IFR Minimums

[Terry]

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

 

[ejensen]

To state the obvious: Minimums alone in real IMC is just a bit different than a hood with instructor/safety pilot.

That said, minimum wx for a non-precision with an ILS nearby, OK. Minimuns for precision, where you going.. is there an out? Missing in actual at 200' agl is something I've only done once. Everything worked out but the wife commented that those buildings looked real close!

 

[SCCutler]

Recalling for myself the first time I flew in hard IMC, I can tell you that no matter how much you have practiced, there is a real difference between flying with the foggles on, and an instructor or safety pilot next to you, and being in the clouds. They bump more, and (although it should not matter), you can no longer tear 'em off and see. A head game.

My first was flying from San Antonio to Addison, in a nice 182 with a busted autopilot. On climbout, boring through the clouds, I had about 15 seconds of severe leans- it was all I could do to just trust the gauges and fly it that way (and I never had that feeling under the hood).

From the time I began my descent from 7,000 until I broke out at 400' (250' minimums), I saw nothing. It can mess with your mind. It is, however, a real blast.

But it ain't the same thing as foggling, I can tell you.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Why?

What's pushing you to minimums? Medical emergency? Police work? The scheduled carriers are doing it, but those pilots have lots of experience, are in a plane many times a month and have very good equipment--many of them talk about not likeing an approach to minimums.

I have shot to minimums when there was a scud layer I could climb back out of, or I had other options. What if something goes wrong on the approach? Instrument failure, engine problem, other issues arise?

Why don't you get a little more actual time and think through this a little more. Big airport, with long, wide runways and a precision approach would make me more comfortable going to minimums. (And, by the way, I have shot to almost zero zero in the military, but there was a completely different reason; so, it's not that I'm not capable of it.) Weather considerations play a role. Who's in the plane--do you think family will want to bump on down through turbulent clouds to minimums; then, maybe land or maybe go around and bump around for awhile?

I just have to ask......why?

Dave

 

[NC Pilot]

I dunno, why don't you ask the guy with the Cherokee 6 that took off loaded with people into low clouds the day after he got his instrument ticket. Oh, sorry, you can't. He killed himself and the whole plane load of people. My DE was his DE and he impressed that lesson into my brain during my instrument test.

Take my advice, just like when you first got your private, your instrument ticket is a license to learn. Set conservative minimums and only lower them as your experience level increases.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Personally, I have no problem flying to "legal" IFR minimums provided I'm proficient, and I have enough fuel for both legal AND likely alternates (yes, there's a difference). Obviously, as has been stated, personal proficiency and recency are factors.

On the other hand, I DO have personal minimums for SINGLE-ENGINE IFR. I've had enough engine failures over the years that I feel the need to hedge there. I'm comfortable shooting approaches with an engine out in a twin, but I'm not willing to put myself in a position where I'm just pointing the airplane into the wind for an IMC glide, break out at 200 feet (or lower...you can takeoff in zero-zero, remember) and try to find a place to land.

By the way, all of my instrument students were given an engine failure over the airport. They could all do turns about a point on the NDB, but when I let them take the hood off between 500 & 1000 feet, none of them could hit a runway.

Other system failures I don't worry so much about. I've had several of them as well, and they've never been serious enough to cause problems on approaches. More extreme (total electrical, etc.) failures obviously would, but I've got "outs" in the back of my mind for them as well.

Fly safe!

David

 

[ggroves]

I want to "push the envelope" here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hubris

I understand how easy it is to feel like you are sporting an extra large "set"...especially when your training is going exceptionally well...however..

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

Everybody does, with a safety pilot or CFII on board, typically in VMC conditions in a controlled training environment.

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

Nothing..as long as you spend some time in IMC, and lower your minimums as your experience increases.

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

When people realized that they have limitations...nerve, fear, skill, proficiency, physical capabilities, etc.

It would appear to me that the more IFR you fly the better one would be at approaches to minimum standards.

