Another reason to have personal minimums, and how to push them.

Jereme Carne

Jereme Carne

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
57
Display Name
Display name:
JCarne
So there I was wanting to fly some commercial maneuvers with my CFII but the weather was unusual for where I live; time to do some instrument flying instead. Got the ticket back in June and really enjoy flying in the system whenever I can. Today the ceiling at our destination KGEY was reporting 600 ft, perfect opportunity to push myself and my mins with a CFII on board. Took off, eventually made our way to an initial and started the approach.

600 to mins, 500, 400... it got down to about 20 feet from mins and I saw the ground but no runway environment. After another 10 feet I saw the threshold right as my Dynon called out mins at 250' agl. Made a greaser landing and left a little butter on the runway.

Anyways, I was surprised how far off the AWOS was from what was actual. I guess part of having personal mins is that weather can change and weather reporting isn't always accurate. Going missed early is always an option but I felt dang good with the approach so I continued. Dang fun flight, love having this instrument rating! Get out there and practice up, nothing like popping out of the clouds on final!

Great day of flying and just wanted to share. Thanks for listening!
 
Ya, that’s pretty rewarding! Bravo!
 
Just last week, I was headed to SDM, and it was supposed to be a nice boring VFR flight.

By the time I arrived, the marine layer hadn't yet blown away, and I flew the GPS Rwy 8L close to mins.

Fortunately, I don't have absurd personal minimums like 1,000-foot ceilings. I flew the approach and landed.
 
Last edited:
Uh… we didn’t have minimums at the boat. AND you NEVER NEVER NEVER take your own wave off. Different world.
 
AWOS shows the weather above the unit. You are flying a mile or more from that AWOS unit.

Was trying to fly a CAP proficiency ride one day, but the ceiling right over the field was 600 feet (CAP mins are 800 foot ceiling). Several aircraft on approaches and departures reported 1200 feet a mile two off the end of the runway. But the ATIS kept reporting 600.
 
I was heading back Saturday from checking on the new house in NH. Weather really sucked at Fredrick MD (home) but was decent as far as Reading PA so got there (flew an RNAV and broke out 200' above mins) to get gas and reassess. While the weather at home remained IFR, combine it with already flying 3 hours (2 IMC), no great alternates at home and me having a passenger (albeit a lapsed pilot) in the right seat. Millennium Aviation helped my ADM by saying "we have a crew car and crew discount at the hotel and the restaurant at the terminal is good". We went over and had lunch and a beer to end the ADM discussion.

Yesterday am wasn't much better at home but at least we had reasonable alternates. Off we went and seeing 153 KTS of groundspeed in the Archer :D at 3K. Flew the RNAV 5 and, like you, for my first time ever in actual flew it down to mins, it helped to have a pilot in the right seat who knew when to talk and what to say. Came outside, saw the quarry and the threshold lights and made a good landing. Whew.

I got my rating in spring of 2019 and I enjoy the freedom of flying IFR and mostly I have used mine to get through layers but I fly faithfully with an SP at least once a month and get 2-3 approaches in and often alone I fly them even though they don't count for currency. I think that familiarity with GPS and switchology and the procedures, especially around your home airport really makes that difference between current and competent. I suppose that attitude is a holdover from my Navy days of every flight having training quals in the C3500 that had to be met.
 
Last edited:
Pugs said:
I was heading back Saturday from checking on the new house in NH. Weather really sucked at Fredrick MD (home) but was decent as far as Reading PA so got there (flew an RNAV and broke out 200' above mins) to get gas and reassess. While the weather at home remained IFR, combine it with already flying 3 hours (2 IMC), no great alternates at home and me having a passenger (albeit a lapsed pilot) in the right seat. Millennium Aviation helped my ADM by saying "we have a crew car and crew discount at the hotel and the restaurant at the terminal is good". We went over and had lunch and a beer to end the ADM discussion.

Yesterday am wasn't much better at home but at least we had reasonable alternates. Off we went and seeing 153 KTS of groundspeed in the Archer :D at 3K. Flew the RNAV 5 and, like you, for my first time ever in actual flew it down to mins, it helped to have a pilot in the right seat who knew when to talk and what to say. Came outside, saw the quarry and the threshold lights and made a good landing. Whew.

