Actual IMC vs. the Foggles?

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Did some ADF/VOR/GPS training yesterday. Not having any peripheral vision (turn to set the GPS, and you can no longer see the VS, etc.) kind of sucks and the glasses pinching my head gave me a bit of a headache.

When you aren't wearing those things, do you find it easier to scan and get things done while in actual IMC? Is the feeling of being closed in less extreme, although still present?

Just curious.
 
I hate foggles. I like the gray ASA hood.
 
I personally find actuall a bit harder due to the the clouds changing the light and color in the plane. I will say I prefer actuall over simulated.
 
Actual was easier for me.

The only real time I have had issues in IMC was a haze over the great lakes. In the clouds wasn't so bad.
 
The worst part of the "foggles" experience (i.e. simulated IMC) is when the sun blasts into the cockpit during maneuvering making it much more difficult to see some of the instruments. But aside from that, most IR students find it easier to fly by instruments with a view limiting device than the various "real IMC" experience.

For one thing simulated IMC rarely includes the kind of weather issues found in the real world such as heavy rain, icing, blinding snow (whiteout), and ground fog. There's also the distraction of variations in cloud density that flash by in the soup and (a real biggie IMO) the HUGE difference between picking out approach lights in low visibility at or near MDA/DA vs just pulling off your foggles and landing when you reach the minimum altitude.

I also feel that nighttime simulated IMC (especially under an overcast and away from big city lights) is enough closer to the real thing that students should attempt to get a fair amount of that during their training.
 
I prefer actual over simulated, but it also heavily depends on the aircraft.

If I'm in the Arrow or a Cessna then I don't really realize I'm in actual.
However, if I'm in the Maule then I don't care for actual. The workload just to maintain straight and level is higher in the Maule then the other aircraft.
 
Thanks.

I think the main thing that bothered me wasn't any disorientation.

It was just having to constantly jerk my head back and forth because you have no peripheral vision and the fact that they gave me a headache constantly pressing on the sides of my head.

Of course, my trainer has no AP, so that ups the workload. I could see where having an altitude hold would be a nice luxury while you are dialing in VORs.
 
Bonchie said:
Thanks.

I think the main thing that bothered me wasn't any disorientation.

It was just having to constantly jerk my head back and forth because you have no peripheral vision and the fact that they gave me a headache constantly pressing on the sides of my head.

Of course, my trainer has no AP, so that ups the workload. I could see where having an altitude hold would be a nice luxury while you are dialing in VORs.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, try the grey ASA hood.
 
Bonchie said:
.........................
When you aren't wearing those things, do you find it easier to scan and get things done while in actual IMC? Is the feeling of being closed in less extreme, although still present?
Click to expand...
Yes. Altho' in actual I wouldn't call it so much a feeling of being "closed in" but the knowledge that you can't go to visual simply by pulling off the foggles, if you've never been inside the milk bottle before at first you might find the feeling a little clostrophobic but you should get comfortable with it quickly enuf'.
 
Bonchie said:
Thanks.

I think the main thing that bothered me wasn't any disorientation.

It was just having to constantly jerk my head back and forth because you have no peripheral vision and the fact that they gave me a headache constantly pressing on the sides of my head.
Click to expand...
Were you using foggles or the Francis hood? The only view-limiting device I've ever had the experience you describe with was the Francis... and it was a doozie. The real problem was that constant head motion without visual reference does tend to induce disorientation -- pilots call this "vertigo" but it doesn't involve a consistent sense of motion, more an occasional WTH sensation of not being sure if you just turned, rolled, or what.

Like others, I prefer actual.

Oh, and Lance, of course the blast of sunshine making it hard to read the instruments can happen in actual too. With an e-HSI with a dim bulb, all it takes is a thin layer of cloud between you and clear sunshine, since the light inside the cloud is then both very bright and diffuse.
 
I used foggles made by Blockalls during my IFR training and still have them for proficiency purposes. They are very comfortable and block just enough not to be able to see outside but to see all the instruments. They also aren't too big so you can comfortable carry them with you.

http://www.blockalls.com/index.html




Regarding the original question. Actual IMC can be harder due to different lighting conditions and cloud shapes (slanted clouds could cause problems). However I prefer to practice in actual because it's much more realistic.
 
Last edited:
For me, 45 minutes and I had a raging headache with Foggles. They pressed my temples and the diffused lighting coming in was terrible. I am more focused and less stressed in IMC than under the hood.

99% of my training was under the hood and when my check ride came, it was 100% IMC to minimums! It was awesome! We picked up a little ice as well. Very memorable check ride.
 
I hate foggles just as much as the rest guy. I find flying in actual IMC much more disorienting as previously stated with different shades of color and light going by, but also forces you to keep up your scan that much better. Decent tradeoff!
 
