Programming minimums

[Davidl13]

For those flying with a Garmin G500/600 TXi, you can program your IFR approach minimums into the system and have it provide an electronic minimums alert. I know some pilots swear by this feature, but I purposefully do not use it. Here is my reasoning.

Most approach plates have different minimums depending on the approach capability actually available: LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV, etc.

You may brief and plan an approach expecting LPV minimums, but that does not necessarily mean LPV will be available when you get there. If the system downgrades and you are only able to fly LNAV/VNAV or LNAV, the applicable minimums change.

My concern with entering minimums ahead of time is that a late change in approach capability means I now have another item to recognize and change in the avionics during one of the busiest portions of the flight. For me, that creates additional workload at exactly the wrong time. An electronic minimums notification based on a value that is no longer applicable can also become more of a distraction than an aid.

Instead, I keep the published approach plate in front of me and, beginning at the FAF, progressively call out my current altitude in relation to the relevant published minimums for the approach capability I actually have at that moment.

That keeps my attention on the approach, the airplane, and the plate rather than adding another avionics setting that may need to be changed late in the approach.

I know other pilots really like the electronic minimums feature, and I am certainly not suggesting they shouldn’t use it. This is simply one of those cases where I have found that less automation gives me better situational awareness and reduces my workload.

For the way I fly an approach, I would rather actively reference and call the applicable published minimum than depend on a minimum I programmed earlier under assumptions that may have changed.

How do you handle this? What is your strategy?

 

[RussR]

You SHOULD be calling out remaining feet to minimums, that's pretty normal SOP for two-pilot airplanes and is an excellent idea for single pilot operations as well.

But why not use the minimums bug too? You're forgoing an important safety backup, one that will be a benefit 99% of the time, to avoid a situation that may only happen 1% of the time.

In addition, if you are inbound to the FAF and get a downgrade alert, the wisest move is NOT to continue the approach to different minimums. Rather, the better move is to go missed, get vectored back around and use that time to figure out why that happened. Was it something you did? Was it the GPS unit failing? Incorrect setting in the SBAS menu? Antenna problem like icing? Or was it really the GPS constellation itself/GPS interference? Only in that last scenario would you even want to fly the approach to the LNAV minimums anyway.

Basically, my first thought if I get a downgrade shouldn't be "let me look up the LNAV minimums and keep flying", it should be "I don't know what's wrong so I'm going to climb back up and figure it out first."

During that time you're troubleshooting or reloading or selecting a different approach altogether, you can set the minimums alerter to the new minimums as part of your normal approach checklist.

 

[Davidl13]

You SHOULD be calling out remaining feet to minimums, that's pretty normal SOP for two-pilot airplanes and is an excellent idea for single pilot operations as well.

But why not use the minimums bug too? You're forgoing an important safety backup, one that will be a benefit 99% of the time, to avoid a situation that may only happen 1% of the time.

In addition, if you are inbound to the FAF and get a downgrade alert, the wisest move is NOT to continue the approach to different minimums. Rather, the better move is to go missed, get vectored back around and use that time to figure out why that happened. Was it something you did? Was it the GPS unit failing? Incorrect setting in the SBAS menu? Antenna problem like icing? Or was it really the GPS constellation itself/GPS interference? Only in that last scenario would you even want to fly the approach to the LNAV minimums anyway.

Basically, my first thought if I get a downgrade shouldn't be "let me look up the LNAV minimums and keep flying", it should be "I don't know what's wrong so I'm going to climb back up and figure it out first."

During that time you're troubleshooting or reloading or selecting a different approach altogether, you can set the minimums alerter to the new minimums as part of your normal approach checklist.

Interesting comments. I disagree with the premise that an approach downgrade, by itself, should automatically result in a missed approach.


If I receive a downgrade but the navigation system remains valid for another authorized line of minima, and there are no other anomalies or indications of a system problem, I would continue the approach using the appropriate corrected minimums. Importantly, I am not looking those minimums up for the first time while descending — I have already briefed the applicable minimums before beginning the approach.


If there were additional indications suggesting an equipment failure, integrity problem, interference, icing issue, or anything else that caused me to question the validity of the navigation solution, that’s an entirely different situation. I would absolutely discontinue the approach.


Where we probably differ more fundamentally is on the value of the electronic minimums callout itself.


I find the voice minimums alert more distracting than helpful. I also don’t particularly want to develop an expectation that the airplane will announce minimums for me. If I become accustomed to hearing that callout and one day it doesn’t occur — because I entered something incorrectly, forgot to enter it, or the feature simply wasn’t available — I don’t want its absence to become another potential problem.


From the FAF to minimums, my goal is to eliminate anything that unnecessarily competes for my attention. I am progressively calling out my altitude remaining to the applicable minimums and actively monitoring the approach.


My experience has taught me that anything I add between the FAF and minimums that can distract me from that process, even if intended as an additional safety feature, can potentially become a problem itself.


I’m not arguing that the minimums bug is wrong for someone else. I’m explaining why, for my single-pilot workflow, deliberately monitoring and calling my altitude to the already-briefed minimums works better than adding another automated alert.

 

[Hang 4]

Belt and suspenders. I call out verbally and set the bug.