I got my rating in spring of 2019 and I enjoy the freedom of flying IFR and mostly I have used mine to get through layers but I fly faithfully with an SP at least once a month and get 2-3 approaches in and often alone I fly them even though they don't count for currency. I think that familiarity with GPS and switchology and the procedures, especially around your home airport really makes that difference between current and competent. I suppose that attitude is a holdover from my Navy days of every flight having training quals in the C3500 that had to be met.
Click to expand...

Nicely said, amazing how quickly proficiency can diminish in the IFR world. I too fly approaches even if the weather is good and I can't log it just to stay sharp. Between the autopilot and and GPS there is a fair amount of button pushing going on. Of course hand flying them sometimes is important too.
 
I don't understand personal approach minimums, except to the extent that they might be a proxy for general weather conditions. You should be prepared to safely fly to the approach minimums on every flight. To me, more relevant IFR go/no-go items are avoidance of icing and convection, and having nearby likely VFR outs enroute if things are not as forecast.

My first IFR trip (about a week after getting the ticket) was supposed to be a nice late summer/early fall VFR day, until line of thunderstorms 100 miles west of my route of flight started pulling cold Atlantic Ocean air inland over the Maine Coast. What was a nice VFR day turned into a conga line of ILS approaches at BHB that day, with steadily decreasing ceilings. A couple of hours later the thunderstorms went through.
 
I'm recalling a thread, over a year ago, where an instrument rated pilot wouldn't leave for a trip - there were 1,500-foot ceilings.

I mean.... Damn....

If I recall correctly, I think I got points for my response to that one.
 
I have personal mins but it's mostly for unexpected weather changes and even more so for the fact I'm flying a single. If I have an engine failure I want to have somewhat of a fighting chance. I would not depart and fly in 200 foot ceilings if I was in an area with heavy terrain; wide open fields on the other hand...

Of course icing and convective are my #1 concerns to plan around.
 
Pinecone said:
AWOS shows the weather above the unit. You are flying a mile or more from that AWOS unit.

Was trying to fly a CAP proficiency ride one day, but the ceiling right over the field was 600 feet (CAP mins are 800 foot ceiling). Several aircraft on approaches and departures reported 1200 feet a mile two off the end of the runway. But the ATIS kept reporting 600.
Click to expand...
You can go down to 500/1 if using a SFRO. Down to minimums with Wing CC/CV/DO approval.
 
Maybe if I wasn't a flatlander I would look at personal minimums differently. Not sure I would though.

My instrument DPE asked about minimums and we really didn't get too far into it. I had been warned he would ask so I just went along with what he wanted to hear. Didn't really want to get sideways with him.
 
Hi Jereme, hadn’t noticed you’re on POA! I followed your -7A build thread on VAF. Quite an amazing accomplishment, what, start to finish in a little over 4 years?!?

Your log was well written and documented with the ups & downs over the course of your build. Some builders don’t have the means, dedication, or knowledge to start their first build until twice your age, and here you are already planning to build a -10!

Much congratulations, and tip of the hat to you, sir!

BTW, time to update the VAF thread with the latest vinyl wrapping!
 
The more IR you fly the more you can lower your personal minimums. When you set your minimums you should stick with them. If ceilings are going down when your on your way you might consider an alternative.
 
Not IR here . . . But I thought the personal minimums were more designed for off-airport landings in a single.

If you have an engine failure, having more than 200 feet and a mile when you pop out the bottom.

How do folks address that (honestly). Is the assumption no engine failures in IMC?
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Not IR here . . . But I thought the personal minimums were more designed for off-airport landings in a single.

If you have an engine failure, having more than 200 feet and a mile when you pop out the bottom.

How do folks address that (honestly). Is the assumption no engine failures in IMC?
Click to expand...

Conceptually, personal minimums should be designed around a person’s own competency, proficiency, and risk tolerance are.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Not IR here . . . But I thought the personal minimums were more designed for off-airport landings in a single.

If you have an engine failure, having more than 200 feet and a mile when you pop out the bottom.

How do folks address that (honestly). Is the assumption no engine failures in IMC?
Click to expand...

The same as at night. Look, if you don't like what you see, close your eyes. :D
 
My personal minimums are designed around hand flying an approach and how current I am. Sure the AP can fly it to 200’ in a stiff crosswind at night, but it’s not something I wish to put myself into if I haven’t done any approaches in 4 months.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Not IR here . . . But I thought the personal minimums were more designed for off-airport landings in a single.

If you have an engine failure, having more than 200 feet and a mile when you pop out the bottom.

