I flew VFR into IFR 2SM, OVC1500

Well, Mari, I don't know if it will change behavior or not. I'd like to think that when a bunch of flight instructors all tell a pilot that he did something stupid and dangerous, that it might cause him to think about it.

There's definitely a balance to it. If the only message is "you're an idiot", then I expect resentment to be the response. But if the message is "you're an idiot, and here's why, and what you need to do to not be an idiot next time", then I'd hope for a better response. I just don't think it's prudent to leave out the "you're an idiot". If there's no penalty/punishment now, and the pilot tries it again, the next penalty/punishment could be fatal.

And the final thing for me is that I wouldn't be able to live with myself if someone came and talked about doing something dumb, and I didn't try to correct his behavior/attitude, and he ended up killing himself or others.
 
I think the OP knows that what he did was dangerous and he is taking the necessary steps to avoid it in the future. The piling on and snide comments serve no purpose beyond providing a disincentive for other 'sinners' to post their 'lessons learned' (name of this subforum in case anyone forgot) here.
 
I think the OP knows that what he did was dangerous and he is taking the necessary steps to avoid it in the future. The piling on and snide comments serve no purpose beyond providing a disincentive for other 'sinners' to post their 'lessons learned' (name of this subforum in case anyone forgot) here.

Well, since there was some discussion about what the OP took from the experience, I would assert that the "piling on" may serve the purpose of letting any other readers know, without a doubt, that this decision making was seriously deficient and should not be emulated. And that should be one of the 'lessons learned.'. I'd rather they learn to not do the things that require confessing (presuming they were to survive.)
 
Well, since there was some discussion about what the OP took from the experience, I would assert that the "piling on" may serve the purpose of letting any other readers know, without a doubt, that this decision making was seriously deficient and should not be emulated. And that should be one of the 'lessons learned.'. I'd rather they learn to not do the things that require confessing (presuming they were to survive.)


Precisely.

:yes:
 
I think the OP knows that what he did was dangerous and he is taking the necessary steps to avoid it in the future. The piling on and snide comments serve no purpose beyond providing a disincentive for other 'sinners' to post their 'lessons learned' (name of this subforum in case anyone forgot) here.
Exactly. And no matter what valuable, constructive message you have, it's not likely to be well received if prefaced by, "You're-an-idiot-stay-out-of-my-airspace!" The people that you really want to reach are most likely not participants in this or any other aviation message board anyway.
 
2 vfr into imc posts by an unregistered op ????? over 10 pages of responses from someone trolling.....starting the post then not adding 1 more thing and just sitting back watching everyone quibble over his nonsense... and another about be covered in ice also...C'mon Man
 
Last edited:
One of the things you mention is a tip I received here in one of these threads - the idea that you can (and should) ask ATC to climb on top of a cloud layer if you get caught in one. It's an excellent resource that, for some reason, I had never considered before reading it here.
I don't think I mentioned anything about climbing on top -- and actually if you do the smart and legal thing and let ATC know what's going on, I doubt under most circumstances that they'll tell you to do that, unless it's a thin, widespread layer and the bases are too low to safely cruise along under them, or maybe not even at your current altitude.

Of course, if you're not certain of your obstacle clearance where you are, then climbing is nearly always the safest thing to do (unless it will put you into icing conditions, in which case, well, you really didn't leave yourself any outs :no:).
 
Prof. Azure has the right temperament, attitude. The Agnecy used to say, "safety is an attitude", and what sounds like a hacknied catchline is actually quite close to truth.

What most of us respond negatively to, is lack of the correct temperment.
50 miles in IMC was plenty of time to respond.

I'm glad this didn't turn out like the SR20 crash near 3CK earlier this month, in which all hands died. But it's the same tale with the other outcome. What counts now is what you do with the experience.

But in the meantime you'll find me in the Flight Levels...where the guys who are stretching their envelope at the cost of my safety (VFR in IMC, no clearance) are much less common.

There is a guy named Bill, from Texas who posts here from the perspective of a bonanza. When he posts his exploits, nobody chews on his butt....because his isn't going to do the same error twice. And he has done a lot of 'em. In fact most of the classic ones.

But his attitude is, "C_rist almighty I'm not doing THAT again". And we might read about him, but I suspect not.
 
"About 50 miles out, I run into the wall of clouds. The sun is low on the horizon and the VFR portable GPS is predicting my ETE will be about 10 minutes after sunset. I press on. The visual horizon is basically gone but I can still see the ground below me for a few miles in every direction but even that visibility is steadily receding."

ok, I've been following this thread with interest because I'm a less than 200hr private pilot myself and I have much to learn. I tend to err on the side of caution more often than not when it comes to life in general and flying in particular. I honestly think the OP posted this because he/she DID learn a lesson and wanted to share that lesson with others as well as get feedback. No point in beating him/her down forever! I didn't sense any sign of boasting or arrogance on his/her part IMO.

