Ed_Wischmeyer
Well Known Member
On the summertime IFR thread, there was a comment about personal minimums. Rather than bury this response at the end of that thread...
If you think about the challenges one incurs on a flight, you don't want too many challenges on the entire flight, and you don't want too many challenges at one time.
So if you're tired, that's a challenge. Turbulence on the entire flight is a challenge. Dodging cumulus buildups for the entire flight is a challenge. An unfamiliar airplane, or being out of currency enough that you're a bit uncomfortable is a challenge. Pressure to get there is a challenge. So this flight might be a good candidate for being cancelled, even if it's VFR. When I had my RV-4, I counted challenges as "gray areas," and cancelled flights if there were too many gray areas.
Now consider an instrument approach but well above minimums. Unfamiliar ATC can be a challenge, as can be a strong, gusty crosswind, and a wet runway. Low visibility but still above minimums can make it a challenge. Trying to figure out alternatives when the published missed approach procedure goes right through a thunderstorm is a challenge. Lots of challenges at once can be reason to avoid that situation.
So the point of personal minimums is not appropriately discussed in the context of just approach minimums -- you should be able to fly any approach to minimums if you have to. A more appropriate set of minimums are: how many total challenges on the flight; and how many challenges might you encounter at once.
This concept was written for the original Eclipse Jet flight safety manual.
If you think about the challenges one incurs on a flight, you don't want too many challenges on the entire flight, and you don't want too many challenges at one time.
So if you're tired, that's a challenge. Turbulence on the entire flight is a challenge. Dodging cumulus buildups for the entire flight is a challenge. An unfamiliar airplane, or being out of currency enough that you're a bit uncomfortable is a challenge. Pressure to get there is a challenge. So this flight might be a good candidate for being cancelled, even if it's VFR. When I had my RV-4, I counted challenges as "gray areas," and cancelled flights if there were too many gray areas.
Now consider an instrument approach but well above minimums. Unfamiliar ATC can be a challenge, as can be a strong, gusty crosswind, and a wet runway. Low visibility but still above minimums can make it a challenge. Trying to figure out alternatives when the published missed approach procedure goes right through a thunderstorm is a challenge. Lots of challenges at once can be reason to avoid that situation.
So the point of personal minimums is not appropriately discussed in the context of just approach minimums -- you should be able to fly any approach to minimums if you have to. A more appropriate set of minimums are: how many total challenges on the flight; and how many challenges might you encounter at once.
This concept was written for the original Eclipse Jet flight safety manual.