http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/zaragoza/

Peter, a very interesting read.


"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:g1uui399p6k2pcjhk7mh2d7jorqoafbrsb@4ax.com...
> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/zaragoza/
>

Peter wrote:
> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/zaragoza/
Peter,

That's an excellent write-up. Have you thought about submitting a 
tidied-up version of your "IFR flying in Europe" to one of the mags, 
maybe the PPLIR Europe "Instrument Pilot"?

Dave

NoSpam  wrote

>That's an excellent write-up. Have you thought about submitting a 
>tidied-up version of your "IFR flying in Europe" to one of the mags, 
>maybe the PPLIR Europe "Instrument Pilot"?

Yes, they did run that one a year or two ago.

Peter,
As usual, a great write up and very informative. Oh how easy we have it here 
in the US (says a former UK guy!).

Regards

Barney
"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:g1uui399p6k2pcjhk7mh2d7jorqoafbrsb@4ax.com...
> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/zaragoza/

Great write up on you travels
Interesting as EGKA my home airfield
Hate the landing fee though.

 
 
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:00:31 GMT, "Alt Beer"  wrote:

>Peter, a very interesting read.
>
>
>"Peter"  wrote in message 
>news:g1uui399p6k2pcjhk7mh2d7jorqoafbrsb@4ax.com...
>> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/zaragoza/
>> 
>

Nice one Peter./

A great hole in my own flying is longer range IFR trips in light aircraft. 
plenty of jet time, plenty of GA time but only one private flight of note 
(warrior from USA to UK via northern route) and years worth of Trislander 
flying into europe, but all with an Ops centre to help.  I'm hoping to fill 
the hole sooner rather than later and your write-up makes it all the more 
exciting.

You're a fortunate guy!  We must meet up again sometime, it's been a while.

david

"D"  wrote

>Nice one Peter./
>
>A great hole in my own flying is longer range IFR trips in light aircraft. 
>plenty of jet time, plenty of GA time but only one private flight of note 
>(warrior from USA to UK via northern route) and years worth of Trislander 
>flying into europe, but all with an Ops centre to help.  I'm hoping to fill 
>the hole sooner rather than later and your write-up makes it all the more 
>exciting.
>
>You're a fortunate guy!  We must meet up again sometime, it's been a while.
>
>david 
>
Thank you David and others for the feedback.

Paradoxically, I find when writing up IFR trip reports that so many of
them could have been done under VFR **on the day**. This one was a
handy exception.

> Paradoxically, I find when writing up IFR trip reports that so many of
> them could have been done under VFR **on the day**.


That is very telling

D

"D"  wrote in message 
news:yYednW3k8ImhO6XaRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>> Paradoxically, I find when writing up IFR trip reports that so many of
>> them could have been done under VFR **on the day**.
>
>
> That is very telling
>
I've been doing quite a few delivery flights delivering Diamonds from the 
factory to various buyers around Europe and North Africa over the past few 
months. None of them could have been done VFR - all have been SIDs in IMC, 
then VMC on top for most of journey, then IMC procedure on arrival. |On the 
other hand, a friend who was trying to deliver a VFR DA40 to Denmark waited 
for two weeks before weather was possibly suitable, then ended up diverting 
and scud-running for the entire flight. Also, flying VFR, he felt obliged to 
take a second pilot.

Thanks for the tip about Zaragoza though, I think I may have a stop there 
next delivery to Morocco.

"Ric"  wrote

>I've been doing quite a few delivery flights delivering Diamonds from the 
>factory to various buyers around Europe and North Africa over the past few 
>months. None of them could have been done VFR - all have been SIDs in IMC, 
>then VMC on top for most of journey, then IMC procedure on arrival. |On the 
>other hand, a friend who was trying to deliver a VFR DA40 to Denmark waited 
>for two weeks before weather was possibly suitable, then ended up diverting 
>and scud-running for the entire flight. Also, flying VFR, he felt obliged to 
>take a second pilot.

That's true also.

When I say "could have been done under VFR" I am saying that either a
scud run, or VMC on top with a hole at the destination, would have
been possible on the day, in the conditions actually found during the
IFR flight.

In practice, one would not bother to do the flight under VFR because
the weather forecasts are usually nowhere near good enough to assure
these things even a day or two ahead, and few people are able to just
sit around every day for weeks, bags packed, and jump in the aeroplane
on the morning of the day when the METARs are just right. There is a
very small band of retired travellers who do that.

I've done long legs across Europe under VFR back when I could fly IFR
only in UK airspace; the Crete one was the longest. I won't comment
whether all (or indeed any) of these flights were 100% clear of cloud
:) Paradoxically, one can do much more under VFR if one is instrument
capable. But it still works only in southern Europe. North of the Alps
one can just manage short hops here and there.

One simply cannot beat IFR. It's a shame that it is so much work
getting the privileges.

Ric,

Would you happen to know if Diamond is looking for pilots doing such 
flights in (Northern) Europe? Would you know who to contact?