Now this is where I believe the discision making should have taken another turn..."I run into a WALL OF CLOUDS, THE VISUAL HORIZON IS BASICALLY GONE & I PRESS ON. :no: This is the exact recipe for disaster! Why not use that awesome GPS to find the nearest airport AWAY from that wall? How about a good ol 180 and land ASAP! All I can say is thank God you survived and thank you for having the courage to share this with us. I hope like hell that if I ever find myself in a similar situation, I'll choose a much safer course of action:).
 
Last edited:
one other thing i've noticed in some of your responses. He/she never said they flew for 50 miles in clouds,IMC. They said 50 miles out, which to me says all was within this person's personal limits until that point in the flight.
 
Last edited:
One added tool in the belt is a precautionary landing.

Given the choice between "pressing on" into IMC when you shouldn't, the better alternative might be to look for a field, drag it once or twice, and then land.

Very few SEL we fly can't be landed successfully off-arport.
 
One added tool in the belt is a precautionary landing.

Given the choice between "pressing on" into IMC when you shouldn't, the better alternative might be to look for a field, drag it once or twice, and then land.

Very few SEL we fly can't be landed successfully off-arport.
I agree that in general it's a tool to be considered, but personally unless the IMC was freezing fog or freezing rain and there was no other way to avoid it (which basically means I was in it or surrounded by it), I'd go with trying to find a runway. And if the bases are so low I wouldn't feel safe cruising under them, I sure wouldn't want to spend a lot of time looking for a smooth spot to put down.

Also, if "successfully" means without causing damage to the airplane or property on the ground, I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my RG anyway, I'd be lucky to make it out of the airplane without a few bangs and bruises, and I'd expect at least a prop strike out of it and probably some damage to the gear.

In just about every case I can think of, I'd rather get a vector to the nearest paved runway.
 
redtail, I also didn't read this as anywhere near as clear cut as the harsh responses seem to indicate. From my reading of the post, the guy ran fine for a while, then decided to press on in somewhat poorer conditions relying on ground visibility (which we are generally told as VFR pilots is all you really need). As conditions grew worse, the airport also got a lot closer, and by the time he realized conditions were as bad as they really were, he was well beyond the point where turning back or landing at an alternate would make any sense.

None of this makes me react strongly or think that he is particularly stupid, only inexperienced. I did something equally dumb a few weeks back (my SVFR in marginal conditions post that Tim was referring to, you can it under "flight following"), and what it really highlighted for me was how easy it is to get tunnel vision and how dangerous that can be. I think that's the main lesson from this thread as well, but I can easily see many of us low-time pilots doing the same thing. It's a little bit like the "I'm really tired and barely keeping my eyes open but home is just 20 miles away" turning into "oh god, did I just fall asleep at the wheel for a couple seconds? should I stop? nah, home is only 10 miles away" turning into a horrid crash 3 miles from home stint of late night driving.
 
I agree that in general it's a tool to be considered, but personally unless the IMC was freezing fog or freezing rain and there was no other way to avoid it (which basically means I was in it or surrounded by it), I'd go with trying to find a runway. And if the bases are so low I wouldn't feel safe cruising under them, I sure wouldn't want to spend a lot of time looking for a smooth spot to put down.

Also, if "successfully" means without causing damage to the airplane or property on the ground, I wouldn't be so sure about that. In my RG anyway, I'd be lucky to make it out of the airplane without a few bangs and bruises, and I'd expect at least a prop strike out of it and probably some damage to the gear.

In just about every case I can think of, I'd rather get a vector to the nearest paved runway.

It depends on where you fly. Here along the East coast, there are plenty of airports -- paved and unpaved -- within a 50 mile radius of everywhere.

In West Virginia (where I used to fly quite a bit) there are not as many options, but there lots of fields.

I don't know about the Cardinal, but the retractable gear in Bonanzas (-35 and later -36) was as robust as any and did fine on grass.
 
One added tool in the belt is a precautionary landing.

Given the choice between "pressing on" into IMC when you shouldn't, the better alternative might be to look for a field, drag it once or twice, and then land.

Very few SEL we fly can't be landed successfully off-arport.

I was explicitly taught that option during primary training by someone who did this iirc 6 times over the course of his general aviation career (and before someone gets huffed up, all of this pre-dates the organization of the FAA).
 
