Perhaps it's there, but there's no reason whatsoever to do it. A zero-zero takeoff not in any PTS, there's no operational requirement for it, and I think the FAA would tell you it isn't even legal (unless you think that taking off blind when you can't even see if there's a truck or dead airplane in the middle of the runway isn't careless/reckless). BTW, I've run this past a few FAA Inspectors, and they said generally that if they ever were called out on an instrument flight training accident involving a hooded/foggled takeoff resulting in going off the runway, they'd be after the instructor's ticket.
Then why do it?
Sounds like your judgement is better than your instructor's. Next time an instructor asks you to do something that isn't required by the FAA and scares you that much, just say, "no."
It was never in the IR PTS, or at least, not since 1971 when I got my IR without it. However, there are maverick examiners out there with their own ideas of what should be tested even if the FAA doesn't require it. If Dan had wrecked on that event on his IR practical test, the FAA would have yanked the examiner's designation in less time than it took to type this post.
Getting lined up properly is part of the exercise.
Could have made for a very short takeoff roll had the DG failed or you blew a tire at thw worst possible moment.
In 0/0, you might as well have them on -- and that's the point.
Well, that's a start.
No, it's not. It's a pointless exercise with no practical application. If you want to demonstrate its difficulty, do it in the sim where no metal gets bent and nobody gets hurt if something goes wrong.
Note to self: If airplane cannot be seen while walking on ramp before bumping into it, do not fly.
You're right -- in reported zero vis, you get a second or two to say "Oh, foot" and tense up before you hit whatever it is you run into. With the foggles on, you crash relaxed and ignorant of what it is you hit.
Yes, I believe there is, but it is a risk which must be undertaken.
Pretty rare, in my experience. They more often try to use the ailerons (driving habit), and that does not exacerbate the situation. Also, we get to practice steering the plane at low speed on the taxiways before trying a takeoff.
The big problem is the fact that the heading indicator is far less sensitive compared to the external visual perception of the nose/runway/centerline. The result is that inputs are usually late and wrong in magnitude (and even in direction). This can send you into the weeds faster than you know what happened. Unless, of course, you practice a bunch of hooded taxiing first, and the taxiways are usually a lot narrower than the runway (leaving less margin for error) -- and imagine the FAA Inspector asking you why you were having your trainee practice hooded taxi.
True, but the biggest point here is that we must eventually get the new Student Pilot to conduct takeoffs. There is simply no need for an instrument pilot to conduct takeoffs in conditions when the runway cannot be seen from the cockpit.
It's probably also a "really bad idea" for combat troops to get shot, but we don't have them practice bleeding to reinfoce that idea. I think my students get the idea well enough when I tell them that despite my decades and thousands of hours of experience, I will not let them even try a hooded takeoff with me in the airplane, and explain the reasons why I won't.
A foggles-takeoff was on my practical, I did it once in training, and once with a Safety Pilot from the right seat (preparing for the CFII with the same DE I used for my IR).
Each time on a large runway at familiar airplane and airports and a competent look out in the other seat.
Somehow I didn't hit a single water buffalo.
None of that makes it smart.
That would show good judgement.
Not a chance of that -- it would cost the examiner his/her designation.
If that's what it took for you to do that, you had other problems, and there are plenty of other less risky ways to achieve that goal.
Really? Which sections of Part 135 and Part 121 prohibit them?
Huh? We can do circling approaches Part 135.Neither are circling approaches, but they are in the IR PTS.