How do folks address that (honestly). Is the assumption no engine failures in IMC?
Click to expand...
Folks address that similarly to how they do it for flying at night, or over rough terrain, or in calm winds on a clear day around the patch. All flying involves risk, and by taking off you accept it. If you don't like the risks, you don't take off.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I have wind maximums but no instrument mimimums. My approach minimums are whatever the chart says. I hope that's not a hazardous attitude.
Click to expand...
Wind, thunderstorm, icing minimums for me...I guess I should add no 0/0 takeoffs (my takeoff minimum is the take-off field's approach minimum). But no "instrument minimums" other than that for me either.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Not IR here . . . But I thought the personal minimums were more designed for off-airport landings in a single.

If you have an engine failure, having more than 200 feet and a mile when you pop out the bottom.

How do folks address that (honestly). Is the assumption no engine failures in IMC?
Click to expand...

Same as we do with VFR flying. Access the options (hopefully in advance of the engine failure) and have a plan for the best possible outcome. If we decided the risk is to high, we don't go. But then after 6000 hours of power flying I have never had a complete engine failure, But plan on being as ready as possible when I do.

I usually have the nearest highway or airport or populated area picked out. In the even of a power failure I plan on coming out of the clouds near one of them. If I am lucky I will will break out and be able to perform a successful landing. If I am not, I will have a controlled crash near some population where help can get to me in a reasonable amount of time.

Brian
 
I have done a takeoff when the field was below minimums for an approach back into the field.

But, the approach was a VOR approach, and the VOR was on another field with better approaches. :D
 
Pinecone said:
I have done a takeoff when the field was below minimums for an approach back into the field.

But, the approach was a VOR approach, and the VOR was on another field with better approaches. :D
Click to expand...
Takeoff alternates are a wonderful thing. :cool:
 
Absolutely.

Was just saying, there can be times when the airport you are departing from has lower weather than the approach back to it, but it is still reasonable to take off.
 
BrianP said:
Hi Jereme, hadn’t noticed you’re on POA! I followed your -7A build thread on VAF. Quite an amazing accomplishment, what, start to finish in a little over 4 years?!?

Your log was well written and documented with the ups & downs over the course of your build. Some builders don’t have the means, dedication, or knowledge to start their first build until twice your age, and here you are already planning to build a -10!

Much congratulations, and tip of the hat to you, sir!

BTW, time to update the VAF thread with the latest vinyl wrapping!
Click to expand...
Thanks Brian! I'll try and update that thread when she is all finished up. Haven't done anything to the wings yet. lol
 
Jim_R said:
Folks address that similarly to how they do it for flying at night, or over rough terrain, or in calm winds on a clear day around the patch. All flying involves risk, and by taking off you accept it. If you don't like the risks, you don't take off.
Click to expand...

Yep, many crashes end in death, if they survive they are so beat up in critical condition it’s years long recovery, if 100% is even possible, then the few cases where pilots walk away with a few bumps and bruises.
 
Every time someone mentions their "personal minimums" there always a few posters that go on about "how if you can't fly to plate minimums, you're not worth your salt" and "why even bother having the ticket?" or some other slam on a guy or gal who sets their comfort level somewhere above what others might do.

I'm going to take the contrary side on this.

I get it. Mins are on the plate, and you demonstrated being able to fly there during your check ride. That doesn't mean that is what you should be doing every flight though.

Speaking as a GA pilot, we lament the poor accident rate for GA flying, and wring our hands and ask "how can we make this safer?"

But, when someone even dares mention some ways to perhaps make flying safer by mitigating risk, there's always a group of pilots who burst through the FBO saloon doors, with their thumbs hooked in their belt loops, swagger in and proclaim "you're not a real pilot if you... can't fly down to mins... take off 0/0... land in a crosswind greater than demonstrated..." You name it.

In my opinion, that isn't a good attitude to have.

We want the GA accident rate to fall. We look at the Part 121 world and see an excellent accident rate, but we fail to adopt thing the 121 world does to make things safer. Yes, the equipment is better (typically), but there are other things that we could adopt that might improve safety.

Things like "personal minimums." Take a look at 121.652. The FARs tell you that unless you have 100 hours PIC (in 121 ops) in type, you have to raise your minimums by 100 & 1/2. That's for a pilot who presumably has thousands of hours of flight experience. My first 757 checkout as Captain, I already had thousands of hours, and most of that as PIC in heavy jets in the military. None of that mattered. I still was limited to 300-1. Did I take that as an affront to my piloting ability? Did I loudly proclaim that I just had a checkride and hand-flew a single engine ILS to minimums, so why are they restricting me to higher minimums? No. I understand its about risk mitigation.

