IFR Minimums

[Terry]

How do you reconcile those two statements? Was the 300-1/2 executed before you adopted your personal mins?

Gismo,

The minimums was set after my 1st approach 300/1/2mile. Sorry for the confusion.

The more I thought about it the more conservative I got.

Now my IFR requirements have elapsed and I probably will not renew them.

I just happened to re-visit the POA board after being gone some time and saw this post had been resurrected.

I like the POA board format but can't handle all the nit-picking and arguing that goes on so I left the POA community some time ago.

Terry

 

[Ted]

I like the POA board format but can't handle all the nit-picking and arguing that goes on so I left the POA community some time ago.

Terry

I was reiewing an old thread of mine from 5 years back that Jesse reminded me of, and read the responses. I have to say, things are much more civil now than even a few months ago. We still have a ways to go, though.

 

[Terry]

Ted,
Thanks for the encouraging words.

I just recently met a "pilot buddy" and both of us have retired. We have agreed to fly next year and share the costs.

I want to try and cover the middle of the U.S. in 2013 for my map below my signature.

My buddy is more experienced than I am, having a multi, and commercial ratings. Both of us are IFR rated.

Anyway, I was telling him about POA and will be sending him a link in a few minutes.

Maybe I will try POA one more time as I really do like the board. I understand it is not all POA's fault but what I needed to do for myself.

Thanks,
Terry

 

[Jaybird180]

When you are flying your training approaches under the hood in VFR or even solid IFR you have something different than after you get your ticket. You have a CFII sitting right next to you able to pull you out of the fire if things go South.

Even if he never has to do that the knowledge that he (or she) is right there changes the dynamics in the cockpit. You have a backstop. When you get your ticket that guy (or gal) goes away. Now it's you and it changes EVERYTHING. You feel different. Your brain is more over loaded. Now you are double, tripple and quadruple checking everything making sure you didn't overlook anything.

Trust all of us. Setting higher personal mins to start is a prudent thing to do until your nerves settle and you find your own groove.

I guess its the CFII equivalent of liquid courage. Not a drinker personally but I understand the concept.

 

[Everskyward]

I guess its the CFII equivalent of liquid courage. Not a drinker personally but I understand the concept.

Right. Working without a net is entirely different.

 

[Ted]

Right. Working without a net is entirely different.

I'm working on my book (which will probably never get published), and just rote the chapter on my first solo flight in hard IMC (coincidentally, 6Y9). It felt worlds different than when I'd done the exact same thing with my CFII sititng next to me.

 

[DrMack]

Here's a different perspective perhaps: Personal minimums are a moving target. Published minimums are not. My first experience as sole pilot in solid IMC was absolute magic. I was tuned up and my airplane was tuned up. Everything went perfectly as designed. It so impressed me that I vowed never file VFR cross-country ever again, even in CAVU, and that's the way I fly now, every trip. I do it because it has kept me proficient, so if I do encounter IMC there are no surprises.

I like to avoid hard IMC but anything above 1000' ceilings and 3 mi vis doesn't even get a second thought in my planning anymore. There are three WX phenomena though that I absolutely will not tangle with at all costs: fog, thunderstorms and icing. All three of those are hard no-go for me.

When ceilings and vis are forecast below 1000/3 then my launch decision just gets more critical. If everything is not lined up perfectly (IMSAFE), I don't go. But I'm in agreement with those who suggest that every instrument rated pilot should always be prepared to fly down to published minimums without getting too rattled by the thought. When flying into conditions where the destination forecast may be 1000 or more I always think to myself before take-off that today may require an approach to published minimums and am I prepared to do that? If not, then even a 1000' forecast becomes my personal minimum that day.

 

[gismo]

Right. Working without a net is entirely different.

Funny, I never felt that way. Towards the end of my training (most of which was with the DPE who gave the checkride) I was too concerned about him catching me in a mistake to appreciate the net. And while I did make my first couple iFR flights in fairly benign wx it wasn't long before I was dodging TRW and watching for approach lights to appear out of the clag. OTOH, I did make my first barely doable ILS with a very experienced copilot sitting next to me who happens to be my next door neighbor and I do suspect that having him there was comforting to say the least.

 

[bob_albertson]

Hi All:

I want to "push the envelope" here.

I am currently working on my IFR ticket with a 92% written test and 22 hours of dual IFR training.

I practice flying the approaches to minimums every time I do the approach.

So, when I get my IFR ticket what is wrong with flying the approaches to minimums at airports I am familar with?

