Any tools for helping me set personal IFR minimums?

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Getting ready for my IFR practical...wondering...

Are there any guides out there for helping me translate my experience into personal minimums? I have found many blank checklists, but nothing that helps me decide.

For a new IFR pilot, what's reasonable? Any resources out there I'm missing to help me set my own minimums...something other than..."what am I comfortable with".
 
You have to set your own personal minimums,after you get the rating,you have to fly what you are comfortable with.
 
I started with doubling the minimums. Say the approach I chose was 2 miles and 700 feet, I would double it. Wasn't long before I was comfortable with most minimums.

I still don't like 1/2 mile vis due to snow.
 
I dunno, but as you said, what you're comfortable with. Maybe 1000' ceiling and 3 miles visability to start then lower as you gain confidence.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe in arbitrarily setting hard number that can be used in every scnerio. That is a sliding scale based on experience and currency and a LOT of factors in a comprehensive go/no go decision. If you do your IFR training in hard IMC, you may very well be proficient to minimums...at night...with a quartering tailwind....or you may not get any actual and wanna have a much larger buffer.

For example where I live a 700' ceiling breaking out of the Marine Layer means it can be clear as day below with 10+SM visibility...however 700' ceiling a rainy, misty, stormy, limited vis scenario is a whole different ballgame.

Not sure anyone other than you and your CFI based on his recommendation and your comfort and proficiency level can answer that question.
 
Last edited:
That would be the "personal" part ;)

How much IMC time did you get, what made you just feel comfortable, add a little to that.
 
My general rule of thumb, unless it is going to be less than 5-10 minutes in the clouds I won't do single pilot IFR, the 2nd pilot might be an autopilot I trust.
Commercial pilots are not allowed to do strictly single pilot IFR (auto pilot or co-pilot required), there is little reason for me to try to do better than them.
I have limited opportunities to shoot actual approaches, but I like the double (or more) the minimums idea, for single pilot operations.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Agree completely with Shawn. I will add that if you have had a decent amount of experience in actual during training, you may very well be the most instrument capable of your entire flying career in the first weeks after the checkride, unless you become a freight dog or take some other flying job that requires you to do a lot of hard IFR flying. There is not necessarily a need to impose vis/ceiling minimums on yourself during that time because the regulatory minimums may be perfectly adequate for you. You might be better advised to focus on developing minimums that address your own personal limitations, which might be e.g. limiting length of time hand flying in IMC, or in areas pertaining to uncertainties about convective development or icing potential... again, depending on how comfortable and proficient you are at interpreting weather charts and other wx-related tools. As time goes on, depending on how much IMC experience you continue to get in your personal flying, you might feel the need to add a buffer to the charted minimums as your skills start to get a little rusty.

But these are all highly variable, personal considerations that are best undertaken with the help of a trusted CFII and your own best, absolutely honest self-assessment.
 
brcase said:
My general rule of thumb, unless it is going to be less than 5-10 minutes in the clouds I won't do single pilot IFR, the 2nd pilot might be an autopilot I trust.
Commercial pilots are not allowed to do strictly single pilot IFR (auto pilot or co-pilot required), there is little reason for me to try to do better than them.
I have limited opportunities to shoot actual approaches, but I like the double (or more) the minimums idea, for single pilot operations.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Don't agree. What did you get an instrument rating for? If you fly enough IMC to where you're proficient why double minimums just because you don't have an AP? Most instrument approaches break out higher than minimums anyway but what would you do if you're already airborne, AP fails, and now the field is near or at minimums, and all other airports in range of your plane are similar conditions? It'll happen one day.

I understand if you're not proficient in IMC or just plain not comfortable. But it appears you're relying on the AP too much.
 
I've never understood the whole "personal minimums" concept as it applies to approach minimums. If you can't fly precisely enough to get to minimums, you shouldn't be flying the approach to start with.

When a PIC has limited time in make & model or type under Part 135 or 121, we have to add 100 & 1/2 to the published minimums. But it's temporary; the goal is to achieve the time requirement to fly approaches to minimums. Most IFR personal minimums I've seen don't have a goal of getting to the stage where personal minimums match approach minimums, much less a plan for getting there, and the end result is decreasing proficiency.

