and fly over weather and get caught on top.
) headed to Ketchican from Washington up the inside passage. No towers over the water. I just looked out for boats. The cloud layer was thin and narrow and I could confirm weather on XM and ATIS to the destination airport and secondary Canadian airports along the way. Set personal minimums and stick to them. I usually don't launch with anything less than 1'000' agl, and recently updated obstical data bases.
Better to scud run (with personal minimums) that try and fly over weather and get caught on top.
Last edited:
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
roncachamp
Final Approach
Under those conditions the lake and sky can be indistinguishable.
would you do that with 1 sm vis as he said?
Not me. #poopants
I would do it in ground effect, or at least low enough I get positive distinction of what is water.
Don't go very close to glassy water. The reflection makes you think you are higher than you are. There have been some accidents due to low flybys over glassy water. Avoid.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
OP said vis was 3 miles. He mentioned:
The way I read it, the scenario vis is 3 miles.
I personally would not do 1sm VFR.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I would in a Cub or other slow mover.
Rather than think in terms of visibility distance, think of it as time. 1.5 to 2 minutes of visibility would be my cutoff. Though I have done less in a snowshowers were visibility may or may not have been less than 1sm at times, but I knew EXACTLY where I was, and where the towers were.
That's just it, where do you draw the line? Because if you are willing to go in three, you may very well find yourself in one or less, what now?
If you have IR capability, you can always get out by getting a clearance. If not, you still have to keep it flying.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
For me it goes back to what I said earlier - if you are going to scud run in MVFR conditions, you best have a good plan and backups/outs if things don't work out.
My personal limit is 3sm to takeoff. If it gets worse than 3 in flight, I will re-assess and act accordingly - invoke plan B or C as applicable.
If I take off in 1sm and it gets worse.....I don't really want to do that.
That's just where I draw the line.
Exactly, that's what I was pointing out, the question is not as simple and the answer can change with, "What's plan B and C?" The stronger B & C are, the sketchier A can be, and vice versa.
I thought cardinal altitudes were only 3000 AGL and up?
Last edited:
You don't need an IFR clearance for Class G, in fact you can't even receive one because it's uncontrolled (by definition) and ATC can't control it. That said the FAA has violated people who have flown IFR in Class G without a clearance and the administrative judge rejected these same arguments, concluding that it was still reckless even if not technically against any specific regulation.
gitmo234
Line Up and Wait
Went to plan B today leaving Newport news. No issues with vis, just low ceilings. Looked better across the bay. Wrong. Was easy to tell when the blue wall turned into clouds though. Executed a 180 and reroute. All very uneventful but still plan B and MVFR until near Easton
That's true for VFR, but not for IFR.
That case really muddied the waters. The weather was such that the judge could have gotten him for violating VFR cloud clearance rules, because he was less than 1000 feet above the cloud tops when he entered controlled airspace. This was in a location where controlled airspace started at 700 or 1200 AGL, I forget which. Whether it would have been deemed careless or reckless in an area where the floor of controlled airspace is 14,500 MSL, who knows.
But if you read the opinion it's clear what he's being violated for. And there was another similar case recently too. Same issue.
I "scud run" frequently. It's not bad. As long as you can maintain good visibility underneath there is not a problem at all, and it's not "bad"
However when vis and ceiling start conspiring against you that is when things can get interesting.
However when vis and ceiling start conspiring against you that is when things can get interesting.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Relief from the hemispheric rule within 3000 feet of the surface exists for VFR operations but not for IFR operations.
That's really the long and short of it, it's reckless regardless.
"Moreover, our decision in Administrator v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037, provided constructive, if not actual, notice that a takeoff into uncontrolled airspace under IFR without an ATC clearance constitutes an independent violation of section 91.13(a)." http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3935.PDF
That's from Administrator v. Murphy.
So there you have it. Even though an ATC Clearance is impossible in class G, it's a per se violation of 91.113a to fly IFR in class G without a clearance. Essentially the NTSB has ruled that IFR in Class G is always illegal, since a clearance is impossible. You're welcome.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3935.PDF
That's from Administrator v. Murphy.
So there you have it. Even though an ATC Clearance is impossible in class G, it's a per se violation of 91.113a to fly IFR in class G without a clearance. Essentially the NTSB has ruled that IFR in Class G is always illegal, since a clearance is impossible. You're welcome.
Last edited:
Vance was decided in 1986, and Murphy in 1993. Are those the most recent you've seen?
There may be others but I haven't checked. In general something is only appealed if there's a chance of success so there may be similar enforcement actions that weren't appealed as the NTSB board has now concluded twice that IFR without a clearance in Class G is reckless. Also the only way this would result in an enforcement action is if you near-missed with someone or ****ed them off enough, or bragged to the FSDO about what you were doing. So I'm sure a lot of pilots get away with this and the FAA is none the wiser about it.
In order to result in a published decision like this you'd need
1. An enforcement action
2. An FAA administrator order re sanction
3. An appeal to an administrative law judge
4. A subsequent appeal to the NTSB board.
There are no lawyers who would take it that far given the relatively clear language in Vance and Murphy, so it wouldn't be surprising that there are no further published decisions on this issue.
Last edited:
Not quite. The act of launching IFR into G isn't the problem, it's not having a way out of Class G in IMC that makes it the 91.13 violation. If you are filed and have a release and a plan coordinated to depart a Class G field and climb directly into E, then there is no 91.13 violation.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
You are telling the truth. I blundered into this over the chesapeake bay one time and was only saved by spotting a work boat just before I killed myself, then shortly after, the shore came into view. It was luck not skill that saved me.
You're probably correct but that's not what the NTSB said.
But according to the NTSB's decision IFR in Class G even if remaining wholly in Class G is still careless.
Last edited:
Launching G into IMC and picking up ATC on the way up happens quite a bit.