Passed my IFR check ride!

[Danb]

On March 3, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Marauder said:

I look at it as risk tolerance. I flew for years with little care about the ceilings and visibilities below. Experience one mechanical problem while flying over this stuff, you develop a different view on the risk. In my case, if I had to descend into the low ceilings and visibility to make an off field landing, I would have been in trouble.

I now fly with a personal minimum that I want 1000' ceilings and at least 2 miles of forward visibility over anything I fly. It doesn't mean that if I need to cross 10 miles of lower visibility I won't do it. It just means I want an out most of the time.

As for approach mins. Although I fly an IPC every 6 months and practice approaches frequently, I want some assurances of acceptable mins above the legal mins. At my home airport, the MDA is 1040 on the circle to land. Knowing there is a tower and hill on that circle, I won't fly it if the ceiling is less than 1200'.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I couldn't agree more how vital personal minimums are also based on how you feel, tired stress etc. I set my minimuns similar to Chris, one main reason is how finicky the weather is and unreliable the forecast is although nowadays there are many more wx. tools at our fingertips. a year or so ago I was going to the PGA I think in Lousiville can't remember what I do remember is when arriving the forecast was to be 1200 overcast,chance of light rain etc. The actual was down to minimums and TS in the area, only time Ive had the tower give me a miss because the runway had a vehicle on it, I had a copilot who got confused and I had to shut him up and the pucker power was at an all time high, only reason for story is I had minimums set and the wx was worse and still trouble.I would hate to have to fly another 100 miles to an airport beyond my alternate just because I did not set my own minimums. Don't fool with mother nature. I didn't intend this to turn into a rant. 

[gsxrpilot]

No offense to anyone, but I don't think anyone's answered the question about minimums.  I believe the issues with flying to the published minimums is the margin of error allowed.  On an approach to the runway, the tolerances or margin of error allowed, are reduced as you get closer to the runway. And therefore our personal minimums should be directly related to how precise we are able to hand fly the glideslope and the localizer. 

For example on an ILS I can be 500 ft off course left/right at the outer marker and still only be one dot off on the HSI. At the middle marker that one dot is now measuring 150 ft. and at the threshold it's in tens of feet.  The glide-slope is even more sensitive, as it should be. At the outer marker, one dot up or down is +/- 50ft. but at the middle marker its only 8ft. per dot.

So if I'm a +/- 50ft. pilot in the soup, no autopilot, my personal minimums are going to be different than if I'm a +/- 5ft pilot. And typically the +/- 5ft pilot quickly becomes a +/- 50ft pilot without regular practice.

If you can keep the needles centered all the way to the threshold, use the published minimums. But at whatever point the needles get too sensitive to stay centered, you need to be able to look up and see the runway. Include stress, passengers, a little turbulence, critical fuel, etc. when I can't hold the needles centered, I've found my minimums.

[N201MKTurbo]

This whole thing about "Personal Minimums" is a red herring. If you are flying an approach and the needles are centered, there is no reason not to finish the approach. If they are not, you might want to bale on the approach before you get to minimums so you don't hit something like the earth. When you accept an IFR clearance, you are telling the controllers that you are capable of flying an instrument approach to minimums. You need to be prepared to do that. The only latitude you have is to not ask for the clearance in the first place. We all know that weather can change for the worse during a flight. You can always change your destination if you have enough fuel or go to your alternate, but it is not unknown for wide areas to turn to crap without warning, so your best bet might end up being an approach to minimums.

So, the only thing "Personal Minimums" has to do with is flight planning. Don't plan a trip where you have to shoot a low approach, but always be prepared to do one if you ask for a clearance. 

[Mooneymite]

Personal minimums aren't just about instrument proficiency, or recency!

I have thousands of hours and fly many hours every week at work...some of them in terrible weather, but none of that makes up for the fact that my Mooney has only one engine, no flight director, or autopilot.  Doesn't matter how proficient I am, I'm not going to push mother nature, or the laws of physics in my low tech '74 Mooney.

I may be old, but I am NOT bold.  