Yeah, sometimes you want to "guarantee" getting there. The cost of going for an airplane ride instead of making the meeting is high enough that you don't want to mess with weather right "at minimums". I get that. I've made those decisions. But as the OP inferred, the process of developing personal minimums really doesn't have any science behind it. It's just a "feel good" placebo.

Edit: I do see some value in the Cirrus calculator...not so much in w"what are safe minimums", but as an indicator of how much effort it takes to stay proficient.
 
Last edited:
Always have an out and a plan B. Those are my minimums. Low ceilings aren't that much of a concern to me, but widespread low ceilings are. Also, thickness of the layer plays more of a part in my decision making that actual cloud heights do.
 
mscard88 said:
Don't agree. What did you get an instrument rating for? If you fly enough IMC to where you're proficient why double minimums just because you don't have an AP? Most instrument approaches break out higher than minimums anyway but what would you do if you're already airborne, AP fails, and now the field is near or at minimums, and all other airports in range of your plane are similar conditions? It'll happen one day.

I understand if you're not proficient in IMC or just plain not comfortable. But it appears you're relying on the AP too much.
Click to expand...

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. You may have personal dispatch minimums like an auto-pilot or near-VFR, but in the air your minimums better be what's printed on the plate otherwise you need more practice.
 
Cooter said:
Always have an out and a plan B. Those are my minimums. Low ceilings aren't that much of a concern to me, but widespread low ceilings are. Also, thickness of the layer plays more of a part in my decision making that actual cloud heights do.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

As long as I'm current I would attempt any approach where it meets published minimums.

I have even tried an approach that was below mins (just for a look) and went missed but I wouldn't do that again. I did the right thing and went missed but it is way too tempting to try to get that extra 50 feet lower as you can almost see the airport. However I did that knowing the a MVFR airport 10 miles away and I had plenty of fuel to get there.

I would add extra to my mins if it was widespread IFR. I couldn't imagine launching where my only option was a 200 ft 1 mi ILS in the vicinity. But would have no problem doing it if I knew I could make it to another VFR or MVFR airport easily.

So I guess my mins are (assuming currency)-

-Published mins to attempt a approach
-Lowest published mins to launch if there are other easier alternates within my flyable distance
-Non-precision mins if widespread IFR (ie. 800 ft and 2 miles)

I don't find flying to published mins any harder than flying to 800ft then clear. Still same procedures, just maybe 30 more seconds riding the glide slope.

I never understood people preaching personal mins for IFR flight. I feel you are either ok to fly IFR or you are not. If you are not brush up with a CFI until you are and don't fly IFR at all until you feel you are proficient. It is way too tempting to lower those mins on an as needed basis.

Lets say your destination is forecasting 1,000ft OVC at your ETA. You decide to fly as your personal mins are 800ft because you are legal but haven't flown a approach in a good 5 months. You fly 200 miles above the cloud deck to get there, tune in the ATIS to hear it is now 600 OVC. The ILS can get you down to 200ft no problem. Are you really going to fly back to your home airport that is still VFR? Odds are very good you will violate your personal mins and go for the approach. At that point what good are the minimums you you don't adhere to? Instead of mins maybe a refresher flight with a safety pilot or CFII would have made that flight safer.
 
Last edited:
Indeed so. A week after my IFR checkride I launched into conditions that ended up being worse (as in, lower ceilings) than they were when I launched, or were forecast. At my destination I was offered a LOC BC by ATC that I suspected would have required me to miss, so I asked for an LPV, and got in. With the LPV it was not even close, but the LOC BC would not have done the job. But the only minimums I was concerned with were the minimums on the chart; I knew at that point that I was quite capable of flying to legal minimums on any approach I was equipped to fly.

Where it gets dicey, IMO, is when someone is months or years past the checkride and is legally current, but isn't really instrument proficient. In that case it might be a good idea to impose personal minimums that are significantly higher than the charted ones. And I agree: in that case, I would want to be HIGHLY confident that I was not going to have to shoot an approach to minimums before launching into IFR conditions. But an even better option would be to grab a trusted CFII and launch into the kinds of conditions you aren't sure you could handle - even do an IPC even if you don't need it by the regs - and get back your proficiency and confidence before flying serious IFR again.

