Your Personal VFR Weather Minimums (poll)

[201er]

What are your VFR weather minimums? Are you instrument rated? Are your VFR minimums different when you are instrument qualified vs not (i.e. out of currency)? If instrument rated at what ceiling/vis will you go IFR instead (for the kind of flight that would normally make more sense to go VFR)?

[201er]

For sure I will opt to go IFR over being in low VFR. That said, my VFR minimums are lower with instrument capability as an out. For example I have no concern going VFR over overcast if it is clear over departure and destination. Typically I would be IFR under such circumstances but if IFR adds a lot of delay/routing I could go VFR in such conditions. I wouldn’t chance it without instrument capability.

I’m more accustomed flying IFR in all kinds of VMC that would be consider marginal VFR. For this reason I am familiar with how low of conditions I can tolerate. 
 

I’ll consider flying in VFR down to legal minimums but there’s virtually no reason I wouldn’t go IFR instead. I’d fly to the next airport over in 2000/5 but any lower than that and I’d go IFR even that close.

[rbp]

it depends on the mission, the route, the runway (lighting), and the aircraft. have flown a citabria under the SFO marine layer (1000') frequently. Going into someplace mountainous, I want enough horizontal visibility to see the terrain clearly. Small uncontrolled field? or 5000' and a rabbit? it depends.

[PeteMc]

That's one you can't put a exact number on, so it's hard to check off an answer on your poll.  For me a lot depends upon the location and where or how far you're going.

Here in the NE by the ocean I would look at the trending Wx, temps, etc.  Sometimes you know the MVFR is going to continue to get better.  But I launch now in stuff I'd never launch in if VFR only and even then there's a chance I'll get stuck and can't return due to low fog.

Out west where I learned to fly you can frequently have 3,000' AGL BKN or OVC and you know it's never going to change until the sun goes down.  So I'd do longer flights and never got stuck even VFR only.

So minimums for me on a VFR flight is if it is legal MVFR or VFR.  Launch or stay has a LOT to do with what you think is going to happen and if you have an out if it doesn't do what you expect.  Recently saw some video where the guy recommended tossing an overnight bag in the plane on every flight.  Then if there were any issues (Wx, mechanical, doesn't matter) you would not have as much get-home-itis.

And there are a LOT of VFR days, so if you can't go one day, wait a bit.  I did a 5,800+ nm trip through most of October around the US.  All of our flight days were CAVU except one little bit leaving the Seattle area.  And even that I could have done VFR, but ATC vectored me though clouds on my climb out.

 

 

[ilovecornfields]

Couldn’t really answer the poll. I fly IFR 95% of the time anyway so for me to fly VFR it has to be a short hop or somewhere where it’s really annoying to fly IFR. That being said, I’ll often cancel when it’s time to start my descent but then it usually has to be clear at my destination (otherwise I just stay IFR and do a visual approach).

[N201MKTurbo]

There is more to this decision than clouds and visibility. Like winds, terrain, obstacles and how familiar you are with the route.

I have only made 1 flight in 1000/3 it was between 01V and KAPA about 15 miles. I could only see straight down, so I followed a road I knew. I also knew an intersection that was about a 3 mile final to runway 27 (I think). When I called the tower for landing clearance, they said "OK, uh sure, cleared to land 27" Mind you, that was about 35 years ago. I didn't see the runway till I was about 1 mile away, but they were reporting 3 miles vis.

It is a lot easier to fly under a 1000 foot ceiling with unlimited vis than no ceiling and 3 miles vis.

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, PeteMc said:

That's one you can't put a exact number on, so it's hard to check off an answer on your poll.  For me a lot depends upon the location and where or how far you're going.

Here in the NE by the ocean I would look at the trending Wx, temps, etc.  Sometimes you know the MVFR is going to continue to get better.  But I launch now in stuff I'd never launch in if VFR only and even then there's a chance I'll get stuck and can't return due to low fog.

Out west where I learned to fly you can frequently have 3,000' AGL BKN or OVC and you know it's never going to change until the sun goes down.  So I'd do longer flights and never got stuck even VFR only.