True..but try adding bumps, rain, wind, busy airspace, fast talking controllers, night, single pilot, changes in plans.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've shot an approach single pilot down to mins.

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

WRONG. IFR isn't all about approaches.

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.

Good...I file IFR every time I fly XC...VMC or IMC. I've made it safely to my destination and safely home more times than I can count that I could not have accomplished VFR.

Opinions and comments are welcome....well sort of....

Terry...be safe

Greg
CFII

 

[Fast n' Furious]

Please, be conservative.

Please, train like you fly and often.

Please, don't push weather, your airplane, or you.

Please, fly what's on the chart.

Please, don't be afraid to divert and always have an out.

Please, be careful out there.

 

[Bill M.]

Terry, already lots of good responses to your question. Flying to mins in IMC leaves you little or no room for error. How many apps. to mins have you flown in actual IMC? Have you ever done a "real" missed because you couldn't get in? Have you ever been tempted to "go a little lower" because you "know" the runway is down there? If your homebase airport suddenly goes a little below mins, where are you going to go, and what plans do you have in your bag of tricks.
Being 200ft AGL and in the clouds is pretty serious business with little wiggle room for mistakes.
I like the personal minimums idea and hope you will see the wisdom in it until you gain a little more experience to match your confidence.
Bill CFI/IA, ATP

 

[gismo]

Provided you've got some actual to mins (complete with a required missed approach) under your belt I think you would be fine, but there's enough difference between simulated IMC and the real thing to make the "walk before running" guidance valid for newbie IFR pilots. The real difference between approaches to MVFR and to mins in IMC from a safety perspective is that you have much greater margin for error in the former. If you break out at 1200 AGL on an approach with a 400 AGL MDA minor deviations from track and altitude pose no threat in most cases, but similar errors at 200 AGL (or 200 above obstructions) are not so forgiving.

 

[Bill M.]

Here are a couple of pics taken near my house a few years ago. These guys were also "pushing the envelope" in IMC.

 

[spiderweb]

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"?

Personal minimums aren't just about cloud deck and visibility. For example, I feel comfortable flying down reasonably close to the printed minimums in calm daytime IMC to a big runway. On a bumpy, rainy day, on approach to a smaller airport at night, I'd want to pop out a lot earlier and have good vis when I do.

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.

I can't argue with that. Still, there is a lot more to an IFR flight than the mins at your destination.

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

I would say that while this is true, it doesn't follow that you shouldn't have personal minimums higher than printed ones.

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.

It is good to KNOW you can handle it, but you might want to have personal mins that say you won't launch if conditions are at printed minimums, even with calm IMC. Why? Things can get worse.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's nothing all that hard about flying an approach to minimums -- you do it over and over again during IR training. The hard parts are making sure you don't bust those mins (and your butt), and making the transition from instruments to visual and completing the landing, especially in low vis situations (for which taking off the hood in good VMC does not provide an effective simulation). That's what takes practice and proficiecy. Unless you've done a lot of approaches to mins in IMC as part of your training, it's best to be cautious about single-pilot IFR in weather near mins, especially in low vis rather than low ceiling conditions.

 

[gismo]

There's nothing all that hard about flying an approach to minimums -- you do it over and over again during IR training. The hard parts are making sure you don't bust those mins (and your butt), and making the transition from instruments to visual and completing the landing, especially in low vis situations (for which taking off the hood in good VMC does not provide an effective simulation). That's what takes practice and proficiecy. Unless you've done a lot of approaches to mins in IMC as part of your training, it's best to be cautious about single-pilot IFR in weather near mins, especially in low vis rather than low ceiling conditions.

And there's a world of difference coming into a runway with nothing but MIRLs and snow on the runway, and flying into a CAT II capable clean runway with centerline lights over the full boat approach lighting system in low vis.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

By the way, all of my instrument students were given an engine failure over the airport. They could all do turns about a point on the NDB, but when I let them take the hood off between 500 & 1000 feet, none of them could hit a runway.