Adding a buffer to the charted minimums should only be a temporary stopgap until one is again proficient to fly to the charted minimums. And unless you have essentially no experience in actual during training, it shouldn't be necessary right after the checkride.
 
Flying IFR in VMC ,
Flying IFR in IMC where the MVA is VFR,
Flying in conditions where you can climb to clear on top,
Flying approaches with weather higher than minimums,
Flying in IMC with VFR conditions at the alternate,
Avoiding night IMC,
Avoiding mountain IMC,
Avoiding IMC in temperatures below 40F
Are all possible flying conditions that are "easier" than the classic take off, enter clouds, fly in clouds to destination and fly an approach to minimums and go missed.
Having said that, a pilot can't exactly "order up" the weather conditions he wants. Have to take what you can get.

What bothered me the most were obstacles (usually antennas or mountains) nearby sticking above the minimums, turbulence and ICE. Those and miscommunication with ATC. Have to decide for yourself.
 
Last edited:
How low do you want to be when you break out of the clouds after an engine failure? What are the odds of picking a suitable place to land after breaking out at 200 ft, 500 ft or 1000 ft? Go fly with a safety pilot and have him pull the engine on you, leave the hood on until your minimum altitude and see if you can comfortably find a place to land and maneuver for the landing. Whatever altitude feels comfortable, that is your minimum.

I have thousands of hours in all sorts of airplanes, have had an instrument rating for over 30 years. My personal minimums in my single engine Grumman Tiger are 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles visibility. And I will only fly in that weather if it is local in nature. I do not fly in IFR weather at night in single engine airplanes.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've never understood the whole "personal minimums" concept as it applies to approach minimums. If you can't fly precisely enough to get to minimums, you shouldn't be flying the approach to start with.

When a PIC has limited time in make & model or type under Part 135 or 121, we have to add 100 & 1/2 to the published minimums. But it's temporary; the goal is to achieve the time requirement to fly approaches to minimums. Most IFR personal minimums I've seen don't have a goal of getting to the stage where personal minimums match approach minimums, much less a plan for getting there, and the end result is decreasing proficiency.

Yeah, sometimes you want to "guarantee" getting there. The cost of going for an airplane ride instead of making the meeting is high enough that you don't want to mess with weather right "at minimums". I get that. I've made those decisions. But as the OP inferred, the process of developing personal minimums really doesn't have any science behind it. It's just a "feel good" placebo.

Edit: I do see some value in the Cirrus calculator...not so much in w"what are safe minimums", but as an indicator of how much effort it takes to stay proficient.
Click to expand...
+1. Couldn’t agree more. If I’m not comfortable shooting an approach down to minimums then I need more training.
 
TigerGene said:
How low do you want to be when you break out of the clouds after an engine failure? What are the odds of picking a suitable place to land after breaking out at 200 ft, 500 ft or 1000 ft? Go fly with a safety pilot and have him pull the engine on you, leave the hood on until your minimum altitude and see if you can comfortably find a place to land and maneuver for the landing. Whatever altitude feels comfortable, that is your minimum.

I have thousands of hours in all sorts of airplanes, have had an instrument rating for over 30 years. My personal minimums in my single engine Grumman Tiger are 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles visibility. And I will only fly in that weather if it is local in nature. I do not fly in IFR weather at night in single engine airplanes.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you're based in a sparsely populated area, your argument is a good one against flying at night even in VFR conditions in a single. Flying over the mountains in NH or VT, there is no way I could pick a safe landing spot at night, and in fact there are many areas where I could not do it even in broad daylight, simply because there aren't any safe landing spots unless you're within gliding distance of an airport.

