Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
- Killratio
- A2A Spitfire Crew Chief
- Posts: 5785
- Joined: 29 Jul 2008, 23:41
- Location: The South West of the large island off the north coast of Tasmania
- Contact:
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Hook...Sucker Holes..if it is a chance to get down to solve a problem, I wouldn't call it a "Sucker Hole". That term is usually reserved for exactly the opposite situation..where a pilot can see a gap to go up THROUGH the clouds and fly on top, trusting that when it is time to come down, he will be able to find a clear way. A reckless and foolish practice in overcast weather IMHO.
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Killratio: Thanks, that makes sense, and is a good explanation for the name. I'd never heard it used that way though, it was always to get down from above an overcast.
Hook
Hook
- Killratio
- A2A Spitfire Crew Chief
- Posts: 5785
- Joined: 29 Jul 2008, 23:41
- Location: The South West of the large island off the north coast of Tasmania
- Contact:
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Hey Hook...interestingly I just looked at AOPA and over there they DO define it as going down through the hole... I was always taught the direct opposite! Not sure whether it is an Aussie/US difference or just our club!
- CAPFlyer
- A2A Aviation Consultant
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 12:06
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
I was always taught that a "Sucker Hole" is a gap in the clouds that "suckers" you into thinking that you can make it through or it's safe to pass through (i.e. a gap between two thunderstorms in a line, or a hole in the clouds that looks bigger than it really is, or is only a hole in the top of the clouds and doesn't go all the way down. You then commit to trying to get through that "hole" that might (and usually does) close up before you get there, leading to bigger problems.
- Killratio
- A2A Spitfire Crew Chief
- Posts: 5785
- Joined: 29 Jul 2008, 23:41
- Location: The South West of the large island off the north coast of Tasmania
- Contact:
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Thanks Chris, that seems to embrace both definitions...in any and all cases, the operative part of the term is definitely "Sucker".
cheers
D
cheers
D
- bladerunner900
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 17 Aug 2008, 14:59
- Location: South Wales
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
My mantra is, "If I can't see the prop, then I don't take-off".
Seriously. In sim I don't mind cloud cover. Nap-of-the-earth is my favourite challenge. The lower the better. I also love "sucker holes" (love that phrase). Real life would be another matter, obviously.
Steve
Seriously. In sim I don't mind cloud cover. Nap-of-the-earth is my favourite challenge. The lower the better. I also love "sucker holes" (love that phrase). Real life would be another matter, obviously.
Steve
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
No, I don't. If I do have a specific kind of flight I intent to take, I of course account for the weather so that it suitable, but other than that, no personal minimums.
-Esa
-Esa
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
I crashed my bonanza a couple of weeks ago when flying into 002 overcast 1/2 mile visibility. For some reason I wasn't picking up the glide slope and I tried to make it anyway. It was really stupid. I should have declared a missed approach and gone to an alternate airport. Now my personal minimums from now on are 003 overcast and 1 mile. and that has to be done with an ILS approach with glide slope. I'm still trying to figure out the GPS RNAV approaches.
- FireRescue85
- Senior Airman
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 14:56
- Location: New York
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
My personal minimums really depend on the aircraft and the flight type. If I'm in a 747-400 flying ILS from JFK- LAX, I'm much more comfortable flying through some rough weather than if I'm in the B-17G or L049.
I was flying the L-049 from Tampa to New Orleans, and while just leaving the coast of FL (about 15 min into the flight), I had a storm front suddenly appear. Weather was clear, but with the humidity the storm blew up out of nowhere. I pulled up the real world radar and there was a 50 mile stretch of pure red, severe thunderstorms and turbulence. I was at about 8,000' and was going to try and get above it, but as soon as I approached the front I encountered some of the worst turbulence I ever have in the simulator. I instantly turned the L-049 around landed back at Tampa, by now in rough air and severe turbulence. I managed to make a smooth landing and get a round of applause.
The point is, if I was in a 747 I probably would have throttled up and climbed above the storm, but I knew that wasn't possible in the light weight propliner. I think our own limitations are set based on what we are flying, a consequence free simulation (stock aircraft) or the all inclusive simulator where each decision has a real reaction (A2A aircraft and COTS).
I was flying the L-049 from Tampa to New Orleans, and while just leaving the coast of FL (about 15 min into the flight), I had a storm front suddenly appear. Weather was clear, but with the humidity the storm blew up out of nowhere. I pulled up the real world radar and there was a 50 mile stretch of pure red, severe thunderstorms and turbulence. I was at about 8,000' and was going to try and get above it, but as soon as I approached the front I encountered some of the worst turbulence I ever have in the simulator. I instantly turned the L-049 around landed back at Tampa, by now in rough air and severe turbulence. I managed to make a smooth landing and get a round of applause.