 

[asicer]

You may brief and plan an approach expecting LPV minimums, but that does not necessarily mean LPV will be available when you get there. If the system downgrades and you are only able to fly LNAV/VNAV or LNAV, the applicable minimums change.

My concern with entering minimums ahead of time is that a late change in approach capability means I now have another item to recognize and change in the avionics during one of the busiest portions of the flight. For me, that creates additional workload at exactly the wrong time. An electronic minimums notification based on a value that is no longer applicable can also become more of a distraction than an aid.

If you get an approach downgrade then your minimums go up. So the one you entered earlier is lower than your new one, hence you'll never hear the alert (assuming you don't completely blow through the legal minimums).

 

[Davidl13]

You SHOULD be calling out remaining feet to minimums, that's pretty normal SOP for two-pilot airplanes and is an excellent idea for single pilot operations as well.

But why not use the minimums bug too? You're forgoing an important safety backup, one that will be a benefit 99% of the time, to avoid a situation that may only happen 1% of the time.

In addition, if you are inbound to the FAF and get a downgrade alert, the wisest move is NOT to continue the approach to different minimums. Rather, the better move is to go missed, get vectored back around and use that time to figure out why that happened. Was it something you did? Was it the GPS unit failing? Incorrect setting in the SBAS menu? Antenna problem like icing? Or was it really the GPS constellation itself/GPS interference? Only in that last scenario would you even want to fly the approach to the LNAV minimums anyway.

Basically, my first thought if I get a downgrade shouldn't be "let me look up the LNAV minimums and keep flying", it should be "I don't know what's wrong so I'm going to climb back up and figure it out first."

During that time you're troubleshooting or reloading or selecting a different approach altogether, you can set the minimums alerter to the new minimums as part of your normal approach checklist.

One additional thought, because I keep coming back to the 99% / 1% premise in your comment.


I think that premise is actually in direct opposition to much of what we train for as pilots.


Your engine works 99%+ of the time. We train extensively for the tiny percentage of time that it doesn’t.


Your alternator works almost all the time. We prepare for when it doesn’t.


Your gear comes down virtually every time you select it. We still learn the emergency extension procedure.


A great deal of aviation training is specifically about being prepared for the low-probability event before it happens, because that is precisely when preparation matters most.


If we’re talking about buying an airplane that satisfies 99% of your missions, I completely agree with the argument — don’t compromise the other 99% chasing an obscure 1% mission.


But that’s fundamentally different from risk management in the cockpit.


In this case, the 1% scenario is literally the scenario I’m trying to stay ahead of.


My concern is precisely the 1%. I don’t want to develop a procedure that depends on an automated minimums alert because it works 99% of the time. I want my normal procedure to work exactly the same way when something changes or the automation isn’t available.


That’s why I brief the applicable minimums and actively call my altitude remaining to minimums.


The 1% isn’t a reason to dismiss the procedure — it’s the reason for the procedure.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting comments. I disagree with the premise that an approach downgrade, by itself, should automatically result in a missed approach.


If I receive a downgrade but the navigation system remains valid for another authorized line of minima, and there are no other anomalies or indications of a system problem, I would continue the approach using the appropriate corrected minimums.

How do you know that your system will allow you to continue a downgraded approach if WAAS suddenly goes away? You’re much better off to get away from the ground and figure out what you do and don’t have.

 

[RussR]

One additional thought, because I keep coming back to the 99% / 1% premise in your comment.


I think that premise is actually in direct opposition to much of what we train for as pilots.


Your engine works 99%+ of the time. We train extensively for the tiny percentage of time that it doesn’t.


Your alternator works almost all the time. We prepare for when it doesn’t.


Your gear comes down virtually every time you select it. We still learn the emergency extension procedure.


A great deal of aviation training is specifically about being prepared for the low-probability event before it happens, because that is precisely when preparation matters most.


If we’re talking about buying an airplane that satisfies 99% of your missions, I completely agree with the argument — don’t compromise the other 99% chasing an obscure 1% mission.


But that’s fundamentally different from risk management in the cockpit.


In this case, the 1% scenario is literally the scenario I’m trying to stay ahead of.


My concern is precisely the 1%. I don’t want to develop a procedure that depends on an automated minimums alert because it works 99% of the time. I want my normal procedure to work exactly the same way when something changes or the automation isn’t available.


That’s why I brief the applicable minimums and actively call my altitude remaining to minimums.


The 1% isn’t a reason to dismiss the procedure — it’s the reason for the procedure.

Sorry, I don't agree with your comparisons for the 99/1. You're also for some reason assuming that if you set the bug, you won't call out the altitude remaining - the two are not mutually exclusive, you can and should do both.

To me, the 99/1 comment is about intentionally being riskier 99% of the time so that during the 1% you (might) be safer. That just doesn't work for me.

I don't think I'd be far off the mark to say that any flight department (like the airlines, charter operators, etc) with two-crew airplanes has an SOP to always set the bug AND one of the pilots makes the callouts. We certainly do. And that's a highly-trained crew that goes to recurrent simulator training every year and STILL sets the bug even with two pilots watching the altitude. There's a reason they all do this, and to say it's safer for a presumably lesser-trained single pilot to NOT set the bug just strains credulity.

