Personal Minimums.

[Wolfy]

I thought about this right after I got my ticket. People suggested setting higher personal minimums for myself, and it just didn't make sense. First, you're going missed at a different point than was intended. I don't know if the missed approach designer takes that in to account, but it gives me that "off the reservation" feeling I don't like so much. Also, people seem to talk about going missed like it is the perfectly safe alternative to the risky event of landing. You still have to go land somewhere else, that probably has weather. And if you are so unsure of yourself that you're only able to go down to 400' instead of 200', why are you so ready to fly a MAP? Doesn't make sense to me.

I've learned that pilots are a superstitious bunch. And I try to break all of my students of that. I had one who would always lift the flaps after take off at 200' AGL. Sounds pretty harmless, until you seem him staring at the altimeter, waiting for 200' to roll around. He should lift them whenever is appropriate to the situation (and there's a pretty big window of time to do it). No point wasting brain cycles waiting for some arbitrary number.

Someone once said I was dangerous because I landed with 45 minutes of fuel, VFR. He said he would never land with less than an hour, and never take off with less than 2 hours. This was a CFI. Ever flown a plane with 2 1/2 hour tanks? Good luck trying to get anywhere far with that thing and landing with over an hour of fuel all the time.

Sometimes, in GA, it feels like a safety pissing contest. Whoever won't fly first wins.

 

[jtrain609]

This begs a few questions.

I thought about this right after I got my ticket. People suggested setting higher personal minimums for myself, and it just didn't make sense. First, you're going missed at a different point than was intended. I don't know if the missed approach designer takes that in to account, but it gives me that "off the reservation" feeling I don't like so much. Also, people seem to talk about going missed like it is the perfectly safe alternative to the risky event of landing. You still have to go land somewhere else, that probably has weather. And if you are so unsure of yourself that you're only able to go down to 400' instead of 200', why are you so ready to fly a MAP? Doesn't make sense to me.

For the bolded section; what happens if you get an equipment failure before the MAP? What do you do? You climb vertically, and as far as lateral navigation goes, you continue to the MAP and then start any turns you need to make.

I've learned that pilots are a superstitious bunch. And I try to break all of my students of that. I had one who would always lift the flaps after take off at 200' AGL. Sounds pretty harmless, until you seem him staring at the altimeter, waiting for 200' to roll around. He should lift them whenever is appropriate to the situation (and there's a pretty big window of time to do it). No point wasting brain cycles waiting for some arbitrary number.

Are flap speeds arbitrary? When you're trying to configure an airplane going the opposite direction, on landing that is, you'd better be Johnny on the spot about getting the flaps out ON SPEED if you want to be configured and stabilized.

Someone once said I was dangerous because I landed with 45 minutes of fuel, VFR. He said he would never land with less than an hour, and never take off with less than 2 hours. This was a CFI. Ever flown a plane with 2 1/2 hour tanks? Good luck trying to get anywhere far with that thing and landing with over an hour of fuel all the time.

Sometimes, in GA, it feels like a safety pissing contest. Whoever won't fly first wins.

Aviation SHOULD BE a safety pissing contest.

Most of us don't fly freight.

Most of us don't fly in Alaska.

Most of us don't fly in the military.

For 99% of us out there, safety, which is most accurately described as risk mitigation, should be first in our minds. It doesn't make you a wuss to operate safely.

 

[Hacker15e]

Sometimes, in GA, it feels like a safety pissing contest. Whoever won't fly first wins.

Why shouldn't it be? This is what I meant when I posted, "there's no war here". Meaning, there's absolutely nothing that HAS to be accomplished on any given day in any given airplane EXCEPT to get the airplane and crew/pax safely on the ground. If that means not even taking off, then so be it.

If you want to go somewhere with more of a "mission" mentality, get out of GA. Come on over to the military and you'll sometimes see the opposite taken to the extreme. On the night before the opening shots of OIF in 2003, I had a Squadron Commander brief us that unless we were "on fire", if we were supporting ground troops actively engaged with the enemy, he expected us to stay on station and do our damn job, even if there were EPs, systems failures, etc...that Uncle Sam didn't pay us to be conservative on the opening night of the war, he paid us to accomplish the mission of breaking the bad guys' stuff, killing bad people, and keeping good ones alive, even if that involved great personal risk.

 

[Wolfy]

This begs a few questions.



For the bolded section; what happens if you get an equipment failure before the MAP? What do you do? You climb vertically, and as far as lateral navigation goes, you continue to the MAP and then start any turns you need to make.

