Poll: personal IFR minimums?

whereisrandall

whereisrandall

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
333
Location
Wiscasset, Maine
Display Name
Display name:
Randall Williams
This video, of two guys out practicing approaches in 300' ceilings, is pretty inspiring. I'm still holding myself to some pretty high minimums until I'm ready to get into soup like this. Plus, these guys are in a Cirrus with autopilot, bells and whistles that my 172L can't even imagine.

So, I'm curious. Among the GA piston-powered set, what are your personal IFR minimums? If you're inclined to list your experience, awesome. I'd just like to know what folks are up to.

Me: 300 hrs Commercial SEL, IFR current. 3 hours actual. holding myself to daytime 1,500 ft and 3 miles visibility, provided it's nowhere near freezing. I'm headed out as soon as the stars align with a high-time actual guy to put some sub 1,000' approaches in.
 
I'm not a GA guy, but if I were to fly a GA type airplane should I list what I'm comfortable in that airplane? My personal mins are likely different than the airplane... depending upon the airplane.
 
My experience is pretty close to that of that of the OP and while I have conducted approaches to minimums with a CFII next to me, I would limit myself to 1,500 amd 3 SM vis with my family onboard until I have more experience.
 
red4golf said:
My experience is pretty close to that of that of the OP and while I have conducted approaches to minimums with a CFII next to me, I would limit myself to 1,500 amd 3 SM vis with my family onboard until I have more experience.
Click to expand...

I commend you for being conservative, but heck that's VFR....
 
As long as there is a good alternate and I'm not going to be in ice, well

5XCsLiy.gif
 
Yeah, it depends on the airplane rather than my personal mins. I have no problem with woxof with the right equipment.
 
Kritchlow said:
I commend you for being conservative, but heck that's VFR....
Click to expand...

Oh I know. I don't have much actual so I would like to spend my time in IMC with an easy out since something like 95% of my flying now includes my wife, 3 year old and 5 month old.

I never had a problem shooting an approach to minimums and breaking out right where I needed to be (except that one NDB approach in to Kelso, grrrr) but I have yet to develop the confidence necessary to do it with family onboard. Could I manage if necessary? Sure. Do I want to get better at it first? You bet.

Now, would I do single pilot IFR with a load of boxes or checks to minimums in to BFI on a rainy night? Sure but you don't have the attached looking at you either....
 
Yep, I'll try one to actual minimums but my alternate requirements are a bit more conservative than what the FAA will let you get away with.
 
Like to keep it to 400 with a good alternate. Have gone to minimums once or twice and don't like it. Will due minimums if I'm familiar with the airport and approach.must have an auto pilot for sure.
 
No convective activity, moderate winds, and no icing. And I don't plow thru IMC endlessly , if I can't fly below or preferably above it and trip will be longer than a hour it's a no go.
Approaches to minimums if LPV or ILS
 
Last edited:
About 800 hours, and I work hard to stay current.

Assuming no ice, no convection and a good alternate I have no problem with hard IMC to minimums.

I do have a plane with an autopilot, that makes the task loading much easier, but don't forget to hand fly them occasionally, it's more fun!

-Dan
 
No to convective, ice and winds that make me seem like I am in hover mode. I have shot approaches to minimums and had to go missed due to minimums once.

My greater concern, and maybe just in my head, is departure mins. I like to have 1000-1200 so I can get in if forced to return. I have departed 800 overcast twice but it was dependent on airport and surroundings.

No auto pilot but its on my wish list.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what equipment I am flying. 172 I'll go down to minimums in light rainshowers. Obviously not going flying in thunderstorms. As far as fog/clouds I'll go down to the legal minimums.
 
Is there data to show that more crashes happened when appoaches are flown those last few hundred feet?
I have never felt apprehension going from 500' to 200', or into vis which was 1mi vs 3mi, nor have I noticed a greater loss in aircraft control in that phase of flight, so I guess I didn't ever see the value (or increase in safety) of having minimums higher than plated minimums.
Certainly I see the value in avoiding ice, tstorms and of having an awesome backup plan to each flight.
 
500+, commercial SEL & MEL, about 10 actual from a long time ago, not current. Working on learning GPS, I returned to flying after over 25 years away. Will do an IPC soon. My first personal minimum will be VMC for the entire flight. After that I doubt if I'll have a hard number. So much depends on the current conditions for any particular flight.
 