Last edited:
In just about every case I can think of, I'd rather get a vector to the nearest paved runway.

If you are truly scud-running, you rarely have the option of getting radar services, unless you are rather close to one of their antennas and/or in very flat terrain. More than one case where someone stuck below a low ceiling was told 'well, if you can climb to x000ft we can help you out'.
 
I'm one of those guys who was taught by TIME. I was taught that at best I had about a minute to evaluate and make a decision. If there was a fire I was taught I had about ten seconds.

And engine failure, similar time line.

50 nm is at least 20 minutes.
 
I'm one of those guys who was taught by TIME. I was taught that at best I had about a minute to evaluate and make a decision. If there was a fire I was taught I had about ten seconds.

And engine failure, similar time line.

50 nm is at least 20 minutes.

Yep -- make a decision and make it now because you are running out of options the longer you wait, further compounding the problem.

Maybe only the military inculcates this any more? :dunno:
 
If you are truly scud-running, you rarely have the option of getting radar services, unless you are rather close to one of their antennas and/or in very flat terrain. More than one case where someone stuck below a low ceiling was told 'well, if you can climb to x000ft we can help you out'.
I know -- as I said in recounting my own experience, radar services would not have helped as I was too low. I only meant that if I had that option and needed the help, it would be my first choice. In my case, I actually didn't need a vector as I was able to get to the nearest airport own nav. But I should have let ATC know anyway.

And to correct something I said earlier, no I wouldn't fly past a turf runway in good condition. My RG does pretty well on grass too. ;) I just wouldn't put down in a farmer's field unless the wx was really unflyable and I needed to be on the ground NOW.
 
If you are truly scud-running, you rarely have the option of getting radar services, unless you are rather close to one of their antennas and/or in very flat terrain. More than one case where someone stuck below a low ceiling was told 'well, if you can climb to x000ft we can help you out'.
If you are truly scud-running you might not be able to get any voice reception either so you can't really count on asking for a pop-up IFR or for help.
 
If you are truly scud-running you might not be able to get any voice reception either so you can't really count on asking for a pop-up IFR or for help.


That's a good point, and another reason not to do it, IR or not.
 
That's a good point, and another reason not to do it, IR or not.
It is not scud running, per se, which is the problem. It is the decision process which is the problem. This talk of climbing for altitude or for radio or radar reception is only about some of those 'outs' every pilot must carry along.

Scud running is safe if the pilot has viable Plan B, C, D, etc and is ready to use those outs. So, not only must one have developed and briefed a solid plan to deviate if it should become necessary but he must also put that alternate plan into effect well before he runs into the corner of the box.

Many pilots continue on their original plan either because they don't have a solid alternate plan or they overly rely on hope. This would include just as they are transiting to Plan B, they catch a glimmer of hope so decide maybe it's not as bad as they thought. It's a sucker bet.

I've engaged in scud running many times but always I have devised viable outs. Several times I have had to turn back. That's the thing, turning away from the area is usually the best alternate but for it to be viable decision must be made while the window is still open. That opening can close quite soon.

It's a cliche, but a darn good one; don't let the plane arrive to a place your brain hasn't been 5 minutes ago. The IR is a great pursuit if only because it teaches and reinforces the importance of decision making.
 
(Starting at the beginning of the thread and working my way through - Apologies for any duplication...)

I got a call late in the afternoon from one of my pilot buddies asking where the heck I was. He knew I was out flying that day. I told him where I was and he said I better get home soon, a fast moving front is coming in and all the fields behind the front were going IFR. I check the weather--still 7SM and 3000 broken at the home drome. I take off. There is about a 30kt. headwind and low level turbulence. I choose 2300ft as my cruising altitude as that is about as low as I can go while staying above any towers enroute and keeping out of the headwind as much as possible. Pitot heat on.

Fast forwarding to here:

I checked the weather on AWOS while taxiing back to my hangar. 2SM, OVC 1500. I was damn lucky there was no ice, no instrument failure, and the clouds weren't any lower. Field elevation is about 900ft.

That means that the clouds were at 2400 feet. Put the two together, and you had painted yourself into a corner. Can't go up without going into the clouds, can't go down without being at risk of hitting stuff. What's the MOCA along the route? (What was the route?)

About 50 miles out, I run into the wall of clouds. The sun is low on the horizon and the VFR portable GPS is predicting my ETE will be about 10 minutes after sunset. I press on.

What were the other options you were considering at the time? If the answer is "I don't know" or "none" then you need to learn how to develop backup plans both prior to and in flight. Clearly, you had a serious case of get-home-itis here.

