Personal Minimums

[Mooneymite]

When I file IFR, I use minimums somewhat above the published minimums for take-off, approach and enroute weather based on the fact I have only the stock PC and my IFR equipment is rather basic.  I was wondering what others use as their "Personal Minimums" and how they came to those numbers.  In reality, my numbers are somewhat arbitrary and un-scientific.

 

In my case, I actually have two sets of numbers, one set for myself (solo) and another set for flights where I carry passengers.

 

For you guys who fly IFR, what do you use?  Why?

 

Thanks for helping me evaluate "my minimums".

[Marauder]

When I obtained my IFR rating in the early 90s, I set personal minimums that were 2X the approach mins. I also wanted the alternate to be 2X mins (above the 2000' and 3 mile vis) and enroute to be 1000' feet AGL. After a year of flying this way, I moved the mins down to destination, alternate to be 1/2/3 and I didn't care about enroute.

 

Well... A couple of years later I had a mechanical problem that scared out all of the vinegar I was pissing. I was over a heavily wooded area (for miles) and the area had high terrain obscured and really low ceilings. I was fortunate the problem allowed me to be able to fly to an airport that I could get into.

 

For me today, no night IFR. I want the destination to be above mins, good alternate and the enroute with at least a 1000' ceiling. No more "by the grace of God go I" for me. I don't have exact "above mins" numbers because it depends on where I am flying. If I am coming back into my flat piece of real estate here, I will fly a lot closer to mins. If I am headed to unfamiliar or rough terrain airport, they go up. Weather flying also changes for me if we are talking winter or summer IFR as well.

[carusoam]

When I was new to IFR, I used 1,000' AGL. It leaves a lot of space and time for personal errors.... Both take off and landing.

Now, I don't fly enough for that...

Best regards,

-a-

[rbridges]

I want at least double minimums so long as the alternate airport is at least 1000' AGL.  Marauder's post has me thinking though.  I've never entertained the thoughts of an emergency en route.

[WardHolbrook]

The boss spends a lot of money to keep me proficient enough to be able to safely go to the published minimums on any approach we're capable of performing. That works well for the jet. When it comes to my personal minimums in single engine aircraft it's pretty simple - I don't do LIFR (or night XC) flying in singles so there's no reason to worry about any approaches with a ceiling/visibility of less than about 800/1.

[Bob - S50]

I've done a lot of IFR, but none in the Mooney yet.  Once I do, I'll probably use the same thing I've been using for years.  It depends....

 

1.  If I was there right now could I fly an approach?  If no, don't go regardless of the forecast.  I know of a plane that diverted emergency fuel because the forecast did not require an alternate but when they arrived it was still zero zero.

2.  Is the weather at my destination and alternate as good or better than forecast?

3.  Is the weather coming up or going down?

 

Depending on may answers to #2 and #3, I may or may not go.

 

Worse than forecast and going down?  Stay home.

Better than forecast but going down?  Require for more ceiling and visibility margin.

Worse than forecast but going up?  Add a little extra margin.

Better than forecast and going up?  Press on.

[Mooneymite]

Personal minimums for filing IFR is not as simple as it sounds.

 

I agree with Marauder.  Single engine IFR and night ops are pushing the safety net pretty hard.  Add 'single-pilot' and the net is pushed even harder.

 

As we all know, under part 91 one can takeoff with weather as low as zero-zero, or you can be smart and wait for VFR....I like to think somewhere in between there are take-off numbers that mitigate risk to an acceptable level.  Presently I use 500' ceiling and 1 mile, but the availability of a "good" takeoff alternate is also a consideration.  I once took off from our grass field in worse conditions, but it was patchy ground fog with VFR all around.

 

As far as destination weather for filing, I look for general weather patterns.  If my specific destination isn't too good, but the surrounding area has plenty of options, I might file to as low as published + 200'/+ 1/4 mile add-ons.  If the whole area is LIFR, I'll probably wait until the weather improves.