 

[Davidl13]

Sorry, I don't agree with your comparisons for the 99/1. You're also for some reason assuming that if you set the bug, you won't call out the altitude remaining - the two are not mutually exclusive, you can and should do both.

To me, the 99/1 comment is about intentionally being riskier 99% of the time so that during the 1% you (might) be safer. That just doesn't work for me.

I don't think I'd be far off the mark to say that any flight department (like the airlines, charter operators, etc) with two-crew airplanes has an SOP to always set the bug AND one of the pilots makes the callouts. We certainly do. And that's a highly-trained crew that goes to recurrent simulator training every year and STILL sets the bug even with two pilots watching the altitude. There's a reason they all do this, and to say it's safer for a presumably lesser-trained single pilot to NOT set the bug just strains credulity.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not suggesting the bug and altitude callouts are mutually exclusive.


My point is simply that more automation is not automatically more safety, particularly single-pilot during a high-workload phase.


And comparing this to an airline or flight department isn’t really apples-to-apples. That’s a multi-pilot institution with standardized SOPs, divided responsibilities, recurrent training, and two pilots cross-checking each other. I’m one pilot trying to build the safest, most resilient procedure I can while doing all of those jobs myself.


I actively monitor and call my altitude to briefed minimums. That works whether the automation works, fails, is incorrectly set, or the applicable minimums change.


I prefer to train and fly the procedure that still works when the automation doesn’t.

 

[iamtheari]

Why not input the highest minimums for the bug and call out altitudes to the minimums you’re intending to fly? That seems to be the fail-safe way to use the feature in light of your concerns, rather than simply eschewing it outright. And when Betty calls out “minimums,” you can interpret it as a reminder that you are now committed to the lower minimums.

 

[Davidl13]

Why not input the highest minimums for the bug and call out altitudes to the minimums you’re intending to fly? That seems to be the fail-safe way to use the feature in light of your concerns, rather than simply eschewing it outright. And when Betty calls out “minimums,” you can interpret it as a reminder that you are now committed to the lower minimums.

I don’t want “Minimums” to mean something other than minimums.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

For those flying with a Garmin G500/600 TXi, you can program your IFR approach minimums into the system and have it provide an electronic minimums alert. I know some pilots swear by this feature, but I purposefully do not use it. Here is my reasoning.

My concern with entering minimums ahead of time is that a late change in approach capability means I now have another item to recognize and change in the avionics during one of the busiest portions of the flight. For me, that creates additional workload at exactly the wrong time. An electronic minimums notification based on a value that is no longer applicable can also become more of a distraction than an aid.

Instead, I keep the published approach plate in front of me and, beginning at the FAF, progressively call out my current altitude in relation to the relevant published minimums for the approach capability I actually have at that moment.

How do you handle this? What is your strategy?

I set the lowest expected minimums, *and* I do the callouts. I brief all the minimums and note when passing below each - So, for example, if I'm below LOC mins and the glideslope fails, I'm going missed immediately.

There is no way for the bug to be a "distraction" if you do it this way. In fact, it won't be any different from how you do it right now, as if you have to use higher minimums, guess what - You'll never hear the minimums callout. And if the workload is too high to reset the minimums bug, then don't reset it! Just keep doing what you're already doing, and again, you'll never hear the minimums callout.

BUT... As pilots, ESPECIALLY single pilots, we should be building in as many backups and cross-checks as we can. If used as I describe above (bug/automated call AND verbal callouts), your level of safety is the same in the unlikely event the approach is downgraded (Less than 1% of the time IME), but your level of safety is improved on the 99% of approaches that aren't downgraded, and it can save your life.

You SHOULD be calling out remaining feet to minimums, that's pretty normal SOP for two-pilot airplanes and is an excellent idea for single pilot operations as well.

But why not use the minimums bug too? You're forgoing an important safety backup, one that will be a benefit 99% of the time, to avoid a situation that may only happen 1% of the time.

This!!!!!!!!!

But what do you know about approaches, anyway? You've only probably flown as many of them as the rest of us combined.

Interesting comments. I disagree with the premise that an approach downgrade, by itself, should automatically result in a missed approach.

There's a discussion to be had there... But in case you weren't aware, you're speaking to an FAA flight check pilot. His day job is literally flying approaches. It's worth giving his opinion a lot of consideration.

I find the voice minimums alert more distracting than helpful. I also don’t particularly want to develop an expectation that the airplane will announce minimums for me. If I become accustomed to hearing that callout and one day it doesn’t occur — because I entered something incorrectly, forgot to enter it, or the feature simply wasn’t available — I don’t want its absence to become another potential problem.

Don't develop an expectation. Always make the callouts - Nobody is disputing that's a good idea. And you never want to bet your life on your avionics. Use BOTH.

From the FAF to minimums, my goal is to eliminate anything that unnecessarily competes for my attention. I am progressively calling out my altitude remaining to the applicable minimums and actively monitoring the approach.

And having minimums set will not do ANYTHING between the FAF and minimums - It will make the call AT minimums that might save your life.

My experience has taught me that anything I add between the FAF and minimums that can distract me from that process, even if intended as an additional safety feature, can potentially become a problem itself.