That's true. My point is that seems just as difficult as flying down to 200'. It seems odd to choose one and not the other.

Are flap speeds arbitrary? When you're trying to configure an airplane going the opposite direction, on landing that is, you'd better be Johnny on the spot about getting the flaps out ON SPEED if you want to be configured and stabilized.

I'm not too sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting over speeding flaps. If you mean that there's a time to watch a gauge closely and wait for it to hit a certain number, I agree with that. You have a good reason to in that situation. My student did not.

Aviation SHOULD BE a safety pissing contest.

Most of us don't fly freight.

Most of us don't fly in Alaska.

Most of us don't fly in the military.

For 99% of us out there, safety, which is most accurately described as risk mitigation, should be first in our minds. It doesn't make you a wuss to operate safely.

And I disagree. I'm not advocating being dangerous, which is what people think when I talk about this. But if you are flying for fun, you are choosing to take on an inherently risky activity for pleasure. I don't care if someone has a Cub, and won't pull it out of the hangar if there is enough wind to put ripples on a pond. It's his plane. But he shouldn't give me a hard time, or talk about me behind my back because I'll fly in a 15kt wind.

If you want to be 100% sure you won't be in a general aviation accident, don't get in a plane. After that, it's all just shades of gray.

 

[Wolfy]

Why shouldn't it be? This is what I meant when I posted, "there's no war here". Meaning, there's absolutely nothing that HAS to be accomplished on any given day in any given airplane EXCEPT to get the airplane and crew/pax safely on the ground. If that means not even taking off, then so be it.

Like I said in my other response, I have no problem with people being conservative. I think it's great, and encourage people to be that way. No point bending your plane, or yourself, getting a cheeseburger.

My issue the is "pissing match" part of it. People boasting about what they won't fly in. Talking crap about other pilots who are doing perfectly reasonable things. It does happen, and it's just empty ego stroking.

 

[jtrain609]

That's true. My point is that seems just as difficult as flying down to 200'. It seems odd to choose one and not the other.

I'm not too sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting over speeding flaps. If you mean that there's a time to watch a gauge closely and wait for it to hit a certain number, I agree with that. You have a good reason to in that situation. My student did not.

I do mean to watch a gauge closely and wait for it to hit a certain number. If you instruct your student, "Raise the flaps at 200'," then expect them to raise them at 200' exactly.

And I disagree. I'm not advocating being dangerous, which is what people think when I talk about this. But if you are flying for fun, you are choosing to take on an inherently risky activity for pleasure. I don't care if someone has a Cub, and won't pull it out of the hangar if there is enough wind to put ripples on a pond. It's his plane. But he shouldn't give me a hard time, or talk about me behind my back because I'll fly in a 15kt wind.

If you want to be 100% sure you won't be in a general aviation accident, don't get in a plane. After that, it's all just shades of gray.

Who's giving you a hard time?

 

[Wolfy]

I do mean to watch a gauge closely and wait for it to hit a certain number. If you instruct your student, "Raise the flaps at 200'," then expect them to raise them at 200' exactly.

That's the thing, I never did.

Who's giving you a hard time?

Small town airports can be like a high school girl's locker room. But not in the good way.

 

[mshunter]

I haven't read all the replies in this thread so excuse me if this has been said over and over again. But I'd have to agree with ppragman. If you are going to get a instrument ticket, use it. If there is ice up there, stay home. But for goodness sake, don't not go because you have set some arbitrary number because you feel that makes you safer. If you are not comfortable flying an approach down to minimums, then surrender your ticket, or get some more training. The minimums set by the FAA are there for a reason. If you decide not to fly because ceilings are 2000ft with three miles of vis, then why did you bother with your instrument ticket anyways? While I was a CFI, I used to relish those kinds of days for flying. It was a good reason to take someone up and let them see that there was nothing different about flying in that vs CAVU with the proper precautions taken into account. If ceilings are 2000ft, and you have a mountain pass to fly through, find another way, or don't go. But don't ground yourself because it's a flat piece of land and VFR out.

 

[TWP]

Ive always considered a personal minimum to be like Vno. In other words, if Im having a rough day, feeling a little tired, etc. ill stick witht he personal minimums. If I'm feeling great and everything seems to be going well, I'll go alittle bit past, but with caution.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

For a personal minimum to be truly "arbitrary", it would imply there's absolutely NO thought behind it. "Honey, pick a number between 0-18,000 -- I need a personal minimum for en route ceilings!" Anything short of that requires at least some thought and is, by definition, a "reasoned" personal minimum.