 

Enroute, I like to see ceilings generally 500', or higher.  That will provide "some" time to pick the site of the accident should the engine fail, or I have an inflight fire.

 

These are my "filing minimums".  Once in flight I deal with reality.  In one case, I boldly struck off for the east coast  based on conditions improving to VFR at arrival time, but when I got there, the whole coast was at, or below minimums.  So much for "personal filing minimums"!

 

Comments?

[NotarPilot]

I fly into Long Beach, CA (home base at 60 MSL) and originally set my personal minimums at 1,000 AGL. As I became more confident I lowered that to 800 feet. One day I had to flew to Burbank airport and I knew it was IFR with the weather right at 600 AGL. I decided to give it a shot. While on my way there the ceiling dropped to 300 AGL. I was a little nervous since DH is 280 AGL but decided to give it a shot figuring I could always go missed if it didn't work out for me. There's some terrain surrounding the airport but I'm very aware of where it is and had good situational awareness about it in my head.

I was cleared for the ILS and flew it right down to about 40 feet above minimums when I saw the runaway pop out of the clouds. I landed and while I was taxiing to parking I felt my hands a little sweaty and shaky. It was a real boost to the confidence but reinforced the notion that hand flying a precision approach down to minimums is no joke. Let me add that it had been about a month since my last approach before that. It illustrates the importance of staying A LOT more current than what regulations allow.

So now my personal minimums would depend on several factors but one of which would be when the last time I flew an approach was.

[mike_elliott]

I was cleared for the ILS and flew it right down to about 40 feet above minimums when I saw the runaway pop out of the clouds. I landed and while I was taxiing to parking I felt my hands a little sweaty and shaky. It was a real boost to the confidence but reinforced the notion that hand flying a precision approach down to minimums is no joke. Let me add that it had been about a month since my last approach before that. It illustrates the importance of staying A LOT more current than what regulations allow.

So now my personal minimums would depend on several factors but one of which would be when the last time I flew an approach was.

 

NotarPilot, I believe that is a great attitude to have. Flying 6 approaches, a hold and tracking a radial all in a 2 hour session once every 6 months is not nearly as effective at keeping you current as one approach every month with a hold or 2 during that time. Flying the approaches VFR helps even though they don't count. I am a big fan of once a month training of some nature for currency.

[N9453V]

I flew about 300 hours in the past year, a substantial portion of it in the Mooney and a good portion of that as single-pilot IFR night, so I felt my proficiency was very high during the entire year. My personal minimums are generally the approach minimums and I've flown many approaches to minimums over the last year, but before each approach that will be close, I expect to go missed and only change plans and land if I see the runway environment in sight.

 

For departure, I generally use the minimums for Part 135, but in a few cases where I knew the field well and there was adequate centerline lighting and no terrain issues, I departed in less than 1/2 mile vis.

 

-Andrew

[triple8s]

I'm a new IFR pilot had it for a little over a year, about 650 hr tt. Seems like I am always explaining to folks why I opt out due to this or that that I don't like about the weather. It's weird I know some guys that "go be damned" I just don't have the guts for that, I'd rather be a live coward I guess.

[Marauder]

I'm a new IFR pilot had it for a little over a year, about 650 hr tt. Seems like I am always explaining to folks why I opt out due to this or that that I don't like about the weather. It's weird I know some guys that "go be damned" I just don't have the guts for that, I'd rather be a live coward I guess.

I think your thinking about this the right way. I always tell people that I believe in the three Cs when it comes to aviation and my decision making. And I won't tackle a flight unless I have all three.

The first C is for currency. And it is simply that; am I current to make the flight based on the legal requirements? The second C is for competency. Like it was mentioned above, just because you are legally current doesn't mean you are competent to take on a certain flight. Have I done enough IFR flying recently that take me to the level of competency needed for this flight?

