Personal Weather Minimums

But, after taking the checkride, I was immediately permitted to fly in MVFR.
That seems silly to me.


Just because it's permitted doesn't make it smart. As pilots, we are expected
to excercise judgement, as student pilots that expectation is somewhat less
(that's why we're not signed off yet). I think it's best that we actually
=get= to excercise judgement, rather than have it excerciesd for us.

Jos

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

Just because it's permitted doesn't make it smart. As pilots, we are
expected to excercise judgement, as student pilots that expectation is
somewhat less
(that's why we're not signed off yet). I think it's best that we actually
=get= to excercise judgement, rather than have it excerciesd for us.

That is a reasonable point. But a course in weather flying, be it pre- or
post-PPL, would still be something useful, I think.

- Andrew

But a course in weather flying, be it pre- or
post-PPL, would still be something useful, I think.


Yes, you should have gotten one along with your PPL training. That said, you
should never stop learning.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:


But a course in weather flying, be it pre- or
post-PPL, would still be something useful, I think.


Yes, you should have gotten one along with your PPL training. That said,
you should never stop learning.

More more more!

For whatever reason, I always want to learn more about weather. Even after
the additional education that came with my instrument rating, I still want
more.

There's just something about the dynamics of the atmosphere, and how these
impact us, that's very interesting to me. I like looking at the various
weather "products" available to us, and I'm grateful to have been taught to
use them. But they're like snapshots into a dynamic reality that I want to
understand.

For example, I was looking at the various charts on a day before a day when
wind was predicted. I even read the notes available at places like:

http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/ny/discussion.html

but I still couldn't quite grasp how they knew wind was coming tomorrow.
They spoke of airmass movements and exit regions and such and it was
*almost* understandable to me.

I'm actually looking around for meteorology courses in this area, but I'd
still like something with an aviator's bias.

- Andrew

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

But a course in weather flying, be it pre- or
post-PPL, would still be something useful, I think.


Yes, you should have gotten one along with your PPL training. That said, you
should never stop learning.

Training in actual weather hardly ever happens around here (Central
AZ). It's quite easy to go through the entire PPL course without
coming withing 200 miles of weather. The worst weather I recall
during my training was a light drizzle under a 5,000 ft. ceiling,
while doing solo pattern work. It sounds laughable now, but with my
level of weather flying experience (zero), I'll admit that I was
pretty nervous about it.

In cases like this, it is hoped that the newly-minted pilot will
have been taught enough about weather and decision-making to make
prudent judgements when the time comes. I immersed myself into
weather flying by baby steps. Like any other type of flying, the key
is to gain the experience gradually, so as not to kill yourself before
you can put that experience to work.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Andrew Gideon wrote
Where I flew too had a limit on soloing students with respect to weather.
It was probably something of the sort you're describing, or perhaps even a
little more strict (I seem to recall 5 kts xwind).

But, after taking the checkride, I was immediately permitted to fly in MVFR.
That seems silly to me.

Silly is an awfully mild word. I would say dangerous.

This happens for one of two reasons. First, some instructors are more
concerned with liability (either civil or FAA action) than proper
training. These instructors will have 'boilerplate' restrictions for
students, along the lines you've mentioned. The whole idea is wrong.

Properly used, restrictions are always tailored to the student's
skills and experience. If he hasn't really figured out crosswinds
yet, he soloes with a crosswind limit. Once he gets to the point
where he can handle normal conditions AND has learned to recognize
when he's in over his head and needs to do something else (go around
and try again or even go to a different runway, possibly at another
airport) the crosswind restriction goes away. That doesn't mean he
can handle any amount of crosswind - nobody can - but it means he is
competent to make his own decisions. The same applies to visibility -
if he hasn't been exposed to MVFR (or hasn't learned to figure out
where his limits are) he soloes with a visibility restriction. Once
he has shown the ability to handle MVFR, and to recognize when it's
just too marginal, the restriction goes away. Again, that doesn't
mean he can deal with a mile vis under all conditions - just that he's
now capable of making his own decisions. By the time he goes for the
checkride, the restrictions all need to go away - if he hasn't figured
out what he can handle, he's not ready to be taking passengers and
exposing them to the risk. And yes, this means dual AND solo training
in strong gusty crosswinds and MVFR.

Sometimes the restrictions are set by the flight school. This makes a
statement. The statement is "We don't trust our instructors'
judgment, but we are not going to fire them because it's more
important to keep the planes flying than it is to provide quality
training." Pretty sad, really. It ensures the student will be
shortchanged, and will have to figure this stuff out on his own.

I think that there should be a progression to
"lower" weather, with much attention given - as others here have posted -
to *why* and *what comes next* (ie. are clouds dropping or rising).

I think you are absolutely 100% right, and that's how I teach. There
are a few flight schools where I am welcome to teach, but not many.
One of those flight schools is run by an airline pilot who fired his
only full-time instructor because he felt quality instruction was not
being provided. This was at a time when instructors were hard to come
by, and you can bet there were financial consequences.

Of course, I expect that most of us have followed that progression. But why
no "program" to support this?

Because half the instructors out there are not competent to teach in
that progression, and it's not required to get a PPL. PTS does not
stand for 'Perfect Training Syllabus' but that's how it's often used.

Michael

I just wanted to open a discussion regarding other's personal weather
minimums for VFR flights.

I own my own aircraft and my VERY expensive insurance company asks,
before they renew my insurance, if I have had any accidents.

As I love flying, and wish to continue to fly, this is always foremost
in my mind when I make weather decisions.

As far as visibility goes, I suggest that it depends on where you are
flying. If you are flying over very familiar terrain, with a GPS, 5
miles or even 3 miles viz is a bit of a challenge (compared to 15 miles
viz) but it is not an insurmountable problem.

If you are away from home, without a GPS it is a challenge.

Your question appears to be black or white - but there are many shades
of grey. Think of it along the lines that your insurer may not renew you
if you have an accident, and then make your go/no-go decision. All of
this, quite apart from your perceived risk of goiung down, which should
of course be your first consideratiuon.

For myself I don't want to be a hero, and the macho thing never did much
for me. I just want to fly safely, keep doing so, have fun and keep my
insurance company happy.
There is never a good enough reason to take off in weather that you are
less than comfortable with.




Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE