Patsy Cline Current

[Terry]

Hi All,
Performed my 6 approaches, holds, and tracking this morning. I am now legally "current" but don't think I would want to ride with an instrument pilot of my "level of expertise."

I need to get back on the simulator and back out to the airport for some more training. Oh, I was okay, didn't crash, never went full deflection on the needles but it just wasn't smooth and executed well.

Instrument flying is not for weekenders' who are just trying to stay current. So even though I am current, think I will stay VFR for awhile and build my skills back up.

Always take the "safe" route so you can fly again.


Thanks,
Terry

P.S.> By Patsy Cline Current I was thinking of Terry Fator singing his "current" hit and singing Patsy Kline instead of Miles Nash's Crazy.

 

[jdwatson]

You can develop personal minimums that will allow some portion of your flights to be conducted in IFR and still be safe. Update these "rules" as your expertise and skill levels change.

 

[gismo]

You can develop personal minimums that will allow some portion of your flights to be conducted in IFR and still be safe. Update these "rules" as your expertise and skill levels change.

I'm not fond of personal minimums, at least in the manner that they are often utilized, i.e. for planning purposes. If you are in or above the clouds and there's any chance of cloud cover at your destination you should be prepared to fly an approach to published minimums unless your plan (and execution) involves diversion to a suitable alternate that's forecast to be VFR. Most attempts at personal minimums I've seen involve little more than deciding before taking off that the flight can be flown without getting closer to the ground in IMC than the pilot feels comfortable with (e.g. 1000 AGL), with no consideration given to establishing alternates with forecasts way above that nor do most "personal minimums" adjust for variations in the published altitude limits and few if any factor in visibility limits which IMO are at least as important as ceilings. An extreme example would be setting a personal minimum of 1000 AGL and then initiating an approach into Aspen with a reported ceiling and visibility of 2000 and 2-1/2 miles, which is actually below the published limits for both visibility and ceiling.

Granted that a pilot who doesn't feel up to an approach with less than a 1000 AGL ceiling isn't likely to attempt any sort of approach into Aspen, my point is that to be of any benefit one's personal mins need to be applied as an additive buffer to the published ones for the destination and in greatly expanded form for any alternates. And the need for alternates should be extrapolated as well. Finally, one would have to be able to resist the very strong pressure to go ahead and fly an approach at the destination when the conditions were below the personal limits but above the published ones.

 

[jdwatson]

Lance,
I can appreciate your point of view. I always defined my personal minimums in the same units as the approaches, which included visibility and applied them to take-off, en-route, descent and approach phases. I like to compare my guidelines to how the AWOS reports were trending while enroute. I never had to activate "plan b", but I was spring-loaded ready. The beauty of the east coast is the 100s of airports along the routes. Follow the magenta line, back-up with VORs and listen to each passing airports AWOS. If the trends were headed towards my limits, I was always ready to land.