What are your minimums...

chrisreedrules

chrisreedrules

Master Blaster
Shot an ILS to minimums the other day when the METAR was reporting 800 BKN. Got me to thinking about my personal Part 91 (as in... I'm flying for fun or with a student... not for a 135 or 121 carrier in which case I figure it is pretty much always going to be a case of go down and take a look) approach minimums should be. I'm thinking 700 for non-precision and 500 for precision. In my experience thus far the ceiling is usually lower than what is being reported. What are your minimums?
 
Also depends on the airplane you're flying, and how you feel that day.

Crusty old 172 with a shaky needle, or a twin Beech with glass? Has the plane been spun 10,000 times and the gyros are shot?

Is it at the end of a long day, at night?

Not trying to soapbox, but to everyone reading, please don't pick a "hard" number and stick to it. Change your mins based on the situation, and use your head.
 
Since it's just GA for me right now, would totally depend on the equipment I'm in and the developing weather situation. In the Seminole I did my CMEL in with a great stack, published mins. In a clapped out FBO 172, I'd have to be pretty familiar with the area and have an actual need to go flying in anything under 700 foot ceilings.
 
If the airplane is properly equiped, and you are out flying IFR, mins are mins published on the plate. If you raise the mins for any reason, you probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Either you question the equipment, or you question yourself, neither of which is a good thing. The feds spend millions on developing approaches. Let them figure it out.

P.S. I expect every student I fly with to fly all the way to mins, under control, or they ain't gettin no sign off for a checkride.
 
I know we all love being keyboard ninjas on the internet, with how we talk about how we'd NEVER do anything than the MAXIMUM LIMITS because WE, ARE, AWESOME.

But reality doesn't always work with that theory.

When I'm at work, yes, the published minimums and limitations are always the published minimums and limitations. I'm paid to do things safely within a system, and those limits are very well defined to keep us safe. Great, I'm fine with that.

But for those of you saying that you'd launch in ANYTHING ALL THE TIME, while I appreciate that you guys are all likely better pilots than Mr. Hoover himself, does that REALLY apply to everyone? Would you say to a fresh private pilot with 65 hours that they suck if they don't go out and do touch and goes in a 172 with a 40 knot crosswind? Or that it's ok for a 120 hour freshly rated instrument pilot to be out there shooting a VOR approach to minimums with moderate rain and maybe 15-20 knots of wind?

Because it's sporting in an airplane that's properly equipped with 20 times the experience of that pilot, and I'd say it's outright dangerous to PLAN to do that kind of an approach if you're still fresh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
mshunter said:
If the airplane is properly equiped, and you are out flying IFR, mins are mins published on the plate. If you raise the mins for any reason, you probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Either you question the equipment, or you question yourself, neither of which is a good thing. The feds spend millions on developing approaches. Let them figure it out.

P.S. I expect every student I fly with to fly all the way to mins, under control, or they ain't gettin no sign off for a checkride.
Click to expand...
I understand your reasoning, but I couldn't disagree more. A wet ticket IR pilot has to show proficiency flying an ILS down to minimums, yes, but I wouldn't expect anyone to pass their ride then depart 0/0 and land OVC002 1/2SM the day after their ride. As you fly and gain experience your personal minimums will gradually decrease. I tell my students don't push the weather, don't push the airplane, and don't push yourself. But I also tell them that they have proven to me that they are proficient, then to the examiner, but then they should prove it to themselves--in that order. File on days that are clear and a million, get acquainted with the instrument procedures without a CFI security blanket. Then go on days with lower ceilings/vis.

Wearing a hood and flying to minimums is not the same as flying in IMC to minimums, single pilot.
 
jtrain609 said:
But for those of you saying that you'd launch in ANYTHING ALL THE TIME, while I appreciate that you guys are all likely better pilots than Mr. Hoover himself, does that REALLY apply to everyone? Would you say to a fresh private pilot with 65 hours that they suck if they don't go out and do touch and goes in a 172 with a 40 knot crosswind? Or that it's ok for a 120 hour freshly rated instrument pilot to be out there shooting a VOR approach to minimums with moderate rain and maybe 15-20 knots of wind?

