Personal minimums?

tehmightypirate

tehmightypirate

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
635
Location
Maine
Display Name
Display name:
TehMightyPirate
Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the matter; personal minimums a good idea or no?

Obviously one should recognize their own skill level or provide a safety net if they're not as proficient as they should be. However, I can see a lot of reasons why one wouldn't want to set a personal minimum or why one might be tempted to just blow their own minimums anyway because they know they can legally go lower.

My father doesn't get out flying much and so he uses a VERY high personal minimum (like 800 for an ILS). This seems extreme to me. However, almost all the instructors I've asked locally recommend personal minimums.

Thoughts?
 
What precisely is a "personal minima" ? Does he apply this "personal minima" to pre flight planning or in flight decision making? IOW if the atis states ceiling less than 800ft agl for a 200ft ils, does he decline the app clearance and proceed immediately to his alternate ?
 
JHW said:
What precisely is a "personal minima" ? Does he apply this "personal minima" to pre flight planning or in flight decision making? IOW if the atis states ceiling less than 800ft agl for a 200ft ils, does he decline the app clearance and proceed immediately to his alternate ?
Click to expand...

That is what you are supposed to do with a personal minimum. If you don't have the discipline to keep one then don't kid yourself by setting one.

Oh, and OP, I hardly think your dad's minimum is extreme for a pilot that rarely shoots an IFR approach except perhaps under the hood for currency. To the contrary, it sound pretty smart to me.
 
Last edited:
Mine are so low that most GA pilots who know my limits think I am nuts. If I see the leaves on the tree's moving I am not flying.

I like nice calm air with no bumps...I live my dream of flying the bigger birds through all you big Iron pilots.

Big Iron...anything over 1000 lbs....lol

So does this mean I have Low Minimums or high minimums?..I do know they are Personal Minimums....

Tony
 
1600vw said:
Mine are so low that most GA pilots who know my limits think I am nuts. If I see the leaves on the tree's moving I am not flying.

I like nice calm air with no bumps...I live my dream of flying the bigger birds through all you big Iron pilots.

Big Iron...anything over 1000 lbs....lol

So does this mean I have Low Minimums or high minimums?..I do know they are Personal Minimums....

Tony
Click to expand...

Hmm, since minimum usually implies low, I guess I will go with higher minimums.
 
If you google "faa personal minimums", you'll get a ton of information about what they are and how to use them. But here's a short introduction to the subject:
Let's start with the basics. What exactly do we mean when we talk about "personal minimums?" In formal terms, personal minimums refers to an individual pilot's set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether, and under what conditions, to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.

While this definition is accurate,there are several reasons why you may not find it particularly helpful as a starting point. First, it tends to describe the product rather than explain the process, which is where many pilots have trouble. Second, and more importantly, the formal definition of the end product -- your personal set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines -- does not really convey one of the core concepts: personal minimums as a "safety buffer" between the demands of the situation and the extent of your skills.

Think of personal minimums as the human factors equivalent of reserve fuel. When you plan a flight, the regulations require you to calculate fuel use in a way that leaves a certain minimum amount of fuel in the tanks when you land at your destination or your alternative. The reserve fuel is intended to provide a safety buffer between fuel required for normal flight and fuel available to avoid total quiet in your engine compartment. In the same way, personal minimums should be set so as to provide a solid safety buffer between the skills required for the specific flight you want to make, and the skills available to you through training, experience, currency, and proficiency. In fuel calculations, you wouldn't dream of planning a flight that would force you to use your reserve fuel, or (worse) take you to the "unusable fuel" level in the tanks. In skill calculations, you shouldn't consider making a flight that requires use of skills at the "reserve" or (worse) "unusable fuel" level of your piloting ability. So where do you start in developing personal minimums? There is no single "right" way to proceed, but if you're unsure of how to proceed in establishing your own personal minimums, this method offers a reasonable place to start.
Click to expand...
See http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=9091 for more from that particular FAA guide to personal minimums.

...or why one might be tempted to just blow their own minimums anyway because they know they can legally go lower.
Click to expand...
The fact that something is legal doesn't guarantee safety. Resisting temptation to deviate from one's own standards (not just the legal requirements) is one of the hallmarks of a safe pilot. That self-discipline is important to a long life as a pilot.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in hard-and-fast personal minimums as I find them too mechanical and unrealistic. It is rarely 1 thing going wrong that causes an accident.