I think most people who fly IFR are well aware that low ceilings make it very difficult to land out safely in case of engine failure. Everyone has to make their own decisions regarding how much risk they are willing to tolerate. That said, it's a perfectly valid "personal minimum" to not fly at all in a single, or to insist on turbo and altitude and flight plan airport to airport, making sure to always be within gliding distance of a runway. I wouldn't criticize anyone for being more or less risk averse than I am. Personally, I consider the added utility of IFR to be important enough that I tolerate (or maybe rationalize away) the small but nonzero risk of engine failure in the small fraction of my flying hours that are in low IFR conditions.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've never understood the whole "personal minimums" concept as it applies to approach minimums. If you can't fly precisely enough to get to minimums, you shouldn't be flying the approach to start with.
Click to expand...
Saw an accident analysis where a guy was trying an approach, and cut it off before he hit the MDA. He tried again, cut if off again. This screamed to me, "personal minimums". He didn't want to go that low. He went elsewhere, and still couldn't get in. Then he ran out of fuel, crashed, and died.

Had he gone down to the MDA he probably would have landed safely based on the wx at the time.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Getting ready for my IFR practical...wondering...

Are there any guides out there for helping me translate my experience into personal minimums? I have found many blank checklists, but nothing that helps me decide.

For a new IFR pilot, what's reasonable? Any resources out there I'm missing to help me set my own minimums...something other than..."what am I comfortable with".
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the Flight Risk Assessment Tools (FRAT) available from the FAA and various other places. They tend to be pretty limited but some reflect assessments by company flight departments. They reflect at least some organization's view of what factors increase and decrease the risk of a flight. If not directly applicable to you, they can at least help with the thought process of creating your own minimums or, for that matter, your own FRAT.

Don't bother paying much attention to the "you don't need no personal minimums; if you are unwilling to depart when the whether is 0/0, you are not a real pilot" contingent. After all, those are their personal minimums. These will be yours.

What's reasonable? That's up to you. My first IFR flight was one week after my checkride. 1.3 total; 1.0 actual; 0.8 night, over Long Island Sound. DA was 295; I broke out at 650. I thought nothing of it. It's 25 years later; my personal minimums are higher than that now.
 
I'd use the approach plate. The bigger question is why you don't feel comfortable flying to the standard to which one was trained. Recurrent training is the key. What's a couple of hours with a CFI verses watering down your instrument rating. The training can be done in a simulator as well as an aircraft.
 
I always take "personal minimums" to mean the adjustments to legal flight minimums to make your go/no-go decision, not adjustments to approach minimums. If you're on an approach, you can and should fly it to the charted minimums. But if you're on the ground, you should make a smart decision about whether to take off. That's where personal minimums come into play.

If you are flying VFR, you are legal at 3 miles of visibility but you probably want to stay on the ground unless the reported visibility is significantly greater than that. It's the same for IFR. You are legal to take off in 0/0 conditions. But you probably shouldn't do it.

Here's my approach: Be honest with myself about two things: (1) the magnitude of the calculated risks I am taking by flying and (2) the possible magnitude of the risks that I don't know how to calculate yet.

For example, today the ceiling is 1000 and the layer is not thick, but the Skew-T/Log-P shows a temperature of -0.2C in the clouds. I would probably not pick up much ice and it would probably melt off quickly once I got above the layer, where the temperature goes up significantly, but this is a risk that is currently in category #2 for me and I don't have any compelling reason to experiment with icing today, so I'm at my office posting on POA instead.
 
Personal minimums should be for flight planning... WX changes, sometimes going against forecasts (duh..o_O), always, always stay profecient to fly the approached to published minimums.
 
Jeff Cutler said:
Personal minimums should be for flight planning... WX changes, sometimes going against forecasts (duh..o_O), always, always stay profecient to fly the approached to published minimums.
Click to expand...
I agree one should remain proficient. But there is a school of thought that personal minimums apply to the flight itself. Perhaps even more important to avoid getthereitis."Go/no go" is only one part of the equation. "Continue/divert" is the other. I’m not going to fly an approach through a thunderstorm just because I made an initial "go" decision.

"I am willing to go if the forecast is XXX" is one personal minimum. "I am willing to fly the approach if the ATIS when I get there is YYY" is another.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree one should remain proficient. But there is a school of thought that personal minimums apply to the flight itself. Perhaps even more important to avoid getthereitis."Go/no go" is only one part of the equation. "Continue/divert" is the other. I’m not going to fly an approach through a thunderstorm just because I made an initial "go" decision.