Thanks a lot!

-- 
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ric schreef:
a friend who was trying to deliver a VFR
> DA40 to Denmark waited for two weeks before weather was possibly 
> suitable, then ended up diverting and scud-running for the entire 
> flight.

Ric (and others)
As I'm not a native English speaker,
I am lost with this term "scud-running".
Anyone kindly explain to a bloody stupid continental?
Karel.

from wikipedia
In general aviation, scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their 
altitude in order to avoid clouds or Instrument meteorological conditions 
(IMC). The goal of scud running is to stay clear of weather in order to 
continue flying with visual, rather than instrument, references. This 
practice is widely accepted to be dangerous, and has led to death in many 
cases from pilots flying into radio towers and high tension wires; however, 
even instrument-rated pilots sometimes elect to take the risk to avoid icing 
or embedded thunderstorms in cloud, or in situations where the minimum 
instrument altitudes are too high for their aircraft.

Scud running is occasionally referred to as "maintaining visual contact with 
the ground while avoiding physical contact with it" or "if the weather's too 
bad to go IFR, we'll go VFR."

The term gets its name from "scud," which is used to describe low, detached 
clouds.



"jan olieslagers"  wrote in message 
news:4746ff7f$0$29264$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> Ric schreef:
> a friend who was trying to deliver a VFR
>> DA40 to Denmark waited for two weeks before weather was possibly 
>> suitable, then ended up diverting and scud-running for the entire flight.
>
> Ric (and others)
> As I'm not a native English speaker,
> I am lost with this term "scud-running".
> Anyone kindly explain to a bloody stupid continental?
> Karel.

"john hawkins"  wrote

>In general aviation, scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their 
>altitude in order to avoid clouds or Instrument meteorological conditions 
>(IMC). 

True; however there is no clear definition. Flying between ground
which is at say 1000ft altitude, and cloudbase which is at say 2000ft
altitude, is fine and normal practice. The gap is 1000ft. Flying with
a 300ft gap would definitely be "scud running" :)

Peter schreef:
> "john hawkins"  wrote
> 
>> In general aviation, scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their 
>> altitude in order to avoid clouds or Instrument meteorological conditions 
>> (IMC). 
> 
> True; however there is no clear definition. Flying between ground
> which is at say 1000ft altitude, and cloudbase which is at say 2000ft
> altitude, is fine and normal practice. The gap is 1000ft. Flying with
> a 300ft gap would definitely be "scud running" :)

Thanks for explaining!

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:24:12 +0000, jan olieslagers 
wrote:

>Peter schreef:
>> "john hawkins"  wrote
>> 
>>> In general aviation, scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their 
>>> altitude in order to avoid clouds or Instrument meteorological conditions 
>>> (IMC). 
>> 
>> True; however there is no clear definition. Flying between ground
>> which is at say 1000ft altitude, and cloudbase which is at say 2000ft
>> altitude, is fine and normal practice. The gap is 1000ft. Flying with
>> a 300ft gap would definitely be "scud running" :)
>
>Thanks for explaining!


When I was learning I had a scud running exercise where the tail fin
was just skimming the cloud base at 1100 feet. I was banking the plane
left , right all over the place to try to get through the highest gaps
as we were heading back to the home airport. My instructor told me
that I could mark that one down as the low flying exercise :))

Captain Bimble  wrote

>When I was learning I had a scud running exercise where the tail fin
>was just skimming the cloud base at 1100 feet. I was banking the plane
>left , right all over the place to try to get through the highest gaps
>as we were heading back to the home airport. My instructor told me
>that I could mark that one down as the low flying exercise :))

Nothing wrong with that... the question is how far down was the
ground?

If you are doing this and the terrain rises up to meet you, the only
way is UP but then you can't see anything, and if the terrain rises
faster than your aircraft's climb rate (which is perfectly possible)
you fly into a hill. It happens a lot.

There isn't a good solution however. You can stick to VFR flight on
very good days, or plan and do every flight as IFR.

Peter  writes:
> Captain Bimble  wrote
> 
> >When I was learning I had a scud running exercise where the tail fin
> >was just skimming the cloud base at 1100 feet. I was banking the plane
> >left , right all over the place to try to get through the highest gaps
> >as we were heading back to the home airport. My instructor told me
> >that I could mark that one down as the low flying exercise :))
> 
> Nothing wrong with that... the question is how far down was the
> ground?
> 
> If you are doing this and the terrain rises up to meet you, the only
> way is UP but then you can't see anything, and if the terrain rises
> faster than your aircraft's climb rate (which is perfectly possible)
> you fly into a hill. It happens a lot.

He said he did this around his home airport, so presumably he
knew about the terrain in the area.  Just as importantly, did
he know that nobody else was doing the same thing at the same
time?

> There isn't a good solution however. You can stick to VFR flight on
> very good days, or plan and do every flight as IFR.

Not too bad an idea if you're instrument rated...  Otherwise,
you stay on the ground except for "very good days"?