OTOH, I do have various "tripwire" indications that I use, a healthy buffer between my "skill/competence" and my "comfort" minimums, and a 3 strikes rule. I believe that combination serves me better and lets me build skill safer than checkbox minimums.
 
Mine change depending on how proficient I feel and that is typically just a function of recency of experience. If it's been a couple of months since my last approach in hard IFR I will reconsider planning a trip when ceilings or visibility are forecast below MVFR at origin (in case I need to return to origin for mechanical or other considerations) or destination. If I feel tuned up, I'll takeoff if legal minima are satisfied at both ends (including the alternate of course).
 
My personal minimums are published minimums, if I'm not comfortable flying an approach to published minimums then it's time for a little recurrent training.
 
I have slipped it in before for the wind picked up a little before sunset. I find it a lot of fun. I have done it a couple times in calm air just for the fun of it.
Flying something under 500lbs it does not take much wind to throw one around.

Tony
 
peerlesscowboy said:
My personal minimums are published minimums, if I'm not comfortable flying an approach to published minimums then it's time for a little recurrent training.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Getting an instrument ticket and then setting personal minima higher than published just guarantees that you skill set that you spend a lot of time and money to develop, will erode.

I also agree with the above that criticized personal minima as being to mechanistic. Taking an ILS for example, the ceiling is really not the issue unless you lack the skills to get down to DH with the needles near centered. If that is the case, get more training. On an ILS, it is the transition from the gauges to visual and landing that can make things interesting.

You need to understand the differences in conditions and then perhaps make your go/no-go decision based off that. An ILS to mins, in the daylight with a contrasting dark surface runway is pretty easy. Contrary to popular belief, a night ILS is not difficult. Shooting the approach to a snow-covered runway with the null lighting conditions of dawn or twilight is vastly more difficult. Also, strange airports are more difficult than your home airport. Circling to land at anywhere other than an airport that you are familiar with is asking for trouble.

The problem with personal ceiling and visibility minima is that they don't track the real hazards, IMO.
 
So, the advice I've aggregated from the comments seem to suggest a few things:


  • Personal minimums are generally a good idea and recommended by the FAA.
  • Personal minimums should never be lowered "on-the-fly" and should only be raised for particular situations.
  • By having a variable personal minimum one can avoid a mechanical, somewhat arbitrary limit which may be overly cautious for some situations and not cautious enough for others.
  • Setting personal minimums is good but practice and effort should be made to make sure skills don't erode. Nor is there anything wrong with working to make sure your personal minimums match the FAA published minimums.
I'm still too early in my training to set my own personal minimums but I'm guessing that when the time comes I'll initially set my minimums at or near the published minimums and adjust it from there as I gain or lose proficiency and get a better idea of how well I can do in the real world.


Thanks for the great input.
 
There is really just no substitute for maintaining proficiency and understanding the factors. The FAA calls it aeronautical decision-making. I maintain published minimum proficiency, but that doesn't always mean that I am going to make a go decision if the weather is above minimums. I will look at the potential of a minimums approach to an unfamiliar airport at the end of a long day of flying much differently than I will look at one at my home airport. I may look at an approach in fog differently than an approach in snow, even if the reported weather is the same. Am I familiar enough with the avionics, the airplane, the conditions, etc. All are factors which need to be evaluated that don't fit into a rigid rubric of "personal minimums".
 
I don't mess with ice or t-storms, and headwinds which knock my groundspeed below a certain threshold (depends on length of trip). Other than that the minimums on the approach plate are my minimums.
 
ClimbnSink said:
5, 9, and 11 seem a bit over the top, err under the top. If you have strict personal minimums you are wimping out of using your big brain and relying on cheap heuristics. The use of personal minimums is mentally lazy and indicates weak character sauce.
Click to expand...

The opening paragraph would indicate that this list is intended for student pilots.
 
alfadog said:
Oh, and OP, I hardly think your dad's minimum is extreme for a pilot that rarely shoots an IFR approach except perhaps under the hood for currency. To the contrary, it sound pretty smart to me.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. A very wise and mature perspective there. It's similar to realizing that one may not be up flying any approach for whatever reason, despite technical currency. My personal minimums might be only punching a cloud deck with VFR below. Limitations
peerlesscowboy said:
My personal minimums are published minimums, if I'm not comfortable flying an approach to published minimums then it's time for a little recurrent training.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with that thought. Yep.
Kristin said:
The problem with personal ceiling and visibility minima is that they don't track the real hazards, IMO.
Click to expand...
Totally agree again.