David

I'm interested in this repeated observation of yours which I've not seen in IFR training. What do you think is causing this problem?

 

[gismo]

I'm interested in this repeated observation of yours which I've not seen in IFR training. What do you think is causing this problem?

If I had to guess, turning around the NDB blew away all of their situational awareness and they no long had any idea where they were relative to the airport nor what direction they were pointed in.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

If I had to guess, turning around the NDB blew away all of their situational awareness and they no long had any idea where they were relative to the airport nor what direction they were pointed in.

Sure, one can lose the picture but there's ways to get the picture back...

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm interested in this repeated observation of yours which I've not seen in IFR training. What do you think is causing this problem?

Lack of recent training in engine-outs ("um...yeah...I remember doing this for my PPL..."), a bias towards trying to land on a runway, compounded by the fact that I gave them the failure over the airport (I'm not a big fan of taking off-airport simulations to under 200 feet AGL, which is probably how low you'd have to go for the student to actually see whether they'd make their field or not when you "break out" at 1000 feet or less), and as Lance said, loss of situational awareness while circling down (the circling was their idea, not mine, but they all did it).

What's been your training technique and/or observation?

Fly safe!

David

 

[Terry]

Hi All:

Thanks for all the great answers.

I had to put my IFR training on hold for a few months due to "monetary funds."

I should be able to pick up training again late in March or April.

So............I sit at my simulator and "add in" all kind of weird and tough conditions and get bored.

However, due to good and logical answers, I now have a lot to think about on minimums and other factors.

In reality I am a safe pilot and don't go if i won't enjoy it. In Kansas you learn to handle the crosswinds but just because I can doesn't mean I want to.

Anyway, I understand more throughly everyone's response and for that I say ,,,,Thanks!!!

Terry

 

[CFIChris]

Gonna toss out an often overlooked aspect of Single Pilot IFR to mins:

The aircraft itself.

Most aircraft in which a single pilot most likely will be operating when he enters this type of WX conditions, are not suitable for IFR weather mins.

We are mostly going to see single pilot IFR to mins occurring in SEL aircraft such as Cessna 172, 182 and the Pipers. These are usually carbed and not possessing much if any deice or even anti ice equipment. Flying them into visible moisture or high relative humidity as one might encounter in the midwest, can be especially dangerous.

Taking the difficulty of an IFR to mins approach and adding in loss of performance from ANY sort of icing problem, (carb, structural or induction) and you have a recipe for disaster. Add to that recipe a relatively new pilot who is suffering from "Hot Dogitus" and well, I dont want to be an unwitting passenger on that plane.

IFR WX mins exist as a bare bones minimum. They are not to be "played" with. One can get himself and others killed that way.

 

[Jaybird180]

IFR WX mins exist as a bare bones minimum. They are not to be "played" with. One can get himself and others killed that way.

Then why have student Instrument pilots train that way?

 

[Z06_Mir]

So would you rather have a pilot heavy in the soup, in unexpected icing conditions attempt to go missed and lose control of the aircraft because going missed created even more icing? Or would you rather the pilot attempt to get the airplane on the ground? I think you have a better chance of making it out alive (who cares about the airplane at that point) if you're trying to get it to the ground rather than going missed and going back into the ice that you're not certified for.

 

[poadeleted20]

Chris' points are exactly why examiners cover personal minimums during the IR practical test. While you've been trained and tested to "book" mins, it is probably wise to set higher weather mins for your IFR flying initially or after a layoff. Work them down to published mins as you feel comfortable, and for someone who doesn't fly as much as a professional pilot, don't feel bad if you never feel comfortable down to published mins. It is that wise choosing which makes one into an old pilot.

 

[cirrusmx]

when i started flying actual imc i had a personal min of about 1000ft. then slowly but surely as i got more experience i lowered it to 400 and when conditions were sketchy or below personal minimums i would take an instructor. however, when i fly imc i always have outs and i am prepared to fly and ils, lpv to minimums if needed. Doesn't mean that i will deliberately launch into a destination that is reporting low ifr with no outs. being cautious and prepared will make you reach your destination.