So minimums for me on a VFR flight is if it is legal MVFR or VFR.  Launch or stay has a LOT to do with what you think is going to happen and if you have an out if it doesn't do what you expect.  Recently saw some video where the guy recommended tossing an overnight bag in the plane on every flight.  Then if there were any issues (Wx, mechanical, doesn't matter) you would not have as much get-home-itis.

And there are a LOT of VFR days, so if you can't go one day, wait a bit.  I did a 5,800+ nm trip through most of October around the US.  All of our flight days were CAVU except one little bit leaving the Seattle area.  And even that I could have done VFR, but ATC vectored me though clouds on my climb out.

 

 

My flying backpack always has a clean shirt, under ware and toiletries. Not so much for weather, but because I may not finish the job I flew there for. 

[midlifeflyer]

I chose 4,000/10. It's not about the visibility.  If I'm going somewhere of any substance, I like to be at least 3000 AGL. I did a marginal VFR flight once when I lost currency. It was butt-clenching and it would have been soooooo easy IFR   I swore I would never lose currency again. That was at least 15 years ago,

[PeteMc]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It is a lot easier to fly under a 1000 foot ceiling with unlimited vis than no ceiling and 3 miles vis.

Excellent statement!   Kind of what I was thinking.

[EricJ]

I learned to fly primarily in Germany, where if you don't fly with low clouds or low visibility, you don't fly very often at all.   So my tolerance for such isn't too bad, but having spent the last thirty-plus-years in CAVU AZ, I don't get to practice in the crud much any more.   I managed to get into some misty can-see-the-ground-if-I-look-mostly-down stuff up in the northern part of the state once and was enjoying it immensely.   I was going to go shoot an rnav into one of the barely-used uncontrolled fields up there, and about ten minutes into it my alternator field wire broke (again), so I had to turn around and go back to where the visibility was better.   I was really bummed, because we don't get those opportunities around here much.

[Ragsf15e]

On 1/5/2023 at 3:39 PM, 201er said:

For sure I will opt to go IFR over being in low VFR. That said, my VFR minimums are lower with instrument capability as an out. For example I have no concern going VFR over overcast if it is clear over departure and destination. Typically I would be IFR under such circumstances but if IFR adds a lot of delay/routing I could go VFR in such conditions. I wouldn’t chance it without instrument capability.

I’m more accustomed flying IFR in all kinds of VMC that would be consider marginal VFR. For this reason I am familiar with how low of conditions I can tolerate. 
 

I’ll consider flying in VFR down to legal minimums but there’s virtually no reason I wouldn’t go IFR instead. I’d fly to the next airport over in 2000/5 but any lower than that and I’d go IFR even that close.

Where I live there’s lots of mountains, so you can really get stuck down low vfr.  No way to get where you’re trying to go and no way to get an IFR clearance either due to lack of radio reception or just that ATC can’t give you one since you’re below mva.  I’m much more comfortable on top of an overcast than below one.

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

learned to fly primarily in Germany, where if you don't fly with low clouds or low visibility, you don't fly very often at all.   So my tolerance for such isn't too bad,

You are so right about tolerance. I flew for 20 years in Colorado where we think of 10 miles visibility as IMC!

[hubcap]

It is a difficult question for me to answer because I rarely fly VFR, and I never fly VFR cross-country. If I were going to do post-maintenance flight to check something out, I would probably wait until the conditions were "severe VFR" before taking off. I don't like the idea of "checking something out" when the conditions are not favorable. Perhaps I am too conservative, but that's the way I fly.

[Vance Harral]

13 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

You are so right about tolerance. I flew for 20 years in Colorado where we think of 10 miles visibility as IMC!

If I take off from Longmont and can't see Pikes Peak by pattern altitude, I declare an emergency!

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

If I take off from Longmont and can't see Pikes Peak by pattern altitude, I declare an emergency!

Exactly!

[N201MKTurbo]

15 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

If I take off from Longmont and can't see Pikes Peak by pattern altitude, I declare an emergency!

I was parked at Boulder a couple of years ago and couldn't get an IFR clearance. They said I had to get to pattern altitude at BJC before I could pick up a clearance. I couldn't because of the low clouds, so I ran the scud down to Castle Rock where it cleared up and I flew home VFR.

