Personal Minimums for Instrument Currency

[dwalt]

IMO, ceilings are not the best criteria for making the go/no-go decision. Sure, if you know you can’t get in then you shouldn’t go. But, for me, I don’t care if I break out 200 AGL or 800 AGL...I’m either landing or going missed.

The real killers are convection and icing. Anyone who’s proficient can fly an approach.

My advice: focus on learning as much as you can about weather...particularly thunderstorms and icing conditions. I’d take 200 AGL over either of those any day. Choose where you’re going based on whether or not you can legally get in, but choose if you’re going based on the wx enroute. Don’t try to penetrate cells. Don’t launch into icing conditions unless you’re FIKI, and even then, only do it if you know, with 100% certainty, that it’s temporary and that you can get out of it well within your aircraft’s limits.

So much attention in IFR training is given to approach and visibility minima, which is just one small (and very manageable) piece of the puzzle. I wish weather was more of a focus beyond the written...it’s all that matters in IFR flying.

 

[BrianNC]

Just so nobody’s confused, you can descend TO 100’ HAT on the approach lights.

Wow, I've had the wrong this whole time. Maybe I was thinking of an ILS and thought it was an extra 100' lower. Jeez.
Thanks! I looked that up and learned something new today, that I should have learned years ago.

Could one or both of you clarify what you're discussing here? @wayne what you thought the procedure was and @MauleSkinner explaining in a little more detail what you meant in clarifying?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Could one or both of you clarify what you're discussing here? @wayne what you thought the procedure was and @MauleSkinner explaining in a little more detail what you meant in clarifying?

Edited to drill down to what we’re talking about:

91.175(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. ...no pilot may operate an aircraft...below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

(3) ...at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

 

[BrianNC]

Edited to drill down to what we’re talking about:

91.175(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. ...no pilot may operate an aircraft...below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

(3) ...at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

Thanks. So what did Wayne originally think it was?

 

[denverpilot]

Thanks. So what did Wayne originally think it was?

Many people automatically think of the ILS approaches with 200’ AGL DAs when they think of seeing runway environments out of the grey or black blob.

They forget this rule applies to other approaches that end far higher — and you have a lot more time descending from there to lose sight of the environment in terrain that may not be the best place to have nearly zero nav guidance for where you are, and maybe with some obstacles strewn about that kept that end of approach altitude way up there.

Even sketchier at night. Those lights may look mighty good from 500’ AGL but one obstacle or one wayward cloud blows across your field of vision you couldn’t see coming and now you’re in no man’s land.

That’s the general gist of it anyway.

Picking carefully when you exercise that “I can only see the lights and barely enough to be legal to continue...” has some gotchas to it. Even from 200’ AGL. Gets more complex from there.

Vast majority think it’s from 200’ AGL to 100’ above touchdown zone on an ILS only. They forget it applies to other approach types.

Whether it’s wise for those other types or even out of an ILS is ... debatable and depends on conditions. But generally from a higher perch than an ILS ... personally for me that’s a “no thanks, this ain’t fun no’ mo’”.

Foggy, ragged, wet, sloppy ILS... it can be useful. Might also lose sight of everything and wind up going missed anyway too.

The discussion always reminds me of this video. Boeing BBJ. All looks happy. Heavy rain shaft. Go around... executed well. Sometimes you just aren’t landing out of the approach no matter how good it looked. Heh.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's quite a logical argument that, the day you receive your ink'd Instrument Rating is one of your most proficient moments.

Instead of suddenly raising your personal minimums to 1,000 foot ceilings, or broken layers, it can be argued that you should instead take advantage of your proven proficiency and accent it with real world experience.

Maybe sounds logical but it's wrong. Even in a world of practiced scenario-based checkrides, the best that can be said about the day of your checkride is that you demonstrated competence in a series of representative, mostly mechanical, tasks, and didn't show gross errors in judgment.

As the questions asked in this forum and elsewhere show, there is so much more to instrument flight in the real world than the very limited and controlled world encountered in instrument training. Heck I see "Chart Reading 101" questions all the time. Proficiency isn't just hand-eye coordination. It's primarily knowledge and judgement, and even for the best of us, that takes experience.