I’m not arguing that the minimums bug is wrong for someone else. I’m explaining why, for my single-pilot workflow, deliberately monitoring and calling my altitude to the already-briefed minimums works better than adding another automated alert.

But it's not an either/or. It's a DO BOTH. In fact, if you're doing your callouts right, after a few times you should be able to say "minimums, minimums" at the same time as the box does!

My point is simply that more automation is not automatically more safety, particularly single-pilot during a high-workload phase.

Automation that backs up a single pilot using good practices is absolutely more safe.

And comparing this to an airline or flight department isn’t really apples-to-apples. That’s a multi-pilot institution with standardized SOPs, divided responsibilities, recurrent training, and two pilots cross-checking each other. I’m one pilot trying to build the safest, most resilient procedure I can while doing all of those jobs myself.

Which is all the more reason why you need to use any automation that you can to back yourself up, because you don't have an FO to catch your mistakes.

I actively monitor and call my altitude to briefed minimums. That works whether the automation works, fails, is incorrectly set, or the applicable minimums change.

Not necessarily. You're human. You *WILL* make mistakes. If you do the calls as you're already doing, then the automation is your backup. Your calls are still doing the work whether the automation works, fails, or is incorrectly set, or the minimums change. But what happens when, not if, you make a mistake?

I prefer to train and fly the procedure that still works when the automation doesn’t.

And nobody is telling you not to.

Why not input the highest minimums for the bug and call out altitudes to the minimums you’re intending to fly? That seems to be the fail-safe way to use the feature in light of your concerns, rather than simply eschewing it outright. And when Betty calls out “minimums,” you can interpret it as a reminder that you are now committed to the lower minimums.

Because when used in *that* manner, the minimums callout becomes a distraction and it also becomes SOP to ignore it the 99% of times you don't have a downgraded approach. You need to be in the habit of, upon hearing minimums and not seeing the runway environment, to go missed, now. Building the habit of disregarding the minimums callout is not a good idea.

So, set it to the lowest minimums. Then it won't be a distraction, it will be working as designed and intended, and it'll be there to back you up.

 

[Davidl13]

I set the lowest expected minimums, *and* I do the callouts. I brief all the minimums and note when passing below each - So, for example, if I'm below LOC mins and the glideslope fails, I'm going missed immediately.

There is no way for the bug to be a "distraction" if you do it this way. In fact, it won't be any different from how you do it right now, as if you have to use higher minimums, guess what - You'll never hear the minimums callout. And if the workload is too high to reset the minimums bug, then don't reset it! Just keep doing what you're already doing, and again, you'll never hear the minimums callout.

BUT... As pilots, ESPECIALLY single pilots, we should be building in as many backups and cross-checks as we can. If used as I describe above (bug/automated call AND verbal callouts), your level of safety is the same in the unlikely event the approach is downgraded (Less than 1% of the time IME), but your level of safety is improved on the 99% of approaches that aren't downgraded, and it can save your life.


This!!!!!!!!!

But what do you know about approaches, anyway? You've only probably flown as many of them as the rest of us combined.


There's a discussion to be had there... But in case you weren't aware, you're speaking to an FAA flight check pilot. His day job is literally flying approaches. It's worth giving his opinion a lot of consideration.


Don't develop an expectation. Always make the callouts - Nobody is disputing that's a good idea. And you never want to bet your life on your avionics. Use BOTH.


And having minimums set will not do ANYTHING between the FAF and minimums - It will make the call AT minimums that might save your life.


But it's not an either/or. It's a DO BOTH. In fact, if you're doing your callouts right, after a few times you should be able to say "minimums, minimums" at the same time as the box does!


Automation that backs up a single pilot using good practices is absolutely more safe.


Which is all the more reason why you need to use any automation that you can to back yourself up, because you don't have an FO to catch your mistakes.


Not necessarily. You're human. You *WILL* make mistakes. If you do the calls as you're already doing, then the automation is your backup. Your calls are still doing the work whether the automation works, fails, or is incorrectly set, or the minimums change. But what happens when, not if, you make a mistake?


And nobody is telling you not to.


Because when used in *that* manner, the minimums callout becomes a distraction and it also becomes SOP to ignore it the 99% of times you don't have a downgraded approach. You need to be in the habit of, upon hearing minimums and not seeing the runway environment, to go missed, now. Building the habit of disregarding the minimums callout is not a good idea.

So, set it to the lowest minimums. Then it won't be a distraction, it will be working as designed and intended, and it'll be there to back you up.

I’m glad you have an SOP that works for you. So do I.

The FAA explicitly allows for both methods. So do many excellent pilots and instructors. My method works for me, and I believe it is safer for the way I fly. You believe yours is safer for the way you fly.

There is zero data demonstrating that one method is inherently safer than the other.


You do you.

 

[Hang 4]

Curious why you are so argumentative when your original post included

How do you handle this? What is your strategy?

You got answers.

 

[Davidl13]

Curious why you are so argumentative when your original post included

You got answers.

I’m not sure how you read me as argumentative. As a matter of fact, I haven’t claimed that my method is the best. Other people seem to be making that claim about their method.


I asked because I genuinely wanted to hear how other pilots handle it. It’s good to hear different ideas and understand the reasoning behind them.


