BeRich
Very Special Agent
You should have already been doing this.
Personal Minimums.
- Thread starter ppragman
- Start date
You should have already been doing this.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
That's so awesome!
We have to do all these briefings and then let the plane land itself.
(Is the tone obvious enough for the gallery?)
dvt,
Any aviating work on the horizon?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Good luck. I wish I had a lead for you.
Crockrocket94
Well-Known Member
PPrag,
What is wrong with a newer IFR pilot, or even a seasoned pilot who hasnt flown in IMC in a while, not wanting to fly into a 200' with 1/2SM weather conditions when they are operating single pilot in their own airplane?
I don't see why you are disturbed over someone not wanting to operate beyond their safety window.
I mean, if a FO for a 135 company or whathave you or a CA has "personal minimums" thats a different story I feel if its for work in a 121 or 135 environment.
What is wrong with a newer IFR pilot, or even a seasoned pilot who hasnt flown in IMC in a while, not wanting to fly into a 200' with 1/2SM weather conditions when they are operating single pilot in their own airplane?
I don't see why you are disturbed over someone not wanting to operate beyond their safety window.
I mean, if a FO for a 135 company or whathave you or a CA has "personal minimums" thats a different story I feel if its for work in a 121 or 135 environment.
:yeahthat:
That right there pretty much sums up my opinion. If someone is operating for hire (121/135), they need to be able to operate to the FARs & published mins. If they can't then they should rethink their employment. However, if it's someone's own plane, being flown for their own personal reasons, there's nothing wrong with that individual setting a threshold that they're comfortable with. With experience & time the comfort level will rise and they'll get to where they're comfortable at published mins.
CK
Well-Known Member
I think people might be misunderstanding what Patrick is saying. I think Patrick means instead of making a blanket statement saying I won't fly if the cieling is under 1000 feet they should analyze each flight and use judgement prior to each flight whether it is safe or not to fly. From how I interperted it, Patrick is fine with people not flying in weather that is above the minimums, so long as they determined that by using their judgement and not a few abitrary numbers. I am all for personal minimums. More people have been killed by not having minimums than have been killed by having them.
Alex.
Alex.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I still don't see what the problem is with doing just that though? What would cause such consternation? If they don't want to fly below an arbitrary minimum, who cares and why is it important at any level (unless the individual is expected to operate to published minimums as a career pilot)?
CK
Well-Known Member
You will not hear me complain about personal minimums! In a few decades when I walk as slow as you do I will probally have a few of my own
Just kidding, I already have a few, mostly ice related. Alex.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I'm with ppragman on this one.
Well, almost. I think he got a little long-winded about shooting approaches. But I agree with his general philosophy.
The idea of setting personal minimums is far too arbitrary for me. If a pilot doesn't want to fly with more than X knots of wind, ceilings lower than Y, or visibility lower than Z, that's fine, but how did they come up with these numbers? Pull them out of thin air? Blindly follow what a more experienced pilot told them to do? That seems like a stupid way to make decisions.
And what about factors they don't have personal minimums for? They can set minimums for VFR, IFR, wind, ceilings, and visibility...but what about day/night? Single/multi-engine? Time since last flight? Time in make/model?
There are a gazillion factors that influence flights and it's impossible to set minimums for all of them.
On top of that, when will these minimums be lowered? After X hours? Or Y number of experiences with Z? When the pilot gets his first job as a professional? Again, it's all arbitrary. There is no proof it either is or is not safe to lower these made-up minimums.
When I'm trying to teach a pilot judgment, the concept of personal minimums always comes up (by them, not me, since I don't believe in them). I tell them it's fine to set a limit on something as long as you have a good, objective reason for doing so. If you look at your own landings and are, without a doubt, always on centerline, regardless of crosswind, there is no reason to set a "runway width" personal limit. But if you see yourself consistently getting blown 20 feet off centerline during a strong crosswind, you shouldn't plan to fly in to a 40 foot wide strip unless the winds are calm. When you see yourself consistently performing better, lower or remove the "minimum" in this area.
Instead of personal minimums, I emphasize looking at the whole picture of what they're trying to do. If you see yourself attempting a lot of "firsts" at one time, that's a clue to step back and slow down. It's fine to go in to a short runway. But don't do it in a plane you only have 3 hours in, with your family on board pressuring you to land, in a stiff crosswind, at night. If you are current in the plane, don't have any pressure, and it's daytime, go for it and learn.
Flying is an amazingly dynamic activity. We can't break it down in to specific values. To do so is oversimplifying our responsibility as PIC.
Well, almost. I think he got a little long-winded about shooting approaches. But I agree with his general philosophy.
The idea of setting personal minimums is far too arbitrary for me. If a pilot doesn't want to fly with more than X knots of wind, ceilings lower than Y, or visibility lower than Z, that's fine, but how did they come up with these numbers? Pull them out of thin air? Blindly follow what a more experienced pilot told them to do? That seems like a stupid way to make decisions.