I am one of those who did enter the soup shortly after getting the rating, it was my first flight after the rating, one week later. Cross country, 1.3 total, 1.0 actual, 0.8 night, ILS approach to 550 AGL. Lots of confidence, mostly the result of an excellent instructor and a decent amount of actual (including two real missed approaches) during my training. But looking back, I am a far better instrument pilot today than I was that evening.

 

[wayne]

Thanks. So what did Wayne originally think it was?

I see some others described it well. I was incorrectly thinking one could go 100' lower than minimums when seeing the runway environment, but instead one can go to 100' AGL. I also agree with another poster that that may not always be a smart thing for all types of approaches.

When I have done this I clearly had the lights in sight, no "I've got the lights, wink, wink". Nope, not doing that. I also had an ILS in the opposite direction as Plan B. The visibility was excellent below the clouds.



Wayne

 

[denverpilot]

I see some others described it well. I was incorrectly thinking one could go 100' lower than minimums when seeing the runway environment, but instead one can go to 100' AGL. I also agree with another poster that that may not always be a smart thing for all types of approaches.

When I have done this I clearly had the lights in sight, no "I've got the lights, wink, wink". Nope, not doing that. I also had an ILS in the opposite direction as Plan B. The visibility was excellent below the clouds.



Wayne

Technically it’s 100’ above the touchdown zone which can be a “gotcha” if someone being a nerd asks the EXACT altitude you can go to.

If you can fly it that accurately and there’s zero difference between the altimeter setting and reality. And your latest static system test has held. And the allowed error in the instrument is accounted for...

And and and...

LOL.

Pin head dancing. But is AGL only over that one published spot on the maybe unlevel runway. Ha.

But it’s fun for online fodder anyway...

 

[midlifeflyer]

I see some others described it well. I was incorrectly thinking one could go 100' lower than minimums when seeing the runway environment, but instead one can go to 100' AGL. I also agree with another poster that that may not always be a smart thing for all types of approaches.

Seeing the runway environment allows you to continue to the runway and land. The ability to go to 100' HAT is actually sort of a negative. If the only part of the runway environment you can see is the approach light system, you may continue down but still have to go missed unless you can see the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.

The other piece people forget all the time is that, whether MDA or DA, it is also a requirement that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" before you can continue down. Jeff Van West did an interesting article on this one, but one illustrative example is, assuming a 2400' ALSAF, unless you can see the runway end of it at DA, you don't have the visibility to continue the typical 1/2 mile visibility ILS.

 

[Kritchlow]

Seeing the runway environment allows you to continue to the runway and land. The ability to go to 100' HAT is actually sort of a negative. If the only part of the runway environment you can see is the approach light system, you may continue down but still have to go missed unless you can see the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.

The other piece people forget all the time is that, whether MDA or DA, it is also a requirement that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" before you can continue down. Jeff Van West did an interesting article on this one, but one illustrative example is, assuming a 2400' ALSAF, unless you can see the runway end of it at DA, you don't have the visibility to continue the typical 1/2 mile visibility ILS.

May be splitting hairs, but I disagree with the bolded. The RVR can, and often does, vary widely within 2400’. That is why many CAT 2 & 3 runways have three or four different RVR reporting stations.
How many times have you seen the airport environment partially covered with fog?
Granted, I think his example was just a rule of thumb, and not Gospel SOP.

ETA: I see now that the in flight visibility AT DA must be at or above, not at touchdown.
Makes more sense now.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Seeing the runway environment allows you to continue to the runway and land. The ability to go to 100' HAT is actually sort of a negative. If the only part of the runway environment you can see is the approach light system, you may continue down but still have to go missed unless you can see the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.

The other piece people forget all the time is that, whether MDA or DA, it is also a requirement that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" before you can continue down. Jeff Van West did an interesting article on this one, but one illustrative example is, assuming a 2400' ALSAF, unless you can see the runway end of it at DA, you don't have the visibility to continue the typical 1/2 mile visibility ILS.