The visual horizon is basically gone but I can still see the ground below me for a few miles in every direction but even that visibility is steadily receding. I split my time between my instruments and looking down on the ground below. I'm rock solid at 2300ft. and keeping the sunny side of the airplane up and cussing about the lack of visibility, headwind, and the choppy air. 2300ft. also happens to be the MDA for the instrument approach at my home field.

That also should clue you in that 2300 feet is NOT a place you want to be anywhere other than on that approach.

I know basic VFR minimums are 1 mile, clear of clouds. I was not clear of clouds, rather skimming along in the bottom layer.

Two things: At 2300 feet, you were roughly 1400 AGL, right? Most of the country is Class E above 1200 AGL, so you were likely subject to the 3 mile/500/1000/2000 rule even during the day. At night, you almost certainly were. Remember that VFR minimums are not there to protect you from clouds, they're there to protect you from other airplanes that might come out of those clouds at any instant and slam into you, likely killing all occupants of at least one of the airplanes.

I know I have to get my IR ticket if I'm going to use my plane as a serious traveling machine like I want it to be.

Yes - But don't fall into the trap of thinking that the IR makes the airplane into a transportation solution that always works. Depending on where you live and where you're going and what time of year it is, lots of new issues crop up. There is NO airplane that can always go - Getting the IR does open up a lot of possibilities, but as Ted pointed out it makes the go/no-go decision harder, not easier, and there will still be a lot of times where you can't go.

Thank you for sharing your story here. I'm not going to trash you here, I hope you've already learned your lesson and I don't think being called an idiot on an internet message board helps anyone to learn a lesson. But, as I read your post, I could see a number of links in the accident chain forming. I hope you can see them now too, and have learned something from your experience that will prevent you from making them in the future. Fly safe...
 
Just a word of warning - I have no idea what you're flying, but I'm guessing that if you're still working on your IR it's something in the typical trainer realm (that would include a Cirrus). In either case, you're not looking at what constitutes a "serious traveling machine." Reasonable at best. The instrument rating will not allow you to make any trip that you otherwise would be grounded for. In fact, it will make your go/no-go decision harder.

Ted,

I agree with everything you've said except the bolded statement - Can you explain what you meant? Clearly there are plenty of benign IFR conditions that can make a trip viable with an instrument rating and a basic IFR airplane that you'd otherwise be grounded by weather for. :dunno:

We've all done stupid things. And the smart ones among us got on the ground and said "That was a ****ing retarded thing for me to have done,." I'm lucky to be alive

The less smart ones got smacked upside the head by someone who explained to us how ****ing retarded we were being.

And the less smart and less lucky ones get smacked upside the airplane by terra firma and never get to learn how ****ing retarded they were being.
 
If I had been your CFI and found about that kind of behavior I would try very hard to get my name out of your logbook and if I were your current CFII I would drop you as a student like a hot rock

I disagree with the "death penalty" approach - I would at least give the student a chance to explain themselves, what they learned, etc. Like Ted said, we've all done something stupid at some point - The difference is whether we learn from it. If the student was legitimately scared ****less by the experience and learns their lesson, why "drop them like a hot rock?"
 
Then the question becomes, Which is better, outright breaking the rules or merely bending the rules? How far can the rule be bent before it's broken?

Once the plane is in the air, **** the rules. Get the plane on the ground safely, period.

I'm certainly not saying to bend or break the rules - There are reasons behind the rules, and knowing those reasons is maybe even more important than knowing the rules themselves. But if you've experienced a foresight failure and are painted in a corner, break every rule in the damn book if you have to to get on the ground in once piece. Even the FAA agrees with that, hence 91.3(b). But even if they didn't - You have to be alive to get in trouble.
 
But the flight WAS a success.

Um... No, it wasn't. It was a failure of judgement, a failure to follow the rules, and a failure to recognize the links in the accident chain forming and get out of the situation.

this was probably one of the most valuable experiences of his flying career, and without a doubt will have improved his skills and made him a better pilot.

Valuable experience? Yes, getting scared ****less was a valuable experience, provided he learns from his mistake.

Improved skills? What skills, exactly, got improved? Hopefully it will improve his judgement in the future, not something we normally call a "skill", but any other skills that may have been improved on this flight are skills that should never be exercised.

I guess what I'm getting at is at the heart of risk management. The guy assessed all the parameters - the vast majority of which none of us have or ever will - continued to assess his options along the way (I'm reading between the words of the OP here), and chose to proceed, with a positive end result. That means his risk assessment was on the money.

I saw NO "assessment of all the parameters" prior to the flight - Just the fact that it was getting worse and if he was going to make it home he'd better go now.