Why did we get to a point of deciding to set "personal minimums"?

Don't get me wrong.....I am not trying to argue or start a fight....It is that we are either on the approach or we are not. It would appear to me that the more IFR you fly the better one would be at approaches to minimum standards.

It would also appear to me that if you can't fly the approach to minimums you shouldn't be flying IFR.

I have about 20 more hours left to have the requirements in for IFR. I am taking this "extra" step to make me a better pilot but mainly so clouds and weather for the most part won't keep me grounded.

If the weather is overcast to minimums with NO turbelence, lightning, or anything, I want to know I can handle the minimums and go on in....right to the runway....minimums....otherwise I'll stay home and fly VFR.

Terry

Opinions and comments are welcome....well sort of....
"Hey, what is that mountain goat doing up here on that mountain?"
Far Side

You could start by applying exemption 3585, CL55, or exemption 10184, all of which are extremely fun and add to all of the confusion of the IFR system

 

[aterpster]

You could start by applying exemption 3585, CL55, or exemption 10184, all of which are extremely fun and add to all of the confusion of the IFR system

Could you explain those for us, Bob?

 

[Jaybird180]

Here's a different perspective perhaps: Personal minimums are a moving target. Published minimums are not. My first experience as sole pilot in solid IMC was absolute magic. I was tuned up and my airplane was tuned up. Everything went perfectly as designed. It so impressed me that I vowed never file VFR cross-country ever again, even in CAVU, and that's the way I fly now, every trip. I do it because it has kept me proficient, so if I do encounter IMC there are no surprises.

I like to avoid hard IMC but anything above 1000' ceilings and 3 mi vis doesn't even get a second thought in my planning anymore. There are three WX phenomena though that I absolutely will not tangle with at all costs: fog, thunderstorms and icing. All three of those are hard no-go for me.

When ceilings and vis are forecast below 1000/3 then my launch decision just gets more critical. If everything is not lined up perfectly (IMSAFE), I don't go. But I'm in agreement with those who suggest that every instrument rated pilot should always be prepared to fly down to published minimums without getting too rattled by the thought. When flying into conditions where the destination forecast may be 1000 or more I always think to myself before take-off that today may require an approach to published minimums and am I prepared to do that? If not, then even a 1000' forecast becomes my personal minimum that day.

There are some pearls here and while I fish them out, a question: what do you base icing and tstorms? Silly question? I'm thinking that those 2 items can vary depending upon the source and I've heard them oftem referred to in terms of potential rather than yes or no. How then to judge?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Many people solo VFR with less than 10 hours of dual. IFR pilots must be formally tested for the IFR rating after no less than 40 hours of dual before going solo, which tells a lot about levels of skill required, not to mention currency and perishability of those IFR skills as relates to minimums, both personal and published.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There are some pearls here and while I fish them out, a question: what do you base icing and tstorms? Silly question? I'm thinking that those 2 items can vary depending upon the source and I've heard them oftem referred to in terms of potential rather than yes or no. How then to judge?

I think that thunderstorms and ice fit more in with your general feeling about the flight, because unlike things like ceiling and visibility, there aren't really hard-and-fast numbers associated with them. I tend to do this with all aspects of weather rather than having simple hard rules as personal minimums: For example, I'm fine with going IFR when ceilings and/or visibility are down to minimums. I'm fine flying with a 35-knot gusting crosswind. However, ceiling at 300 feet, 3/4 mile visibility, AND a 35-knot wind? Nuh-uh, that doesn't sound fun or safe to me any more.

With ice, there are several sources of forecast information that often conflict with each other, and a lot depends on what the outs are. 50% chance of ice but a cloud layer only 500 feet thick starting at 3000 AGL and surface temps >40? I'll probably take a look. 25% chance of ice but a layer starting at 300 AGL and extending up to 20,000 with a surface temp of 33? No freakin' way.

Same kind of thing with T-storms, though in this case equipment on the plane plays a role, too - If you don't have radar and/or datalink and you're going to encounter an area with a significant chance of T-storms 4 hours after takeoff, if you can't maintain visual separation you could get into big trouble. If you do have onboard weather, you can monitor the situation and make better decisions later in the process.

Obviously there are a lot of grayer areas, but that's where experience, knowledge, and your personal comfort factor play a role. As with many other areas of flying, don't bite off more than you can chew while extending your personal envelope, learn as much as you can about the situations whether you fly or not that day, and you'll do fine.

