Lightspeed with Foggles question

On 18 Aug 2003 19:40:43 -0700, (Snowbird)
wrote:

Stan Gosnell wrote in message ...
My personal device is a flip-up type, which attaches to my glasses the way
flip-up clipon sunglasses do.

Yeah, I'm really tempted by these, but I prefer to wear contact lenses
when flying for better peripheral vision.

Our CFI doesn't like pilots he flies with to use hoods. Apparently
he had a near-miss involving the blind spot they create. Can't argue
with that.

I know of one pilot who has made foggles
from some wrap-around safety glasses

Foggles appear to be nothing more than the inexpensive clear plastic
safety glasses that have been sandblasted, or bead blasted on the
sides and areas where you want to block vision.

Based on that, the equivalent is quite easy to make, or even
duplicate.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

snip

Stan Gosnell wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) wrote in
om:
Our CFI doesn't like pilots he flies with to use hoods. Apparently
he had a near-miss involving the blind spot they create. Can't argue
with that.

Oh, well...........
Have you considered a different CFI?

How would that help? The blind spot created by the hood would
still be there. And frankly, the hoods I've tried allowed waaaaaay
too much cheating. Obviously I haven't tried them all, your favorite
may be perfect in this regard.

That's what mine a old scratched-up safety glasses with an
area of the lens taped over, then attacked w/ sandpaper and a dremel
tool.

That's extreme. :-) Easier to mask the bottoms, & use some black spray
paint.

Easier for whom? I can attack something w/ sandpaper or even a dremel
tool on the porch while I'm watching my daughter. Spray paint requires
clearing and masking an area to catch overspray, then clean up afterwards.
The "clearing" is non-trivial in any domecile "Mr. Clutter" (aka my
husband) inhabits. Then I have to wait several weeks for enough of the
solvent to out-gas that I can stand to be in the same closed space
with something that's been painted (it's an asthmatic trigger for me).

They're still too thick for me, though. The earpieces on my
glasses are very thin wire, & anything thicker just doesn't cut it.

Concur, hence my interest in mfr a Hood Lamb equivalent for Lightspeeds.

Cheers,
Sydney

On 19 Aug 2003 06:09:48 -0700, (Snowbird)
wrote:

How would that help? The blind spot created by the hood would
still be there. And frankly, the hoods I've tried allowed waaaaaay
too much cheating. Obviously I haven't tried them all, your favorite
may be perfect in this regard.

That's what mine a old scratched-up safety glasses with an
area of the lens taped over, then attacked w/ sandpaper and a dremel
tool.


Imagine the blind spots in the UK for I/R students since the only
artifical visual inhibitors allowed in the UK for I/R training are IF
Screens (louvered blinds over the pilot side windows)... LOTs of blind
spots generated by those.

For the IMC rating, foggles or hoods are acceptable, but for I/R it
must be screens so the student can't "cheat" by peeking out the corner
of his eye.

Leland

Roger Halstead wrote in
:

Foggles appear to be nothing more than the inexpensive clear plastic
safety glasses that have been sandblasted, or bead blasted on the
sides and areas where you want to block vision.

Nope, one more modification - the price is jacked way up.

Based on that, the equivalent is quite easy to make, or even
duplicate.

For a fraction of the price. Anything targeted at aviation & pilots is
very expensive, because all those pilots have lots of money. ;-)

I never buy anything sold as being for aviation if I can help it. My
flight bag is a fishing tackle bag I bought on clearance at KMart. Just
about the only thing I own that's sold to pilots is the mike for my
headset. I recently had to replace the cord on my headset, & thought I was
getting ripped off by the electronics supply place for $20, but if you buy
one specifically designed for an aviation headset you'll pay close to $100
for a lower-quality equivalent.

--
Regards,

Stan

Roger Halstead wrote in message . ..

Foggles appear to be nothing more than the inexpensive clear plastic
safety glasses that have been sandblasted, or bead blasted on the
sides and areas where you want to block vision.

Concur. As I said in a previous post, that's exactly what mine
are (well, I sanded and used a dremel tool, I didn't bead blast
them).

Cheers,
Sydney

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:22:12 +0100, Leland Vandervort
wrote:

On 19 Aug 2003 06:09:48 -0700, (Snowbird)
wrote:

How would that help? The blind spot created by the hood would
still be there. And frankly, the hoods I've tried allowed waaaaaay
too much cheating. Obviously I haven't tried them all, your favorite
may be perfect in this regard.