That’s all. There’s room for more than one method.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The FAA explicitly allows for both methods. So do many excellent pilots and instructors. My method works for me, and I believe it is safer for the way I fly.

And I disagree - You'll be safer if you have something there to back you up.

There is zero data demonstrating that one method is inherently safer than the other.

There is zero chance that *adding* a callout at a time that you should already be making a callout (and expecting the electronic one) is going to cause so much of a distraction that it's safer than having it there in the event you screw up.

Again - Nobody is telling you not to do what you already do. We're telling you to use the equipment you have available to back up what you're doing. Adding a backup, and not changing the primary, cannot be less safe.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I’m not sure how you read me as argumentative. As a matter of fact, I haven’t claimed that my method is the best. Other people seem to be making that claim about their method.


I asked because I genuinely wanted to hear how other pilots handle it. It’s good to hear different ideas and understand the reasoning behind them.


That’s all. There’s room for more than one method.

And you're being told by several experienced pilots that your method is only part of the best practice, and how adding one additional check to your method is safer. And we're hoping that by understanding the reasoning behind it, you'll update your practices and become a better, safer pilot in the process.

 

[Davidl13]

And I disagree.


There is zero chance that *adding* a callout at a time that you should already be making a callout (and expecting the electronic one) is going to cause so much of a distraction that it's safer than having it there in the event you screw up.

Again - Nobody is telling you not to do what you already do. We're telling you to use the equipment you have available to back up what you're doing. Adding a backup, and not changing the primary, cannot be less safe.

You’re stating your conclusion as an absolute. “Zero chance” and “cannot be less safe” are claims, not data.


I understand your reasoning. I understood it several posts ago. I simply don’t agree that adding more automation automatically makes something safer. Automation can provide a useful backup, but it can also introduce its own human-factors tradeoffs.


We have different SOPs. That’s okay.

 

[iamtheari]

Because when used in *that* manner, the minimums callout becomes a distraction and it also becomes SOP to ignore it the 99% of times you don't have a downgraded approach.

Used consistently, it wouldn’t be ignored or a distraction. It would be a call-out that you are within the range of altitudes charted as minimums for the approach, and with continued descent you are crossing off options (first circling, then LNAV, then LPV). I set the minimums bug for the line I’m flying and think that’s the best practice. But if that’s the best practice and the OP rejects it, what is the next-best practice?

if you have to use higher minimums, guess what - You'll never hear the minimums callout.

This is something I’ll have to test one corner of, but is mostly incorrect unless you go missed. If you plug in the LPV minimums and fly to the LNAV minimums, you will still get the call-out as you descend through the LPV minimums to land the plane. The testable corner is whether Garmin avionics issue a “minimums” call-out if you hit the programmed altitude while full-deflection off-course, i.e. circling.

It could be that hearing “minimums” after you’ve broken out is distracting. I’d still rather get the call-out in those rare false positives than miss it the day I’m task saturated and having a talkative PFD could save my bacon.

 

[RussR]

The testable corner is whether Garmin avionics issue a “minimums” call-out if you hit the programmed altitude while full-deflection off-course, i.e. circling.

In every system I've flown, including most of the Garmin boxes, the minimums bug is simply an altitude alerter and has no tie-in to the navigational parts of the system.

 

[Davidl13]

Agreement among a few pilots, or even many pilots, doesn’t establish a single “best practice” either.

I’ve flown many, many approaches with very accomplished CFIIs, ATPs, airline captains, DPEs, and military pilots. Not once has my choice to use or not use an automated minimums callout been presented as some defining measure of whether I was operating safely.

I started this discussion to share the method I use and to hear how other pilots accomplish the same objective. I was interested in exchanging ideas, not telling anyone else what they should do.

If you believe the automated minimums callout makes you safer, use it. I have no argument with that.

What I find strange is the insistence that a personal technique must be elevated into the one correct “best practice,” and that anyone who weighs the tradeoffs differently needs to be educated into becoming a “better, safer pilot.”

There is room for more than one method here. I never claimed mine was the one and only answer.

Apparently some people are quite comfortable claiming that about theirs—and then accusing me of being argumentative because I don’t accept their claim.

There’s a certain irony in that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You’re stating your conclusion as an absolute. “Zero chance” and “cannot be less safe” are claims, not data.

Please present one scenario where having the minimums bug/callout set AND making the verbal callouts makes you *less* safe than just the verbal callouts... And then maybe we can have a discussion.

I don't see how that's possible.

I understand your reasoning. I understood it several posts ago. I simply don’t agree that adding more automation automatically makes something safer. Automation can provide a useful backup, but it can also introduce its own human-factors tradeoffs.

I would agree with both of those statements, generally speaking. Automation doesn't automatically make things safer - In fact, if it's not used correctly, it's a hindrance. And I have had automation try to kill me inside the FAF on a night IMC approach, so I don't take these things lightly.

In this specific case, though, I don't understand how it is making you less safe, *provided* you don't stop making the verbal callouts you're already making.

We have different SOPs. That’s okay.

Generally speaking, yes. However, in this specific case, you're missing out on a very important cross-check in one of the most dangerous single-pilot flight regimes.