Only around 1300 hours. CFI, Comm SEL/MEL. I have about 70 hours of actual. I've written this before on other threads and I'll write it again. My personal minimums are the ones written on the approach plate. If I'm not comfortable taking an ILS, GPS, or VOR approach down to minimums, then I need more training. It also helps that we do single pilot IFR Part 91 ops and my school so I am very comfortable flying in the system.
 
Last edited:
Lots of single engine single pilot non-FIKI IMC hours under my belt, in all kinds of conditions, ice, night, thunderstorms, cross-wind/windshear when breaking out at minimums, you name it.
But having survived all that unscathed, I don't want to push my luck beyond the bare minimum needed. So for every flight in marginal weather, I first consider: how badly do I want/need to be there on that day, at that time?
If there is any flexibility relative to mission criticality vs. weather, I might start by adjusting the departure date/time. Then, I carefully look for good alternates, and consider my "outs" in general. Which way (or altitude) can I head if the fit hits the shan? I like knowing where the weather will be nicer or less icy/stormy in general.
As far as the actual minimums, I have no problem shooting an approach to minimums if I trust the equipment. So LPV/ILS are fine, and actually fun to shoot. Non-precision approaches, not so much. I used to be based at a 2000' strip with the only approach being a VOR located 23 or so miles away (before GPS), and shot all kinds of day and night low IMC approaches to it, so can do that stuff if needed, but no fun at all and would certainly avoid that today.
The way I look at an IFR/IMC flight is as an equation. How badly do I need to be there? How bad is the weather? How good are the alternates (or alternate altitudes in case of ice)? How good is the approach (LPV/ILS = good)? Am I IMC current? (well beyond the minimum FAA requirements, I tend to collect IMC rust within days) Is the plane and equipment up to the task? (e.g. autopilot a must for single pilot IFR, not for the final approach or initial climb, but certainly for cruise and initial approach segments). I just plug in all those variables into the mental equation and decide: go or no go (on that date). For example, right now it would take a war for me to head out single engine non-FIKI in night IMC with possible icing conditions.
And this equation doesn't stop once I decide on go. I keep re-evaluating all parameters, including my outs, all the time, until safely chocked or tied down at the final destination.
 
6 pack, Garmin 420 (non-WAAS, GPS/COM only, no nav), HSI only talks to the Garmin, so ILS/LOC/VOR approaches have to be shot on the NAV2 CDI. Not using A/P. Published minimums.

No go items would be icing or unavoidable convective activity. Have done stints of up to 2 1/2hrs in IMC, but those prolonged stays tend to be rare. Most exposure to IMC seems to be for a few minutes at a time for my typical profile.

On the few occasions it's gone long, I have to be honest, it becomes a non-issue after a while and you just get into a grove, provided the turbulence isn't bad. I'd certainly prefer to get above it if conditions permit.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Is there data to show that more crashes happened when appoaches are flown those last few hundred feet?
I have never felt apprehension going from 500' to 200', or into vis which was 1mi vs 3mi, nor have I noticed a greater loss in aircraft control in that phase of flight, so I guess I didn't ever see the value (or increase in safety) of having minimums higher than plated minimums.
Click to expand...
None of these things matter if you are doing it correctly, but higher minimums give you more of a cushion if you screw up.

Also, I think many accidents happen on the missed because, after training, many people do not practice this much. I remember one guy from years ago, who on his IPC, would be reluctant to raise the nose during the missed. I witnessed that again from my sim partner the last time I went to school. The sim has an artificial voice that counts down, "50, 40, 30". I heard it say, "20" before we started climbing. In a real airplane I would have taken over in self-preservation mode, but he was training for his type ride so he needed to be able to do this himself.

I realize that sometimes the weather can turn out to be much worse than forecast, but if you set higher limits there is less of a chance of it being below what you can handle safely.
 
I personally don't have a problem flying down to minimums. My fear is always having an optimistic forecast and running into a place where it's below minimums. When I fly, I like to know ceilings will be at least 800-1000. It gives a fair margin just in case it's lower than expected.
 
Got my rating in a round gage Maule sans A/P. Fly a glass panel RV10 now. Just some notes around the minimums issue.

If actually traveling places you need to be prepared to go to minimums. It will happen. Forecasts don't apply to every square mile of the forecast area and stuff can change while you watch it. Completing a flight to minimums may beat slogging back thru 2 hours of IMC to find out your high ceiling alternate is also coming down, etc.