If I'm planning a flight and I just never get quite comfortable with the risks whether they those risks relate to my payload, ice or the night before, I shut it down. Never regretted it once. Only scared myself once in IMC and it was my only 2nd or 3rd flight in actual. I'm working hard to keep it that way.

The best thing you can do is train often and fly your arse off.
 
Bill Watson said:
Totally agree. A very wise and mature perspective there. It's similar to realizing that one may not be up flying any approach for whatever reason, despite technical currency. My personal minimums might be only punching a cloud deck with VFR below.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to let my father know he's on the right track. Sounds like he wasn't being overly cautious at all. Looking back at his most recent approaches (which I was in the right seat for some) he is probably spot on with those personal minimums. He flew them all fine but I'm sure a little confusion or a lapse in concentration and he would be happy to know he can break out well above the ground if he was in actual soup.

I try to emulate his cautious nature as well in my flying.
 
I'm struggling to figure out why having "personal minimums" would be a bad thing? If we are talking about flying for hire or in unexpected weather related extremis, then yes, you need to re-evaluate the situation. Other than that, who cares what you decide is your "minimum"? If I were flying for fun, my mins would probably be day VFR, or at least nowhere near actual precision mins. Do I feel comfortable shooting a precision approach down to published mins? Absolutely, any day of the week, and have several times in the last month. Would I do it for the sake of just going out and flying and having fun? No way. Make an evaluation of what the purpose of your flight is, and then make an honest assessment of how much pain you are willing to endure for it.....that should give you a pretty decent number to shoot for.

As an aside, I really hope my old man's personal mins are roughly VFR these days (actually, I know they are but anyway). He's 77, has been flying since the mid 1950's both mil and civilian in anything from a Piper Cub to a super Connie and first generation carrier based jets, and last time I shot an approach with him, it was pretty atrocious. He was working some instrument error problems (his HSI and att indicator were all kinds of gooned up), but while I recognized what was going on and pimped him, he was just confused. Nothing wrong with that.....he is an old timer, and he just isn't as quick as he used to be. If your dad has some personal mins, he probably has them for a good reason.
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
I'm struggling to figure out why having "personal minimums" would be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

:mad2:
I don't think anybody is against assessing your personal proficiency, comfort, and/or leaving a "buffer" between your skill set and what you are comfortable flying in.

What I (and several others) am against is a mechanistic evaluation and the idea that planning guidelines are absolutes that cannot be adjusted.

If you are proficient to 500ft, but only comfortable with 800ft or even day VFR- great! Don't launch if the weather is below those mins or expected to get worse. OTOH if you get near your destination & the approach starts dropping through 700ft, don't merrily abandon the approach to look for an alternate with better weather- land!

A planning buffer isn't something that should never be touched as advocates of "personal minimums" seem to suggest; but it should tell you that things are Not Going To Plan while giving you time to assess and adjust.
 
Common sense = define some that your comfortable with.

Now on the training and proficiency side even airline pilots don't often get to go to 1800 RVR so when you get the chance to safely practice it by God do it.
 
35 AoA said:
I'm struggling to figure out why having "personal minimums" would be a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Same here. I think some people are saying that you should be able to do the approaches to minimums. While that is true, this is the real world and not everyone feels confident doing it nor is everyone competent enough to be doing it. People should feel free to restrict themselves in any way they want as long as they also take that into account during the planning. That's better than continuing lower than you are comfortable because someone on the internet said you should be able to do that.

Low time-in-type captains in Part 121 and 135 have higher minimums, and companies impose certain restrictions. I believe there are quite a few airlines who will not do circling approaches even though they are legal for that category of airplane. There were any number of people who said they would not circle at Aspen in the discussion after the recent accident even though it's legal for category A, B and C. How is that any different?
 
35 AoA said:
I'm struggling to figure out why having "personal minimums" would be a bad thing? If we are talking about flying for hire or in unexpected weather related extremis, then yes, you need to re-evaluate the situation. Other than that, who cares what you decide is your "minimum"? If I were flying for fun, my mins would probably be day VFR, or at least nowhere near actual precision mins. Do I feel comfortable shooting a precision approach down to published mins? Absolutely, any day of the week, and have several times in the last month. Would I do it for the sake of just going out and flying and having fun? No way. Make an evaluation of what the purpose of your flight is, and then make an honest assessment of how much pain you are willing to endure for it.....that should give you a pretty decent number to shoot for.