Used consistently, it wouldn’t be ignored or a distraction. It would be a call-out that you are within the range of altitudes charted as minimums for the approach, and with continued descent you are crossing off options (first circling, then LNAV, then LPV).

I dunno, in this I agree with the OP that "Minimums" should mean minimums. Minimum minimums. Ah, where's Jerry when we need him?

This is something I’ll have to test one corner of, but is mostly incorrect unless you go missed. If you plug in the LPV minimums and fly to the LNAV minimums, you will still get the call-out as you descend through the LPV minimums to land the plane.

This is true, but at that point you should be visual and thus it wouldn't be a big deal any more.

I’ve flown many, many approaches with very accomplished CFIIs, ATPs, airline captains, DPEs, and military pilots. Not once has my choice to use or not use an automated minimums callout been presented as some defining measure of whether I was operating safely.

Frankly, many of those guys may not have even known your bird had that capability.

And it's not the defining measure of whether you're operating safely. It's simply a very good thing to do for safety, and you're not doing it. That doesn't mean everything else you do is bad.

What I find strange is the insistence that a personal technique must be elevated into the one correct “best practice,” and that anyone who weighs the tradeoffs differently needs to be educated into becoming a “better, safer pilot.”

It's not so much a personal technique as an industry-wide one, and one that's very easy to defend as the best practice.

Now, the idea of whether you should continue or go missed when the approach is downgraded is something that could bear more discussion.

Apparently some people are quite comfortable claiming that about theirs—and then accusing me of being argumentative because I don’t accept their claim.

I think that accusation may have come when you dismissed some very well-reasoned posts without any "why" behind why you didn't accept their claim. It's not a discussion any more at that point.

 

[Davidl13]

Please present one scenario where having the minimums bug/callout set AND making the verbal callouts makes you *less* safe than just the verbal callouts... And then maybe we can have a discussion.

I don't see how that's possible.


I would agree with both of those statements, generally speaking. Automation doesn't automatically make things safer - In fact, if it's not used correctly, it's a hindrance. And I have had automation try to kill me inside the FAF on a night IMC approach, so I don't take these things lightly.

In this specific case, though, I don't understand how it is making you less safe, *provided* you don't stop making the verbal callouts you're already making.


Generally speaking, yes. However, in this specific case, you're missing out on a very important cross-check in one of the most dangerous single-pilot flight regimes.


I dunno, in this I agree with the OP that "Minimums" should mean minimums. Minimum minimums. Ah, where's Jerry when we need him?


This is true, but at that point you should be visual and thus it wouldn't be a big deal any more.


Frankly, many of those guys may not have even known your bird had that capability.

And it's not the defining measure of whether you're operating safely. It's simply a very good thing to do for safety, and you're not doing it. That doesn't mean everything else you do is bad.


It's not so much a personal technique as an industry-wide one, and one that's very easy to defend as the best practice.

Now, the idea of whether you should continue or go missed when the approach is downgraded is something that could bear more discussion.


I think that accusation may have come when you dismissed some very well-reasoned posts without any "why" behind why you didn't accept their claim. It's not a discussion any more at that point.

You have not read and comprehended what I have said. I’m not going to repeat it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How do you handle this? What is your strategy?

In a system where I can, I enter the minimums for the approach I’m flying that day at that time as a reference and call out my progress. I don’t share your concerns.

Are concerns with automation over-dependence legitimate? Sure. I’ve even written about it in George Doesn’t Know. But placing a bug or numerical altitude reference on a PFD is not something I’ve seen as a problem. Going a step further, I like visible altitude references generally. On the MFD side of the equation, my SOP is to have the flight plan rather than moving map displayed. “What’s my next course and target altitude on this procedure?” is the reason.

You might like a different technique. If it works, it works.

 

[Hang 4]

You have not read and comprehended what I have said. I’m not going to repeat it.

My concern with entering minimums ahead of time is that a late change in approach capability means I now have another item to recognize and change in the avionics during one of the busiest portions of the flight. For me, that creates additional workload at exactly the wrong time. An electronic minimums notification based on a value that is no longer applicable can also become more of a distraction than an aid.

Instead, I keep the published approach plate in front of me and, beginning at the FAF, progressively call out my current altitude in relation to the relevant published minimums for the approach capability I actually have at that moment.

That's a pretty edge case, (downgrade from LPV) and one where I'd be rethinking whether or not I want to attempt the approach at all. At a minimum (no pun intended) you'd need to re-brief the entire approach as it goes to a non-precision approach. Obstructions for example. It would also be easy to get confused on which minimums you were using if you got distracted during the "busiest portion of the flight". It takes little time to reset the mins on a G500 and if that's too much work, then re-briefing is as well. (BTW not suggesting setting mins substitutes for re-briefing). Lastly, it's little different from setting a heading bug to align with the approach course, which is a well agreed best practice and as @midlifeflyer noted, a visual cue, in addition to the auditory one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's a pretty edge case, (downgrade from LPV) and one where I'd be rethinking whether or not I want to attempt the approach at all. At a minimum (no pun intended) you'd need to re-brief the entire approach as it goes to a non-precision approach.