Bonchie said:
Did some ADF/VOR/GPS training yesterday. Not having any peripheral vision (turn to set the GPS, and you can no longer see the VS, etc.) kind of sucks and the glasses pinching my head gave me a bit of a headache.
Click to expand...
Typical.

When you aren't wearing those things, do you find it easier to scan and get things done while in actual IMC?
Click to expand...
If you mean "actual instrument conditions" (not the same as IMC), absolutely yes. I can move my eyes instead of my head, and that reduces the effects on my vestibular system.

Is the feeling of being closed in less extreme, although still present?
Click to expand...
I've found that when in the clouds with essentially zero vis outside, if the air is smooth, I feel like I'm in the sim, not actually flying at all.

BTW, most of the issues with foggles (big fat temples interfering with headset earcups, glare from the fogged part, and fitting over eyeglasses) can be eliminated with JeppShades (available from a lot of places besides Sporty's).
 
Last edited:
ARFlyer said:
I prefer actual over simulated, but it also heavily depends on the aircraft.



If I'm in the Arrow or a Cessna then I don't really realize I'm in actual.

However, if I'm in the Maule then I don't care for actual. The workload just to maintain straight and level is higher in the Maule then the other aircraft.
Click to expand...


Why would that be?
 
Unit74 said:
For me, 45 minutes and I had a raging headache with Foggles. They pressed my temples and the diffused lighting coming in was terrible. I am more focused and less stressed in IMC than under the hood.

99% of my training was under the hood and when my check ride came, it was 100% IMC to minimums! It was awesome! We picked up a little ice as well. Very memorable check ride.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...

Yeah they don't like to do that because they have to trust someone they never met before and doesn't have an IR to fly in IMC. Also when flying with foggles the DPE can easily tell you what to do (turns, holds, approaches, ect...) and give you simulated emergencies. If you were to do that flight in actual IMC he would have to coordinate all that with ATC, and they may not accommodate.
 
I took an old baseball cap, made an extended visor out of shirt cardboard, folded down the edges and stapled it together. Comfortable, works great and makes a fashion statement.

But all in all I prefer actual.
 
MachFly said:
Yeah they don't like to do that because they have to trust someone they never met before and doesn't have an IR to fly in IMC. Also when flying with foggles the DPE can easily tell you what to do (turns, holds, approaches, ect...) and give you simulated emergencies. If you were to do that flight in actual IMC he would have to coordinate all that with ATC, and they may not accommodate.
Click to expand...
In addition the DPE must prevent the candidate from busting all regs and that means he might have to step in well before you actually let things get far enough out of line that you'd get a pink slip. So in that sense it's for the benefit of the applicant to do the ride in VMC under VFR.
 
I did a lot of my instrument training at night. It was easy since most of my instrument training occured over the winter...in Georgia.

I typically, but not always, do my iPCs at night also.
 
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...
Conducting a practical test under IFR (which is necessary to do it in IMC) is contrary to FAA guidance for examiners. The reason is that since the applicant doesn't yet have instrument privileges, the applicant cannot act as PIC, which means the examiner would have to, and:
FAA Order 8900.2 said:

The examiner is not PIC of the aircraft during a practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity by prior arrangement with the applicant. The FAA strongly recommends that an examiner not agree to act as PIC of a flight during a practical test.
Click to expand...
The biggest "liability" the examiner incurs in this particular case is anything the applicant does wrong while operating IFR could result in a 91.123 violation and certificate action for the PIC, which in this case would be the examiner. OTOH, if the applicant boggles a procedure or exceeds an altitude tolerance under VFR, it's not a big deal (failure of the test notwithstanding). Further, operating VFR allows the examiner to give a bit more latitude before intervening, since nobody's ticket is at risk if you go 150 low during a hold while VFR. Since a need for the DPE to intervene is an automatic bust, the DPE can allow a bit more deviation before deciding that the applicant "consistently exceeds standards" (to use the PTS definition of unsatisfactory performance) and failing the applicant.
 
Ron Levy said:
Conducting a practical test under IFR (which is necessary to do it in IMC) is contrary to FAA guidance for examiners. The reason is that since the applicant doesn't yet have instrument privileges, the applicant cannot act as PIC, which means the examiner would have to, and:

The biggest "liability" the examiner incurs in this particular case is anything the applicant does wrong while operating IFR could result in a 91.123 violation and certificate action for the PIC, which in this case would be the examiner. OTOH, if the applicant boggles a procedure or exceeds an altitude tolerance under VFR, it's not a big deal (failure of the test notwithstanding). Further, operating VFR allows the examiner to give a bit more latitude before intervening, since nobody's ticket is at risk if you go 150 low during a hold while VFR. Since a need for the DPE to intervene is an automatic bust, the DPE can allow a bit more deviation before deciding that the applicant "consistently exceeds standards" (to use the PTS definition of unsatisfactory performance) and failing the applicant.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Thanks, Ron.
 