As an aside, I really hope my old man's personal mins are roughly VFR these days (actually, I know they are but anyway). He's 77, has been flying since the mid 1950's both mil and civilian in anything from a Piper Cub to a super Connie and first generation carrier based jets, and last time I shot an approach with him, it was pretty atrocious. He was working some instrument error problems (his HSI and att indicator were all kinds of gooned up), but while I recognized what was going on and pimped him, he was just confused. Nothing wrong with that.....he is an old timer, and he just isn't as quick as he used to be. If your dad has some personal mins, he probably has them for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you fly commercially/professionally (?) and maintain the required proficiency as part of your work. And that you consider pleasure flying a something that is always 'optional' and for something other than transport.(?)

My flying is and always has been for pleasure only. For the past 15 years its been wholly for transport. Practical transport requires flight in IMC and that requires proficiency which can be challenging to maintain with my regular travels. In my case it requires periodic hood time and some periodic actual. In fair seasons it requires deciding to go out in some weather near 'personal minimums'. Rather than finding it painful, it's part of what's required to have the flying fun I desire. The only pain is the $$$ involved.
 
Everskyward said:
Same here. I think some people are saying that you should be able to do the approaches to minimums. While that is true, this is the real world and not everyone feels confident doing it nor is everyone competent enough to be doing it. People should feel free to restrict themselves in any way they want as long as they also take that into account during the planning. That's better than continuing lower than you are comfortable because someone on the internet said you should be able to do that.

Low time-in-type captains in Part 121 and 135 have higher minimums, and companies impose certain restrictions. I believe there are quite a few airlines who will not do circling approaches even though they are legal for that category of airplane. There were any number of people who said they would not circle at Aspen in the discussion after the recent accident even though it's legal for category A, B and C. How is that any different?
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding that the FAA and organizations sometimes put some hard limits on certain type of operations doesn't make a broad application of personal ceiling and visibility minimums a good idea. As has been pointed out, this is too rigid as it doesn't not encompass the range of conditions that might be encountered.

There are pilots who think a 300' ceiling and 2 sm visibility in the day are little different than W2X with a 2400 RVR. I got news, huge difference. The difference in the transition to visual between the first scenario when you hit DH and see the whole runway, compared to hitting DH and only seeing the rabbit is huge. In that case, you have to have the skill level to go back on the gauges and fly down to 100' and then you need to see the end of the runway.

When I practice, I practice chasing the needle to 50' as I cross the threshold. Whenever I land on a runway with a precision approach, I dial it in a follow the needles even if severe clear. I have been doing that for 33 1/2 years. It has helped a time or two when I was flying professionally. Now I am likely to stay on the ground, but I am glad to know I can shoot a mins approach if I have to.
 
Kristin said:
Notwithstanding that the FAA and organizations sometimes put some hard limits on certain type of operations doesn't make a broad application of personal ceiling and visibility minimums a good idea. As has been pointed out, this is too rigid as it doesn't not encompass the range of conditions that might be encountered.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There are always a range of conditions which might be encountered whether you are taking about published minimums, company minimums or your own.

Kristin said:
There are pilots who think a 300' ceiling and 2 sm visibility in the day are little different than W2X with a 2400 RVR. I got news, huge difference. The difference in the transition to visual between the first scenario when you hit DH and see the whole runway, compared to hitting DH and only seeing the rabbit is huge. In that case, you have to have the skill level to go back on the gauges and fly down to 100' and then you need to see the end of the runway.
Click to expand...
Right. That's why I don't think there is any problem with pilots limiting themselves to, say, 300 and 2 (or something higher) instead of 200 obscured and 2400 RVR. In fact I think that any time someone decides they don't want to shoot a particular approach for whatever reason it's OK, as long as they have an alternative which they hopefully have planned for. The published minimums have more to do with the TERPS requirements than a pilot's skill level.
 
Everskyward said:
I disagree. There are always a range of conditions which might be encountered whether you are taking about published minimums, company minimums or your own.

Right. That's why I don't think there is any problem with pilots limiting themselves to, say, 300 and 2 (or something higher) instead of 200 obscured and 2400 RVR. In fact I think that any time someone decides they don't want to shoot a particular approach for whatever reason it's OK, as long as they have an alternative which they hopefully have planned for. The published minimums have more to do with the TERPS requirements than a pilot's skill level.
Click to expand...

