Precision Approach Personal Minimums (Poll)

[EricJ]

Published minimums isn't even an opten on the poll, but right now that's my viewpoint.    That said, I don't have a lot of IFR experience due living in the southwest, but so far I've not come across a reason to not just use the published minimums.

[Pinecone]

Like a number of others, I am a bit higher than mins for planning, assuming things will be worse than forecast.  But will shoot the approach if weather is reported at minimums.

If others have gone missed, I will just divert.

I have had one approach that went to 200 feet.  I was flying KSBY to KMTN in the evening.  KSBY had an FSS, so got the weather in person,  all clear, nothing to worry about.  About 15 miles out from KMTN, with clear skies and good vis, POOF, we went IMC.  I did a 180 and called approach for a pop up to shoot the ILS.  It was snow showers.  I broke out at 200 feet with maybe 2 miles vis underneath.  We tied down in a thunder snow storm.  It dropped over 8 inches of snow that night.  It was snowing so hard that by the time we tied down the plane, the tracks of taxiing in were GONE.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

This has led me to something of a contrarian speech for my students, about personal minimums vs. what is often taught in training material.  The training material suggests that one might step down their personal IMC minimums over time

Yes, that is a real issue there. I was a little immune from it when I moved to Denver because I had just earned my rating in southern New England and had several hours in the clouds, including two real missed approaches. So I ended up with the opposite experience - my personal minimums growing higher over time (and not just with age).

[dkkim73]

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Just curiosity: I wonder haw many have actually been faced with this? I’ve read that the most common instrument approach is the visual; that breaking out at or neat published minimums are  rare.

Very on-point. 

I haven't had to go missed for real in recent memory. Exception is where I thought I was going to go missed until the last 10 seconds or so... due to smoke. That was a surprise since it was technically VMC though wildfire smoke greatly reduced the visibility, and in a geographically-variable way. My practice is to brief the missed even in severe clear and I try to fly IFR approaches on most trips for the familiarity in sequencing, power settings, terrain, etc. 

My big variable as one other person touched on is terrain. Unfamiliarity with the environment would alter what I'd accept. E.g. after training, at KMSO I didn't attempt an approach in real IMC until I'd had over 100 hrs back in the plane (not a hard #, just what it worked out to). That's because there you have some real cumulogranite in multiple quadrants. 

Other commenters are right, the old doctrine of stepping down your limits is hard to apply in some settings. Works ok where I am now, worked better in the flat upper Midwest, probably in coastal CA, but a lot of places have only isolated real practice opportunities. 

 

[kortopates]

My instructor and I flew from Phoenix to California to try an approach in real IMC for the first time (for me), and when we got there weather was far worse than expected/what was shown and briefed. Shot a LOC (where I learned the importance of making sure I brief the glide slope angle) and had to go missed. 

We shot the approach, went missed, did a hold where we briefed the surrounding airports and our fuel (which I had taken off with appropriate IFR fuel plus some), and realized Yuma was probably the best place to go, the weather was so bad -- definite VFR. When we got there, they kept asking us to hold, giving us vectors to wait for the F38's to land, etc. I was about to declare minimum fuel at one quarter tank and one 1/8 tank. They gave us the runway just before that.

After that, I learned the importance of how planning can be real. Plan the departure, the en route, approach, the hold (x2), and a viable alternate far away from the weather (for my skillset). It's made my M20K range a lot shorter, sadly, but I've never been frightened again.

All that to say, good point and [mention=8223]201er[/mention] could add another poll question here about what are your personal minimums for an alternate. Mine is "two alternates, far away from weather, virtually guaranteed to land at".

edit: The flight was KIWA A39 KSEE KNYL, shooting the LOC-D which is a 6.88 descent. Whew. 

You’re talking about my home field.
Until the last couple of days, it’s been IFR every day at SEE till late morning or later with the coast often staying IFR most of the day.

True about the importance of VDA - vertical descent angles. TERPS criteria has a maximum VDA for approaches to allow straight in minimums and a GS or GP - which is 3.77 degrees - which is why the SEE LOC-D has only circling minimums. Of course it’s not 6.88 degrees down to circling minimums- just for a straight in. But if it’s VMC before you get to DERBY and you descend below 2700’ before then, then you can get away with flying a stabilized straight in to 27R. But for training we’ll always circle on a circling approach.
Note even the VASI on that runway is 4.5 degrees!

Sure thing approaches in our area on low IFR days are MYF ILS or GPS 28R, CRQ ILS or GPS 24, or SDM GPS 08L with cheap gas.

Come see us again soon!
Instrument students here get a lot of actual IMC including partial panel IMC before their check ride.
Actual IMC training i believe is critical IMO.

