Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Personal Minimums Contract

This came up here

US AOPA personal minimums contract

Is this meaningful, or is it just good airmanship?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

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.

EBST

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.

And here is the VFR version from US AOPA.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

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.

EGTR

@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.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

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.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

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.

always learning
LO__, Austria

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.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

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?

United Kingdom
47 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top