Personal minimums

Night has its own set of concerns. During climbout from a rural airport I flew into an overcast ceiling which was forecast to be much higher than my enroute altitude. There was no illumination from below (few rural lights) or above (moonless night), so I blundered right into it.
 
I don't like the whole "personal minimums" mantra that pervades the flight training industry.

Don't write down arbitrary numbers on a piece of paper, keep a safety minded outlook in your head.

Always keep an open escape route, actively look for hazards, and progressively push your comfort zone into new territory.
 
cezzna said:
I remember being a noob in your shoes. During a cross country there was a veil of rain, it was light enough to see through the other side. I debated and went for it. Nothing happened other than the plane got a free 30 second wash.

Always leave yourself a way out. Be prudent but not paranoid. I've flown through countless patches of virga, and unlike as suggested above, never went IMC for more than a few seconds, never got bounced into an unusual attitude, or ended up done, lol. Virga is usually just a recipe for moderate chop.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't recommend taking a 172 through all the virga you can find in the southwest.
 
Beware of being over-conservative when on the ground. Airmanship is certainly something that builds over time, but setting arbitrarily conservative personal minimums is a good way to never really learn anything. That being said, no one is telling you to fly into thunderstorms or exceed the aircraft's capabilities. Just be smart about it.

It's far better to make risk decisions based on your perception of multiple variables, rather than absolute numbers.
 
I told my students " if you have a question, there is no question"

That means that if you feel like it may be below your personal minimums, it is below your personal minimums.

My minimums at 70 hours were probably something like no clouds in the entire state and wind below 15 knots.
 
Inverted said:
I never really had "personal minimums" that were higher than those on the plate. I wouldn't take a 172 through thunderstorms or anything like that, but if it was 200 1/2 with a fog layer, I had no problem doing that. That is how I did my training, and that is how I flew. I don't fault anyone for setting personal minimums that are higher than on the approach plate, but I do think it is a stupid mentality to not shoot an ILS that is 200 1/2, and your minimums are 500 1. If you don't think you have the ability to take an airplane 300 feet lower, you shouldn't be an instrument pilot. PERSONAL OPINION.
Click to expand...

Why?

When I upgrade, I won't have choice but to add 100 and 1/2 to the approach.

If it's so "bad" to have a personal minimum higher, why can't you, the capable instrument rated pilot, shoot that Cat I ILS down to 100 and 1/4...? You can take off 0/0, but you aren't man enough to land with a personal minimum less than the recommended chart minimum???
 
cencal83406 said:
Why?

When I upgrade, I won't have choice but to add 100 and 1/2 to the approach.

If it's so "bad" to have a personal minimum higher, why can't you, the capable instrument rated pilot, shoot that Cat I ILS down to 100 and 1/4...? You can take off 0/0, but you aren't man enough to land with a personal minimum less than the recommended chart minimum???
Click to expand...
Because they're not a recommendation. Visibility is controlling in all the non-91 flying we do.
Even in instrument training we trained to 200-1/2 or what's on the plate, since that's what we trained to do, that is a reasonable minimum. My opinion, but if you need to add something to that(barring high min capts because that is regulatory), you should seek more training because you are not capable of flying to the standard that you demonstrated to hold the instrument ticket.
 
I dont think there are many people who regret being too conservative...I'm sure there are plenty who have regretted proceeding with a flight they were not comfortable with (for whatever reason.)

Only you (and your CFI) know which conditions you have been exposed to, and how you will react in the event you push yourself too far. At this point flying should be fun, and the experiences that will make you a better pilot will come in time. Do what you feel comfortable with. If you want to learn more about flying in weather, maybe consider furthering your training and start working on your instrument rating.
 
z987k said:
Because they're not a recommendation. Visibility is controlling in all the non-91 flying we do.
Even in instrument training we trained to 200-1/2 or what's on the plate, since that's what we trained to do, that is a reasonable minimum. My opinion, but if you need to add something to that(barring high min capts because that is regulatory), you should seek more training because you are not capable of flying to the standard that you demonstrated to hold the instrument ticket.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me, that a person who trained for their IFR ticket in clear and a million with foggles should be completely confident going up in 200/1.5 or they need extra training? Seriously? The situations are totally different. Yes, you completed the task to gain your ticket, but when it's just you, no safety net of a CFI or an examiner sitting there, its not foggles but clouds and all that comes with being in clouds that low, rain, turbulence lack of spacial awareness (foggles are not the same as being in thick clouds), it helps to have worked up to that level by slowly gaining experience in increasingly difficult situations.