"I am willing to go if the forecast is XXX" is one personal minimum. "I am willing to fly the approach if the ATIS when I get there is YYY" is another.
Click to expand...
...and those are distinctly different from "I'm going to increase all minimums by X feet and y visibility."
 
Behind your eyes, and between your ears. . .

Nah, seriously, just what you find comfortable, then lower it a bit - you need to stretch some. Maybe think about your airplane and the specific weather challenge. A simple single is slow, and if it isn't turbulent, with nice stratus layers, maybe accept lower personal minimums. You ain't going too fast, or getting kicked around. Single pilot IFR without an autopilot is tiring, and if you don't do it a lot, it's hard work - I'd raise my minimums if the AP was out; not because I can't do it - I just don't want to. Icing possible, or imbedded cells, or turbulence? Destination may be above my personal minima, but I may not go anyway.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...and those are distinctly different from "I'm going to increase all minimums by X feet and y visibility."
Click to expand...
Both involve pilot decisions regarding acceptable conditions for flight. The "distinct difference" seems to be a view by some that certain conditions must be acceptable to everyone.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Both involve pilot decisions regarding acceptable conditions for flight. The "distinct difference" seems to be a view by some that certain conditions must be acceptable to everyone.
Click to expand...
I disagree...one involves acceptable flight conditions, which can encompass a lot of factors and can actually enhance safety. The other involves arbitrary adjustments to published procedures in the name of safety without any real benefit.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I disagree...one involves acceptable flight conditions, which can encompass a lot of factors and can actually enhance safety. The other involves arbitrary adjustments to published procedures in the name of safety without any real benefit.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll agree to disagree. You will argue that only certain personal minimums are "proper." I'm not religious.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess we'll agree to disagree. You will argue that only certain personal minimums are "proper." I'm not religious.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that if, for example, the Cirrus website above says add 250 feet to MDA, that "single" criteria is going to have more effect on the VOR/DME approach to Hutchinson, KS, than it will to the VOR/DME approach to Aspen, CO, and therefore really can't accomplish any specific purpose.

If you're going to adjust approach minimums, it should hav a specific safety goal in mind. For example, most of the people I work with raise the approach minimums at Aspen to the point of being able to see the runway at the FAF because abytybeyond that will require a circling maneuver in the valley rather than a straight-in landing.
 
I've never understood the whole concept of "personal minimums" for IFR. If you're not comfortable with published minimums, you need more training. That being said, I don't necessarily launch if I know my destination is going to be at minimums, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I feel "comfortable" at those minimums. The lower the forecast minimums, the greater the risk, regardless of how proficient you are. (Although, admittedly, the more proficient, the less the risk.) My go/no-go decision is based on risk vs reward. How comfortable I am flying to published minimums is a question to be asked when evaluating my proficiency. If I am not proficient enough to fly to published minimums, I'm not flying into IMC...period...cuz you never know what you're going to get.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What I'm saying is that if, for example, the Cirrus website above says add 250 feet to MDA, that "single" criteria is going to have more effect on the VOR/DME approach to Hutchinson, KS, than it will to the VOR/DME approach to Aspen, CO, and therefore really can't accomplish any specific purpose.

If you're going to adjust approach minimums, it should hav a specific safety goal in mind. For example, most of the people I work with raise the approach minimums at Aspen to the point of being able to see the runway at the FAF because abytybeyond that will require a circling maneuver in the valley rather than a straight-in landing.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misunderstood since I never suggested a uniform, universal number to be added to all approaches. I agree with you. An automatic doubling or adding x feet to every approach doesn't make sense, although it works as a starting point for run-of-the-mill conditions. In addition to your examples, a pilot might, for example, reasonably choose to add 200' to an APV with 200 AGL minimums, but be willing to fly a LNAV or other lateral-only approach with 800-1,000' minimums all the way down.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sorry, I misunderstood since I never suggested a uniform, universal number to be added to all approaches. I agree with you. An automatic doubling or adding x feet to every approach doesn't make sense, although it works as a starting point for run-of-the-mill conditions. In addition to your examples, a pilot might, for example, reasonably choose to add 200' to an APV with 200 AGL minimums, but be willing to fly a LNAV or other lateral-only approach with 800-1,000' minimums all the way down.
Click to expand...
And we still probably disagree. ;)