Maybe my math is wrong, but a 200-ft ILS should put you about 4000 feet from the touchdown markers, about 3000 feet from the end of the runway, and about 600 feet from the end of a 2400’ ALSAF. Since the “typical 1/2 mile visibility ILS” with ALSAFs requires only 1800 RVR, that’s only about half the ALSAF that you need to see at DA. But since RVR isn’t flight visibility, it doesn’t really matter how far you can see at DA, provided the RVR is at or above mins.

 

[N1120A]

Right now, you may have some of the most current skill you'll ever have as an instrument pilot. As with anything, you'll learn more tricks and the like as you go along, but you are very current at flying both simulated and, hopefully, actual right now. Use that to keep current and not let those skills perish.

What I don't agree is that SEP planes aren't "real IMC" machines. Yes, you don't want to take a non FIKI plane into ice and you don't want to stay in ice in anything - even a 737. Similarly, you don't want to fly in thunderstorms and don't want to try and penetrate them without a good radar (not NEXRAD - that's a big picture thing to get you as far away as possible). But many of these planes ARE absolutely "real IMC" machines in safe conditions - with high levels of stability and avionics that are better, in many ways, than what airline pilots have.

I fly IFR as a rule, only flying VFR if it will save me a material amount of time or if I need it operationally (like not wanting to cook my cylinders on a hot day leaving Vegas). I determine my minimums, alternates and even destination airport based on the airplane I'm flying (I own two and sometimes will operate another few) and the like. I'll definitely fly my GFC500 equipped, glass panel Bonanza to minimums on basically anything. My Tiger has a decent STEC30 with GPSS, and I fly it better than any plane I've ever flown, so I'll fly that on an LPV to minimums and generally prefer to not fly an ILS for anything other than currency and equipment testing with it. I might not do so at an unfamiliar airport. I handfly probably 70% of approaches, but I like to know that I have the redundancy. I'm not a hero.

One thing I ALWAYS make sure of, however, is that I've got lots of gas, and I fly as high as I can operationally. I dispatch with the tanks topped off on basically any flight where weight allows for it. I alternate plan as close to my destination as possible. I'm based at MYF. My alternate is SAN, not SEE/SDM/CRQ. I want to be able to go missed and already essentially be on a vector to final, if able.

 

[Kritchlow]

Tagging on to @MauleSkinner ‘s misconceptions, Is that the DH/DA is a minimum to make a decision. . You can have a ceiling below that to land. That is only a decision altitude, not a minimum. A ceiling of zero means nothing. The only restriction is visibility.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Tagging on to @MauleSkinner ‘s misconceptions

misconceptions on the math, or misconception the math doesn’t matter?

 

[CRQFlier]

Thanks!

Feelings: Major accomplishment, then (funny) a bit of sadness that training was over. Next choices - glider, tailwheel, commercial; maybe some aerobatics training. But I’ll wait until summer or later. I’m still tired, lol.

Congrats! After I got the IR I went tailwheel and some light aerobatics. The change from IR was stark and super fun. Looking outside, getting more in touch. I think both the IR and tailwheel make you a better pilot.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

 

[CRQFlier]

One thing I ALWAYS make sure of, however, is that I've got lots of gas, and I fly as high as I can operationally. I dispatch with the tanks topped off on basically any flight where weight allows for it. I alternate plan as close to my destination as possible. I'm based at MYF. My alternate is SAN, not SEE/SDM/CRQ. I want to be able to go missed and already essentially be on a vector to final, if able.

Gas is good. Your alternate though? Higher minimums than MYF at arguably a worse location - more susceptible to a low marine layer with big buildings all around. I was tought, and agree with, selecting an alternate that either has lower minimums or a realistic chance of meaningfully different weather.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Barry]

Just got my ifr ticket in sept myself. My personal mins are 1k ceilings and 3sm vis. I’m trying to do 2 approaches per month. So far I got 2 approaches in MVFR one month and then two under the hood with cfi the next month. I have not flown much actual but really need to push myself to do more. However am aware in winter need to watch temps for ice in the clouds.