Just because someone can't clearly define why they set their personal minimums to someone else's satisfaction, doesn't mean they are devoid of meaning. Suppose I decide that I don't want to fly a C-172 IFR with less than 2,000 ft ceilings because in an engine failure situation I want to be able to break out at 2K and have at least a 3nm gliding range to use to locate a suitable field, avoid obstacles, and maneuver to a safe landing. Does that mean I need to surrender my IFR ticket, as some have suggested, because my personal minimums are higher than the FAA's minimums?

FWIW, the FAA's instructions about weather minimums for instrument approaches discuss it in reference to making a Go/No-Go decision prior to flight based on MDA/DH plus a safety margin. It doesn't suggest relocating those altitudes to something higher, although I wouldn't fault someone if they did, even if they couldn't explain their rationale to my satisfaction.

Personally, I see the use of a personal minimum checklist as a good thing, and I teach it as such. I'd much rather make risk decisions from my sofa than the pilot's seat. For me, I use the FAA's Personal Mins checklist. I've gone through each item and decided what to use in each category. Then I explained it to my wife (my typical passenger) and we both agreed on implementing them. Now when we travel somewhere for the weekend and are faced with a situation on Sunday afternoon that's too risky, we've already decided not to fly regardless of the cost, inconvenience or consequences. Which, by my vantage point, is the whole point of a personal minimum. It's no different than talking to your kids about saying no to drugs or sex when they are young, so they are prepared to make decisions when they are faced with a choice.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Ive always considered a personal minimum to be like Vno. In other words, if Im having a rough day, feeling a little tired, etc. ill stick witht he personal minimums. If I'm feeling great and everything seems to be going well, I'll go alittle bit past, but with caution.

You mean "it's not a limit it's a goal"?

 

[zmiller4]

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics, but "personal minimums" to me mean the selection of absolutes that apply to all flights.

I'm not sure why we're discussing these arbitrary, set-in-stone, higher-than-published minimums. I've honestly never met anyone who does that...but if they are out there, who cares? It's their decision. It almost sounds like the point of your posts is to denegrate those who are more conservative than you.

I'll fly any appoach that my company has approved me to fly, but when I'm flying my wife for fun somewhere there is no way I'm going to plan to have to fly an approach to 1/2sm in an unfamiliar airplane with a six-pack. Maybe I'm a wuss, but that would just be dumb.

 

[C-182 flyer]

[yt]3f7AFACuIXg[/yt]

Scroll to about 5+07. There are an example of where you do not have much of a choice in the matter, but the food is on the boat. Would that pilot be shooting an approach to the boat in that weather if he had the choice, no way. I guarantee you he would much rather be in his stateroom playing Halo and not proving how awesome he is because he flies in bad weather. I promise most military pilots don't think twice about doing this in the proper equipment but would not even consider doing this in a single engine, old GA airplane. People should know their personal and their equipment's limits.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

[yt]3f7AFACuIXg[/yt]

Scroll to about 5+07. There are an example of where you do not have much of a choice in the matter, but the food is on the boat. Would that pilot be shooting an approach to the boat in that weather if he had the choice, no way. I guarantee you he would much rather be in his stateroom playing Halo and not proving how awesome he is because he flies in bad weather. I promise most military pilots don't think twice about doing this in the proper equipment but would not even consider doing this in a single engine, old GA airplane. People should know their personal and their equipment's limits.

This.

I'm current enough and proficient enough, and have good enough equipment that I'm very familiar with, that I won't bat an eyelid (eyelash?) at flying our LPV or ILS approaches here down to minimums. (I did so the other day.) I might be unwilling to launch into such conditions, but I don't mind landing in it...takeoffs are optional.

That said, the missed approach (in actual instrument conditions) is almost certainly the most dangerous maneuver that general aviation pilots execute. It's dangerous because:
(1) It isn't regularly practiced.
(2) The practice we get usually isn't anything near realistic.
(3) Plan continuation bias.
(4) Minimum tolerance for error (especially on precision approaches).
(5) Disorientation (especially circling approaches).

If you take these into account, your average Part 91 pilot doesn't have any business "taking a look-see".

I'm blessed: I live in an aviation household and I do a lot of hangar flying, much to the chagrin of the non-aviators in the family. I've also had a few instructors with what I would describe as very good safety attitudes and cultures. But the safety culture isn't there in GA*. The safety culture needs to be there, too. It's not about absolute numbers. This is about thinking.

* (I'm talking mostly about the Cirrus, Columbia, TBM crowd here for which personal minimums are intended: aviation is incidental to the need for personal transportation, and these folks are not professional aviators. They are operating high performance, highly automated and complex aircraft, often to less than adequate airports (TVL))

 

[dasleben]

I love this thread so much.