The point is, if I was in a 747 I probably would have throttled up and climbed above the storm, but I knew that wasn't possible in the light weight propliner. I think our own limitations are set based on what we are flying, a consequence free simulation (stock aircraft) or the all inclusive simulator where each decision has a real reaction (A2A aircraft and COTS).
Fire Marshall, Firefighter/Emergency Medical Tech.
B-17G
B377
L-049
B-17G
B377
L-049
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Oh that sucks lol. I haven't had that happen in years. The part that typically saves you is terrain awareness and a solid GPS. Without GPS and especially TAWS I would have very different minimums.Pbob1000 wrote:I crashed my bonanza a couple of weeks ago when flying into 002 overcast 1/2 mile visibility. For some reason I wasn't picking up the glide slope and I tried to make it anyway. It was really stupid. I should have declared a missed approach and gone to an alternate airport. Now my personal minimums from now on are 003 overcast and 1 mile. and that has to be done with an ILS approach with glide slope. I'm still trying to figure out the GPS RNAV approaches.
GPS/RNAV approaches are higher minimums because they aren't really precision. The runway is sometimes offset and the approach isn't always easy towards the final. It helps to have an LPV which allows much lower minimums.
Chris J.
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
-
- Technical Sergeant
- Posts: 504
- Joined: 24 Feb 2014, 20:05
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Not in the sim. A lot of the fun of the sim for me is having to work my way out of sticky situations... the first part of that equation necessitates getting INTO trouble first, by generally abusing the plane and not especially caring what the weather looks like. I don't have the visuals and scenery insanely dolled up like many folks, so a sim flight in smooth, crystal clear skies where nothing goes wrong is just a bit boring. I'd much rather use that sim time to hone my instrument skills by hurdling headlong into a sleet storm.
Now, that's personal minimums. When it comes down to instrument approaches and departure procedures, I still fly them by the book. If it turns out I can't get into the airport because the weather conditions are below approach minimums, well, that's when the fun really begins and I need to start looking at my alternates. Now, none of this is a substitute for proper instrument proficiency training, but it has definitely helped keep me sharp, and I've learned some great lessons from the mistakes I've made in the sim.
Now, that's personal minimums. When it comes down to instrument approaches and departure procedures, I still fly them by the book. If it turns out I can't get into the airport because the weather conditions are below approach minimums, well, that's when the fun really begins and I need to start looking at my alternates. Now, none of this is a substitute for proper instrument proficiency training, but it has definitely helped keep me sharp, and I've learned some great lessons from the mistakes I've made in the sim.
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
Interesting thread. In the sim I definitely cheat... but usually if I don't see the runway by 100 AGL I'm going around. I'd be lying if I said I've never tried to land blind in the bonanza lol.
Real life, well I'm not instrument rated, but I did just shoot a practice approach earlier this week with lpv mins and followed everything to a T.
Real life, well I'm not instrument rated, but I did just shoot a practice approach earlier this week with lpv mins and followed everything to a T.
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
I am flying a Beaver from CYFB to CYXP. Flight estimated to take about two hours. I'll be climbing over hills and need to be at least 4000 feet at 30 nautical miles. The clouds exhibited icing yesterday. I have carb and pitot heat but no airframe deicing capability. Both departure and destination have NDBs, departure has VOR but no DME. If I leave now I'll be landing in the dark, but the destination airport has runway lights.
Should I make the flight?
DEPARTURE:
Decoded textual weather for CYFB
Wind: 330 at 28 knots gusting to 34
Visibility: 1.1 SM (1829 m)
Clouds: Broken at 1000 feet, Broken at 6500 feet, Broken at 16000 feet
Temperature: -23.0C
Dewpoint: -26.0C
Precipitation: Moderate snow
DESTINATION:
Decoded textual weather for CYXP
Wind: Variable at 2 knots
Variable wind direction from 000 to 360
Visibility: 15+ SM (9999+ m)
Clouds: Overcast at 6700 feet
Temperature: -12.0C
Dewpoint: -19.0C
Precipitation: None reported
Hook
Should I make the flight?