 

[douglas393]

Many people solo VFR with less than 10 hours of dual. IFR pilots must be formally tested for the IFR rating after no less than 40 hours of dual before going solo, which tells a lot about levels of skill required, not to mention currency and perishability of those IFR skills as relates to minimums, both personal and published.

I agree with everything you say but it took me longer to solo than it took me to get my IFR. Why? I think when I took my PPL I started with no flying skills what so ever, and built it starting with the foundation. I am also an older student and am told it takes longer to learn. However with IFR, I already had a solid foundation to build on and for me IFR was just using the skills I already had and applying them to a different situation than I had in VMC flight.

That being said, the first time I went into true IMC it was a real eye opener. Before this I knew but did not understand how getting into inadvertant IMC can be fatal. After this I truly understood it. It makes me wonder if some initial PPL training should include penetrating a cloud so it can be experienced and hopefully make enough of an impression to possible keep a VFR pilot from underestimating how truly disorienting it can be.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I agree with everything you say but it took me longer to solo than it took me to get my IFR. Why? I think when I took my PPL I started with no flying skills what so ever, and built it starting with the foundation. I am also an older student and am told it takes longer to learn. However with IFR, I already had a solid foundation to build on and for me IFR was just using the skills I already had and applying them to a different situation than I had in VMC flight.

That being said, the first time I went into true IMC it was a real eye opener. Before this I knew but did not understand how getting into inadvertant IMC can be fatal. After this I truly understood it. It makes me wonder if some initial PPL training should include penetrating a cloud so it can be experienced and hopefully make enough of an impression to possible keep a VFR pilot from underestimating how truly disorienting it can be.

I gave the low number as an ideal case at a rural airport with no radio work. Most people take much longer and it's no big deal in the faster paced more crowded modern age airspace, probably safer too. But the short time option is still there and theoretically attainable even now days but, the IFR is demanding enough to require the 40 hour minimum by the FAA.

I vaguely recall a combination VFR/IFR flight training program run as a trial test years ago, and I don't even know if it is an option these days. It probably reduced the total average time invested.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't want to be a nit-picker. But.... Dave, please read your statement again about 40 hours of dual for the IR. Then read the regs. I don't think they agree unless the 40 hours you refer to is for both the PPL and the IR.

I'm in full agreement that instrument proficiency requires a significant amount of instruction and practice, and one has to work to stay proficient.

 

[DrMack]

There are some pearls here and while I fish them out, a question: what do you base icing and tstorms? Silly question? I'm thinking that those 2 items can vary depending upon the source and I've heard them oftem referred to in terms of potential rather than yes or no. How then to judge?

I'm learning how to use soundings (skewTlogP) to help me understand current and forecast conditions along my routes. Isolated TS activity is not much of a concern but lines and large areas of instability get my utmost respect. For icing forecasts I look for cloud layer thickness as well as temperature as key indicators, both of which can be estimated using skewTlogP charts. Cloud tops can be further refined using infrared satellite data combined with soundings.

My personal rule of thumb for TS is no go through long lines or when large areas are affected. Dry lines get a wide berth because they can break down so quickly and with extreme violence.

Icing is not a major problem here in Texas but it does occur and maybe because we don't see it much I am perhaps overly cautious about it. Maybe I wouldn't be so gun shy about it if I would spend more time flying up north in the winter. But hey, with destinations like Mustang Island in our neighborhood, why would I want to spend any time in places like Iowa during the winter?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I don't want to be a nit-picker. But.... Dave, please read your statement again about 40 hours of dual for the IR. Then read the regs. I don't think they agree unless the 40 hours you refer to is for both the PPL and the IR.

I'm in full agreement that instrument proficiency requires a significant amount of instruction and practice, and one has to work to stay proficient.

40 hours of sim or actual towards the IFR rating, right? And both must be dual to log?

 

[TMetzinger]

sim inst with a safety pilot??

I believe of the 40 hours, only 20 must be dual, but I don't have my FAR handy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jaybird180]

sim inst with a safety pilot??

I believe of the 40 hours, only 20 must be dual, but I don't have my FAR handy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Quoting from memory (might be dangerous) its 15hrs dual.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

sim inst with a safety pilot??

I believe of the 40 hours, only 20 must be dual, but I don't have my FAR handy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

You're probably right, damn regs.

So that will boil down to how total many hours dual simulator and/or dual in-flight sim/actual, before being able to take the checkride (itself mostly under the hood or actual) and upon passing, finally be legal to fly solo IFR?