I saw NO continued assessment of options along the way from the OP - I saw dogged determination to make it home no matter what, with many failures in judgement specifically showing a lack of any other options.

The only "positive end result" is that the OP lived to learn from their mistakes. And his risk assessment was most certainly not "on the money," he simply got lucky after his risk assessment failed miserably.

But, at least the OP came here and hopefully learned something from it and won't do it again. I'd still be willing to share the sky with him. You, onwards, I'm not so sure about.

I still heartily disagree with the "chastising" posts. I think they are ignorant at best. For someone to come here and confess - anonymously or not - requires and establishes far more accountability, awareness and desire to learn and improve than many of you give credit for.

Very true. But that doesn't mean that the flight was a success. It wasn't. His coming here to post about it and learn something from it may be a success - But we won't know until the OP is faced with the same situation again and exhibits better decisionmaking skills.
 
redtail, I also didn't read this as anywhere near as clear cut as the harsh responses seem to indicate. From my reading of the post, the guy ran fine for a while, then decided to press on in somewhat poorer conditions relying on ground visibility (which we are generally told as VFR pilots is all you really need).

Huh? Incorrect...

FAR 91.155 said:
§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
top

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:

It's FLIGHT visibility you need, not ground visibility. And for VFR what you really should have is a visible horizon. There are situations where there isn't a visible horizon that are legal for VFR, but we know legal does not imply safe.

As conditions grew worse, the airport also got a lot closer, and by the time he realized conditions were as bad as they really were, he was well beyond the point where turning back or landing at an alternate would make any sense.

I don't think that point was reached until he had the airport in sight and was descending down over it. Until then, it'd have been better to turn around to where the weather was better and land somewhere else.
 
There are situations where there isn't a visible horizon that are legal for VFR, but we know legal does not imply safe.
I once flew VFR at night over mountains and there was no Moon, no lights on the ground, no horizon, however visibility was unlimited. I definitely felt like an IFR pilot for about 30 mins. I guess this would be one of those situations ...
 
I once flew VFR at night over mountains and there was no Moon, no lights on the ground, no horizon, however visibility was unlimited. I definitely felt like an IFR pilot for about 30 mins. I guess this would be one of those situations ...

I'll volunteer that if you dont have at least basic flight by ref to instruments skills you have no business flying at night. No you don't need an instrument rating if you are dilligent about checking the weather, but even staying in vfr conditions you are likely to have "woah, no horizon" moments.
 
I once flew VFR at night over mountains and there was no Moon, no lights on the ground, no horizon, however visibility was unlimited. I definitely felt like an IFR pilot for about 30 mins. I guess this would be one of those situations ...

Yup - Towers are lit. Mountains are not.

Even here in the "flatlands" there are airports where it would be pretty easy to crash into terrain after a night takeoff. Ever since some point in my IR training when I realized this, I use IFR-style procedures at night (such as using the obstacle departure procedure, min altitudes, etc) even when flying VFR.

To paraphrase another poster here, "rocks don't care whether or not you're instrument rated."
 
I'll volunteer that if you dont have at least basic flight by ref to instruments skills you have no business flying at night. No you don't need an instrument rating if you are dilligent about checking the weather, but even staying in vfr conditions you are likely to have "woah, no horizon" moments.

That's probably why it's illegal to fly VFR at night in most countries. I'm glad that we have the freedom to do so, but there's a lot of things about IFR that are applicable to night VFR as well.
 
Yup - Towers are lit. Mountains are not.

Plenty of unlit NOTAMed ones these days, too.

Tower companies are pretty thin staff and budget-wise these days. The broke ones will push NOTAMed lighting waivers right to the limits of whatever the FAA will allow.
 
But, at least the OP came here and hopefully learned something from it and won't do it again. I'd still be willing to share the sky with him. You, onwards, I'm not so sure about.

Another one? Sheesh.

Well, you serve it, you get to have some of it too: tough luck, not your call. Sucks for you, I get to exercise the exact same privileges you do, so like it or not, you are sharing the sky with me. What you are "willing" to do doesn't matter to anybody at all, unless of course you exercise your privilege to stay on the ground, at which point you will indeed, avoid sharing the sky with me.

(so there)
 
Another one? Sheesh.

Well, you serve it, you get to have some of it too: tough luck, not your call. Sucks for you, I get to exercise the exact same privileges you do, so like it or not, you are sharing the sky with me. What you are "willing" to do doesn't matter to anybody at all, unless of course you exercise your privilege to stay on the ground, at which point you will indeed, avoid sharing the sky with me.

(so there)

Wow. Nice.

:rolleyes2:
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top