Flying with your love ones may raise your minimums just because, but the real difference may lie in cockpit distractions. Just flying different because they are on board can be a distraction. A sick child or an engaged but worried spouse can change things more than a breaker tripping CFII.

Personal energy can become a big factor. End of a vacation, less sleep them normal, long slog in turbulence, 2+ hours of hand flying in IMC, whatever. I go up and fly in local low IMC for practice but doing the same hundreds of miles from home at the end of a 4 hour leg can be different. I have passengers but no copilot, etc.

Back to distractions: If you often fly with you family they may never represent a distraction, but flying with a friend who you've never flown in the soup with could be a giant distraction and one that makes an IFR operation tougher than usual. Distractions are best managed before takeoff. They can also be managed by recognition and practice.

A big discovery for me in my early efforts at getting my ticket wet was that low departures can be tougher than low approaches. It's easier operating the plane after all the noises have settled down, the engine has been running for hours and my hand flying skills are fully warmed up. Jumping in a cold airplane for the first flight in 2 weeks for a departure into a 500' ceiling can be more challenging. Give it full power and listen to the RPMs rev, accelerate, move the eyes up and down a few times, pitch up, don't drop the pencil, start going thru the wispies and get the call to go to departure while keeping it on the proper straight ahead climb.... I found a smooth air approach to 200' after a 2 hour leg much easier on the mind.

Just some thoughts. Have fun and enjoy!
 
Fresh off of my IR training (20+ hours in 2 weeks, and 10+ in the two months before that) with a glass-panel DA40, garmin autopilot. Did several ILS approaches to the missed, in actual conditions below minimums, and a couple of GPS approaches to minimums. I'd have no problem doing so again. Would I adjust my attitude with different equipment, or at night, or when exhausted? Absolutely.
 
Everskyward said:
None of these things matter if you are doing it correctly, but higher minimums give you more of a cushion if you screw up.
Click to expand...

That's the theory I have heard for years....but have often wondered if it plays out in practice. Looking for real stories or stats to show its true, but I could be dreaming - they may not exist. It 'makes sense' (but over the years, there have been so many things about which I've said that, which then were disproven).

The sim has an artificial voice that counts down, "50, 40, 30". I heard it say, "20" before we started climbing. In a real airplane I would have taken over in self-preservation mode, but he was training for his type ride so he needed to be able to do this himself.
Click to expand...

No flight director, or no GA button, or not following the bars?? Ugh. I agree the missed is not done enough. Maybe add it to the 6mo requirement.
 
Background: I flew approaches to minimums and even a real missed off an ILS during my instrument training. I flew an ILS to within 300' of minimums a week after getting the rating. But the next 20 years (starting a week after that ILS) were spent in Colorado where it is VFR 320 days a year with most of the IMC containing ice or thunderstorms. Flyable instrument conditions were few and far between. Without looking, I doubt I had more than a half dozen loggable actual approaches during that entire period.

Moving to NC meant getting back into "real" IFR flight. I reacclimated myself slowly and , fortunately, the weather cooperated. But even here, with the type of flying I do, I don't encounter conditions for loggable approaches that often.

My personal minimums reflect that - they are essentially the standard alternate minimums - 600 for a precision approach, 800 for a non-precision approach (although I would try to avoid them to begin with).

Definitely looking for that in the forecasts. But are they "hard" minimums? If forecast to be better than 600 but weather en route indicates they were lower than that would I divert? Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm willing to give myself a 100-200' buffer. But using the buffer would depend for me on how the rest of the flight went and how I felt and what the actual weather was.

Yes, I am concerned about a missionitis factor on that buffer. But my personal history of making diversions (I sometimes joke I have a record for them) leads me to have confidence in my ability to make that choice on the fly (so to speak).
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
That's the theory I have heard for years....but have often wondered if it plays out in practice. Looking for real stories or stats to show its true, but I could be dreaming - they may not exist. It 'makes sense' (but over the years, there have been so many things about which I've said that, which then were disproven).
Click to expand...
How could you prove anything one way or another? There are definitely accidents where people screw up in IMC but there is no way to say whether or not they were using personal minimums.

Let'sgoflying! said:
No flight director, or no GA button, or not following the bars?? Ugh. I agree the missed is not done enough. Maybe add it to the 6mo requirement.
Click to expand...
In the case in the sim there was a flight director and GA button, I think the problem was a really slow reaction. The guy in the past who failed to raise the nose (more than once) did not have a FD or go-around button. He flew a lot but mostly in VMC. He rarely did instrument approaches.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
No flight director, or no GA button, or not following the bars?? Ugh. I agree the missed is not done enough. Maybe add it to the 6mo requirement.
Click to expand...