The Air Force does the same thing. As a T-37 instructor, we had graduated minimums depending on how many hours you had in the plane. If I remember correctly, new instructors were limited to 500-2 until they had xxx amount of hours, then their mins were lowered to 300-1. That was the lowest we were allowed to go in the training command. /shrug/

In big airplane AF world, we would fill out an ORM (Operational Risk Management) worksheet before each flight. It took into account things like weather, crosswinds, crew experience, how long crewmembers have been awake before flight. Add all this up, and you get a number. If the number was too high, you either cancelled the sortie, or found a way to lower the risk until it got to an acceptable number.

These are things we can try to do in the GA world. AndI know many of us do. We evaluate ourselves and the threats (both internal and external) that we may encounter each time we go fly. That's what we should be doing.

We we need to limit is the toxic (to take a term from today's lexicon) attitude that if someone cancels a flight because the crosswinds are more than they are comfortable with (even though they're less than book minimums), or the weather is lower than their personal minimums (even though it's 1000-3), or whatever reason they have, they are a "less-than" pilot and need to be told that they should be able to do all the things, and if they can't they're not worthy of the plastic their certificate is printed on.

Just my opinion...
 
Sluggo has it exactly right.

I have flown exactly one approach to "Plate minimums". I had a qualified and current pilot in the other seat. I was completely comfortable with the approach, but the ceiling was falling steadily, but we had a good alternant, JFK was only a few miles away, and had much higher ceilings. 15 minutes after we landed, clouds were at 10 feet.

BUT we had flight planned to much higher clouds, and would not have departed if the forecast had not included rising ceilings. Either one of us was capable of flying that approach, and I did fly it. Neither one of us would have intentionally flight planned to an airport with those conditions.

On the other hand, either of us would have descended to the minimum, and done the missed, if the ceiling was below, then flown to an airport with better weather. Keeping current, without cheating gives that confidence.

Having the reconfirmed skill to do an approach to mins is for confidence while flying an approach. Filing to such a prediction is simply gambling on what may be existing at the alternant. Having experienced ceilings more than a thousand feet below predictions, and unexpected ground fog several times, I prefer my own margin, adjusted to my own guess of the accuracy of the weather forecast. My minimums also vary according to how I interpret my own condition to be on the day of flight. We are never quite 100%, and no outsider can see what we are feeling today.

Again, thank you Sluggo, for the right call on personal minimums.
 
I think it should be stated that there seem to be at least two different types of personal minimums being discussed here…what the OP and others seem to be describing are personal minimums related to forecasts… “I’m good to fly to charted minimums, but I won’t fly if the forecast is below X because the forecast might be wrong.”

The other type, as described at least by Sluggo, is minimum ceiling/visibility above charted minimums below which one will not fly under any circumstances (barring a bona fide emergency.)

I don’t have a problem with either one (and either one can applied to VFR or IFR operations), but I got the impression that the OP didn’t really understand what his personal minimums were all about before the flight he described, and I’m not really sure what he meant by “push[ing] them”, which has always been used in a negative connotation when I’ve seen or heard it in the past.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Every time someone mentions their "personal minimums" there always a few posters that go on about "how if you can't fly to plate minimums, you're not worth your salt" and "why even bother having the ticket?" or some other slam on a guy or gal who sets their comfort level somewhere above what others might do.

I'm going to take the contrary side on this.

I get it. Mins are on the plate, and you demonstrated being able to fly there during your check ride. That doesn't mean that is what you should be doing every flight though.

Speaking as a GA pilot, we lament the poor accident rate for GA flying, and wring our hands and ask "how can we make this safer?"

But, when someone even dares mention some ways to perhaps make flying safer by mitigating risk, there's always a group of pilots who burst through the FBO saloon doors, with their thumbs hooked in their belt loops, swagger in and proclaim "you're not a real pilot if you... can't fly down to mins... take off 0/0... land in a crosswind greater than demonstrated..." You name it.

In my opinion, that isn't a good attitude to have.

We want the GA accident rate to fall. We look at the Part 121 world and see an excellent accident rate, but we fail to adopt thing the 121 world does to make things safer. Yes, the equipment is better (typically), but there are other things that we could adopt that might improve safety.