 

[ZG_Mooney]

For me, it really hit home the first time I did a solo instrument approach, 1000 ceiling, 3000 feet thick, with 20g25 winds, moderate turbulence. I'd done the same approach to minimums probably 20 times, even in similar winds, with my CFII, but trust me, it's a totally different feeling when you are jockeying the throttle in and out trying to hold altitude and you can't actually see the ground, and there are no other eyes in the cockpit to check your work.

Worked out great, ended with the runway appearing right where it should and a nice landing, but try it with a 1000 foot ceiling before you go lower.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cirrusmx]

For me, it really hit home the first time I did a solo instrument approach, 1000 ceiling, 3000 feet thick, with 20g25 winds, moderate turbulence. I'd done the same approach to minimums probably 20 times, even in similar winds, with my CFII, but trust me, it's a totally different feeling when you are jockeying the throttle in and out trying to hold altitude and you can't actually see the ground, and there are no other eyes in the cockpit to check your work.

Worked out great, ended with the runway appearing right where it should and a nice landing, but try it with a 1000 foot ceiling before you go lower.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

did you even make it past the faf before breaking out of the clouds. 1000 agl is not bad at all.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Lack of recent training in engine-outs ("um...yeah...I remember doing this for my PPL..."), a bias towards trying to land on a runway, compounded by the fact that I gave them the failure over the airport (I'm not a big fan of taking off-airport simulations to under 200 feet AGL, which is probably how low you'd have to go for the student to actually see whether they'd make their field or not when you "break out" at 1000 feet or less), and as Lance said, loss of situational awareness while circling down (the circling was their idea, not mine, but they all did it).

What's been your training technique and/or observation?

Fly safe!

David

Sorry for the delay in replying, I got busy and lost the thread....

Get the IFR pilot back on ALL instruments until complete situational awareness is regained. Lots of practice and a high level of currency and proficiency are needed to be safe down to FAA minimums in IMC.

As stated by others, when 'the leans' hit, it can take massive concentration to stay on IFR basics and see it though. My case of the leans hit me over 5 years after I got the IFR rating and that's what I did. Focus on the instruments unrelentingly, whether the leans go away or not.

 

[Palmpilot]

when i started flying actual imc i had a personal min of about 1000ft. then slowly but surely as i got more experience i lowered it to 400 and when conditions were sketchy or below personal minimums i would take an instructor. however, when i fly imc i always have outs and i am prepared to fly and ils, lpv to minimums if needed. Doesn't mean that i will deliberately launch into a destination that is reporting low ifr with no outs. being cautious and prepared will make you reach your destination.

I flew an ILS to minimums in below minimums weather the day after my checkride, because I knew I was well trained, well practiced, and able to do so safely. I was certainly more proficient then than I am now.

 

[denverpilot]

I flew an ILS to minimums in below minimums weather the day after my checkride, because I knew I was well trained, well practiced, and able to do so safely. I was certainly more proficient then than I am now.

So you landed below minimums? Or are you still up there looking for an airport?

 

[Palmpilot]

So you landed below minimums? Or are you still up there looking for an airport?

Obviously you don't have a marine layer in Colorado! (Do you have microclimates?)

It was a coastal airport, I wasn't intending to land there, and I didn't. I had just barely squeaked through the checkride due to checkride nerves. I knew I could do a good job without an examiner on board, so I did it to restore my confidence. It worked.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I had to put my IFR training on hold for a few months due to "monetary funds."

I should be able to pick up training again late in March or April.

So............I sit at my simulator and "add in" all kind of weird and tough conditions and get bored.

That is because you are sitting in a chair and 100% safe. Reality is not boring.

 

[denverpilot]

Obviously you don't have a marine layer in Colorado! (Do you have microclimates?)

It was a coastal airport, I wasn't intending to land there, and I didn't. I had just barely squeaked through the checkride due to checkride nerves. I knew I could do a good job without an examiner on board, so I did it to restore my confidence. It worked.