Very good point :yes:


It's funny, the only time I go missed is on my 6mo check rides, even with a FD, GA and a ton of power, it's something which I believe many pilots (91, 135, 121) don't keep in practice with nearly at all when compared to all other stages of IFR flight.

When I take my own plane up (530/430/EHSI/stec) I like to shoot a approach every couple flights just because, thinking I should make it a habit to go missed each time.
 
dweyant said:
About 800 hours, and I work hard to stay current.

Assuming no ice, no convection and a good alternate I have no problem with hard IMC to minimums.

I do have a plane with an autopilot, that makes the task loading much easier, but don't forget to hand fly them occasionally, it's more fun!

-Dan
Click to expand...
This is pretty much me. I'm at 900 hrs and fly regularly to stay current. I have no issues with filing and flying to a destination reporting 200' or other IFR mins providing I have a good backup plan in case the weather gets worse. I used to hand fly all approaches from at least the FAF in. Since we got the Baron (my first A/P with approach mode) I mix it up. About half the approaches are coupled and the other are hand flown. If I go up with a safety pilot, I'll hand fly every 2 out of 3 approaches.

What I don't like is flying around in the soup when there is T-storm activity nearby.
 
Kritchlow said:
I commend you for being conservative, but heck that's VFR....
Click to expand...

:yes:

That's pretty high minimums but I get it. In my case, minimums are situational.

If I have a realistic alternate with high enough ceilings then I'd have no problem taking a crack or three at an ILS that is near minimums. So far, unfortunately, the lowest I've been on an ILS was about 600 agl in light to moderate rain with a leaky wind screen :D . Not sure what vis was but I don't think it was 3 miles. All the other airports around there were VFR but we flew in for the purpose of getting my ticket wet. Since then I've been in lots of IMC but I never seem to end up with low IMC on approach.

It's all about your way out. I wouldn't go to minimums if every airport was at minimums. I'd just divert someplace and wait.
 
Long as there is no icing, I'll go all the way down to minimums (and have). I have the equipment in the plane to feel comfortable even when in hard-IFR (2 axis autopilot, WAAS gps, etc). The first time I was in the soup by myself I was definitely a bit stressed, but the more I do it, the more I'm used to it. I did 5 approaches in low imc conditions all the way down to around 200-300 ft for LPV here about a month ago and still didn't see the runway and others where I've broken out at 1000 ft.

I much prefer the low ifr approaches, more challenging. However I did just get my instrument ticket in November 2015 so I'm probably more proficient then someone who's doing it once or twice a year.

If I was with my family I'd go to minimums ONCE. If I didn't get down I'd either divert or hold if I knew conditions were going to come up. My wife really hates flying so, chances are a diversion would be the way to go.
 
I fly a FIKI ship, so I will fly through icing conditions, but I will not fly in icing conditions that are forecasting SLD or have tops higher than I feel comfortable with or that are reasonable to be at for the distance of the trip. There are some other factors.. Basically, I like to get in and out as soon as possible.

As for my other minimums. I have no problem shooting approaches to minimums. I actually enjoy it very much. I do want a good alternate showing around 1000' and 2+ mi visibility within reach to make it a go. I wont go unless I know I can land somewhere. (if everything goes right).

I have to say though. I fly with two huge 12 inch screens that show me just about everything I would see out the window. I would prob. have different minimums if I was flying only with standard gauges. The situational awareness provided makes it fun for me.
 
I was never comfortable flying in IMC at night in clouds above clouds lower than the MVA because my airplane didn't have any backup lighting in case I had an electrical failure.
 
I'm one of those fuddy-duddies that likes engine redundancy for IFR. My basic rule in a single is to have enough ceiling and vis under me to break out and avoid the big stuff in the event of an engine failure.

In a twin, I'll plan on needing the approach lights to get from DA to 100' AGL effort I see the runway...usually easier at night. ;)
 
It's not just how low the clouds are. Icing, turbulence, wind and aircraft capability enter into the equation also. I have flown an ILS down to 200' and it worked out ok. It also depend on how familiar the pilot is with the approach. Having flown the same approach several times recently REALLY adds to confidence. Having a competent copilot helps too.
It all depends but really the FAA minimums are good guidelines for most of us. There is some cushion there, usually.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Is there data to show that more crashes happened when appoaches are flown those last few hundred feet?
I have never felt apprehension going from 500' to 200', or into vis which was 1mi vs 3mi, nor have I noticed a greater loss in aircraft control in that phase of flight, so I guess I didn't ever see the value (or increase in safety) of having minimums higher than plated minimums.
Click to expand...

