An analysis of a pilot’s adherence to their personal weather minimums

•Personal minimums are used in aviation as a risk mitigation strategy for pilots.•Pilots self-assign weather conditions higher than legal requirements for safety.•The purpose of this study was to determine if pilots adhere to their personal minimums.•The results found 96% of pilots violated their personal minimums.•Personal minimums may not be adequately reducing risk if they are not used properly. Risk acceptance and mitigation remains a focal point of pilot training, especially when it comes to weather. Even with enhanced technology such as smartphones, which put weather information at pilots fingertips, weather remains a leading contributor to aircraft accidents. Establishing personal weather minimums is intended to serve as a risk mitigation strategy to enhance a pilot’s decision making. However, personal weather minimums only reduce the risk level if pilots are willing to adhere to their personal minimums. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine whether pilots adhere to their predetermined personal weather minimums once the flight was conducted and could the simulation of external pressures, such as, for example, having to deliver a passenger on-time for a meeting, have an effect on their willingness to push on into poor weather conditions. A convenience sample of instrument-rated pilots (N = 112) flew an instrument (ILS) approach with a passenger (a confederate) onboard into low instrument meteorological conditions. Unbeknownst to the pilots, researchers controlled the weather in the simulator such that it was unsafe/illegal to land the aircraft. The findings demonstrated 96.4% of participants descended below their stated personal weather minimums while 81.5% descended below the minimum published federal altitude. None of the simulated external pressures resulted in any significant differences (all p’s > 0.05). The findings are of particular concern because if pilots do not adhere to their personal weather minimums, they are potentially voiding a risk mitigation strategy and either intentionally or unintentionally accepting a higher risk level for flight.