Surely to goodness nobody would ever think of dreaming of doing that?
Hopefully they wouldnt, but how many people have been caught out on botched approaches? How many people fly made up approaches and run into problems? How many people have been caught out scud running? Clearly not something to plan to do, but might be a life saver when unplanned.
On a botched approach there is a published go-around procedure, which is on the plates. Hardly a problem if properly trained and prepared.
I don't fly made-up approaches. Maybe I might if I had had appropriate training in designing approaches, and could be absolutely certain that I had designed myself a totally foolproof missed approach procedure.
I once, and only once, found myself in weather significantly worse than forecast and unable to get to my destination without scud running. So I scrapped the rest of the planned trip, got a radar service, did a 180 and went home. Otherwise I avoid scud running by choosing to stay on the ground.
Yes I know other people make other choices, that's up to them I suppose. But if they want to play video games, safer to do it in the arcade, no?
Anyway, none of the above seem to me to relate to deliberately choosing to cruise in IMC below MSA because of the presence of the terrain model, which is what this subthread is about.