This! When talking IFR personal mins, ceiling and vis should even be part of the equation IMO. You may have minimums for takeoff that are higher if you wish, but IMO once you're in the air you must be willing to fly any approach necessary to minimums, or you have no business taking off IFR in the first place.

Me: 1500-ish TT, Comm-ASMEL-IA, with about 30-40 hours of actual... But I've felt this way since the day I got my rating.

My personal mins for IFR flying: FAA legal mins, planned outs for any scenario where I may encounter ice, and as much fuel as I can carry. Fuel = options, and I've had flights in actual where I was glad I had 4+ hours "reserve" fuel. (Wx went below mins at destination, dropped like a rock at the alternate and I was the 2nd-to-last plane to make it in there in the next 24 hours, widespread IMC, but had enough fuel on board to fly to VMC).

RotorDude said:
Lots of single engine single pilot non-FIKI IMC hours under my belt, in all kinds of conditions, ice, night, thunderstorms, cross-wind/windshear when breaking out at minimums, you name it.
But having survived all that unscathed, I don't want to push my luck beyond the bare minimum needed. So for every flight in marginal weather, I first consider: how badly do I want/need to be there on that day, at that time?
If there is any flexibility relative to mission criticality vs. weather, I might start by adjusting the departure date/time. Then, I carefully look for good alternates, and consider my "outs" in general. Which way (or altitude) can I head if the fit hits the shan? I like knowing where the weather will be nicer or less icy/stormy in general.
Click to expand...

And that's the other thing. Really, every flight is "it depends" for me. By building some time flexibility into the schedule and having non-GA travel options for must-get-there scenarios, I've been able to keep better than 99% dispatch reliability. But, I've also cancelled flights that were supposed to be fun when it didn't sound like fun any more.

It's essentially impossible to make an easy rule that will allow you to fly when it's safe and keep you safe when it's not. 500 feet and 1 mile vis? No problem... Except when there's a good chance of icing and tops are way high. So, look at each flight on its own and decide if that flight is good idea.
 
1,000 and one. I have a little over 1,000 hours PIC, and this would be my personal minimums in the 172 I fly now. And an alternate with weather at least as good, and preferably better. Forecast for stable or improving conditions.

Not mucking about anywhere with embedded cells, even though I have Nexrad available.
 
At work, whatever the published min on the chart is-if it's legal and no terribly unsafe circumstances exist (severe storm over the airport, ice in a non FIKI airplane etc) I go. Simple as that. In a light piston single if I'm out flying for fun, I prefer not to launch into anything much lower than basic VFR (1000-3) due to the possibility of an engine failure forcing me to decend out of the clouds and find an off airport landing sight. That being said, I have been forced to shoot approaches down to mins in piston singles and don't really mind doing so if the weather went lower than I expected it to, but for planning I like to use basic VFR as my basis. If I still flew piston singles for work, I'd probably have to set much lower personal mins.
 
Last edited:
If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?
 
With regards to low ceilings and vis, as others have said my 182 isn't fiki (would be sweet) so so long as its not thunderstorms, ill take it as low the ceiling and vis allow on the approach and the plane is capable of. I have always felt very comfortable flying IFR and with work we do approaches down to 1200rvr on occasion (CATII) so I stay very current in IFR work.
 
dans2992 said:
If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?
Click to expand...


I would let the autopilot fly it, it allows more overall situational awareness and quite frankly I have yet to see a person that can fly a precision approach better than an autopilot. At work we have certain visibility limits (even outside CATII) where we must do it with the autopilot if not MEL'd. Which is safer? well I guess that doesn't really have a solid answer one way or another.
 
dans2992 said:
If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?
Click to expand...

While I am usually flying IFR in a twin, I do whatever I'm feeling like at the time. As I posted earlier, I like to mix it up and be comfortable and proficient with both coupled and hand flown approaches.

As far as which is safer: that can depend on your proficiency and the equipment. A pilot who is not proficient at hand flying is probably going to be safer on the A/P....as long as the A/P is fully working. On the flip side, a pilot who isn't familiar and proficient with the automation can be downright dangerous trying to fly a coupled approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top