That is the whole point of gaining experience, you can't train for every possible scenario. To say, well, you are rated and should know how to handle it is silly. Just my opinion.
 
Inverted said:
I never really had "personal minimums" that were higher than those on the plate. I wouldn't take a 172 through thunderstorms or anything like that, but if it was 200 1/2 with a fog layer, I had no problem doing that. That is how I did my training, and that is how I flew. I don't fault anyone for setting personal minimums that are higher than on the approach plate, but I do think it is a stupid mentality to not shoot an ILS that is 200 1/2, and your minimums are 500 1. If you don't think you have the ability to take an airplane 300 feet lower, you shouldn't be an instrument pilot. PERSONAL OPINION.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I misunderstand your point or if what you and I consider personal minimums to be disagree.

When I got my IR, there is no telling what my personal minimums were, but if it was 200 & 1/2 I wasn't taking off into that. Personal minimums were what the WX was before I'd go not how low I'd take the approach down to. If the approach was an ILS I'd take it down to DA, i just wasn't going to depart on low IFR days.

Hell, back then I'd probably avoid IMC altogether instead file on clear and a million days and gradually work it down until I felt comfortable in all phases. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart.
 
z987k said:
Because they're not a recommendation. Visibility is controlling in all the non-91 flying we do.
Even in instrument training we trained to 200-1/2 or what's on the plate, since that's what we trained to do, that is a reasonable minimum. My opinion, but if you need to add something to that(barring high min capts because that is regulatory), you should seek more training because you are not capable of flying to the standard that you demonstrated to hold the instrument ticket.
Click to expand...

Why do you think high mins is regulatory? It's to gain experience. You are enacting a double standard by being okay with regulatory high mins vs personal high mins.
 
97victor said:
The only thing we really couldn't find was weather so I'm still a virgin when it comes to flying through rain.
Click to expand...

There is nothing special about flying in rain, or snow for that matter. Plane flies pretty much exactly the same. The concern are other things that can be associated with precipitation - in particular, IMC, downdrafts, icing, and hail. Look at the weather and forecasts carefully. If it is truly light rain, with no T-storms, and good visibility, no reason not to go. With weather like that, the ceilings will be your biggest concern.

In general, it is always best to be flying INTO weather. If you get uncomfortable, you can always turn around. If you choose to press ahead, have a field you can make directly, still VMC the whole way, in back of you. Experienced pilots make long trips by finding short stretches that are safe, then working on the next one. Big part of Airmanship, at every level.

Note: If you do call flight service for a briefing, don't be shocked if you hear "VFR flight not recommended" if the forecast is for anything other than ceiling and visibility unlimited. You may want to have someone else's opinion (like your CFI) as well. If you do hear that, look at the weather and you plans extra closely.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
There is nothing special about flying in rain, or snow for that matter. Plane flies pretty much exactly the same. The concern are other things that can be associated with precipitation - in particular, IMC, downdrafts, icing, and hail. Look at the weather and forecasts carefully. If it is truly light rain, with no T-storms, and good visibility, no reason not to go. With weather like that, the ceilings will be your biggest concern.

In general, it is always best to be flying INTO weather. If you get uncomfortable, you can always turn around. If you choose to press ahead, have a field you can make directly, still VMC the whole way, in back of you. Experienced pilots make long trips by finding short stretches that are safe, then working on the next one. Big part of Airmanship, at every level.

Note: If you do call flight service for a briefing, don't be shocked if you hear "VFR flight not recommended" if the forecast is for anything other than ceiling and visibility unlimited. You may want to have someone else's opinion (like your CFI) as well. If you do hear that, look at the weather and you plans extra closely.
Click to expand...
Don't even get me started on that...:bang:Those guys will say that even for something like possible mountain obscuration within a 100 nm radius of a route that does not go through the mountains.
 
mshunter said:
Personal minimums flying professionally, whatever is on the approach plate, can the aircraft handle the conditions.

Personal minimums when flying for fun, if it sucks getting in and out, is it really fun anymore?
Click to expand...

:)

"Hey scheduling...yeah this leg is below my personal minimum."

Seriously though, I would play it on the super safe side until you feel more comfortable. At some point you should start stretching your comfort zone, but take it slowly!

Good luck man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top