[Vance Harral]

On 1/8/2023 at 8:51 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

They said I had to get to pattern altitude at BJC before I could pick up a clearance.

I've had generally the same experience, though explained to me by ATC in different terms.  After flying locally for about two decades, I'm comfortable departing VFR with scattered/broken at 1500-2000' AGL for various reasons: simple pattern work, scoot out underneath to better weather, etc.  Once or twice I've tried to pick up an pop-up IFR in those conditions - for convenience moreso than safety - and Denver Approach wants you at 7000' MSL (ish) before they'll issue.  That's not actually the bottom of the MVA (all of metro Denver has a "Diverse Vector Area"), but I think operationally they just don't want to deal with low traffic on a pop-up.  Anyway, KBJC is up on a mesa, about 700' higher than everything else around here, and official pattern altitude is 6700, so "get to KBJC pattern altitude first" sounds about right.

To be clear, I'm not advocating scud running.  One of the reasons I've tried to pick up an airborne IFR clearance like this, is so I can tell my instrument students real-world stories about the problems departing VFR and trying to pick up a clearance while airborne.  It's certainly reasonable to do this in a lot of situations, but marginal conditions over your departure airport isn't really one of them.  Simultaneously dodging clouds to stay VFR while trying to negotiate and copy a clearance is pretty high workload with two pilots, and borderline foolish by yourself.  Fortunately, the temptation to do this seems to be waning in the modern era, when you can get a hold of clearance delivery via cellphone at nearly any airport, even out in the boonies.

That doesn't help at KBDU, though, where there are no instrument approaches, no TERPs survey, and therefore no way to depart IFR.  KBDU is a fine little airport, but I don't recommend it to GA traveling tourists.  Between the inability to get in/out IFR, higher proximity to mountain rotor, and much higher likelihood of noise complaints, it just seems like a poor tradeoff to me.  It's only a 15 minute drive to either KBJC or KLMO from there and self-serve fuel prices are the same or cheaper at those airports, so arguably difficult to justify choosing KBDU as a destination airport.  Arrive at KLMO if you want a small airport experience, KBJC if you want the opposite; and by all means, drive or fly down to KBDU on a nice weather day if you like, for a glider ride or aerobatic flight in a Citabria.

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I've had generally the same experience,

I honestly don't understand this. 

Yes, if you call for a clearance, ATC may ask, "can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance to X,000" and refuse a clearance if you say no. But aside from that, I've never heard of denying a clearance (that's not a cold-call pop-up). 

[Vance Harral]

4 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Yes, if you call for a clearance, ATC may ask, "can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance to X,000" and refuse a clearance if you say no.  But aside from that, I've never heard of denying a clearance (that's not a cold-call pop-up). 

That's exactly what I'm describing in my story: a cold-call pop-up.  And Rich is describing departure from an airport with no instrument approaches.  Both of these things constrain the services ATC can provide, in a manner that's entirely on the pilot.  My story is not a complaint about Denver Approach.  I've found them to be very accommodating over the years.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

That's exactly what I'm describing in my story: a cold-call pop-up.  And Rich is describing departure from an airport with no instrument approaches.  Both of these things constrain the services ATC can provide, in a manner that's entirely on the pilot.  My story is not a complaint about Denver Approach.  I've found them to be very accommodating over the years.

There's nothing I know of that would authorize or require ATC to refuse a clearance from an airport with no instrument approaches.

[N201MKTurbo]

They would have given me a clearance on the ground. Matter a fact they did, but the clearance said I had to maintain VFR until 7000' I couldn't activate the flight plan until I got that high. I tried to negotiate that with them, but they wouldn't budge. The ceiling was at about 6500.

I went to Boulder because all the FBOs wanted ramp fees. the gas was a lot more. And so was the parking. The place I was working at was literally next to BJC (Ball Aerospace) and I stayed at the little hotel at BJC. In retrospect, I would have been better off going to Metro, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Boulder, that's where I bought my first Mooney...

[Canadian Gal]

I'm instrument rated, but hate flying ifr unless actually need to.

Following airways and atc BS is annoying.

I usually want to go direct, or sight see and wander around at my own will.

 

I'll file, then if it clears up I cancel and head direct.

Wishful thinking I know, but wish they would get rid of airways.