Go/no-go and divert decisions

Ideal answer

I run PAVE on the whole flight. P — Pilot: am I current, proficient, and rested for these conditions? V — enVironment: weather along the route, ceilings, visibility, winds, freezing levels, convection. A — Aircraft: equipped and capable for this weather (icing, IFR, performance at DA)? E — External pressures: is something pushing me to go that shouldn't? Then I check against personal minimums, not just regulatory minimums. If any element fails, no-go or modify. The DPE wants the framework named, applied to specifics, and a defensible answer that prioritizes safety over schedule.

Key points to mention

• PAVE applied to the whole flight
• Personal minimums tighter than regulatory
• Multiple sources (aviationweather.gov + Leidos + EFB)
• External pressures named out loud
• Modify (delay, divert, route, altitude) before binary go/no-go
• If you'd be uncomfortable explaining the decision later, don't make it
• IMSAFE (personal-readiness) layered before launch; 5 Ps continuously inflight

REF: FAA-H-8083-2 Ch. 3; AC 60-22

Ideal answer

Self-imposed limits — ceilings, visibilities, winds, crosswind, gust factor — set tighter than regulatory minimums to give margin for the unexpected. A new private pilot might set day VFR at 3,000 AGL ceiling, 5 SM visibility, 12 KT crosswind — well above the regulatory 1,000/3 for towered Class D. As experience grows, those numbers can come down. Critical features: written down BEFORE the flight, not adjusted under pressure, reviewed periodically. The FAA Personal Minimums Worksheet is a starting template. The point isn't the specific number — it's that you have a number and it's NOT the regulatory floor.

Key points to mention

• Self-imposed limits, tighter than regulatory
• Categories: ceiling, visibility, surface wind, crosswind, gust factor, density altitude
• Set written down BEFORE the flight — not adjusted under pressure
• Reviewed periodically as proficiency changes
• FAA Personal Minimums Worksheet is a template
• Higher minimums for: night, mountain, unfamiliar area, fatigue, passengers
• Approaching personal minimum = act conservatively

REF: FAA-H-8083-2; FAA Personal Minimums Worksheet

Ideal answer

Divert when continuing increases risk faster than the cost of diverting. Triggers: ceilings or visibility deteriorating below personal minimums and trending worse; fuel below VFR reserve at destination; PIREPs ahead worse than forecast; convective activity along the route or destination; any IMSAFE element degrading inflight. Pre-flight prep: identify divert candidates BEFORE departure (at least two per leg) with their METAR/TAF/fuel/runways already pulled. Write divert criteria on the kneeboard — 'if KXYZ < 1,500 BKN or vis < 5 SM, divert to KABC.' The decision should feel mechanical when the trigger fires, not an agonized in-the-moment choice.

Key points to mention

• Trigger: continuing increases risk faster than cost of diverting
• Watch: deteriorating ceiling/vis, fuel below reserve, worse PIREPs, convection, IMSAFE
• Pre-identify ≥2 divert candidates per leg
• Pull METAR/TAF/fuel/runways at preflight
• Write criteria on kneeboard
• Mechanical execution when trigger fires
• Earlier divert = more options, more fuel, more daylight

REF: FAA-H-8083-2 Ch. 3; PHAK Ch. 2

Ideal answer

Continuing VFR into deteriorating conditions that lead to inadvertent IMC. VFR-into-IMC is one of the deadliest GA accident categories — most ending in spatial disorientation and loss of control within minutes, usually fatally. The decision is incremental: 10 SM → 7 → 5 → 3 → IMC. Tighter personal minimums, willingness to 180 the moment ceilings start trending wrong, divert criteria pre-set, and brutal honesty are the protections. If you're squinting through haze and reducing your scan to half-mile chunks, you've already passed the decision point. The right answer almost always involves giving up on the original destination — that's plan continuation bias (get-there-itis) winning if you don't.

