From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS)
Subject: Re: Instrument Checkride Passed!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:32:20 GMT

In <1992Apr13.164123.23993@intellistor.com> bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan) writes:

>In <davjqjc.rkaplan@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:

>>Any thoughts about other rec.aviators' first 
>>solo IMC flights?  What were (are) your personal
>>minimums as a low total time / low IMC time pilot?

>When I finished my instrument check ride, I talked to my instructor
>about this. He told me that when we was first instrument rated, he set
>minima of 1 mile visibility and 800' ceilings. He went on to comment
>that that was overly conservative and that he knew my flying well
>enough that he recommended 3/4 mile visibility and 500' ceilings until
>I'd gained some experience.

This has never made too much sense to me...

One is probably MOST proficient immediately after one's
checkride.  It's then that you can probably (or at least SHOULD be
able to) recite lost comm procedures, MEA rules, etc. etc. like you were
taking a breath.

You've also done lots and lots of all different types of
approaches, hopefully, at different and unfamiliar airports.  Most, if
not all, of your approaches will be full approaches over an IAF and
including timing and a procedure turn.  Don't forget thate just about all those
approaches were partial panel (or should have been).  You've even done lots of
holds, which you almost never get in the real world.

And just about EVERY ONE of those approaches will be down to MINIMUMS and,
because you passed your instrument, it is assumed that you did well
all the way to minimums.  You'll find that actual instruments, without the
bloody hood/foggles/etc. and with a full complement of working instruments is
quite a bit easier than with a hood and partial panel.

After all, the FAA thinks you can go to 1/2 and 200' and they're generally
conservative.

Contrast your skill level and proficiency in such a sitation with the
level you'll have six months or a year down the road.  You'll have all that
time flying under radar vectors, with vectors onto the final approach
course.  Most of the time you'll probably pick the ILS if it's
available.

Shooting vectored ILS's to 1 and 800' isn't going to to improve your
IFR skills measurably, it'll probably degrade them.

If you're reasonably comfortable with your skills, there is no reason to be
shy about minimums right after your checkride.  Sure, it's probably a
good idea to do a few "easy" approaches - say an ILS to 800' and a
mile, those are uncontrolled VFR conditions after all, just to prove
that you can do it without an instructor.

Now I'm assuming that you got a fair amount of actual during your training
and that you shot your share of actual approaches.  If ALL your
instrument time was done with the hood on in sunny weather you
should probably give yourself time to adjust to the shock of looking
at an opaque windshield.

The time to think about personal minima is when you havn't been flying IFR
for a while or have been flying all of one type of approach into
familiar airports.

I surprised myself the other day.  I'm instrument current, with about
100 instrument hours in the last year; still I was feeling "rusty"
and took a safety pilot up to shoot some approaches.

Our field has an ILS, a VOR approach to every runway, and an NDB approach.
We flew the full procedure on each on of them and I couldn't believe
a) How badly I was doing, compared to my perceived "ego" skill level
b) How busy I was and how "hard" the whole thing was.

All the approaches were much harder and sloppier than I ever did
towards the end of my instrument training.  Yet, I had set "personal
minima" for myself back then.  Before the other day, I probably
wouldn't be too disturbed about flying the ILS to 200' and
1/2 now, in fact I probably would have looked forward to it.

The point is that I set my minima when I was much more capable than now,
when I was in the "I can make it in in any weather" mindset.  In fact, just
two months ago I had shot one of the VOR approaches (successfully) to
minimums and the ILS to 300' and 1 mile to minimums.  Also successfully.

However, those were all radar vectored, familiar, low-workload approaches.
Had I been forced to fly something like I had during instrument training
who knows what might have happened!

greg, "What the heck is this timer for anyway?"
-- 
Gregory Reed Travis					D P S I
	
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated	greg@cica.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation