Narrative:

Due to certainty of flooding of the home airport; aircraft needed urgently to be moved to another airport. Weather was poor over the entire area; and was predicted to be so until well after the peak flood stage; so urgent waiting was done for VFR conditions. A different destination airport was originally chosen; but it was further away; which created more variability in the weather along the route.finally; late in the day; conditions appeared to be VFR (with a scattered layer of clouds at 700-800 feet AGL) along the 12 nautical mile route to the destination airport; as determined by radar; metar; and visual observation. Once aloft; conditions were better than expected over the flood plain where the departure airport was. About half way to the destination; a rise in elevation over a city area created what seemed to be a 'wall' of clouds. Descending was required to stay under this layer; but the layer became even lower; requiring descending even further.by this time the destination airport was only a few miles further; and attempting to turn around might have been even more dangerous because concentrating on the turn would have taken attention away from watching for obstacles (some of which were passed); so the flight was continued to the destination airport.this incident was due to 1. The unprecedented rain amounts in the region in late december 2. The urgency of moving the airplane away from a rapidly developing flood3. Relying too much on the precise accuracy of the reports of weather4. Not allowing a wider margin of safety with the weather 5. Relying on GPS to keep track of position.note: without moving-map GPS; this flight would not have even been considered.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 pilot reported planning and executing a short VFR flight to avoid predicted flooding at his home airport in less than VFR conditions and at very low altitude.

Narrative: Due to certainty of flooding of the home airport; aircraft needed urgently to be moved to another airport. Weather was poor over the entire area; and was predicted to be so until well after the peak flood stage; so urgent waiting was done for VFR conditions. A different destination airport was originally chosen; but it was further away; which created more variability in the weather along the route.Finally; late in the day; conditions appeared to be VFR (with a scattered layer of clouds at 700-800 feet AGL) along the 12 nautical mile route to the destination airport; as determined by radar; METAR; and visual observation. Once aloft; conditions were better than expected over the flood plain where the departure airport was. About half way to the destination; a rise in elevation over a city area created what seemed to be a 'wall' of clouds. Descending was required to stay under this layer; but the layer became even lower; requiring descending even further.By this time the destination airport was only a few miles further; and attempting to turn around might have been even more dangerous because concentrating on the turn would have taken attention away from watching for obstacles (some of which were passed); so the flight was continued to the destination airport.This incident was due to 1. the unprecedented rain amounts in the region in late December 2. the urgency of moving the airplane away from a rapidly developing flood3. relying too much on the precise accuracy of the reports of weather4. not allowing a wider margin of safety with the weather 5. relying on GPS to keep track of position.Note: Without moving-map GPS; this flight would not have even been considered.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.