tmyers
En-Route
Four fatalities near Greensburg airport in SE Indiana last night. Return trip from FL. No other info at this time.
as a new ppl I wonder why people push their limits like this. While a sad situation for all concerned, why not land and wait for a while.
Just does not compute with me.
New ifr ticket earlier this year and new plane in September. Not much time to get comfortable. I am finally feeling comfy in mine after a year and 95.2 hrs. Sorry for the family...six children without parents now.
It typically is not one thing but many that gets pilots into this situation. Not a month goes by where I do not read some story either in a magazine, or online about how someone pushed their limits, and got away with it. I think many pilots do these things that are obviously not safe to any pilot and get away with it. However it takes just one time of not getting away with it and that results are often fatal. For example, one of my friends showed me some pictures he took while flying his plane over the weekend over some of the local bldgs. I asked what camera he used and what telephoto lens. "Nah" he said, "I was 300ft AGL." And it looked like it.as a new ppl I wonder why people push their limits like this. While a sad situation for all concerned, why not land and wait for a while.
Just does not compute with me.
The article was reporting ceilings of 300 to 600 feet AGL both of which are below the approach minimums of 700 and 1 for the GPS and 800 and 1 for the VOR-A.
Jonesy; My personal minimums are way above that especially at night. I have been in to that airport the runway is small. A friend flying with me couldn't believe I was landing on that thin landing strip.
It typically is not one thing but many that gets pilots into this situation. Not a month goes by where I do not read some story either in a magazine, or online about how someone pushed their limits, and got away with it. I think many pilots do these things that are obviously not safe to any pilot and get away with it. However it takes just one time of not getting away with it and that results are often fatal. For example, one of my friends showed me some pictures he took while flying his plane over the weekend over some of the local bldgs. I asked what camera he used and what telephoto lens. "Nah" he said, "I was 300ft AGL." And it looked like it.
Personally, I wish some of these magazines would use these studies not to show how to get out of these bad situations, or how great this pilot was to get out of the situation, but as examples of what not to do.
Doug
I agree and do just that on some days...IMSAFE.A big part of the problem is the entire concept of "personal limits", this means it's ok to not be able to perform to published standards and that is unacceptable. Published standards are MINIMUM standards you should be able to operate at. Personal Minimum should be Published Minimum, and if you don't feel up to those standards, retrain and/or re-equip, or avoid the activity altogether. If you can't fly IFR to minimums and hand fly it comfortably for an hour in turbulence, you best just stay VFR.
The instrumentation and autopilot in that aircraft would have probably flown the approach and should have held altitude at the DH. Would someone have had to overridden the Alt hold to drop to a lower altitude? I am not that familiar with the advanced AP on the more expensive airplanes.
"The aircraft impacted in a plowed field, that was the initial impact point. It traveled approximately 250 to 300 feet before it came to a rest in trees or over the edge of a ravine in a brushy area," Baker said.
My post had nothing to do with the concept of personal minimums and whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. My post was an answer to daytonalynn's post. Personally, I think personal minimums are not necessarily a bad thing. I agree that using them not to operate at minimum standards is not a good thing, but knowing your limitations and what you can handle comfortably and cannot handle comfortable is a good thing. I know some pilots such as you are naturally gifted and can handle everything that is thrown at them, I are the other hand see no reason to do an approach with visibility at minimums if other options for the approach including a no go decision for my missions for flying. Can I do it? Based on my training yes. Will I do it? No. Something about bold pilots and growing old resonates with me. I really do not want my epitath to be he died young, but died doing what he loved best.A big part of the problem is the entire concept of "personal limits", this means it's ok to not be able to perform to published standards and that is unacceptable. Published standards are MINIMUM standards you should be able to operate at. Personal Minimum should be Published Minimum, and if you don't feel up to those standards, retrain and/or re-equip, or avoid the activity altogether. If you can't fly IFR to minimums and hand fly it comfortably for an hour in turbulence, you best just stay VFR.
I agree. Published minimums are what you are not supposed to go beyond but there's nothing wrong with stopping short of them. Just plan your alternatives accordingly.Personally, I think personal minimums are not necessarily a bad thing. I agree that using them not to operate at minimum standards is not a good thing, but knowing your limitations and what you can handle comfortably and cannot handle comfortable is a good thing.
I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.I agree. Published minimums are what you are not supposed to go beyond but there's nothing wrong with stopping short of them. Just plan your alternatives accordingly.
Glad you expanded on that because I was too lazy! I agree with you, though.I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.
In addition, the way I hear some pilot's apply their personal mins doesn't make sense to me in that they will establish a single ceiling and maybe IME a single visibility limit (e.g 500 & 1mi) that they apply to all approaches. I think a more rational methodology would be to apply a scaler or additive adjustment to both (e.g. double the published mins or add x00 ft and y miles) so that they maintain some sort of margin above the published limits.
To really adhere to conservative mins you should apply the increased limits to your need for an alternate (i.e. add an alternate and fuel if the forecast is less than x% better than the standard ±1hr, 2000 ft, & 3mi), the weather requirements for any alternate (i.e. choose alternates that are forecast to be x% better than the standard 800/600&2), refuse to begin any approach with reported wx less than x% above the published mins, and adjust the MDA or DA by the same percentage. Now if you truly do all that I could see a benefit in "personal mins" but with what I see as the more common application it seems to me that such pilots really need to be prepared to fly with published mins if they do depart or the only safety benefit is less flying exposure.
Based on the plane he was flying he was probably pretty competent, but this one didn't work out so well. Very sad.
I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.
In addition, the way I hear some pilot's apply their personal mins doesn't make sense to me in that they will establish a single ceiling and maybe IME a single visibility limit (e.g 500 & 1mi) that they apply to all approaches. I think a more rational methodology would be to apply a scaler or additive adjustment to both (e.g. double the published mins or add x00 ft and y miles) so that they maintain some sort of margin above the published limits.
To really adhere to conservative mins you should apply the increased limits to your need for an alternate (i.e. add an alternate and fuel if the forecast is less than x% better than the standard ±1hr, 2000 ft, & 3mi), the weather requirements for any alternate (i.e. choose alternates that are forecast to be x% better than the standard 800/600&2), refuse to begin any approach with reported wx less than x% above the published mins, and adjust the MDA or DA by the same percentage. Now if you truly do all that I could see a benefit in "personal mins" but with what I see as the more common application it seems to me that such pilots really need to be prepared to fly with published mins if they do depart or the only safety benefit is less flying exposure.
I wonder whether the pilot of the crashed plane had the information that his friends went missed approach 20 minutes ahead of him. Would ATC have shared this info. Seems that there was documentation available that the conditions were below minimums.
One thing that I have now learned is to ask for pireps when there is a chance that the ceiling will be too low. I wonder how atc will react if I ask them when the last landing at a specific airport was made.