Actual IMC vs. the Foggles?

My key problem with my foggles is that they cover the portion of my blended lenses that work for the center stack. For most stuff that doesn't matter, but I can't see the count down timer in the lower right portion of the screen of the 430W. Well, I can see it, but I can't focus on it. Otherwise, they work fine for me. To each his own...
 
Jaybird180 said:
Got a pic?
Click to expand...

I don't, but if you're on the red board, it's modeled after one Doc Bruce makes out of a manila folder. He staples his to an elastic cord, but I went with a hat so as not to cause a patent infringement problem.:D

Besides, the hat makes it classy.

He posted a pic and a pattern. Search "reccomend ifr hood".

Oh, and when I took my checkride, Annabelle made me use her hood. I think she makes everybody use her hood.
 
Foggles? Real men use a hood. This thing was a pain to lug around.
 

Attachments

  • hood.jpg
    hood.jpg
    586.8 KB · Views: 19
Jaybird180 said:
An easier solution is to certify view limiting devices, then let the examinee choose from amongst the devices the commercial industry developed to meet the requirements.
Click to expand...
That might seem easier on its face, but all that would do is quadruple the price of the devices and probably leave us back with the big old 1960's hood as the only choice.
 
Bonchie said:
Can the DPE not count your simulated hours during the logbook review in that case?
Click to expand...
That is not an option allowed by 8900.2. You signed it, it counts, unless the FAA proves you lied about it, and then you have a lot bigger problem than what the DPE will allow on the ride. And I've never heard of a DPE telling a FSDO someone lied about their hours based solely on the DPE not approving of the hood used.
 
nddons said:
My DPE for my instrument check ride would not do the ride in actual IMC, which I thought was odd. He had a ton of experience and I'm sure flew actual often, but claimed liability as the reason.
Click to expand...

I always wondered about the legality/wisdom of intentionally performing partial panel operations in IMC (since that's a required part of the practical test). Many (most) would consider real partial panel ops to be an emergency. So by doing it intentionally in IMC, you're intentionally creating an emergency condition - isn't that a little questionable?

I ask myself 3 questions when I'm planning to do something - Is it legal? It is safe? Is it smart?

This one is (IMO) definitely not smart, not really that safe, and questionably legal, so I'd say it's a no go.
 
I had to do unusual attitude recoveries on my IR checkride. How would that work under IFR? Block altitude?
 
RussR said:
I always wondered about the legality/wisdom of intentionally performing partial panel operations in IMC (since that's a required part of the practical test). Many (most) would consider real partial panel ops to be an emergency. So by doing it intentionally in IMC, you're intentionally creating an emergency condition - isn't that a little questionable?
Click to expand...
Legally, the primary flight instrument(s) must be operable, but there is nothing which says they cannot be covered. In addition, there is nothing which says the practical test must be performed in IMC, and there is FAA guidance strongly recommending otherwise.

My own feeling about training is that if something goes wrong, the FAA will burn the instructor on a careless/reckless charge (assuming s/he survives whatever went wrong). However, I am comfortable doing limited partial panel work in actual instrument conditions, although I won't let the trainee go as far as I would in visual conditions before intervening. Of course, that's my choice, and other instructors might not be as comfortable doing that.
 
Witmo said:
I had to do unusual attitude recoveries on my IR checkride. How would that work under IFR? Block altitude?
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of instrument weather. If you just climb on top of a layer, you would probably do unusual attitudes with foggles above the clouds.
 
I've done most of my instrument training so far at night under foggles, and became very confident in my ability to control the plane. The first time my instructor took me up in actual conditions and began talking through the first approach I had to tell him to shut up for a minute and let me focus on controlling the plane. It was a lot more work scanning the instruments without the peripheral clues I had been getting unintentionally from under the foggles.
 
Jaybird180 said:
An easier solution is to certify view limiting devices, then let the examinee choose from amongst the devices the commercial industry developed to meet the requirements.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but then the certified ones would cost hundreds or thousands of dollars more than the non-certified ones.
 
Just got back from a MVFR day. Going through the soup without my foggles was easier than when I went under them in VMC.

The foggles really enhances my sense of tunnel vision.
 
Foggles . . . better than nothing, decent for practice, but not really the same as being in the soup.

I bought a $2 pair of Visitor Safety Glasses from the local industrial supply house, designed to fit over glasses. They fit nicely over my sunglasses for practice approaches, currency, etc., and I used them for my private and instrument checkrides.

Sit in the plane with the seat in the flying position. Draw the outline of the panel edges on the outside of the glasses with a marker. Mask off the portion below the line on the INSIDE of the glasses with masking tape, then sandblast the INSIDE of the glasses. Presto! Instant IMC when you wear them.

The commercial foggles are textured on the outside, which means every scratch creates a blinding amount of light when you turn across the sun. Texturing the inside protects the surface from scratches.

I keep mine in a Crown Royal bag, turned inside out, cut off and sewn to length. Pax get a kick out of seeing them in the seat back pocket, the purple bags are quite recognizable.
 
We were above the cloud base for some of the checkride. Holds, ILS, etc were IMC though.
 
If you can't get IMC time, I'd save my money and do some sim sessions until the wx improves (as in IMC).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top