Because it's sporting in an airplane that's properly equipped with 20 times the experience of that pilot, and I'd say it's outright dangerous to PLAN to do that kind of an approach if you're still fresh.
Click to expand...

I have departed in my GA plane at mins many times, I left knowing I wasn't going to return to my point of departure. There are also times when I cancelled and drove because my destination airport was grass w/ no app or had no way of getting below the MEA. There are a lot of variables when considering a flight, but my personal mins are what are published on the approach plate. That is what the OP asked.
 
Ajax BU said:
I understand your reasoning, but I couldn't disagree more. A wet ticket IR pilot has to show proficiency flying an ILS down to minimums, yes, but I wouldn't expect anyone to pass their ride then depart 0/0 and land OVC002 1/2SM the day after their ride.
Click to expand...


Then they shouldn't have their ticket. Because according to the FAA, a newly minted instrument pilot can do all those things, and some will. So it's my job as a CFI to sign them off when they are proficent at it. To me, that's the thing about flying in IMC. If you aren't proficent, stay on the ground, becaue there has been plenty of times here on the west coast where the cielings have been reported at or above minimums, and I have had to use the ALS to legally descend out of mins because I was legal, and safe, but still couldn't even see the runway.
 
mshunter said:
Then they shouldn't have their ticket. Because according to the FAA, a newly minted instrument pilot can do all those things, and some will. So it's my job as a CFI to sign them off when they are proficent at it. To me, that's the thing about flying in IMC. If you aren't proficent, stay on the ground, becaue there has been plenty of times here on the west coast where the cielings have been reported at or above minimums, and I have had to use the ALS to legally descend out of mins because I was legal, and safe, but still couldn't even see the runway.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is any pilot who cancels because the WX is above minimums doesn't deserve their ticket?

What's legal isn't always safe.
 
jtrain609 said:
I know we all love being keyboard ninjas on the internet, with how we talk about how we'd NEVER do anything than the MAXIMUM LIMITS because WE, ARE, AWESOME.

But reality doesn't always work with that theory.

When I'm at work, yes, the published minimums and limitations are always the published minimums and limitations. I'm paid to do things safely within a system, and those limits are very well defined to keep us safe. Great, I'm fine with that.

But for those of you saying that you'd launch in ANYTHING ALL THE TIME, while I appreciate that you guys are all likely better pilots than Mr. Hoover himself, does that REALLY apply to everyone? Would you say to a fresh private pilot with 65 hours that they suck if they don't go out and do touch and goes in a 172 with a 40 knot crosswind? Or that it's ok for a 120 hour freshly rated instrument pilot to be out there shooting a VOR approach to minimums with moderate rain and maybe 15-20 knots of wind?

Because it's sporting in an airplane that's properly equipped with 20 times the experience of that pilot, and I'd say it's outright dangerous to PLAN to do that kind of an approach if you're still fresh.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go out and tempt a 40kt x-wind, or fly a 172 on a VOR approach in driving rain with 15-20 knots of wind either. But, those aren't minimums. Proper equipment for the proper type of flying. But, if I was out here on the west coast, dealing with a marine layer, or a stormy winter day, and Van Nuys was reporting 400OVC/1SM, I would fly it right down the pipe and either push the throttle up at 400 or put it on the ground.
 
chrisreedrules said:
... not for a 135 or 121 carrier in which case I figure it is pretty much always going to be a case of go down and take a look.
Click to expand...
Just to pick on you a bit but for a 121 or 135 carrier if we don't have the mins we can't just "go down and take a look." 91 on the other hand you can shoot approaches all day long at 0/0.
 
Since I've moved to SAN the marine layer has really boosted my confidence while flying IFR. I've given over 30 hours in dual in actual conditions in these last few months. Personally when I first started I was scared to take it all the way down to 200 feet. But it really depends on your confidence level. If you fly every day in actual then yeah your personal minimums will be lower. But if it has been a few months then I would raise it maybe a couple hundred feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top