Key points to mention

• VFR-into-IMC = one of the deadliest GA categories
• Usually ends in spatial disorientation + loss of control
• Decision is incremental: 10 SM → 7 → 5 → 3 → IMC
• Protection: tight personal minimums + 180 turn early
• Pre-set divert criteria, executed mechanically
• If squinting through haze, you've already passed the threshold
• Get-there-itis (plan continuation bias) is the primary failure mode
• Right answer almost always: scrub original destination

REF: AOPA Air Safety Institute; FAA-P-8740-36

Ideal answer

Correlation is synthesis across multiple products into a single defensible decision. My process: brief in sequence (synoptic → current → forecast → hazards → radar → NOTAMs), analyze each significant condition for aircraft / pilot / route / timing impact, then run three filters in order: regulatory minimums (91.155), my personal minimums, and PAVE risk assessment. Identify modifications — different time, route, altitude, alternate — before going binary. Decide: GO if all three filters pass and external pressures aren't driving me, NO-GO or MODIFY otherwise. The correlation skill is asking 'do these products tell a consistent story?' If two say one thing and one disagrees, I trust ground truth: eyeballs > PIREPs > current obs > forecast.

Key points to mention

• Correlation = synthesis across multiple products into single decision
• Process: Brief → Analyze → Correlate → Modify if possible → Decide
• Three filters: regulatory minimums (91.155), personal minimums, PAVE
• Modify before binary go/no-go
• Trust hierarchy: eyeballs > PIREPs > current obs > forecast
• External pressures named explicitly, not rationalized away
• Always have an alternate plan even when going

REF: FAA-H-8083-2 Ch. 3

Ideal answer

It's the primary failure mode I'm trying to avoid. The accident pattern is consistent: a VFR pilot continues into deteriorating conditions and ends up in cloud, usually losing control within minutes. My correlation has to detect leading indicators: closing temperature/dewpoint spreads suggesting fog formation, lowering ceilings in sequential METARs, deteriorating visibility forecasts, frontal passages crossing my route during the flight window. The skill is recognizing trend even when current conditions are still legal. If departure is 5,000 BKN at 6 SM and trending toward 1,500 OVC at 3 SM by my arrival — I'm legally VFR now but flying into a deteriorating situation, and that's the no-go signal even though no single number is illegal yet.

Key points to mention

• VFR-into-IMC = deadliest scenario to avoid
• Pattern: incremental deterioration → IMC → spatial disorientation → loss of control
• Leading indicators: T/Td closing, ceilings lowering, vis trending
• Trend matters as much as current value
• Legal-now ≠ safe-for-arrival when trend is bad
• Tighter personal minimums + act on trends = primary defense
• Willingness to scrub original destination is key

REF: FAA-P-8740-36; FAA-H-8083-2

Ideal answer

When changing one variable resolves the concern. Examples: delay 2 hours for fog to lift; longer route around a Convective SIGMET; 7,500 instead of 9,500 to stay under an icing layer; different destination because original has marginal forecast. MODIFY is the right answer when the underlying flight goal is achievable with adjustment. NO-GO is right when no modification gets within minimums — system too widespread, winds exceed limits regardless of timing, fatigue is the issue and rest is the only fix. The DPE wants to hear that you treat the flight plan as adjustable, not binary, but you don't rationalize unsafe modifications like 'I'll just descend through ice if needed.'

Key points to mention

• Modify when changing ONE variable resolves the concern
• Time: delay or move earlier
• Route: deviate around hazard
• Altitude: above icing or below cloud bases
• Destination: different airport
• NO-GO when no modification gets within minimums
• NO-GO when fatigue/illness/personal factors are the issue
• Don't rationalize unsafe modifications

REF: FAA-H-8083-2 Ch. 3; AC 60-22

Ideal answer

Trust ground truth over forecast. METAR is current observation; TAF is a forecast issued hours ago. If the METAR shows visibility dropping, the forecast may be wrong or stale. Look at the METAR trend across the last few hours — is deterioration accelerating? Cross-check with neighboring METARs to see if it's local or area-wide. Check satellite and radar for what's coming. Look at T/Td spread for fog risk. The TAF says what was expected; the METAR says what's actually happening. When they disagree, actual conditions win — decide on the worse data, not split the difference.

Key points to mention

• Trust hierarchy: eyeballs > PIREPs > current obs > recent obs > forecast
• Ground truth beats forecast
• TAF can be hours old based on a stale model
• Trend across sequential METARs reveals acceleration
• Cross-check with neighbors for local vs. area-wide
• Satellite + radar for what's coming
• When products disagree, decide on the worse data

REF: AC 00-45; AC 91-92