The final C is for confidence. And I think that is the essence of your point. I personally have canceled flights because although I was current and competent there was something about that flight but did not give me the confidence to take it on. There is nothing wrong with that way of thinking. You tend to live longer thinking this way.

Unfortunately I have lost a few friends due to aviation related accidents over the years. Some of those folks, had no problem with confidence...

[Bob - S50]

I'm a new IFR pilot had it for a little over a year, about 650 hr tt. Seems like I am always explaining to folks why I opt out due to this or that that I don't like about the weather. It's weird I know some guys that "go be damned" I just don't have the guts for that, I'd rather be a live coward I guess.

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.  Making wise decisions like yours should put you well on your way to living to be an old pilot.

[cliffy]

WOW! This is a bit of fresh air.

As a now retired ATP, I used to do 600 RVR Autolands in 757s and Airbus's. I used to practice by hand flying an ILS to CAT III 50ft Mins in clear weather just to be able to in an emergency. I was doing 75 hrs / month average in good weather and bad and I was flying a big jet, not my Mooney. 

Since I retired I'm doing 100 hrs /year! Not any where near what I was doing. SO my own mins have undergone quite a change. Marauder is just about right on. I'll do a climb out (maybe even KLGB) or an approach but each on has a decision tree to what my mins might be that day. Rarely, if at all, do I see a full mins approach anymore, rarely will I even do one as I'll pass on the flight and wait a day. Full IMC cross-country is something I don't do anymore either. 

24 hours will in 99% of the cases, cure any weather issue.

When I bought my Mooney 14 years ago I did a study of all night time single engine accidents over a 10 year period. I wanted to know how safe S/E flying was at night. There were 263 of them. I read every one of them.  260 of the 263 accidents were nothing more than running into a mountain.

So, the conclusion, at that time, was that the chances of a problem were very slim BUT, and a it is a very BIG BUT, if something does happen, at night, out west where I fly, I'm in deep doo-doo. So, I just don't do it. 

If one wants to look up a report/hand book for a Mooney BFR check ride, a book will pop up and inside one of the subjects will be "Recency of Experience" as it pertains to accidents. The graphs show that no matter what your total time is if you fly less than 10 hours every 90 days YOU are at a very high risk for an accident.  No wonder every insurance company wants to know your flight time in the last 90 days! Keep that in mind.

Lastly, I have something I try to pass along to any young or newer pilot if I feel they will take it to heart.

It is my feeling that unless you are "tempered" as a pilot, you are not a safe pilot and if you live long enough, you might become a safe pilot.

By tempered I mean, until you have done something while flying, that you know YOU did, and it scared the living beejesus out of you, you are not tempered. Until then you will always be tempted to test the edges. You don't need to find the edges, It's not worth it.

 Cliff Biggs

ATP, 767,757,737,727, A320, LRJet, CE500, MU-2, Wright Bros Award

A&P 46 Yrs, B707, B727, B720, B747, DC-10, DC9, DC-8, CE500

[201er]

Single engine IFR and night ops are pushing the safety net pretty hard.  Add 'single-pilot' and the net is pushed even harder.

Are they? From the 2010 Nall report:

 

86% of airplane accidents happened in Day VMC. 14% remains for all night/IMC combinations. Pilot error contributes 74% while mechanical 15%. 13% of mechanical accidents were fatal while 17% of pilot accidents were.

 

67% of weather related accidents were VFR into IMC. Not a problem when you're already IFR! So that's actually one less issue to worry about. In terms of IFR technique, it certainly is important to keep current but only 4% of weather related accidents were due to poor IFR technique.

 

And what difference does "night ops" make when you're already IMC? It's pretty much the same thing once you're in the system flying the instruments. Heck, sometimes it's easier to make out the runway lights on an approach at night.

 

IFR/IMC flying may actually be substantially safer than VFR/VMC because we tend to use a lot of straight in/out approach/departures, no distraction with traffic avoidance, and most importantly no traffic pattern (the most likely place to get in some sort of accident). Also IFR tends to demand bigger airports/runways so there is less temptation of a departure stall takeoff or trying too hard to land short.

