| |

Utilizing Personal Minimums

The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.

So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.

To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.

The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:

Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.

Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.

A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.

EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?

External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!

Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.

Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.

Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.

Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.

Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.

Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.


Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.

Similar Posts

  • Circle to Land Approaches

    When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.

    Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach.  I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.

    One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach.  The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles.  So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.

    Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.

    Airports with only 1 straight in approach

    This one is easy.  There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it.  Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX.  Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85.  During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.

    Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary.  When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.

    Approaching from the opposite direction

    Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX.  The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ.  If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join.  If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach.  Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.

    Well, how about vectors?  Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility.  Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.

    Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.

    Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land.  AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south.  Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.

    VOR Circle to Land Approaches

    Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them.  I personally think they are good practice.  With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.

    They do have a place in this discussion, though.  A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).

    So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach.  The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.

  • PIREP: Austin Bergstrom Recovering After Flood Damage

    The massive storms that rolled through the Austin Bergstrom and San Antonio areas last Friday not only put a dent in the landscape, they put a dent in the skies too.

    The Austin Bergstrom (KAUS) control tower suffered significant flood damage Friday.  6 inches of rainfall in an hour caused water to come pouring into the first floor of the tower, flooding the radar room and knocking out the power.  This led to transmission outages for the tower, ground control, clearance delivery and the ATIS.  Similar to the Chicago Center fire last year (though this was a much smaller section of airspace), the area normally controlled by Austin Approach was replaced by a big, gaping radar hole.

    By 8:45am on Friday morning, the Austin Bergstrom airport actually closed.  One runway eventually opened back up Friday afternoon, but massive delays and cancellations had already taken place.  All the ILS approaches were down and Houston Center had taken over the airspace normally occupied by Austin Approach control.

    Austin Temprorary Tower

    A temporary, emergency tower vehicle was brought in by the FAA (it’s essentially an RV with communications and a giant window) by the end of the weekend.  All arrivals and departures were restricted to 17L and 35R.

    Due to the radar outage, I heard there was as much as a 4 hour delay even for planes coming into Austin Bergstrom from Dallas, and that was in VMC conditions on Sunday and Monday.  Tuesday and Wednesday brought IMC conditions which only enhanced the delays.

    The latest news is that Austin Approach will be opening back up, but in a satellite base in San Antonio.  The Austin controllers will be using the SAT radar room and will be receiving their radar picture via satellite.  The approach frequencies should be up and running today or tomorrow.  The Austin Bergstrom tower is up and running and most of the ILS approaches are operational at this point.

    In the meantime, expect delays going in and out of Austin.  If you don’t have to get to AUS, EDC, or GTU, you’re better off delaying a day or two until Austin Approach is back up and running.

  • Cirrus Simulator Training

    Let’s face it: airplanes are not the best classrooms. The propeller is running, the engine is making lots of noise, the pilot is attempting to multi-task and the instructor is barking orders. That’s almost as much overstimulation as being a parent to 4 kids under 10 (I have experience in that arena!). That’s even before takeoff!

    At Texas Top Aviation, we have observed many situations where a simulator would be an excellent way to introduce different concepts and supplement training. Now, in our Austin Executive (KEDC) office, we finally have a really good simulator.

    Meet the Noble Flight Simulator, the next best thing to a Cirrus cockpit. With the Noble Flight Simulator, we can duplicate 6 different types of Cirrus aircraft (G3 SR22, G3 SR22T, G5 SR22, G5 SR22T, G6 SR22, and G6 SR22T). The Garmin Perspective panel easily swaps between the G3 and G5 configuration to the G6 configuration, so the buttons are all in the proper places.

    Having button pushing problems? The simulator is the place to practice.

    Want to experience actual emergencies? An engine failure is a lot less stressful in a simulator.

    Want to pull CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System)? The Noble Flight Simulator has a realistic CAPS handle with the same amount of pull pressure that the CAPS handle in the airplane has.

    Need an IPC or want to practice approaches? All approaches done on a Noble Flight Simulator are luggable, plus a full IPC can be accomplished.

    Want to save fuel? The Noble Flight Simulator is for you!

    To top it all off, the Noble Flight Simulator that Texas Top Aviation has is classified as an Advanced Aircraft Training Device. It is certified to the highest standards of non-motion simulators, allowing pilots working toward their private and instrument ratings to log a significant amount of time toward that certificate or rating. Up to 20 hours of IFR training is allowed to be logged in an AATD toward an instrument rating. That’s huge!

    Texas Top Aviation is also developing a CAPS specific course to expose Cirrus pilots to the many different scenarios where pulling CAPS would be necessary. This teaches Aeronautical Decision Making to Cirrus pilots who struggle with the decision of whether or not to pull CAPS. Look for CAPS course information under our Aircraft Training page later this summer.

