"Personal Minimums," I don't get it?

[BobS]

Ok, I understand the concept, but I can't seem to work it out in practice. I am quite comfortable flying an ILS in smooth stratus to minimums, even if they are 200' and 1/2 mile. However, I wouldn't do the same approach in moderate turbulence if ceilings were 400 feet. If there was terrain around near the missed approach I'd adjust the minimums up some more. Also, if the forecast was for 200' I'd stay on the ground and not launch, but if it were 400' I might go, if I knew I had easy access to an alternate with forecast 1,000 foot ceilings. If there was any chance of icing with freezing to the ground I'd raise my "personal minimums" to staying VFR.

So my "personal minimum" varies from 200 to 2,000 feet, with many factors. In practice I work it out before each flight and it is in fact just the sum of the factors that at some point makes me uncomfortable. I think it's fine if you rarely fly IMC or if you're just learning to use the rating, to limit your use of the IR to say, 1,000 feet and 3 miles. With training and practice, and good equipment, it is perfectly safe to fly to published minimums.

Do those of you who fly a lot of IMC actually strictly adhere to "personal minimums." I think the whole concept is overrated and is a poor substitute for "personal judgement."

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Ok, I understand the concept, but I can't seem to work it out in practice. I am quite comfortable flying an ILS in smooth stratus to minimums, even if they are 200' and 1/2 mile. However, I wouldn't do the same approach in moderate turbulence if ceilings were 400 feet. If there was terrain around near the missed approach I'd adjust the minimums up some more. Also, if the forecast was for 200' I'd stay on the ground and not launch, but if it were 400' I might go, if I knew I had easy access to an alternate with forecast 1,000 foot ceilings. If there was any chance of icing with freezing to the ground I'd raise my "personal minimums" to staying VFR.

So my "personal minimum" varies from 200 to 2,000 feet, with many factors. In practice I work it out before each flight and it is in fact just the sum of the factors that at some point makes me uncomfortable. I think it's fine if you rarely fly IMC or if you're just learning to use the rating, to limit your use of the IR to say, 1,000 feet and 3 miles. With training and practice, and good equipment, it is perfectly safe to fly to published minimums.

Do those of you who fly a lot of IMC actually strictly adhere to "personal minimums." I think the whole concept is overrated and is a poor substitute for "personal judgement."

The legal FAA minimums established by teams of pilots with vast amounts of experience are just about right as a place to start for IFR/VFR/MVFR, IF the pilot is competent AND on the ball for a given flight, and that is where the judgement part that you mentioned above becomes absolutly critical for defining ones "personal minimums" (which can be a rapidly dynamic entity at all times) for that particular flight.

Even the most benign flight conditions become not only dangerous, but also unsafe to attempt flights in for the rusty and incompetent pilot who uses no good judgement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ok, I understand the concept, but I can't seem to work it out in practice. I am quite comfortable flying an ILS in smooth stratus to minimums, even if they are 200' and 1/2 mile. However, I wouldn't do the same approach in moderate turbulence if ceilings were 400 feet. If there was terrain around near the missed approach I'd adjust the minimums up some more. Also, if the forecast was for 200' I'd stay on the ground and not launch, but if it were 400' I might go, if I knew I had easy access to an alternate with forecast 1,000 foot ceilings. If there was any chance of icing with freezing to the ground I'd raise my "personal minimums" to staying VFR.

So my "personal minimum" varies from 200 to 2,000 feet, with many factors. In practice I work it out before each flight and it is in fact just the sum of the factors that at some point makes me uncomfortable. I think it's fine if you rarely fly IMC or if you're just learning to use the rating, to limit your use of the IR to say, 1,000 feet and 3 miles. With training and practice, and good equipment, it is perfectly safe to fly to published minimums.

Do those of you who fly a lot of IMC actually strictly adhere to "personal minimums." I think the whole concept is overrated and is a poor substitute for "personal judgement."

That's what "personal minimums" are...a "personal judgement" given the equipment, conditions, and pilot proficiency of the moment. They aren't a fixed number that applies across the board.Fly safe!David

 

[gismo]

I pretty much came to the same conclusion a long time ago. You could try to establish a "points system" to rate the acceptability of any trip, but it's not likely that you'd be able to accomodate every factor. What you can do is set some limits for common situations and interpolate between them for other flights that don't quite fit. Personally I think it's just fine to evaluate a particular trip's risks when you finialze the plans for that trip and re-evaluate issues like comfortable min's for the approach as you update the wx along the way. What you want to avoid is accepting escalating risks due to "momentum".

 

[poadeleted20]

That's what "personal minimums" are...a "personal judgement" given the equipment, conditions, and pilot proficiency of the moment. They aren't a fixed number that applies across the board.Fly safe!David

David's got it nailed. One's "personal minimums" change daily, and even during the day or single flight as things like one's fatigue level or the available equipment change. The key is knowing just how much you can handle at any given time, and not crossing that line even if that line has moved since the last time you flew.

 

[grattonja]

I recently shot two approaches right down to mins, one on the trip out and one on the trip back. The trip was short, in airspace that I know well, and I knew I had an ILS available as an alternate both ways that I could DEFINITELY make.

Would not have launched in those conditions for a long trip, or to truly unfamiliar airspace, mountains, etc.

Personal minimums for me are definitely on a "per flight" basis.

Jim G

 

[Henning]

Ok, I understand the concept, but I can't seem to work it out in practice. I am quite comfortable flying an ILS in smooth stratus to minimums, even if they are 200' and 1/2 mile. However, I wouldn't do the same approach in moderate turbulence if ceilings were 400 feet. If there was terrain around near the missed approach I'd adjust the minimums up some more. Also, if the forecast was for 200' I'd stay on the ground and not launch, but if it were 400' I might go, if I knew I had easy access to an alternate with forecast 1,000 foot ceilings. If there was any chance of icing with freezing to the ground I'd raise my "personal minimums" to staying VFR.

So my "personal minimum" varies from 200 to 2,000 feet, with many factors. In practice I work it out before each flight and it is in fact just the sum of the factors that at some point makes me uncomfortable. I think it's fine if you rarely fly IMC or if you're just learning to use the rating, to limit your use of the IR to say, 1,000 feet and 3 miles. With training and practice, and good equipment, it is perfectly safe to fly to published minimums.

Do those of you who fly a lot of IMC actually strictly adhere to "personal minimums." I think the whole concept is overrated and is a poor substitute for "personal judgement."

Yep, seems as you've pretty much squared away on that. All the idioms are pretty much crap. Flying is a dynamic environment, nothing is static or exactly the same twice. Judgement is everything.

 

[jdwatson]

All generalisations are false.

I agree that Judgement is king. I like starting with the VFR/MVFR/IFR/LIFR definitions. I'm not flying as much as I used to be so, LIFR is below my new personal minimums. Having a layered filtering process helps weed out the conditions more quickly.