Just a week ago a young pilot flying a twin from phoenix area flew into KSAN and was trying to get in VFR but was forced to get an IFR or divert and had a really hard time flying the approach but made it. Then departed IMC a couple days later tragically killing all aboard from what clearly was spatial-d with only a 800’ layer. I say only 800’ because pilots seriously underestimate how easily and how quickly they can loose control once they get into IMC. Right after the pilot entered IMC the controller gave him a 90 degree turn to the south and he lost it. Flight aware track shows just before coming out to SD the pilot did 6 practice approaches - repeating the same GPS approach 6 times; presumably to get legal currency. But we all know legal currency doesn’t mean instrument proficiency. This was our second tragic IFR fatal accident in 2 weeks both killing 6 people - luckily no one on the ground too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

After that, I learned the importance of how planning can be real. Plan the departure, the en route, approach, the hold (x2), and a viable alternate far away from the weather (for my skillset). It's made my M20K range a lot shorter, sadly, but I've never been frightened again.

All that to say, good point and [mention=8223]201er[/mention] could add another poll question here about what are your personal minimums for an alternate. Mine is "two alternates, far away from weather, virtually guaranteed to land at".

Same with some variation. For the destination, depending on where, I will generally plan two alternates. One is to meet the regulatory requirement. The other is where I would really go. They might both be good but they will be where the weather is different, such as one coastal and one inland.

Depending on conditions, I may have a third, but this is an enroute alternate - a decision point where I will do a destination weather check and decide whether to continue or divert now.   

[Schllc]

I have flown approaches to minimums intentionally at my home drome many times, a few times at very familiar airports, and occasionally at some airports with no mountains. 
I will not plant to intentionally fly into a higher elevation airport with obstructions down to minimums. I don’t personally feel comfortable planning this way. I have had to do it a few times and really don’t like when i am in that situation. I feel like I failed at my planning. 
I recently did a lot of flying in the south and southwestwest, in congested areas, and they all use departure and arrival procedures for the mountains. Even when I would file no Sid’s or stars they would demand I use them, even in vfr. I told Vegas I didn’t have the departure procedure they assigned, and they read it to me to copy, which was a royal pia.   And it want for mountains, it was restricted airspace. 
if I flew more frequently, I would be more comfortable with planning lower approaches but being that I don’t have anywhere I have to be, and flying about 200 hours a year, I am a bit more conservative. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

On 6/16/2025 at 9:18 AM, Hank said:

most risk assessment tools penalize me for having a single engine and being single pilot

The MMOPA FRAT app is designed for the PA46 community, half of which is piston and all single engine.  It is applicable to our Mooney fleet. 

[laytonl]

As others have said, there are a lot of factors to consider (me, the airplane, turbulence, WS, area wx, etc).  Generally, my planning is 500-1 or better at the planned time of arrival.  Upon arrival, if the weather is reporting minimums or better, I’ll fly it.  In the past, I would depart if the weather was at minimums or better. That has worked fine for me for over 50 years, but I’m 70 now and have readjusted due to age.  I expect the numbers will increase again before long.  Lee

[Paul Thomas]

I'm looking at the poll results. The results show minimums decrease as to when to go missed than the decision to attempt the approach is made. I find that fascinating and would love to hear from the people in that camp. I really would have thought those would have been the same, or one would have had higher minimum for missed than attempt, with the hope that the weather is not as bad as reported.

[Pinecone]

On 6/21/2025 at 8:49 PM, laytonl said:

As others have said, there are a lot of factors to consider (me, the airplane, turbulence, WS, area wx, etc).  Generally, my planning is 500-1 or better at the planned time of arrival.  Upon arrival, if the weather is reporting minimums or better, I’ll fly it.  In the past, I would depart if the weather was at minimums or better. That has worked fine for me for over 50 years, but I’m 70 now and have readjusted due to age.  I expect the numbers will increase again before long.  Lee

I am about the same.  But remember, you are only 10.........

In Dog Years

[Marc_B]

On 6/21/2025 at 8:28 PM, Paul Thomas said:

The results show minimums decrease as to when to go missed than the decision to attempt the approach is made.

I think that the thinking is I’ll try to avoid low IFR or potentially unsuccessful approaches with forecasts and planning, where I can. But once I’m on an approach I’m not going to unnecessarily limit my success if I feel it’s safe and I’m comfortable and legal.

i.e. If my personal min is 600ft AGL and forecast were 1000ft it’s a go. Then I get there and ATIS ceilings are 400ft (LPV min 200) then that might not be accurate at the time I’m on approach. Perhaps it’s 100 perhaps it’s 600 where I am. But it the approach is going well, I’m ahead of the plane, my AP is rock solid, no turbulence, things look good…why not fly the approach to land if able?