 

[Jaybird180]

61.65 c2

"(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:"

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

61.65 c2

"(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:"

So including check-ride a minimum of over 40 hours total flying/sim with SOMEBODY else on board &/or watching before the IFR newbie is even allowed to fly IFR solo, as opposed to no lower limit of hours to solo VFR.

Says alot about degree of difficulty regarding safety.

 

[Jaybird180]

I don't think it includes the checkride, though I could be wrong. The DPE is required to verify the applicant meets all requirement before administering examination. Someone on this board had it happen and had to log IIRC 0.7hrs, then return to test.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't think it includes the checkride, though I could be wrong. The DPE is required to verify the applicant meets all requirement before administering examination. Someone on this board had it happen and had to log IIRC 0.7hrs, then return to test.

Exactly. You have to meet the mins in order to take the checkride.

 

[Henning]

Hi All:

I want to "push the envelope" here.

I am currently working on my IFR ticket with a 92% written test and 22 hours of dual IFR training.

I practice flying the approaches to minimums every time I do the approach.

So, when I get my IFR ticket what is wrong with flying the approaches to minimums at airports I am familar with?

Why did we get to a point of deciding to set "personal minimums"?

Don't get me wrong.....I am not trying to argue or start a fight....It is that we are either on the approach or we are not. It would appear to me that the more IFR you fly the better one would be at approaches to minimum standards.

It would also appear to me that if you can't fly the approach to minimums you shouldn't be flying IFR.

My feelings exactly, my 'personal minimums' are published minimums and have been since day one, in fact I was probably safer then than now with them.

 

[Henning]

I don't think it includes the checkride, though I could be wrong. The DPE is required to verify the applicant meets all requirement before administering examination. Someone on this board had it happen and had to log IIRC 0.7hrs, then return to test.

I had to do a lap in the pattern for .1 while the DE had a coffee to make the 40 for my PP.

 

[gismo]

My feelings exactly, my 'personal minimums' are published minimums and have been since day one, in fact I was probably safer then than now with them.

Besides, flying an approach to the published minimums while remaining acceptably close to the approach course hasn't killed many pilots AFaIK. Going below the mins deliberately or accidentally is the thing to avoid and I'd expect any IR pilot flying an approach to be able to perform a missed approach if things weren't going well. I'd like to hear how those who believe in PMs think that setting higher mins makes them safer. I can see how this might make them more comfortable but not safer.

 

[Everskyward]

Most of us don't fault VFR pilots for turning around when the weather is still legally VFR but they are becoming uncomfortable. Why should it be any different for IFR pilots? That's not to say that you shouldn't be capable of shooting approaches to minimums, but what reason is there to try when someone is uncomfortable with it? That seems like looking for trouble which could be avoided.

 

[Henning]

Most of us don't fault VFR pilots for turning around when the weather is still legally VFR but they are becoming uncomfortable. Why should it be any different for IFR pilots? That's not to say that you shouldn't be capable of shooting approaches to minimums, but what reason is there to try when someone is uncomfortable with it? That seems like looking for trouble which could be avoided.

Depends on what the IFR pilot is uncomfortable with, thunderstorms and ice? Yep, bail. Stable IFR reporting legal minimums, then the IFR pilot should not be getting uncomfortable. The fact they are uncomfortable indicates they are lacking training or experience and rather than reduce their options they should rather get their ability up to speed. This is where the great SVT advantage is.

 

[Everskyward]

The fact they are uncomfortable indicates they are lacking training or experience and rather than reduce their options they should rather get their ability up to speed.

In a perfect world they would but reality suggests otherwise.

Besides, very few people here need to go flying on any given day. They can wait for a better one.

 

[Henning]

In a perfect world they would but reality suggests otherwise.

Besides, very few people here need to go flying on any given day. They can wait for a better one.

Correct on both counts, however reality or not, the result is the same, poorly qualified pilots who are setting themselves up for failure and reducing the already limited utility of GA. There is also the slope of degrading ability, take a step back and don't push things at all, next year we'll have to back up some more. The question is "How far can you back up and still be safe at all?" The MINIMUM requirements are on the check ride for a reason. If you can't fill all the conditions of your rating, you aren't really qualified to fill any of them, especial with the IR since you never can tell what you're gonna have when you get there.
There are two safe ways to deal with IFR, either stay on top of the game as written or don't play at all, because a mixed game is a recipe for death.

 

[Everskyward]

Correct on both counts, however reality or not, the result is the same, poorly qualified pilots who are setting themselves up for failure and reducing the already limited utility of GA.

