"View Limiting Device" recommendations please

On 01/15/08 10:35, B A R R Y wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:

Of course, during instrument training the instructor should take full
responsibility for see and avoid. However, during my training if the
CFII was unable to spot the conflicting aircraft and it was getting close,
I came out from under the hood and looked for it. IMHO, the safety of
the flight was far more important than staying under the hood and not
helping.

Besides the risk of injury or death, you're also PIC.

Actually, that must be agreed upon before the flight by both the student
and the CFII (assuming the student can act as PIC with regard to FARs).

At the flight school I attended, it was policy that the CFII would be PIC
during dual training flights. Also, I've heard that in such flights, the
CFII would have a hard time denying PIC responsibility in the event of an
incident (although I never actually tested this).


Usually, I spotted it within a few seconds and just went back under
the hood.

I wouldn't care for any system that prevented me from being able to
do that.

Same here, and I've only had to help twice, but I'm glad we don't have
to completely block the left front corner of the cockpit.

Amen. I'm not sure I would fly under such circumstances... I guess it's
no different than being in the passenger cabin of a passenger jet.


On a side note, the CRM method I set it up with safety pilots and
instructors, as well as suggest when I'm acting as safety pilot, is that
the person looking will also answer the ATC traffic calls themselves.
The flying pilot will still do all the normal IFR radio stuff, but this
simplifies internal cockpit comms.

I do the same. It makes good sense.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Jan 14, 9:32*pm, wrote:
I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.
Steve Job

Boy, you missed being a Billionaire by one letter.
We just talked about this on the Mooney list. They make "old people"
foggles...
http://www.ifrglasses.com/852.html
They're called "Old Foggies" and they incorporate the reading glasses.

-Robert

On Jan 15, 10:16*am, "akjcbkJA" wrote:
In England, the hood type devices are not allowed for serious instrument
training or checkrides.

The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
the instructor/examiner a full view.

If the window is covered up how does the CFII watch for traffic?
Sounds dangerous. Isn't it true too that in the UK you can't get an
instrument rating unless you first have an ATP?

-robert

Mark Hansen wrote:

Amen. I'm not sure I would fly under such circumstances... I guess it's
no different than being in the passenger cabin of a passenger jet.

Except they're not doing low level maneuvers and stalls, as is done in
training. G

AkjcbkJA,

The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
the instructor/examiner a full view.


Well, I've seen those contraptions. That last part of your statement I
definitely don't buy. Dangerous! Unnecessary, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jan 14, 11:32 pm, wrote:
I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.

I need to wear glasses for reading (charts), but otherwise I see just
fine. I wear progressive lenses (for presbyopia) that vary from a
diopter of 2.5 on the bottom to almost no correction on the top. Most
"devices" only let you see out of the bottom of your glasses, which
works for reading but then the panel is blurry. I have to remove the
entire contraption if I want to see the "runway environment".

I've tried foggles, and a "real" wraparound hood. The hood seems to
work the best, but I get a "crushing" headache from wearing the
headset, hood, and glasses. Maybe it's because it's an old style that
clamps around you head!

I've noticed some alternatives on the market including; Overcasters,
Hoodwinks, and one called Viban.

Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? I would
be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
progressive or bifocal lens glasses.

Thanks!

Steve Job


Thanks to everyone who responded to this query!

My instructor bought a new hood that I tried out last night. It
attached to my head with two loose straps, using velcro to adjust the
length. Very comfortable!

I like the idea of the "Old Foggies" foggles as well. I just wish
they would change the name!

Steve Job

Steve Job

I used the HoodLamb and found it worked very well with both bifocals
and progressives. Here is a link to a web site that sells them.

http://www.cfipilot.com/IFR-Training...p/hoodlamb.htm

Good luck with your training.

Cary Mariash

On Jan 14, 11:32*pm, wrote:
I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.

...

Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? *I would
be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
progressive or bifocal lens glasses.

Thanks!

Steve Job

On 2008-01-14 21:32:45 -0800, said:

Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood?

You know, I just like those cheap ASA gray plastic hoods. They work as
well as anything, even with my trifocal glasses.

I don't wrap the elastic around my headset, though. I take off the
headset, put the hood on, and then put the headset back on.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Jan 15, 12:32*am, wrote:
I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.

I need to wear glasses for reading (charts), but otherwise I see just
fine. *I wear progressive lenses (for presbyopia) that vary from a
diopter of 2.5 on the bottom to almost no correction on the top. *Most
"devices" only let you see out of the bottom of your glasses, which
works for reading but then the panel is blurry. *I have to remove the
entire contraption if I want to see the "runway environment".

I've tried foggles, and a "real" wraparound hood. *The hood seems to
work the best, but I get a "crushing" headache from wearing the
headset, hood, and glasses. *Maybe it's because it's an old style that
clamps around you head!

I've noticed some alternatives on the market including; Overcasters,
Hoodwinks, and one called Viban.

Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? *I would
be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
progressive or bifocal lens glasses.

Thanks!

Steve Job

IMHO If you use foggles only, you are cheating yourself:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...m?article=4849

On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:32 am, wrote:



I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.

I need to wear glasses for reading (charts), but otherwise I see just
fine. I wear progressive lenses (for presbyopia) that vary from a
diopter of 2.5 on the bottom to almost no correction on the top. Most
"devices" only let you see out of the bottom of your glasses, which
works for reading but then the panel is blurry. I have to remove the
entire contraption if I want to see the "runway environment".

I've tried foggles, and a "real" wraparound hood. The hood seems to
work the best, but I get a "crushing" headache from wearing the
headset, hood, and glasses. Maybe it's because it's an old style that
clamps around you head!

I've noticed some alternatives on the market including; Overcasters,
Hoodwinks, and one called Viban.

Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? I would
be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
progressive or bifocal lens glasses.

Thanks!

Steve Job

IMHO If you use foggles only, you are cheating yourself:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...m?article=4849

I completely agree. No cheating allowed.

I've only been in "actual" a few times. The most interesting was in
winter during a very dark night, with no moon and several layers of
clouds. In between the layers it was pitch black. While in the
clouds, we started to pick up some light rime ice. I could see the AI
start to indicate a left (or right) bank, but it just didn't "feel"
right. The yoke seemed to be almost frozen when I tried to correct
based on the instruments. I just couldn't reconcile my incorrect
feeling of banking left, with the reality of banking right. It took a
tremendous mental effort to make the right control inputs. This had
never happened using a view limiting device.

There is a HUGE difference to me between actual and simulated.
Besides the visual clues (shadows moving etc.), you always have that
"security blanket" of knowing you can remove the device and see the
real horizon whenever you want.

I've been training mostly at night (to eliminate shadows), and I want
the most realistic (and most comfortable) device I can find.

I've only made a few subsequent excursions into the clouds after that
winter night, and that was while I was wearing my hood. It wasn't as
bad as the first time, but I almost preferred to keep the hood
on! ;)