I don't think that merely raising minimums makes a procedure inherently safer...there needs to be another factor that makes the higher minimums safer, usually due to ease of transition from the instrument environment to the runway. In the Aspen example, the higher minimums are based on performance factors that take it from some pretty serious maneuvering below the clouds to a straight in landing. There are plenty of flat-country Nonprecision approaches that would have a visual segment in excess of 5 degrees if the runway was spotted from the MDA at the minimum visibility; increasing the visibility requirements as a "personal minimum" to match the MDA (for example, a 450' MDH would require a 1.5-mile visibility for 3 degrees), but I don't see an increased safety factor in raising the MDA another 200 feet.

Yes, I do have personal minimums based on other criteria...single engine IFR, for example, I decided I need to have a certain ceiling and visibility that's predicated on breaking out and landing after an engine failure, and of course that will increase the weather required for me to be on a particular approach, but my "approach minimums" are based on geometry, performance, and personal factors that allow me to clearly define the increase in safety.
 
Get time with a cfii in actual minimums and don't let them help with radios, etc. Make sure you have a good alternate with much better weather if your destination is close to minimums. Carry extra fueL too.
 
Rykymus said:
I've never understood the whole concept of "personal minimums" for IFR. If you're not comfortable with published minimums, you need more training. That being said, I don't necessarily launch if I know my destination is going to be at minimums, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I feel "comfortable" at those minimums. The lower the forecast minimums, the greater the risk, regardless of how proficient you are. (Although, admittedly, the more proficient, the less the risk.) My go/no-go decision is based on risk vs reward. How comfortable I am flying to published minimums is a question to be asked when evaluating my proficiency. If I am not proficient enough to fly to published minimums, I'm not flying into IMC...period...cuz you never know what you're going to get.
Click to expand...

You're using the term "personal minimums" too literally. What you've set for yourself are certainly personal minimums for flight in IMC.
 
If one is not comfortable flying to minimums due to their ability then they need more practice.

If I don't get enough approaches in traveling I go do them locally. My preference is to do them in IMC, because that's when I need to fly an approach. If the weather and my schedule doesn't allow for that, then I'll go do some with a safety pilot or CFII. I've done them in flight checks (new airplane or new club) and with a BFR. I find the CFI's like not spending "yet another hour plus in a VFR checkout" and the fact that a pilot that will fly IFR will spend the time to do some approaches with a different plane/panel.

If the weather gets low for that approach have a plan b and plan c. I love it when I can get the ceiling below the standard LNAV GPS approach, but above the ILS or LPV approach. Then I can shoot a GPS approach and have to go missed. It's great practice.
 
Philosophically "personal minimums" always kind of bothered me with high risk activities that require tip top performance. During training or when "new" or in unfamiliar territory some personal minimums make sense... like when you are doing solo XC during PPL course "I won't fly if winds are over 10 knots or 6 knots cross wind and visibility at least 10 miles with 6K ceilings" ... but once you are a licensed, err, certificated pilot you should be expected to perform to the standards that your license sets (PTS) and the standards your airplane and any approaches, flight regimes, etc., are expected to perform at. If an approach calls for a certain set of minimums you should be able to handle that

Unfortunately I don't think our hobby can afford "halfsies" type things.. it will ultimately make you a less safe pilot (which is ironic, because your desire was to be MORE safe)
steingar said:
Saw an accident analysis where a guy was trying an approach, and cut it off before he hit the MDA. He tried again, cut if off again. This screamed to me, "personal minimums". He didn't want to go that low. He went elsewhere, and still couldn't get in. Then he ran out of fuel, crashed, and died.

Had he gone down to the MDA he probably would have landed safely based on the wx at the time.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY

I am not advocating people launch into conditions that they feel are above their skill levels (but within standards they should be able to perform at)... what I am saying is that if you feel like you need "personal minimums" than you need more practice with a CFI/II

Exception (because there is always an exception): when taking someone (non pilot) up for the first time I have minimums for that, but that's not skill level based, that's more a comfort thing for pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top