Maybe they are not poor pilots but instead don't feel like putting themselves in that position. Personally I don't think it's anyone else's business why you decide not to go or decide to stop short.

 

[Henning]

Maybe they are not poor pilots but instead don't feel like putting themselves in that position. Personally I don't think it's anyone else's business why you decide not to go or decide to stop short.

I don't care if they stop short, just pointing out that they are rationalizing away a skill set. Their decision to not advance and back away in fear from something they are supposed to be able to do according to the rating they hold. This leads only to a false sense of safety since the conditions they call 'NO GO' can develop enroute.

Now remember here, I'm talking about setting standard personal minimums across the board. I have cancelled IFR flights that were above minimums, but I did it because of specific details like icing or embedded t-storms of those individual flights, not because "I only shoot an ILS with 600 & 2."

 

[Everskyward]

I don't care if they stop short, just pointing out that they are rationalizing away a skill set.

It's their own business if they decide to have less utility than they could have had.

Their decision to not advance and back away in fear from something they are supposed to be able to do according to the rating they hold. This leads only to a false sense of safety since the conditions they call 'NO GO' can develop enroute.

That could happen even if you are someone who will shoot every approach to minimums. You need alternatives in either case.

 

[Henning]

It's their own business if they decide to have less utility than they could have had.

That could happen even if you are someone who will shoot every approach to minimums. You need alternatives in either case.

I'm not telling anyone they can't have personal minimums, I'm just saying I don't understand them because they have the opposite effect that they are intended to have. It's also the basis behind a lot of VFR into IMC accidents of IR rated pilots.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Most of us don't fault VFR pilots for turning around when the weather is still legally VFR but they are becoming uncomfortable. Why should it be any different for IFR pilots? That's not to say that you shouldn't be capable of shooting approaches to minimums, but what reason is there to try when someone is uncomfortable with it? That seems like looking for trouble which could be avoided.

Exactly.
No matter the rating, no matter the personal or published minimums, no matter the reason, IFR, MVFR, or VFR, if any pilot doesn't feel quite right for a flight where they are the sole PIC capable of completing the flight safely, then BAIL. No foul whatsoever.

On the other hand, if another pilot is along, suitably qualified for that flight and they are up to it, that's a great opportunity to push ones percieved limits and see if they can be improved or otherwise how one will perform when not feeling 100%.

 

[Ted]

Besides, flying an approach to the published minimums while remaining acceptably close to the approach course hasn't killed many pilots AFaIK. Going below the mins deliberately or accidentally is the thing to avoid and I'd expect any IR pilot flying an approach to be able to perform a missed approach if things weren't going well. I'd like to hear how those who believe in PMs think that setting higher mins makes them safer. I can see how this might make them more comfortable but not safer.

Perhaps the approach itself hasn't killed many people, but the overall conditions may have played a part.

A few weeks ago there was a Malibu that crashed not too far from here, killing its occupants. It was a crappy night out, probably around mins. The pilot elected to perform a non-precision approach to an airport that I don't think had the best facilities in the world. I don't know all the details yet (and it's far too soon for the NTSB report to come out), but my guess is that the pilot shot a difficult approach near mins, was looking for the airport (which is what ends up happening), and, for whatever reason, didn't see it. Airspeed got too slow, plane stall/spun into the ground.

A couple hundred more feet that allowed the airport to be visible earlier might have made the difference between making it in safely and being an NTSB report. Or alternately deciding to divert to an airport with a better approach. I did that one night where my options were do a non-precision approach to a short runway in the rain or go to a nearby bigger airport with an ILS that would've been easy. Chose the ILS and the bigger airport, even though it meant that we had to get picked up by someone since the car was at the smaller airport.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not telling anyone they can't have personal minimums, I'm just saying I don't understand them because they have the opposite effect that they are intended to have. It's also the basis behind a lot of VFR into IMC accidents of IR rated pilots.

The situation where I would be most likely to establish personal minimums is when I am rusty; I don't use a fixed number, and recognize that the goal is to maintain sufficient proficiency to fly to published minimums.

 

[Henning]

The situation where I would be most likely to establish personal minimums is when I am rusty; I don't use a fixed number, and recognize that the goal is to maintain sufficient proficiency to fly to published minimums.

I apply an instructor and some hard training in an IPC when I'm rusty to get back up to speed so I have the proficiency to meet whatever demands greet me. I also bought equipment that gives me maximum advantage and requires minimum time to 'knock the rust off'.