That's what mine a old scratched-up safety glasses with an
area of the lens taped over, then attacked w/ sandpaper and a dremel
tool.


Imagine the blind spots in the UK for I/R students since the only
artifical visual inhibitors allowed in the UK for I/R training are IF
Screens (louvered blinds over the pilot side windows)... LOTs of blind
spots generated by those.

Man, but that sure sounds like an accident waiting for a place to
happen.


For the IMC rating, foggles or hoods are acceptable, but for I/R it
must be screens so the student can't "cheat" by peeking out the corner
of his eye.

Sure sounds like a bit of overzealous bureaucracy trading safety for
accuracy. You sure it didn't come from this side of the pond?

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


Leland

On 19 Aug 2003 19:32:12 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

Roger Halstead wrote in
:

Foggles appear to be nothing more than the inexpensive clear plastic
safety glasses that have been sandblasted, or bead blasted on the
sides and areas where you want to block vision.

Nope, one more modification - the price is jacked way up.

I notice that too...Actually a very important modification to the
safety glasses.


Based on that, the equivalent is quite easy to make, or even
duplicate.

For a fraction of the price. Anything targeted at aviation & pilots is
very expensive, because all those pilots have lots of money. ;-)

Not for long:-))


I never buy anything sold as being for aviation if I can help it. My
flight bag is a fishing tackle bag I bought on clearance at KMart. Just
about the only thing I own that's sold to pilots is the mike for my

I use my old briefcase I had at work...before I retired.

headset. I recently had to replace the cord on my headset, & thought I was
getting ripped off by the electronics supply place for $20, but if you buy
one specifically designed for an aviation headset you'll pay close to $100
for a lower-quality equivalent.

I'm not sure I paid that much for my first pair of headsets. Course
they were Sigtronics passive headsets and that was almost 15 years
ago.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:


Can you give specifics of what you bought? I'd like to make
a set of headset cord extensions (need stereo though)

It's a curly cord, a little shorter than most headset cords, & larger in
diameter. It has 3 conductors plus a shield, which gives 4 conductors in
all - 2 for the mike, 2 for the speakers. I don't have a particular part
number, because I threw the packaging material away after I bought it.
Radio Shack used to carry what I needed; they had a CB microphone
replacement cord, which had 5 conductors, more than I needed but exactly
what you would need for stereo, but they no longer stock it. I had to go
to a real electronics supply store. Any curly cord with 5 or more
conductors will work for your stereo extension, if you're using a mike, and
3 or more if it's listen only. Or if you can live without the curl, you
can get some straight cord with the same number of conductors cheaper.
Radio Shack should have that. The plugs & jacks may be harder to find -
check the electronics supply place, & if they don't have it, try an
avionics shop. The earphone plug is a standard 1/4" stereo plug & jack,
but the mike is a different size. I don't often need these, since
helicopters use a single U174 plug for both mike & speakers.

--
Regards,

Stan

Roger Halstead wrote in
:


Imagine the blind spots in the UK for I/R students since the only
artifical visual inhibitors allowed in the UK for I/R training are IF
Screens (louvered blinds over the pilot side windows)... LOTs of blind
spots generated by those.

Man, but that sure sounds like an accident waiting for a place to
happen.


For the IMC rating, foggles or hoods are acceptable, but for I/R it
must be screens so the student can't "cheat" by peeking out the corner
of his eye.

Sure sounds like a bit of overzealous bureaucracy trading safety for
accuracy. You sure it didn't come from this side of the pond?

The other side makes this side look positively liberal. They don't even
allow GPS approaches at all. They're still depending mostly on NDB's. GPS
is a U.S. innovation too new & undependable for use in the UK. There are
some instructive threads on PPRuNe forums, particularly Rotorheads on this
subject.

--
Regards,

Stan

On 20 Aug 2003 15:51:14 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

Roger Halstead wrote in
:

I'm not sure I paid that much for my first pair of headsets. Course
they were Sigtronics passive headsets and that was almost 15 years
ago.

You got a good deal. I build my own headsets from David Clark hearing
protectors & parts, & it costs me almost that much just for parts, & the
only aviation parts I use are the mike and boom, earseals, & plug, and I
generally recycle as much of that as I can. My boom is one I liberated
from a military headset over 20 years ago, as is the plug.

I've built a lot of stuff over the years, both electronic and
mechanical...Quite often I could purchase something new for the price
of the parts...some times less. NOw that was not the case when surplus
parts were available.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)