Personal Weather Minimums

C J Campbell wrote:

We require 3000' and five miles visibility for all student solo flights,
with maximum crosswinds of six knots. I recommend that new private pilots
maintain those minimums for some time, preferably until they start their
instrument training.

If all you're going to be doing is day trips, I suppose this is OK, but you
will never be able to handle anything worse if you don't go up in adverse
conditions. I have no argument with those who have a minimum of 3000' and five
(though you won't fly much around here unless you drop that to 2000' and five),
but a pilot needs to learn to handle strong winds, IMO.

Now, if you're used to six knots max, don't pick a day when it's 15 gusting to
20 to get more experience, but within a year of getting your ticket, you should
be able to handle 15 gusting to 20.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

Hmm, 3k feet. You'd be pushed to find a clutch of weekends
here in the UK where you'd get 3k consistently. And where I
learned in Florida, we seldom had less than a 6kt crosswind.

Paul

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
We require 3000' and five miles visibility for all student solo flights,
with maximum crosswinds of six knots.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
We require 3000' and five miles visibility for all student solo flights,
with maximum crosswinds of six knots. I recommend that new private pilots
maintain those minimums for some time, preferably until they start their
instrument training.

Just out of curiousity, what do you recommend with regard
to runway length?

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
| We require 3000' and five miles visibility for all student solo flights,
| with maximum crosswinds of six knots. I recommend that new private
pilots
| maintain those minimums for some time, preferably until they start their
| instrument training.
|
| Just out of curiousity, what do you recommend with regard
| to runway length?


Our school requires instructor permission for runways of less than 2000
feet. The FBO does not allow operation of any of its aircraft from unpaved
runways, although I can take my own airplane anywhere I want. We also
require that rented airplanes stay within Washington, Oregon, and Idaho,
although exceptions are made on a case by case basis.

I also will not sign off on a cross country that takes a student pilot over
the Cascades unless I am satisfied with his mountain flying abilities. The
Cascades are very dangerous for inexperienced pilots. You can find extreme
wind shear, turbulence, blind canyons with unforecast pockets of IFR, and
constant mountain obscuration. But the worst danger is the icing, which is
so bad that when the Concorde was being developed it was brought over here
for testing in severe icing conditions.

Among renter pilots at TIW, special VFR is routine. We get a lot of low
clouds that hang right over the field and you can see sunshine out over the
water just off the end of the runway.

C J Campbell wrote:

We require 3000' and five miles visibility for all student solo flights,
with maximum crosswinds of six knots. I recommend that new private pilots
maintain those minimums for some time, preferably until they start their
instrument training.

I think that a little strict. However, it does raise a problem I noticed
towards the end of my PPL training.

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. 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).

Of course, I expect that most of us have followed that progression. But why
no "program" to support this? It could be a part of the PPL, or even a
post-PPL course. It doesn't even need to be regulatory, but just a
recommended set of milestones combining weather flying and weather
knowledge.

In a way, the instrument rating covers some of this. But that doesn't help
someone that, for one reason or another, isn't interested in that rating
(at least at that time).

Actually, this would probably make a good book...except it might be useful
to have local knowledge embedded within such a program.

- Andrew

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)

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

FryGuy wrote:

I just wanted to open a discussion regarding other's personal weather
minimums for VFR flights. I recently received my PPL ASEL certificate in
July and most of the days that I have flown have been very nice days.
Yesterday though I got caught a bit off guard and it prompted me to set a
few minimums for myself.
[snip]

During training, I had to skip landing at a destination during a solo
cross-country trip because of winds. The wind was 20kts, gusts to
29kts, but it was almost straight down the runway so the cross-wind
component was probably within my limits. But the reason I passed on the
landing was that I was not comfortable with taxiing in that kind of
wind.

Here's a question I haven't found an answer to yet:
If you're using proper cross-wind correction during taxiing, how much of
a cross-wind can a 152 take? What personal limits do you have?

DanH