And what about factors they don't have personal minimums for? They can set minimums for VFR, IFR, wind, ceilings, and visibility...but what about day/night? Single/multi-engine? Time since last flight? Time in make/model?
There are a gazillion factors that influence flights and it's impossible to set minimums for all of them.
On top of that, when will these minimums be lowered? After X hours? Or Y number of experiences with Z? When the pilot gets his first job as a professional? Again, it's all arbitrary. There is no proof it either is or is not safe to lower these made-up minimums.
When I'm trying to teach a pilot judgment, the concept of personal minimums always comes up (by them, not me, since I don't believe in them). I tell them it's fine to set a limit on something as long as you have a good, objective reason for doing so. If you look at your own landings and are, without a doubt, always on centerline, regardless of crosswind, there is no reason to set a "runway width" personal limit. But if you see yourself consistently getting blown 20 feet off centerline during a strong crosswind, you shouldn't plan to fly in to a 40 foot wide strip unless the winds are calm. When you see yourself consistently performing better, lower or remove the "minimum" in this area.
Instead of personal minimums, I emphasize looking at the whole picture of what they're trying to do. If you see yourself attempting a lot of "firsts" at one time, that's a clue to step back and slow down. It's fine to go in to a short runway. But don't do it in a plane you only have 3 hours in, with your family on board pressuring you to land, in a stiff crosswind, at night. If you are current in the plane, don't have any pressure, and it's daytime, go for it and learn.
Flying is an amazingly dynamic activity. We can't break it down in to specific values. To do so is oversimplifying our responsibility as PIC.
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
I think it can be ok and a good idea for a newer IFR pilot to have personal mins to make the go/nogo decision. But to go missed 200 foot above the missed approach point is just silly.
What I think is even more important is to have a backup plan and know EXACTLY what your going to do, or go if you do have to go missed.
I fly corporate in a Cirrus some, and I completely ignore Cirrus's "recommended personal minimums". Its a joke in my opinion.
What I think is even more important is to have a backup plan and know EXACTLY what your going to do, or go if you do have to go missed.
I fly corporate in a Cirrus some, and I completely ignore Cirrus's "recommended personal minimums". Its a joke in my opinion.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
You fly professionally. You shouldn't be going by the Cirrus "recommended personal minimums." New Cirrus pilots with 100 hours TT and a new instrument ticket, on the other hand...
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Excellent post!
I remember when I was CFIing one of the pro instructors had his own "personal minimums" that were arbitrary in like manner. I could hardly believe my ears.
We've all been not comfortable with taking a flight in "severe" conditions (variable depending on aircraft and environmental conditions), and that should be where the judgement call comes into play. Not some random number that doesn't have anything to do with FARs, company regs, aircraft limitations or other scientific derived numbers.
Nark
Macho Superpilot
Two chime in with my two cents, this is an excellent point.
I'm with some posters; where do you get these numbers to add to published approaches/minima? Why is 400 feet safer than 200' (generally) for an ILS approach in your newly minted IR world? In your Baron, if you don't want to fly in less than severe clear, I don't want you out there either when the weather is marginal. Your airplane, your rules.
If you are fortunate to come into the 135 (121 arguably)world and still aren't comfortable to fly to published minimums, you have no place in the operation.
I'm with some posters; where do you get these numbers to add to published approaches/minima? Why is 400 feet safer than 200' (generally) for an ILS approach in your newly minted IR world? In your Baron, if you don't want to fly in less than severe clear, I don't want you out there either when the weather is marginal. Your airplane, your rules.
If you are fortunate to come into the 135 (121 arguably)world and still aren't comfortable to fly to published minimums, you have no place in the operation.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
There's A LOT more to personal minimums than just IFR. I use them quite often and I'm still alive. So, I'm kind of a fan.... Personal minimums are just a boundary you set for yourself on the ground when your head is clear. It gives you a concrete limit to revert to if or when poo hits the fan. This allows you to focus better on the task at hand with fewer additional surprises.
You could even say my official position on the subject matter is Pro-Personal Minimums.
You could even say my official position on the subject matter is Pro-Personal Minimums.
But what if they weren't just arbitrary numbers. What if they spent some time talking with more seasoned veterans and worked through scenarios and came up with a set of numbers that way? Values that would change over time as his/her experience increased?
The thing that I like about setting personal minimums for low experience (or non-current) pilots is that it takes the pressure off when the time comes to make the decision whether to do a flight or not. If you're taking the wife and kids to see the grandparents I'd much rather not see the inexperienced pilot talk himself into a situation that he shouldn't. Setting minimums before takes the pressure off the decision making process just when he needs it most.
But going through the process of setting minimums for SOME of those factors, especially when done with a more experienced pilot, gives him experience that will come into play when it is time to look at other factors. Those are skills that are needed all through the flying career - why not take advantage of experienced pilots in doing so?
What you describe is EXACTLY what I am advocating. I just call it setting personal minimums as opposed to, well, whatever you are choosing to call it.