 

[Fly_Unity]

* (I'm talking mostly about the Cirrus, Columbia, TBM crowd here for which personal minimums are intended: aviation is incidental to the need for personal transportation, and these folks are not professional aviators. They are operating high performance, highly automated and complex aircraft, often to less than adequate airports (TVL))

Personal mins are always for someone else, Im a professional so I dont need them.

Since I make my living flying these types of planes, it amazing how mush stereotyping of planes exist. C172 instructor steps out of plane and tells his students "how bad a pilot I am because I fly a Cirrus" happens daily when flying to new airports. I know you dont really realize it, but if you got a job flying any of the planes you mentioned above, I bet you would change your tone.

I overheard an ATC guy a few months ago say that the Cirrus/Columbia/TBM crowd were always the easiest to work with. (ie being able to accept the most complex clearance) whereas the steam guys he just got used to just giving them vectors because they could not understand the clearance. Maybe its technology doing all the work and the pilots dont know squat. But until your in someone else's shoes, you should not be telling them they need personal minimums and you dont. (Im willing to bet that a lot of 91 pilots are just as proficient as some of the 135 guys)

Cheers

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Personal mins are always for someone else, Im a professional so I dont need them.

Not what I said.

My comments should be taken as, "I don't think general aviation has a very good safety culture overall. And I can include myself in that because I've done stupid stuff of the 'never again' variety." (Raise your hand if you haven't.)

Since I make my living flying these types of planes, it amazing how mush stereotyping of planes exist. C172 instructor steps out of plane and tells his students "how bad a pilot I am because I fly a Cirrus" happens daily when flying to new airports. I know you dont really realize it, but if you got a job flying any of the planes you mentioned above, I bet you would change your tone.

Having flown all of the airplanes I've mentioned above, I still stick with some of it....understand, I think the majority of pilots of the types I mentioned above are very very good, proficient, and know their limitations. However, the hull loss record is simply not acceptable. That's my point.

I overheard an ATC guy a few months ago say that the Cirrus/Columbia/TBM crowd were always the easiest to work with. (ie being able to accept the most complex clearance) whereas the steam guys he just got used to just giving them vectors because they could not understand the clearance. Maybe its technology doing all the work and the pilots dont know squat. But until your in someone else's shoes, you should not be telling them they need personal minimums and you dont. (Im willing to bet that a lot of 91 pilots are just as proficient as some of the 135 guys)

Fair enough. (I have some minimums, by the way. I don't write them down.)

Apologies for picking on a specific pilot population, I really ought to know better.

 

[stesta5074]

Hi, I just got a Cirrus with FIKI. I want to find some severe icing conditions to test it out. Where do you recommend I start?

 

[Polar742]

Hi, I just got a Cirrus with FIKI. I want to find some severe icing conditions to test it out. Where do you recommend I start?

What the hell? They've gone PLAID.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Since I make my living flying these types of planes, it amazing how mush stereotyping of planes exist. C172 instructor steps out of plane and tells his students "how bad a pilot I am because I fly a Cirrus" happens daily when flying to new airports. I know you dont really realize it, but if you got a job flying any of the planes you mentioned above, I bet you would change your tone.

I believe most of the "anti Cirrus" propaganda was put out there by Cessna. Unfortunately, Cirrus shot themselves in the foot with their own target market... Wealthy professionals who are new or low time pilots. As fast as a Bonanza, yet just simple enough to jump into without a stepping stone. Throw in that type A personality possessed by most wealthy, successful professionals and even an experienced CFI has a challenge on their hands.

On another note...

I just finished up a private student who owns a Cirrus. The first time I flew with him was the beginning of a series of evaluation flights for his checkride. We covered airwork on the first flight. Approach to landing & departure stalls... He recovers the airplane perfect at first indication. We move on to full stall recovery. He was all over the place, didn't know what to do with a wing drop, couldn't hold heading when applying power, shoved the nose straight down... It turns out that his previous CFI had NEVER done a recovery from a full stall with him...:bangheadWhich IS in the PTS...) It was because of the "bad characteristics" of the airplane, whatever that means... If a CFI is afraid of stalls & spins they NEED to seek further training for more exposure in these areas. It is just a lack of understanding that can be easily fixed. But that's a whole 'nother pile...

You could say that, the CFI's personal minimums got in the way of them doing their job effectively. However, in the short run it made the flight safer. In the long run the student wasn't receiving adequate instruction nor was the CFI properly trained.