Not getting an instrument rating and never flying in less than 10 miles visibility are good personal minimums, but we are talking IFR here. The point of getting the rating is to use the rating. Either be prepared to work on your skill set and keep up your study so you can make intelligent go/no-go decisions based on actual conditions or stick with good VFR. Rigid rules have no good place in aeronautical decision making on this level, IMO. If you need rigid rules to keep you from doing something dumb, then you having the self-knowledge and self-control to be operating in anything other than the most benign conditions.
 
Muttley said:
I agree completely with Kristin's comments.

.... most GA pilots do not keep their skills as sharp as they believe. Although they can talk about flying procedures with great knowledge, the physical skills have probably eroded.
Click to expand...
Yep, Kristin is dead on target here - I'm certainly learning stuff.

The physical eye/hand skills are constantly eroding unless constantly used.

Daily is better than weekly which is better than semi-weekly. Monthly is just slowing the erosion. That fact alone is a good case for conservative decision making by many pleasure pilots.

And letting the AP do it only improves AP operating skills.

(now if I would only fly like I say I should, I'd be a better pilot)
 
Muttley said:
I agree completely with Kristin's comments.



That being said, I make a living being able to fly to published mins on every approach. My personal minimums are to operate within 50% of the PTS requirements. Remember the PTS is a minimum standard, I make sure I can stay within less than half of those numbers in my normal flying.



OTOH, if you are a normal private pilot owner operator, I agree that you should consider setting personal minimums that are a healthy margin above published. The reason I support this is that most GA pilots do not keep their skills as sharp as they believe. Although they can talk about flying procedures with great knowledge, the physical skills have probably eroded.
Click to expand...


I think Kristin is the one who doesn't think personal minimums are a good idea.
 
Kristin said:
Not getting an instrument rating and never flying in less than 10 miles visibility are good personal minimums, but we are talking IFR here.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is any different IFR. People have different skill levels and levels of currency. Even if you think they should be able to perform to certain standards that is not reality. Even if they can perform to these standards but for some reason don't want to do approaches to minimums, who is anyone else to say they shouldn't?
 
For those who have WAAS and a good roll-steering autopilot they should be able to fly any LPV approach to the charted DA.
 
aterpster said:
For those who have WAAS and a good roll-steering autopilot they should be able to fly any LPV approach to the charted DA.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point. If you have a capable autopilot and either WAAS or ILS should you consider your personal minimums to be a lot lower as long as the automation is functioning?

To me this makes sense. Assuming I'm not so out of practice that I can't setup the approach and equipment properly (and it can safely take the plane down to minimums) then it only make sense to consider that in your planning and personal minimums.

Obviously though, if the magenta line or Otto failed during the approach then a go-around and/or adjustment to the personal minimums should occur. Also, the alternate should take into account hand-flying proficiency only.
 
tehmightypirate said:
This is actually a good point. If you have a capable autopilot and either WAAS or ILS should you consider your personal minimums to be a lot lower as long as the automation is functioning?
Click to expand...

If you can't hand fly it what are you gonna do when automation craps out? Can you handle the sudden missed?
 
Clark1961 said:
If you can't hand fly it what are you gonna do when automation craps out? Can you handle the sudden missed?
Click to expand...

1. The odds of losing the automation from GS interception to DA are very small.

2. Hand flying a missed approach is, or should be, independent of personal minimums. If a pilot can't handle that he is seriously lacking in general proficiency.
 
tehmightypirate said:
This is actually a good point. If you have a capable autopilot and either WAAS or ILS should you consider your personal minimums to be a lot lower as long as the automation is functioning?

To me this makes sense. Assuming I'm not so out of practice that I can't setup the approach and equipment properly (and it can safely take the plane down to minimums) then it only make sense to consider that in your planning and personal minimums.

Obviously though, if the magenta line or Otto failed during the approach then a go-around and/or adjustment to the personal minimums should occur. Also, the alternate should take into account hand-flying proficiency only.
Click to expand...

I didn't include ILS. Unlike LPV some of them are not all that stable and can give fits on a coupled approach.
 
aterpster said:
1. The odds of losing the automation from GS interception to DA are very small.

2. Hand flying a missed approach is, or should be, independent of personal minimums. If a pilot can't handle that he is seriously lacking in general proficiency.
Click to expand...

While the odds *may* be small, the consequences of a problem are likely quite large.

Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top