    Interested in checking the simulator out? Contact us today!

  • Aviation News: The Formation of ONE Aviation

    Earlier this month, Eclipse Aerospace and Kestrel Aircraft merged to form ONE Aviation.  Most pilots are familiar with Eclipse, who makes the Eclipse 550 jet, but not many have heard of Kestrel Aircraft.

    Kestrel K350

    Kestrel Aircraft is run by Alan Klapmeier, co-founder of Cirrus Aircraft and brother to Dale Klapmeier, who still runs Cirrus.  Klapmeier joined Kestrel in 2010 and brought innovation to the K350 Turboprop design that Kestrel was developing.  Kestrel has been lacking in investors to further their project, but the merger will help a lot in getting more funding.  Klapmeier assumed the CEO role for ONE Aviation.

    Eclipse 550

    The merger will also help bring more innovations to the Eclipse 550.  The original Eclipse Jet was a miserable failure and the company went into bankruptcy in 2009. The Eclipse Jet came back to market in 2013 as the Eclipse 550 with many much needed improvements, including making GPS a standard amenity.

    Klapmeier and his genius will lead ONE Aviation in good directions.  The K350 will come to market a lot sooner as more investors will be drawn to the company, while the Eclipse 550 will continue to see new and innovative developments.

  • Lightspeed Zulu 2 vs. The Bose A20

    The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on.  For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.

    The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career.  I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.

    ANR Functionality

    Bose A20

    Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there.  This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise.  But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running.  The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable.  I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”

    The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling.  About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise.  My glasses probably don’t help with this.  It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me.  Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.

    Comfort

    Lightspeed Zulu 2

    Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20.   I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day.  I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference.  The ear cups seemed to press against my head more.  The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony.  It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.

    Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets.  Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all.  After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head.  So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.

    Weight Distribution

    “Wait!”  You Bose boys scream (no pun intended).  “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!”  While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point.  With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.

    All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20.  As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago.  Needless to say, it was a long day.  But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head.  Now I call that a winner.

  • Flying the RDD LX7

    I get to fly a lot of different airplanes in my chosen career. There aren’t many airplanes that I take off in, then say “Wow,” and have a big smile on my face. The RDD LX7 was definitely one of those.

    I wrote about the RDD LX7 in the past, bragging about everything I read about it. The blogs all advertised 250 KTAS and 17 GPH and FL250, all of which are eye popping numbers.

    Lo and behold, those numbers are true.

    I got to go up to RDD’s Redmond, Oregon facility in April 2021 to get my initial training in the RDD LX7 and I couldn’t wipe the smile off my face. The 3 screen G3X Touch layout is very impressive and not crowded like I thought it would be. Being familiar with the G500TXi, there are some G3X specifics that take a little getting used to, but overall, it’s a good system. The main GPS and number 1 radio is a GTN 750Xi.

    We took off from RDM and proceeded to climb at 140 KIAS, which equated to 2,000 FPM. We only had half tanks (which is still 90 gallons of fuel!), but it climbed with no problem. It’s extremely responsive as I learned while doing the basic flight maneuvers. The stall speed of the airplane (the biggest problem with the Lancair 4P, the airframe that the RDD LX7 is derived from, was the terrible wing design and extremely high stall speed), was in the low 60s or high 50s, with the stall being extremely docile.

    The airplane handled very similarly to a Columbia 400, but seemed even more responsive. The glide ratio isn’t as good as some, but it’s still better than a Cirrus (plus it still has a BRS system to boot).

    The big test was the flight to San Antonio from Redmond to bring the plane home. The new owner and I departed RDM with the tanks full of Avgas (180 gallons), then got up to a cruise altitude of FL210. After setting power and leaning, the numbers came out true to spec: 252 KTAS, 17.5 GPH.

    The greatest part? We stopped in Santa Fe to stretch our legs and we didn’t need fuel. We still had 100 gallons left! That left us plenty to get to San Antonio with 40-50 gallons left over. Another RDD LX7 owner flew his piston direct from Redmond, OR to Jacksonville, FL, non-stop. It was over 9 hours. That’s impressive.

    You can’t beat the purchase price, either. A new Cirrus SR22T runs a little north of $1.2m. A piston engine LX7, that is pressurized, 70 KTAS faster with a much longer range, and still has a BRS, is between $850,000-$900,000. An LX7 starts to make a whole lot of sense when you weigh all that. There is also a PT6 option with several different sizes and horsepowers to choose from, which costs more, but you see 300 KTAS.

    To learn more about the RDD LX7, check out the company’s website: RDD LX7.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *