This came up here
US AOPA personal minimums contract
Is this meaningful, or is it just good airmanship?
Being conscious on what your capabilities are on a difficult IFR flight is not a static condition. In some situations one tends to ignore or surpress certain limitations in once capabilities when a gettingitis situation is present. Looking at this contract enhances or refreshes your cognition of your own limitations to step back and reflect.
It’s a variation on the personal minimums checklist the FAA have been putting out for years. One of the advantages they claim is to have a better argument vis-a-vis passengers who absolutely, positively have to get somewhere. In general, it’s certainly a good reminder of your own capabilities and helps in ADM.
Out of curiosity, what people consider reasonable cloud base minimum for a single engine piston departure/arrival? (low-OCH approach, like ILS)
I heard a few times, that some IFR pilots cancel there plans if forecasted below 1100ft.
Justification is that if an engine fails, then you don’t have enough time to assess the situation on the ground once you break clouds.
Obviously, it is a different story if you arrived and the cloud base is say 600ft, contrary to forecast.
@arj1 1,000’ AGL and 1800m is quite a typical IFR dispatch SOP for SEP, as you indicate it hopefully allows enough time to pick a suitable forced landing site.
When I flew TB20, I used to fly it to published minima. I don’t say it was too often but I landed few times at OVC002.
arj1 wrote:
I heard a few times, that some IFR pilots cancel their plans if forecasted below 1100ft.
Justification is that if an engine fails, then you don’t have enough time to assess the situation on the ground once you break clouds.
Makes sense to me. Especially in a Cirrus, minima should be above CAPS deployment height.
Especially in a Cirrus, minima should be above CAPS deployment height.
That’s certainly a novel approach. Hard to argue with logically, but from the POV of flying IAPs, it almost makes an SR22 a VFR aircraft.
And enroute it is hard to make sure that all the way along the flight the cloudbase will be above the CAPS deployment height.
When I flew TB20, I used to fly it to published minima. I don’t say it was too often but I landed few times at OVC002
Me too. Engine failures on an approach are very rare – probably because one is running at low power. I’d say icing related engine issues are more likely.
Snoopy wrote:
Makes sense to me. Especially in a Cirrus, minima should be above CAPS deployment height.
Can you explain why you think that makes sense?