Edited March 6, 2016 by Mooneymite

[Hank]

25 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Doesn't matter how proficient I am, I'm not going to push mother nature, or the laws of physics in my low tech '74 Mooney.

I may be old, but I am NOT bold.  

That's how you got to BE old, Gus!

[carusoam]

Could be the ability of a person to write in an understandable way....

1) My plane is capable of tracking an approach all the way to technical minimums.  Especially with the AP driving.

2) My training is capable of operating the equipment to the same minimums.

3) My comfort level after not flying for a week just isn't there...some call it rust.

4) My personal minimum is all in the planning stage.  I had set 1,000' over the areas that I intend to fly over as my planned minimum.

5) It is not my intention to bail on an approach because the weather has gone below this minimum.  As a properly IR pilot, that would not be the norm...

 

The advantage of this type of personal minimum...

1) Lower level of stress while descending towards the ground.

2) Most likely to break out of the clouds long befor reaching the minimums.

3) Avoids the probability of the work load generated by the Go Around. (Transition from low powered landing phase to high powered climbing phase, complete the approach, then navigating to the MAP, communicating intentions.

 

The reason for this type of personal minimum is engine out performance of my plane...

1) At 1,000' I have a minute to find a place to set down, safely.

 

The unfun part of this limitation, I exist between the following, sort of...

1) Rock: There is not a lot of logic to actually fly an instrument approach in VMC.

2) Hard place: fear of engine out and it's possible outcomes.

See if logic can eliminate the red herrings.  Let me know if there is a way to eliminate fear or the bad outcomes.

Best regards,

-a-

[CaptainAB]

I've always thought personal minimums related to the go no go decision. I think that's what I'm reading here too. I'm not flying if my destination is calling for overcast 600. But Once I commit to flying  there I'm prepared to fly the approach to decision height. 

[gsxrpilot]

1 minute ago, CaptainAB said:

I've always thought personal minimums related to the go no go decision. I think that's what I'm reading here too. I'm not flying if my destination is calling for overcast 600. But Once I commit to flying  there I'm prepared to fly the approach to decision height. 

Yes, I'd agree completely. But they way I arrive at my personal minimums is how solid I am on the needles. If I'm in the air I'm committed to shoot the approach to the published minimums or go find an alternate that fuel allows.

I've never thought of adjusting my minimums because of the single engine up front. I certainly take temperature/icing into account and my lack of FIKI. But if I were worried about the reliability of my engine, I wouldn't fly IFR or night.

[Marauder]

1 minute ago, CaptainAB said: I've always thought personal minimums related to the go no go decision. I think that's what I'm reading here too. I'm not flying if my destination is calling for overcast 600. But Once I commit to flying  there I'm prepared to fly the approach to decision height. 

I've never thought of adjusting my minimums because of the single engine up front. I certainly take temperature/icing into account and my lack of FIKI. But if I were worried about the reliability of my engine, I wouldn't fly IFR or night.

I never did either until I did have an engine problem while IFR. It changed my perspective. Not enough to stop flying IFR or at night, but certainly to take factors like flying a single engine over low IFR into consideration.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, CaptainAB said:

I've always thought personal minimums related to the go no go decision. I think that's what I'm reading here too. I'm not flying if my destination is calling for overcast 600. But Once I commit to flying  there I'm prepared to fly the approach to decision height. 

If one listens to round table discussions by seasoned professional pilots with decades of flight and pilot education behind them, you may get a different answer - that personal minimums have just as much to do with the in-flight continue/divert decision as with the preflight go/no go one. 

Once I commit to flying I am still not willing to commit myself to be a statistical victim of missionitis. I'd rather divert unless it is not a realistic option. Just as I would for a thunderstorm or because the crosswind exceeds my personal minimums for those or many other reasons. 

So, no. I am not prepared to fly into that mountain airport I mentioned before at night in IMC to minimums with the family on board just because I planned to arrived in daylight with 1200 ft ceilings but the headwinds were much stronger than forecast so we arrived later than expected.