 

[N1120A]

Gas is good. Your alternate though? Higher minimums than MYF at arguably a worse location - more susceptible to a low marine layer with big buildings all around. I was tought, and agree with, selecting an alternate that either has lower minimums or a realistic chance of meaningfully different weather.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

KSAN has lower minimums. The DH on both ILS approaches and the RNAV 9 are all lower than the RNAV and ILS 28 at KMYF. KSAN is also located at a meaningfully lower altitude than KMYF, 410' lower to be precise. If KMYF is below minimums, it is more likely that KSAN is not. The localized weather in each area is different.

 

[Kritchlow]

misconceptions on the math, or misconception the math doesn’t matter?

I do not understand your question.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I do not understand your question.

To what misconceptions were you referring?

 

[Datadriver]

I got my instrument rating Saturday. This is a bit of a “survey” question to get a feel for what some of you do for currency in actual.

(1) Similar to doing T&Gs or just boring holes in the sky, if you have nothing to do on an IFR day, do you take advantage and go up?

(2) If so, how low does the ceiling have to be before you say “risk not worth the reward”?

This is not a proficiency question or a foggles + safety pilot (or IPC) debate. Just wondering how many do this and your desired ceiling to meet whatever your goal is.

It’s totally fair to chime in and say “never”.

For me the challenge with IFR was visibility BELOW the ceilings. Hazy, rainy, whatever, makes it tough. If viz below clouds is 4+ NM no sweat. I routinely practiced with low ceilings with good viz below

 

[CRQFlier]

KSAN has lower minimums. The DH on both ILS approaches and the RNAV 9 are all lower than the RNAV and ILS 28 at KMYF. KSAN is also located at a meaningfully lower altitude than KMYF, 410' lower to be precise. If KMYF is below minimums, it is more likely that KSAN is not. The localized weather in each area is different.

RNAV/ils 9 SAN vs ILS 28 MYF is apples vs bananas. How often do you see those 2 approaches in use simultaneously? I doubt you'll go missed out of MYF 28 and pick up SAN 9. Yes FE is different, but the weather comes from the coast as you know.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

 

[N1120A]

RNAV/ils 9 SAN vs ILS 28 MYF is apples vs bananas. How often do you see those 2 approaches in use simultaneously? I doubt you'll go missed out of MYF 28 and pick up SAN 9. Yes FE is different, but the weather comes from the coast as you know.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

If SAN is low ceilings, you will see them in simultaneous use at the same time. If 27 is in use at SAN, I'm not concerned about getting in.

 

[DesertNomad]

Night XC is in my mind always an IFR operation. I did VFR night XC when I was younger and maybe less aware or oblivious to potential risks. Everly little anomaly gets magnified during night flight. It's easy to file IFR, and that increases the safety level for night XC and terrain avoidance at your destination.

Out here in Nevada when flying from Elko to Reno, the good VFR route follows Interstate 80, but the IFR Route goes basically from BAM (Battle Mountain) to LLC (Lovelock) while the highway deviates significantly to the north. In many ways, following the highway is a better bet I think - in the blackness between BAM and LLC there is just nothing there except dry lakes and rocks.

 

[Tools]

This is one of the rare cases where simulated is as good as the real thing. Go up in nasty windy conditions and severe clear and throw on the foggles with a good safety pilot and head down to ridiculous low, OFTEN.

Get to where you are plainly comfortable doing it. Then don’t hesitate to fly to minimums when necessary.

Never flew a hard minimums approach that was harder than that sort of practice... so it becomes a non issue.

I don’t even look up in a sim doing single engine approaches until it’s time to flare, WAAAY past minimums. I got “debriefed” on that once, so I added a head fake when the captain would say “airport in sight”. This all predicated on ILS available.

 

[Mjg2011]

I feel like it all comes down to why you got your instrument rating. Some people want it just in case, some people have to get it for careers, and some people just want to be able to fly in the clouds. I really enjoy instrument flying and would definitely go up and do approaches on an IFR day. I would say if I am in actual solo I want to be fairly familiar with the aircraft/equip. Maybe 10 hours in the type and 10 hours with the avionics. I also would incrementally increase my personal mins.