Much prefer actual, none of the sight limiting devices,prevent you from seeing outside. Practice approaches in actual are great,confidence builders. Also let you get comfortable with your personal minimums.
 
I think that polarized film on the wind screen and front side windows with polarized glasses of the opposite polarity would be the ideal vision blocker for instrument training. Full vision inside the plane but no vision outside. Take the glasses off and full outside vision is restored.
 
Graueradler said:
I think that polarized film on the wind screen and front side windows with polarized glasses of the opposite polarity would be the ideal vision blocker for instrument training. Full vision inside the plane but no vision outside. Take the glasses off and full outside vision is restored.
Click to expand...
There have been some products like that, some involving inverse colors and some with polarization. Some problems with polarization films exist though, the effect isn't easy to reproduce on curved windshields, some transmission is lost which could affect the ability to see other aircraft (not a problem in broad daylight) and you can cheat by tilting your head a small amount. Polarized glasses can interfere with viewing LCD displays. Circular polarization might work better.
 
Just throw a sheet over your head and clamp it to the top of the instrument panel.
 
EdFred said:
Just throw a sheet over your head and clamp it to the top of the instrument panel.
Click to expand...
That is more or less how it worked in the tandem-seat T-38's and TA-4J's, although the instrument trainee would be in the back seat so the instructor/safety pilot had a clear view out front. Doesn't work so well in side-by-side aircraft as the safety pilot's view to the opposite side is blocked.
 
My CFII liked the Francis Foggles since she could tell exactly where my gaze was and if I was fixating on a particular instrument. Nowadays, however, I use a gray hood over a ballcap when I fly with a safety pilot.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I took an old baseball cap, made an extended visor out of shirt cardboard, folded down the edges and stapled it together. Comfortable, works great and makes a fashion statement.

But all in all I prefer actual.
Click to expand...

Got a pic?
 
Graueradler said:
I think that polarized film on the wind screen and front side windows with polarized glasses of the opposite polarity would be the ideal vision blocker for instrument training. Full vision inside the plane but no vision outside. Take the glasses off and full outside vision is restored.
Click to expand...

A set of LCD glasses coupled to a small video camera on the frame set up to mask out the windows would be the ideal device. With the gaming technology available today, this could be easily built. But as long as pilots are cheap enough to use adhesive tape on a pair of cheap sunglasses, I dont see enough of a market for it for someone to go through the hassle.
 
I likeActual conditions as opposed to foggles. Its a. lot different and like you said, my vision isn't blocked on the sides
 
tlglenn said:
My CFII liked the Francis Foggles since she could tell exactly where my gaze was and if I was fixating on a particular instrument.
Click to expand...
What your instructor likes is nice, but what you find comfortable and effective is what's important. The only other consideration is that FAA Order 8900.2 gives the DPE the authority to decide whether any given vision restricting device provides adequate restriction during the practical test, and strapping in for the flight portion of the test is not the time to find out that the device you've been using is not acceptable to that examiner. Long-time Maryland examiner Annabel Fera is famous for rejecting Foggles, and pulling out one of the big old-fashioned hoods for you to use. So, if you know which DPE will be giving you the test, find out early in training whether what you're using is acceptable to that DPE, and if it isn't, switch to one that is.
 
Ron Levy said:
What your instructor likes is nice, but what you find comfortable and effective is what's important. The only other consideration is that FAA Order 8900.2 gives the DPE the authority to decide whether any given vision restricting device provides adequate restriction during the practical test, and strapping in for the flight portion of the test is not the time to find out that the device you've been using is not acceptable to that examiner. Long-time Maryland examiner Annabel Fera is famous for rejecting Foggles, and pulling out one of the big old-fashioned hoods for you to use. So, if you know which DPE will be giving you the test, find out early in training whether what you're using is acceptable to that DPE, and if it isn't, switch to one that is.
Click to expand...

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.

The solution above is like the examiner not liking the candidates choice of airplane and choosing another.:nono:
 
Ron Levy said:
What your instructor likes is nice, but what you find comfortable and effective is what's important. The only other consideration is that FAA Order 8900.2 gives the DPE the authority to decide whether any given vision restricting device provides adequate restriction during the practical test, and strapping in for the flight portion of the test is not the time to find out that the device you've been using is not acceptable to that examiner. Long-time Maryland examiner Annabel Fera is famous for rejecting Foggles, and pulling out one of the big old-fashioned hoods for you to use. So, if you know which DPE will be giving you the test, find out early in training whether what you're using is acceptable to that DPE, and if it isn't, switch to one that is.
Click to expand...

Can the DPE not count your simulated hours during the logbook review in that case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top