You make a good point. The risk David appears to be worried about is an approach in weather conditions so near minimums that it may realistically result in a missed approach in which the system downgrades after crossing the FAF. That entire scenario is one in which every step becomes less likely. Coincidental downgrade at the worst time and one in which most would recommend an immediate missed and a reset. Yet, David seems to be more worried the risk of an altitude bug leading him astray than the risks of switching approaches on the fly in that situation.

 

[iamtheari]

I dunno, in this I agree with the OP that "Minimums" should mean minimums. Minimum minimums. Ah, where's Jerry when we need him?

You and the OP have opposite views. He refuses to set any minimums in the panel because he's afraid he'll have to switch to a higher minimums line (even maximum minimums ) and follow the bug too low by mistake. You and I set the minimums we're flying (which might not be minimum^2). I'm just brainstorming in case there's a middle ground (personal minimums? Let's dig 'em all out while we're here.) where the available aid to situation awareness can be useful for the OP despite his discomfort using it as intended.

You have not read and comprehended what I have said. I’m not going to repeat it.

This may be why people find you argumentative. Can you point to the post number where you provided the information that you're not going to repeat?

 

[MauleSkinner]

You and the OP have opposite views. He refuses to set any minimums in the panel because he's afraid he'll have to switch to a higher minimums line (even maximum minimums ) and follow the bug too low by mistake.

It reminds me of a copilot I used to fly with who argued that approaches into Aspen were inherently unsafe because “you might forget to turn” on the missed approach.

 

[Davidl13]

Reading and comprehension are necessary to understand what I’ve articulated here. Take your time and read what I actually wrote, slowly. Put it into an AI if you need to... anything that helps slow down your reaction and focus on what I actually said.

You do not have to agree with my workflow. That was never my point. The way you have mischaracterized my position is grossly inaccurate and does not reflect what I have actually shared. Disagree with my reasoning if you want, but first accurately understand the reasoning you are disagreeing with.

There is a certain irony in presenting yourself as the arbiter of the one “best” and “most correct” way to operate. Several of you have explained why you believe your method provides an additional safeguard. I understand your reasoning. But being able to construct a logical argument for a technique does not establish that it is objectively safer than another technique that manages the same risk differently. That is precisely why I have not claimed that my method is the “best practice.” I have explained the tradeoffs I consider and why I choose the workflow I do. You are free to weigh those tradeoffs differently.

What you don’t get to do is turn your preference into an objective safety standard simply by repeatedly calling it “best practice.”

 

[MauleSkinner]

That was never my point.

So what, exactly, was your point?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm just brainstorming in case there's a middle ground (personal minimums? Let's dig 'em all out while we're here.)

There's nothing that says you can't put your personal minimums in that box. I'd argue that's exactly what you should put in there unless your personal minimums are soft and meant to be disregarded.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You have not read and comprehended what I have said. I’m not going to repeat it.

Maybe you can at least re-word what you think I'm missing so that I don't miss it... But, "you do you".

Or is @iamtheari right below?

You and the OP have opposite views. He refuses to set any minimums in the panel because he's afraid he'll have to switch to a higher minimums line (even maximum minimums ) and follow the bug too low by mistake.

Is that the reason for not doing it?

My contention is that you (@Davidl13) should keep doing what you're doing, with your brain having the real minimums bug, and doing the callouts. In the unlikely event the approach is degraded, it will work exactly the same as it does today with no callout. If the approach isn't degraded (the 99+% scenario) then there's the backup minimums call. Nobody is saying to blindly follow the bug, nobody is saying to reset it after the FAF, and most importantly it's not going to do anything between the FAF and the MAP, it only does the thing at the MAP, so it shouldn't be a distraction.

If you think you're going to follow the bug too low if the approach degrades, then just go missed and set it up correctly. But if that's the case, you're not using your brain as the bug, you're using the bug as a crutch and nobody is suggesting that.

Put it into an AI if you need to

Now THAT would be mighty entertaining.

There is a certain irony in presenting yourself as the arbiter of the one “best” and “most correct” way to operate. Several of you have explained why you believe your method provides an additional safeguard. I understand your reasoning. But being able to construct a logical argument for a technique does not establish that it is objectively safer than another technique that manages the same risk differently. That is precisely why I have not claimed that my method is the “best practice.” I have explained the tradeoffs I consider and why I choose the workflow I do. You are free to weigh those tradeoffs differently.

What are you looking for to establish something as "objectively safer"? Nobody is going to do a full peer-reviewed research study on this, so you're just going to dig in your heels?

I don't see how you can argue that doing Thing A is safer than doing Thing A *and* having a backup.

What you don’t get to do is turn your preference into an objective safety standard simply by repeatedly calling it “best practice.”

I'm not calling it best practice. The entire industry does.

 

[Dixiebluesky]

More than one way to remove the skins of cats and turn those skins into a wearable garment.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is that the reason for not doing it?

That's what it sounded like to me. Not worried about continuing the approach in actual down to the deck under those conditions. Just the bug.

My concern with entering minimums ahead of time is that a late change in approach capability means I now have another item to recognize and change in the avionics during one of the busiest portions of the flight. For me, that creates additional workload at exactly the wrong time. An electronic minimums notification based on a value that is no longer applicable can also become more of a distraction than an aid.

I agree with you. If ignoring that capability works for him, he should do it. I have no problem with the choice and I have not used the term "best practice." I'm not even sure the term really applies.

