lml@lancaironline.net Mailing List Archive

Nice post Chuck. I wrote recently about this on the Van's forum.

I personally have flown a PAR down BELOW minimums in near-W0X0F conditions with 30 knot crosswinds and icy runways - because the only alternative was to go ditch in the icy waters around Iceland.

Could I do that today? Maybe. But I wouldn't consider filing to such a place knowingly, and wouldn't attempt it if I had fuel to go to an alternate.

Flying IFR "even a little" involves planning - and that plan had better include regular practice sufficient to your "personal minimums." If your personal minimum is 1500' x 3 mi with a thin overcast, do NOT let anyone tell you you are a sissy for sticking to your guns.

Disagreement is a privilege of the living...

Cheers,

Bill Reister

marv@lancair.net wrote:

Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

I was curious.  A lot of money has been spent on WAAS capable or upgrading
GPS to WAAS.  So the GPS is ready to go to low minimums, but how many GA
pilots are actually capable of flying safely to WAAS minimums?  Or should I
say, THINK they are capable to flying to WAAS minimums safely?  I would ask
for a show of hands from the pilots that 'thought' they were capable of flying
to minimums, but I guess I won't get any responders there.

Yes, I bought a CNX-80 a long time ago for that very reason, yet I find I
haven't changed my personal minimums one bit.  My personal minimums vary more
with flying frequency and practice than how much my GPS glitters with
capability.  An aged old question with a new twist.  Which is safer, a high
time pilot with a standard GPS with lots of current IFR hours and plenty of
simulated and actual approaches or a weekend airplane driver that has 30 hours
this year and shot one approach to 200' above minimums with his WAAS GPS 3
months ago.

I hope that we don't fall for the trap that even though the WAAS may make you
legal for lower, it doesn't really make you more capable for lower, so don't
hang your hat on WAAS.

Chuck Jensen