Rethinking Aviation Personal Minimums

After getting my instrument ticket, I flew with a CFI who said it was our obligation as pilots, to build our skills to ensure our personal minimums were the same as FAA minimums.
That kind of thinking may be misconstrued in a dangerous way but does create some lofty goals. It also is focused on defining personal minimums in terms of Ceilings, Visibility, and Winds (speed and direction). I think those may be too limiting. I prefer to expand the definition to include proficiency and confidence. To find out more, take a listen. And I've included a link to my Go / No Go Video which is how I was able to get more Go Decisions instead of No Go.
• The Pilot Go/No Go Dec...
Blue Skies and Tailwinds!

[@sjlevenson1]

Thought provoking piece, thank you. As we all know, there are dozens, hundreds even, of factors we must consider to conduct a safe flight. Changing airframes, avionics and more only complicates our ability to effectively and safely manage a flight. While it is a simple comparison, I have a 2005 six speed BMW M3 convertible and a 2020 Hyundai SUV. They are both vehicles. Most anyone can drive either (as long as you can handle a 333 horsepower stick). But the similarities end there. Fortunately, we operate these vehicles in two dimensions, not three. Personal minimums must be considered on every flight, on every airframe, on every avionics suite and more. Even if you have 3.000 hours on only your plane, a really bad day can change your capabilities.

[@scottwebster7114]

Great video and message. Personal minimums and the discipline to adhere to them will keep us all safer.

[@carlosgamboa1270]

Couldn't agree more

[@rfriesen1644]

Great video. I too have had raised eyebrows when I have not been willing to take of in low fog. The reason being the same as yours. I have no out if I have a problem during or just after take off. Keep the videos coming.

[@Bunn4Funn]

Wise advice and approach to aviation. Thank you!

[@StephenMongie]

You lost me at “north up” map orientation. Haha jk. Good video

[@pfflying6275]

When I learned to drive all those many years ago, you held the map with North to the top. I always know where all the directions are. Plus, when I turn, it's me turning over the world, not the world turning under me. I take a lot of heat in today's world. But all in good fun.

[@1dullgeek]

What is your strategy for expanding personal minimums? You seemed to gloss over it with "training, practice and study". When conditions are teetering close to your personal minimums, with a risk of going beyond them, do you see that as an opportunity to expand your personal minimums or do an opportunity to stick to your limits? How do you draw the line between having personal minimums and expanding them?

[@pfflying6275]

Thanks for your question. I constantly look for opportunities to expand my personal minimums, up to and including FAA minimums. The strategy requires Proficiency, Confidence, and Having an Out. The only way to get there is to Study, Train, and Practice. Because once I understand all the factors and get to a point of proficiency, then confidence will follow. And having an out, allows me to try something, knowing the out is there if something goes wrong. For example, if I know I can get out of icing below me without hitting something or someone, it allows me to fly into a cloud that may have ice in it, knowing that in a matter of seconds, I can get out of it. That adds to the confidence. As long as I am honest with myself and my limitations, the opportunity to expand your comfort zone is very empowering. Does that make sense? If not, let me know and we can discuss.

[@MrSuzuki1187]

Personal minimums are actually a dangerous concept perpetrated by our risk averse culture, and the effing AOPA. I once attended an AOPA seminar on weather related accidents and the moderator passed around a document that those in the audience were implored to sign saying that they would NEVER VILOLATE THEIR PERSONAL MINIMUMS. Pure stupidity, and here's why. For example, during training for the instrument rating, all approaches are flown to minimums. You get recommended for your check ride and your examiner makes you fly every approach to minimums. You get your instrument rating and are then told by your instructor and the AOPA to set personal minimums that you are NEVER to violate! Let's say those minimums are 800 feet and 2 miles visibility for example. This puts a subliminal message in your brain that there is some great danger in descending below 800 feet on an instrument approach or landing with less than 2 miles visibility, even though you were trained and tested to the minimums on the approach chart and are legal to fly to those minimums. Now you arrive at your destination and find the weather is 500 overcast with 1 mile visibility. Are you really going to divert to an alternate airport rather than continue to descend for another 30 seconds or so? Diverting is very stressful, and actually more dangerous than continuing to descend for another 30 seconds. Diverting means reprogramming your navigator for a new route to your alternate, pulling up the approach charts for your alternate, and getting a clearance to do something you may never have done before, adding to the stress. And if you decide to continue the approach below your personal minimums, it will add to the stress knowing you are doing something you were told never to do. The stupidity of setting personal minimums and never violating them means you will never be a better pilot than your personal minimums! This will cause your proficiency and skills to stagnate. Gaining experience involves taking risks, but they must be calculated risks and not reckless ones.

[@pfflying6275]

Joel, I'm not able to bring myself to say that personal minimums are dangerous, but like the CFI I referred to, we as a pilot community have an obligation to build our proficiency and confidence to match FAA minimums. I'm sure you're not suggesting we bust FFA minimums. And if a pilot, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to fly enough to stay proficient, then they should recognize that and not take undue risks. They should work to rebuild their ability to fly to FAA minimums. The other point of the video is to think of personal minimums beyond visibility, ceilings, and winds. Any and all risk factors need to be considered when embarking on a flight. And if there is a gotcha (like me in that Bonanza), then I won't fly it in IFR until I can eliminate that deficiency of mine. Yet, I'll fly to FAA minimums all day in my SR22.