 

[chemgeek]

I feel like it all comes down to why you got your instrument rating. Some people want it just in case, some people have to get it for careers, and some people just want to be able to fly in the clouds. I really enjoy instrument flying and would definitely go up and do approaches on an IFR day. I would say if I am in actual solo I want to be fairly familiar with the aircraft/equip. Maybe 10 hours in the type and 10 hours with the avionics. I also would incrementally increase my personal mins.

Good observations. I do think those who get an instrument rating "just in case" could be overly optimistic about how useful their "just in case" rating will be when they need it unless currency is maintained. Instrument ratings are things that need to be used, else those IFR skills will atrophy.

 

[wayne]

I feel like it all comes down to why you got your instrument rating. Some people want it just in case, some people have to get it for careers, and some people just want to be able to fly in the clouds. I really enjoy instrument flying and would definitely go up and do approaches on an IFR day. I would say if I am in actual solo I want to be fairly familiar with the aircraft/equip. Maybe 10 hours in the type and 10 hours with the avionics. I also would incrementally increase my personal mins.

Good observations. I do think those who get an instrument rating "just in case" could be overly optimistic about how useful their "just in case" rating will be when they need it unless currency is maintained. Instrument ratings are things that need to be used, else those IFR skills will atrophy.

Spot on.

I sometimes worry about those that just fly "gentlemen's IFR". I've heard people asking to go lower, below the MSA, trying to skip the approach. One guy asked multiple times. Another guy was picking up his IFR flight plan in the air and couldn't seem to get it, including not repeating in phonetics. I lost track of how many times ATC repeated it. At one point I told my wife, " I know where he's going and how he's getting there and he still doesn't have it. And thankfully we're not going in his direction."

I do get it if one doesn't want the risk of flying in low IMC in a single engine piston plane. If they keep themselves current and proficient, but decide not to fly in low IMC it's a good plan. One needs to stay proficient as the weather can and does get worse than forecasted at times.

I got it to travel. Flying private is my favorite way to travel now. By that I mean travel on a schedule, or at least resembling a schedule. In the past 2 1/2 months I've shot 8 approaches on 4 trips; one Angel Flight mission had 3 approaches. Plus a few more in that time with time in IMC, but no approaches. If I don't stay current on trips I try to find a good IMC day to "practice". If I cancel a flight it means Mother Nature is not being nice.

 

[Tokirbymd]

Would you make your practice minimums different than real life, family in the plane minimums? One the one hand I want to practice to lowest tolerances I can without risking others for proficiency. However, if something were to happen, someone would say “why was he out here in this soup, he really didn’t need to be anywhere today”

 

[chemgeek]

Would you make your practice minimums different than real life, family in the plane minimums? One the one hand I want to practice to lowest tolerances I can without risking others for proficiency. However, if something were to happen, someone would say “why was he out here in this soup, he really didn’t need to be anywhere today”

There is training and there is practical use. I was taught to train to fly approaches to minimums, and be prepared to do so always. To my mind, that is what currency means. In practical use, I don't launch into conditions that are predicted to be at minimums, because of the significant chance they could go below minimums, not only for my destination, but also at my alternates. That would be a very bad day in a light single with limited fuel reserves. Launching into more conservative personal minimums, say 500-1, when flying to a destination and alternates with LPV and/or ILS, provides some margin if things are lower than expected. I've been on flights predicted to be ample VFR throughout and wound up shooting an ILS to get into my destination.

 

[Rebel]

Heard an old pilot say "I never plan to fly anything that requires 100% of my capability. Doesn't mean I won't get into a 100% situation, just means I don't plan for it."

For me, an instrument approach in 300/1 or less is a 100% situation, so I never plan to fly in such weather. In fact, I use 1000/3 as my minimum for the destination, 2000/5 for my alternate, and I always plan for an alternate (the reg's exception to the requirement for an alternate is irrelevant to me).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Heard an old pilot say "I never plan to fly anything that requires 100% of my capability. Doesn't mean I won't get into a 100% situation, just means I don't plan for it."

For me, an instrument approach in 300/1 or less is a 100% situation, so I never plan to fly in such weather. In fact, I use 1000/3 as my minimum for the destination, 2000/5 for my alternate, and I always plan for an alternate (the reg's exception to the requirement for an alternate is irrelevant to me).