But I do think that presenting the opposing view of why ignoring the capability not necessary and may even be a bad idea since we have many members who are new to this and need to make SOP decisions.

 

[Davidl13]

Maybe you can at least re-word what you think I'm missing so that I don't miss it... But, "you do you".

Or is @iamtheari right below?


Is that the reason for not doing it?

My contention is that you (@Davidl13) should keep doing what you're doing, with your brain having the real minimums bug, and doing the callouts. In the unlikely event the approach is degraded, it will work exactly the same as it does today with no callout. If the approach isn't degraded (the 99+% scenario) then there's the backup minimums call. Nobody is saying to blindly follow the bug, nobody is saying to reset it after the FAF, and most importantly it's not going to do anything between the FAF and the MAP, it only does the thing at the MAP, so it shouldn't be a distraction.

If you think you're going to follow the bug too low if the approach degrades, then just go missed and set it up correctly. But if that's the case, you're not using your brain as the bug, you're using the bug as a crutch and nobody is suggesting that.


Now THAT would be mighty entertaining.


What are you looking for to establish something as "objectively safer"? Nobody is going to do a full peer-reviewed research study on this, so you're just going to dig in your heels?

I don't see how you can argue that doing Thing A is safer than doing Thing A *and* having a backup.


I'm not calling it best practice. The entire industry does.

And from your response, I can only conclude that you still haven’t gone back and carefully read what I actually wrote, including the logic and risk analysis behind my workflow. That is probably why you “can’t see how.” You’re arguing against a characterization of my position that isn’t my position.

As for “the entire industry,” that’s an enormous claim. Which industry?

Single-pilot Part 91 IFR? Two-pilot airline operations? Part 135? Military aviation? Garmin G500/600 TXi-equipped GA aircraft?

Garmin provides the minimums bug and automated callout as a useful capability. I have never disputed that. But providing a capability is not the same thing as declaring its use the singular industry-wide best practice.

If there is an FAA standard, Garmin guidance, industry standard, or other authoritative source establishing that programming an automated minimums callout is the accepted “best practice” for the type of single-pilot IFR operation we are discussing, please provide it. I’ll happily read it.

Otherwise, “the entire industry does” is not evidence. It’s another assertion.

And perhaps drink one less cup of arrogance coffee and follow the risk analysis you have developed for yourself. I’m perfectly comfortable with you reaching a different conclusion than I do. What I object to is your insistence that your conclusion must therefore be mine.

 

[Davidl13]

That's what it sounded like to me. Not worried about continuing the approach in actual down to the deck under those conditions. Just the bug.


I agree with you. If ignoring that capability works for him, he should do it. I have no problem with the choice and I have not used the term "best practice." I'm not even sure the term really applies.

But I do think that presenting the opposing view of why ignoring the capability not necessary and may even be a bad idea since we have many members who are new to this and need to make SOP decisions.

You’ve now introduced another assumption that I never made. I have said nothing about the weather being “down to the deck,” nor have I described continuing an approach under the conditions you just invented.

My discussion concerned a change in approach capability and how I manage the resulting change in applicable minimums and cockpit workload. That is a completely different issue.

Likewise, I am not “ignoring” a capability. I know precisely what the feature does. I have evaluated its advantages and disadvantages and deliberately use a different workflow.

If you want to disagree with the workflow I actually described, fine. But please stop adding facts to my scenario and then arguing against the scenario you created.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would think the sudden change from localizer-like lateral guidance to a .3 mile parallel scale would be more distracting than a minimums callout while descending visually below the clouds. And that’s assuming the unit will actually make the change to .3, which I still doubt.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You’ve now introduced another assumption that I never made. I have said nothing about the weather being “down to the deck,” nor have I described continuing an approach under the conditions you just invented.

You misunderstood. My intent is to give context for others who are contemplating what methodology to adopt. What I was pointing out is that the concern about the downgrade and having different minimums - exactly what you are talking about - is nonexistent unless you are going to be flying down to near minimums in actual conditions. IOW, if conditions are visual or you are going to break out well above even circling minimums, the specific charted minimums and the difference between them, are pretty irrelevant. The bug, or its absence, actually does nothing.

OTOH, if the conditions are such that the "wrong" minimums are a real concern, then the question of whether to continue or go missed early is also there, and I think, a far more important consideration. And, in that case, it's only if you choose to continue that the "wrong" bug makes a difference.

I don't care about your workflow. And I'm not arguing against you doing it. There are several so-called "best practices," even some mentioned in the POH checklists for these units, that I don't follow because I think another way is better. When I give an IPC, I don't care if my client's technique is different than mine, so long as it works (it's actually my First Commandment of Flight Instruction). I can't see anything about foregoing entering minimums as a reminder/automated callout/bug that doesn't work. Heck, I only flew IFR for 17 years before I saw anything that even had the capability. I just don't agree with you that it's a safety enhancement to not use it. If you like it, heck, I'm happy if you're happy.

 

[Tools]

What are these “minimums”?

Tools
Clara

 

[Davidl13]

When Garmin derives minimums from the approach I'm actually receiving, it's 100 to zero in favor. Until then, the human factors of manual entry under changing conditions flip the score.