DEPARTURE:
Decoded textual weather for CYFB
Wind: 330 at 28 knots gusting to 34
Visibility: 1.1 SM (1829 m)
Clouds: Broken at 1000 feet, Broken at 6500 feet, Broken at 16000 feet
Temperature: -23.0C
Dewpoint: -26.0C
Precipitation: Moderate snow
DESTINATION:
Decoded textual weather for CYXP
Wind: Variable at 2 knots
Variable wind direction from 000 to 360
Visibility: 15+ SM (9999+ m)
Clouds: Overcast at 6700 feet
Temperature: -12.0C
Dewpoint: -19.0C
Precipitation: None reported
Hook
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
I decided to make the flight.
Shortly after posting this I lost the medium cloud layer and visibility went up to 2.5 SM with slightly less wind. I set the clock back an hour and took off.
The hardest part was the taxi to the runway in the high gusting winds in a tail dragger. The second hardest was figuring out how much right rudder was needed to compensate for climb power when I couldn't see anything. My takeoff roll was probably 100 feet, thankfully directly into the wind.
At 8000 feet it was a pleasant flight. I had a beautiful full moon. When I finally decided I needed to tune the VOR I discovered the winds had blown me somewhat off course. The destination NDB had a 100+ mile range so I picked it up fairly early in the flight.
By the halfway point the visibility at the destination had dropped to 1.5 SM with a ceiling of 1500 feet and snow. Going ahead was probably no worse than going back. I decided I'd rather fly under the overcast than try to descend through it. The flight became less pleasant.
I could see the coastline I needed to follow, but not very well in snow. I had to make extensive use of the GPS. Dropping the flaps for landing required considerable right rudder again, and with no horizon I basically lost control. I bounced off the ground (i.e. crashed) a couple of miles from the runway, and ended up with flaps stuck in the landing position. The actual landing was pretty good though. I could barely see to taxi.
Maybe my minimums should be a bit higher. Or I should check the forecast.
Hook
Shortly after posting this I lost the medium cloud layer and visibility went up to 2.5 SM with slightly less wind. I set the clock back an hour and took off.
The hardest part was the taxi to the runway in the high gusting winds in a tail dragger. The second hardest was figuring out how much right rudder was needed to compensate for climb power when I couldn't see anything. My takeoff roll was probably 100 feet, thankfully directly into the wind.
At 8000 feet it was a pleasant flight. I had a beautiful full moon. When I finally decided I needed to tune the VOR I discovered the winds had blown me somewhat off course. The destination NDB had a 100+ mile range so I picked it up fairly early in the flight.
By the halfway point the visibility at the destination had dropped to 1.5 SM with a ceiling of 1500 feet and snow. Going ahead was probably no worse than going back. I decided I'd rather fly under the overcast than try to descend through it. The flight became less pleasant.
I could see the coastline I needed to follow, but not very well in snow. I had to make extensive use of the GPS. Dropping the flaps for landing required considerable right rudder again, and with no horizon I basically lost control. I bounced off the ground (i.e. crashed) a couple of miles from the runway, and ended up with flaps stuck in the landing position. The actual landing was pretty good though. I could barely see to taxi.
Maybe my minimums should be a bit higher. Or I should check the forecast.
Hook
- FireRescue85
- Senior Airman
- Posts: 181
- Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 14:56
- Location: New York
Re: Personal Minimums in Flight Sim
It's funny, I've never really encountered a situation that has caused me to re think my minimums until my most recent flight. Usually if conditions deteriorate on the climb or decent, I just switch to IFR rules if I'm flying VFR. However, I had an interesting situation on my last flight. I took the L049 from Seattle to Helena in real world weather courtesy of ActiveSky. The flight was through broken clouds and some minor turbulence but all in all not a horrible flight. On decent the weather cleared to mildly broken sky and I was cleared for a visual landing on runway 9. I was navigating around the mountains and turned onto final when suddenly a cloud moved over the airport and visibility dropped to 0 when I was about a mile out. I forgot to account for the fact that the airport is at an elevation of nearly 4,000ft, and to expect clouds. Long story short, the clouds ended up clearing while I was crossing the threshold and I had to do some dramatic rudder inputs to line up, which caused me to get a bad review fro my passengers for "jerky plane movements". In hindsight, I should have done a go around and either waited for the weather to move or tried an ILS approach to the ILS equipped runway 27.
Ironic that this happened less than 2 weeks after I stumbled upon this post where everyone is talking about minimums lol.
-Scott
Ironic that this happened less than 2 weeks after I stumbled upon this post where everyone is talking about minimums lol.
-Scott
Fire Marshall, Firefighter/Emergency Medical Tech.
B-17G
B377
L-049
B-17G
B377
L-049
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 37 guests