Never is a long time.

What weather do you require for departure and enroute?

 

[Rebel]

Never is a long time.

What weather do you require for departure and enroute?

Great question MauleSkinner.

Departure weather mins 1000/3, maybe a little less if a takeoff alternate is close by. Enroute weather mins 1000/3, maybe a little less for a brief overfly of LIFR. Honestly, both situations don't lend themselves well to "never" proclamations. When in doubt, such doubt is a red flag to consider making the trip tomorrow when the weather might be way better.

 

[Rgbeard]

I arrived at San Diego Brown field on Wednesday morning, and the ceilings were right near the minimums for the VOR-A approach. They had been forecast, when I left for Brown, to be higher, but that simply wasn't the case. They called the ceilings 1,000 on ATIS, but it was more like 800 when I arrived.

The VOR-A there, at minimums isn't a lot of fun. You come in perpendicular to the runways, and need to circle (generally to the East, to land Westbound).

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2105/05814VTA.PDF

I was prepared to miss, of course, and need the GPS approach to Rwy 8, which has much lower minimums. The GPS Rwy8 approach simply isn't one of my favorites, but I'll do it if I must.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2105/05814R8L.PDF

 

[midlifeflyer]

The GPS Rwy8 approach simply isn't one of my favorites, but I'll do it if I must.

Why? Other than the overwater segment, which I'm sure will make some nervous, it looks pretty plain.

 

[Rgbeard]

Why? Other than the overwater segment, which I'm sure will make some nervous, it looks pretty plain.

You nailed it on the first attempt.

That, and, it takes me well out of the way and simply burns time, as well as has you aimed the wrong direction for the prevailing winds.

 

[asicer]

Why? Other than the overwater segment, which I'm sure will make some nervous, it looks pretty plain.

I'd be especially nervous if ATC gave me a clearance that requires the HILPT. Your nose will be pointed away from land for a pretty good duration.

 

[sarangan]

I got my instrument rating Saturday. This is a bit of a “survey” question to get a feel for what some of you do for currency in actual.

(1) Similar to doing T&Gs or just boring holes in the sky, if you have nothing to do on an IFR day, do you take advantage and go up?

(2) If so, how low does the ceiling have to be before you say “risk not worth the reward”?

This is not a proficiency question or a foggles + safety pilot (or IPC) debate. Just wondering how many do this and your desired ceiling to meet whatever your goal is.

It’s totally fair to chime in and say “never”.

It is not the ceiling but the alternate requirements that you should be concerned about. When there is an Airmet Sierra, you may not find an alternate within your local area. If you have to pick an alternate 200 miles away, your fuel requirements will go up. If you lose comm while in IMC, things can get very interesting.

On the other hand, if it is IMC at one airport and VFR 25 miles away, that would be perfect for IFR practice flying.

 

[midlifeflyer]

. If you lose comm while in IMC, things can get very interesting.

...especially since, unless your coms are extremely old, chances are you won't just lose coms.

 

[Clip4]

IMO, ceilings are not the best criteria for making the go/no-go decision. Sure, if you know you can’t get in then you shouldn’t go. But, for me, I don’t care if I break out 200 AGL or 800 AGL...I’m either landing or going missed.

The real killers are convection and icing. Anyone who’s proficient can fly an approach.

My advice: focus on learning as much as you can about weather...particularly thunderstorms and icing conditions. I’d take 200 AGL over either of those any day. Choose where you’re going based on whether or not you can legally get in, but choose if you’re going based on the wx enroute. Don’t try to penetrate cells. Don’t launch into icing conditions unless you’re FIKI, and even then, only do it if you know, with 100% certainty, that it’s temporary and that you can get out of it well within your aircraft’s limits.

So much attention in IFR training is given to approach and visibility minima, which is just one small (and very manageable) piece of the puzzle. I wish weather was more of a focus beyond the written...it’s all that matters in IFR flying.

Personal minimums are predicated on IFR proficiency not currency. The average GA IR pilot would be wise to steer clear of forecast <500′ and/or <1 mile ( LIFR).