 

Another issue I think is complacency. During a hard IFR flight, you will be checking everything and on top of your game. Things come to bite you when you treat a basic VFR flight as too easy and then fall into the trap. That's why most ATP pilot accidents seem to be in a piston in VFR rather than in a jet in hard IFR despite doing it for far more hours.

 

The importance of personal minimums is more so to be able to keep your cool, confidence, and handle the airplane under the circumstances. Let's not kid ourselves that having 1000ft ceilings over inhospitable terrain is going to make much difference.

[201er]

When I bought my Mooney 14 years ago I did a study of all night time single engine accidents over a 10 year period. I wanted to know how safe S/E flying was at night. There were 263 of them. I read every one of them.  260 of the 263 accidents were nothing more than running into a mountain.

That's interesting. Leads me to conclude that night IFR must be damned safe then... if 260 of 263 accidents could have been prevented by flying IFR (or just having better situational awareness other than visual).

[PMcClure]

I think we have a couple of issues to think about here. For newbie IFR pilots who have only flown a few (or no) approaches in real IMC, then 1000' ceilings and thin layer penetration are a good start. The real gotcha may actually be thunderstorms and icing rather than getting to low on a precision approach. 

 

After that, I generally think in terms of "outs" instead of minimums. I ask myself what if questions. What if the weather is worse, what if the layer has ice, what if i have a mechanical problem, what if the cross wind is too great? If I can't count on hard outs that is when I start thinking about waiting, flying commercial or canceling. If you are capable and have a capable plane, so what if the weather is down to 200/1. If you can see the runway at 200' then great, if not, then depart and go find that rock solid alternate you planned. 

 

When making decisions, not having an rock solid out, or overestimating your out is a sure way to get in trouble in aviation. 

[cliffy]

True on the night flying EXCEPT for my caveat, I fly exclusively out west with tall granite clouds that can't be seen at night. Unless you have taken off from say KPGA at night with no moon and used Rwy 33 You have no idea how dark night flying is. Trust me, it's total IMC from the end of the runway. Nothing, and I mean nothing but a total black curtain. Don't think for a moment that star light will do it. Now if the 260 had only stayed above the big numbers on each section of a Sectional chart they wouldn't have made grave for themselves.

I might think differently if I had miles of corn fields below me. I have one area that I fly around after I leave my home airport that if I had a problem, there is no safe place to go even in clear weather.

[Marauder]

WOW! This is a bit of fresh air. As a now retired ATP, I used to do 600 RVR Autolands in 757s and Airbus's. I used to practice by hand flying an ILS to CAT III 50ft Mins in clear weather just to be able to in an emergency. I was doing 75 hrs / month average in good weather and bad and I was flying a big jet, not my Mooney. Since I retired I'm doing 100 hrs /year! Not any where near what I was doing. SO my own mins have undergone quite a change. Marauder is just about right on. I'll do a climb out (maybe even KLGB) or an approach but each on has a decision tree to what my mins might be that day. Rarely, if at all, do I see a full mins approach anymore, rarely will I even do one as I'll pass on the flight and wait a day. Full IMC cross-country is something I don't do anymore either. 24 hours will in 99% of the cases, cure any weather issue. When I bought my Mooney 14 years ago I did a study of all night time single engine accidents over a 10 year period. I wanted to know how safe S/E flying was at night. There were 263 of them. I read every one of them. 260 of the 263 accidents were nothing more than running into a mountain. So, the conclusion, at that time, was that the chances of a problem were very slim BUT, and a it is a very BIG BUT, if something does happen, at night, out west where I fly, I'm in deep doo-doo. So, I just don't do it. If one wants to look up a report/hand book for a Mooney BFR check ride, a book will pop up and inside one of the subjects will be "Recency of Experience" as it pertains to accidents. The graphs show that no matter what your total time is if you fly less than 10 hours every 90 days YOU are at a very high risk for an accident. No wonder every insurance company wants to know your flight time in the last 90 days! Keep that in mind. Lastly, I have something I try to pass along to any young or newer pilot if I feel they will take it to heart. It is my feeling that unless you are "tempered" as a pilot, you are not a safe pilot and if you live long enough, you might become a safe pilot. By tempered I mean, until you have done something while flying, that you know YOU did, and it scared the living beejesus out of you, you are not tempered. Until then you will always be tempted to test the edges. You don't need to find the edges, It's not worth it. Cliff Biggs ATP, 767,757,737,727, A320, LRJet, CE500, MU-2, Wright Bros Award A&P 46 Yrs, B707, B727, B720, B747, DC-10, DC9, DC-8, CE500