Hehe. I was just messing with you. The way it read was that you launched below mins on a checkride with no other options.

Everyplace has microclimates. Ask Everskyward (or anyone who has to go up there regularly) about mountain valley fog.

 

[kevmor99]

To the OP, I think this thread is about a couple of things, IFR proficiency and risk management/tolerance. If you're going to be flying in IMC, I think you should be proficient enough to fly an ILS to the lowest minimums (what if the weather goes below your personal minimums while enroute and an alternate is far away?) As a new IR pilot, I think you should start with higher ceilings and lower them as you gain confidence, but be proficient to fly lower if needed. If you're flying single engine with lower minimums, I think that's your risk tolerance, the same as for people that fly past gliding distance to land.

 

[Jaybird180]

How do you test and maintain said above proficiency if you adhere to prrsonal mins?

 

[Fearless Tower]

How do you test and maintain said above proficiency if you adhere to prrsonal mins?

I think you are mistaking training with personal mins. The idea of personal mins is for flights in actual conditions and can be based on a lot of things (degree of IFR currency and experience, equipment in the aircraft....etc).

A pilot might set personal mins well above the FAA requirements for a x-country solo flight while in the meantime feel perfectly safe and comfortable training to the FAA mins with a CFII or safety pilot.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Going back to this, I actually evaluate this on every approach at the end of a trip. Am I tired? Am I doing everything right or a bit slow and seeing little errs like not tuning a frequency in correctly? Is everything I need on the plane working properly? I double check everything: localizer tuned on ILS? Verify code. Approach briefed including missed. Am I on the loc and G/S on rails or slightly off? If you do anything wrong here--mis tune; put in wrong freq. something not working you don't notice, it can be very bad. So, I do plan on going to minimums but haven't a couple times because something just wasn't right. Once, it was the Jepp data base that had an err and I figured it out by cross tuning. Initial proficiency is wonderful, but judgement is gained with experience.

I never feel a proficient as when I leave recurrent training each year: in recurrent, I make several errs---every year. So, I'm not perfect and I factor that in when making actual approaches. Been doing this for many years and instrument approaches are safe when properly executed, but if anything goes wrong or isn't done properly, there's just not a large margin for err. One has to be very precise in flying the plane, meticulous in setting things up and: cross check, cross check to detect anything not correct.

Best,

Dave

 

[Terry]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the good answers.

I have had my IFR ticket for several years now.

I set my personal minimums to 1,000 feet and 1 mile. If it is turbulent, icy, or I am uncomfortable with it, I either divert or stay home.

I have to be in the 172 I trained in and got my IFR certificate in. Otherwise, I will file IFR in the older 172 but will fly it in VFR only. (Both are IFR equipped and rated, just one is a 6 cylinder 1964 and the other is a 2006 with a Bendix/king GPS.)

My lowest approach by myself was 300' and 1/2 mile into Garden City, Kansas. Not something I want to do again.

One more thing,,,,,,,,,After reading my post....I realize how "cocky" I sounded. I apologize to all. Somehow, actual IFR is a lot more serious when I am by myself.

After completing my IFR, I flew IFR by myself. I did okay and all turned out well, but I sure missed my CFII in the right seat.

One other thing. When I was training, my IFR was excellent. Waiting six months and then trying to get current was very difficult.

Thanks guys for being so understanding,
Terry

 

[gismo]

I set my personal minimums to 1,000 feet and 1 mile. If it is turbulent, icy, or I am uncomfortable with it, I either divert or stay home.

My lowest approach by myself was 300' and 1/2 mile into Garden City, Kansas. Not something I want to do again.

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

 

[Dead Stick]

Please, be conservative.

Please, train like you fly and often.

Please, don't push weather, your airplane, or you.

Please, fly what's on the chart.

Please, don't be afraid to divert and always have an out.

Please, be careful out there.

What is "Live Long and Prosper?"

 

[Captain]

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.