Things like "personal minimums." Take a look at 121.652. The FARs tell you that unless you have 100 hours PIC (in 121 ops) in type, you have to raise your minimums by 100 & 1/2. That's for a pilot who presumably has thousands of hours of flight experience. My first 757 checkout as Captain, I already had thousands of hours, and most of that as PIC in heavy jets in the military. None of that mattered. I still was limited to 300-1. Did I take that as an affront to my piloting ability? Did I loudly proclaim that I just had a checkride and hand-flew a single engine ILS to minimums, so why are they restricting me to higher minimums? No. I understand its about risk mitigation.

The Air Force does the same thing. As a T-37 instructor, we had graduated minimums depending on how many hours you had in the plane. If I remember correctly, new instructors were limited to 500-2 until they had xxx amount of hours, then their mins were lowered to 300-1. That was the lowest we were allowed to go in the training command. /shrug/

In big airplane AF world, we would fill out an ORM (Operational Risk Management) worksheet before each flight. It took into account things like weather, crosswinds, crew experience, how long crewmembers have been awake before flight. Add all this up, and you get a number. If the number was too high, you either cancelled the sortie, or found a way to lower the risk until it got to an acceptable number.

These are things we can try to do in the GA world. AndI know many of us do. We evaluate ourselves and the threats (both internal and external) that we may encounter each time we go fly. That's what we should be doing.

We we need to limit is the toxic (to take a term from today's lexicon) attitude that if someone cancels a flight because the crosswinds are more than they are comfortable with (even though they're less than book minimums), or the weather is lower than their personal minimums (even though it's 1000-3), or whatever reason they have, they are a "less-than" pilot and need to be told that they should be able to do all the things, and if they can't they're not worthy of the plastic their certificate is printed on.

Just my opinion...
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
If any of that is directed at me, that's fine. I don't disparage others for their risk threshold. If that's what I did above, it wasn't intended that way. For me, my minimums are on the chart. My wind maximums are 30 knot gusts. I canceled yesterday because the home drome was gusting in the 30s and it was a direct crosswind. No thanks. I love the challenge of instrument flying and that's how I approach it. To each their own.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think it should be stated that there seem to be at least two different types of personal minimums being discussed here…what the OP and others seem to be describing are personal minimums related to forecasts… “I’m good to fly to charted minimums, but I won’t fly if the forecast is below X because the forecast might be wrong.”

The other type, as described at least by Sluggo, is minimum ceiling/visibility above charted minimums below which one will not fly under any circumstances (barring a bona fide emergency.)

I don’t have a problem with either one (and either one can applied to VFR or IFR operations), but I got the impression that the OP didn’t really understand what his personal minimums were all about before the flight he described, and I’m not really sure what he meant by “push[ing] them”, which has always been used in a negative connotation when I’ve seen or heard it in the past.
Click to expand...


Well sort of... Let me clarify

Part of my original post was to point out that yes I wasn't aware weather reports were that far off on a routine basis so that is a reason to have some form of personal mins. Remember as VFR pilots going into the IFR world we don't really ever get to confirm weather reporting like IFR pilots. But more importantly why I decided to engage with the flight is that yes I do believe a newly minted IFR pilot should have minimums (higher than what the plate says) for a few others reasons, one being the fact most of us fly singles sometimes over not great terrain, illusions in the clouds are a very real powerful thing that simply doesn't really exist while flying with foggles (and one doesn't always get the chance to experience it before the rating is complete), and a new IFR pilot (myself included) doesn't know everything. Therefore, I wisely chose to fly this day with my CFII to lower/push my personal mins by increasing my comfort level with flying in those conditions. In the end the approach down to mins was not the big deal that I thought but not everyone is the same and neither is their equipment.
 
I'm adding 200 feet to forecast mins - IR for a long time, but just got recurrent after a couple years off. Single pilot IFR without an AP, or at least a wing leveler, is hard work. Until we get our AP fixed, my confidence needs the room. Two-three hours hand flying in the clag, even if it's a smooth ride in stratus is tough. I doubt I'd go missed 200 above the published mins, though, unless I was already fairly far off the GS/course. Looking forward to recapturing the confidence to think it's no big deal.
 
having personal minimums and using them for either a "I wont go if its below this, or i will divert if it is below this" is a personal choice. however, every practice approach in VMC should be right to minimums. train for the worst and aim for the highest skill level pays off in the end. i believe that every pilot should be trained to fly their aircraft to edges of the envelop. the best method of flying is plan to avoid the edges, but be trained and skilled in case you end up their anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top