Cliff - thanks for the comments and kudos. While I don't have the same experience level as you, I share the same philosophy. It is refreshing to see "heavy iron" experience weigh in on the topic. There is a big difference between commercial ops and what we do. Everything from single pilot IFR to single engine non-turbine makes us different. I have no desire to have someone say at my funeral "he died doing what he loved doing".

[Marauder]

That's interesting. Leads me to conclude that night IFR must be damned safe then... if 260 of 263 accidents could have been prevented by flying IFR (or just having better situational awareness other than visual).

He never said which were IFR...

[TTaylor]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/us/idaho-plane-missing/index.html?

Tell the family of these five it was worth flying an IFR flight at only 13k over mountains. The pilot could have saved his families lives if he deviated south to fly over safer terrain. It is not just about minimums, it is also reducing risks.

[Carl S]

Night IFR in a twin: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20131208X92103&key=1, earlier this month, December 2013. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Everybody is always talking about minimums. Just staying current should qualify you to fly any approach to minimums.

 

What concerns me is severe weather. Thunderstorms, Icing, severe turbulence. These are the things that scare the bejesus out of me.

 

I think flying a nite approach to minimums is cool! There is nothing better then seeing the runway lights suddenly appear in front of you....

[Earl]

When I got my IFR rating my personal minimums were 2x approach minimums, no night IFR, no departure unless the departure airport is above approach minimums for the wind conditions and of course no t-storms or icing.  As I have gained more experience in the system I have allowed my personal minimums to be adjusted based on my proficiency.  I am back to my initial IFR personal minimums when I haven't flown recently and if I have recently gone through an IPC with a CFII or have been flying a lot I will adjust the minimums appropriately.  There are however some that are not changed.  I don't fly SPIFR at night, period.  I know a lot that do this safely and I have no problem with the concept, I just don't plan to do it.  So I guess I would say with more experience I have changed some of my personal minimums from hard and fast all the time to being more dependent on my current proficiency.

[Earl]

Everybody is always talking about minimums. Just staying current should qualify you to fly any approach to minimums.

 

What concerns me is severe weather. Thunderstorms, Icing, severe turbulence. These are the things that scare the bejesus out of me.

 

I think flying a nite approach to minimums is cool! There is nothing better then seeing the runway lights suddenly appear in front of you....

While I agree with you that remaining current (which I am assuming you really mean proficient) should qualify you to fly an approach to minimums.  But having personal minimums above approach minimums is really all about risk management.  Being proficient enough to fly an approach to minimums doesn't mean that from a risk management perspective you should not decide to do otherwise.  Approaches to minimums provides a very thin margin of error and while you may be proficient you still take on more risk by choosing to do so and it is not a bad idea to have higher personal minimums.

 

As for your severe weather scare, I am 100% in agreement with you.  On the night IFR to minimums I have no doubt it is a great feeling to fly an approach to minimums and break out seeing the lights.  I just choose not to fly SPIFR at night as a purely risk management decision.  In my business travel there is always a hotel to be had and I have the ability to manage my business travel accordingly.  When it doesn't work out and I need to be somewhere I fly commercial.....and I hate it.