Hood experience

Wow we must all have the same Satan! He sure gets around!

If we're not in actual, mine prohibits me from ever taking off the foggles from simulated zero-zero takeoffs to, 'oh the MDA/DH is 769, go to 300ft' (150ft above rwy elevation) and then take them off and land...and he opens up and puts my checklist on top of the glareshield in front of me so I won't 'cheat' on the way down the glideslope...and we are always partial paneled in some way.

I wouldn't trade this level or intensity of work for anything....
 
I was landing foggles on much of the time, "just look up and stay low vis".
 
DutchessFlier said:
Wow we must all have the same Satan! He sure gets around!

If we're not in actual, mine prohibits me from ever taking off the foggles from simulated zero-zero takeoffs to, 'oh the MDA/DH is 769, go to 300ft' (150ft above rwy elevation) and then take them off and land
Click to expand...
I don't teach students to go below MDA with the hood on period. If their hood is on and they hit MDA they better be going missed.

DutchessFlier said:
and we are always partial paneled in some way.
Click to expand...
There is some value in doing some of the training with the full panel, else you won't know how to do it in the real world and truly use all the resources you have.
 
jesse said:
I don't teach students to go below MDA with the hood on period. If their hood is on and they hit MDA they better be going missed.
Click to expand...
I'm with Jesse. Folks need to be in the habit of going to MDA and staying there, not continuing down. Not to say that one might not set a lower-than-published MDA/DA for a specific purpose (or higher, for that matter, say, when arriving in good VMC for a circling approach with other aircraft in the pattern), but it will be established before commencing the approach, and if the hood is still on when the MAP is reached, the missed approach had better be initiated.

And I don't teach zero-zero takeoffs, either. The hood may go on right after liftoff, but not until the aircraft is airborne. No earthly reason for practicing blind runway tracking, and a whole lot of risk (including to the instructor's ticket) if something goes wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm with Jesse. Folks need to be in the habit of going to MDA and staying there, not continuing down
Click to expand...
That's a better way of wording what I intended. My wording almost implies that I meant the moment you hit MDA you go missed. What I meant is that you don't go below it period with the hood on.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm with Jesse. Folks need to be in the habit of going to MDA and staying there, not continuing down. Not to say that one might not set a lower-than-published MDA/DA for a specific purpose (or higher, for that matter, say, when arriving in good VMC for a circling approach with other aircraft in the pattern), but it will be established before commencing the approach, and if the hood is still on when the MAP is reached, the missed approach had better be initiated.

And I don't teach zero-zero takeoffs, either. The hood may go on right after liftoff, but not until the aircraft is airborne. No earthly reason for practicing blind runway tracking, and a whole lot of risk (including to the instructor's ticket) if something goes wrong.
Click to expand...

Add me to the "no zero-zero takeoff" column. Part 135 requires a mile, which I don't think is unreasonable, but for a Part 91 pilot who does not have a death wish I consider a half-mile the absolute minimum...and that is not a recommendation for anyone to take off with that limited amount of viz.

Bob Gardner
 
Ron Levy said:
And I don't teach zero-zero takeoffs, either. The hood may go on right after liftoff, but not until the aircraft is airborne. No earthly reason for practicing blind runway tracking, and a whole lot of risk (including to the instructor's ticket) if something goes wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree and I think that demonstrating/teaching a simulated zero/zero takeoff is stupid even if there was no risk in that it might give the student the false impression that the real thing is acceptable.
 
IR student (still). A 0-0 takeoff is not in the cards in my book. If something went wrong, how do you plan on getting back to the field?
 
Ghery said:
IR student (still). A 0-0 takeoff is not in the cards in my book. If something went wrong, how do you plan on getting back to the field?
Click to expand...

Heck, we implemented our alternate (Southwest) when there was a multiple-state area of LIFR. We did not want to get stuck needing to fly hours with nowhere to confidently land should we have an engine problem.
 
Lets be clear here folks: and I understand the responses you have regarding zero-zero work and below MDA's. My CFII is not unsafe or a risk taker, he's got a 'few' years of ATP Mainline flying and instructing under his belt.

First, I'm NOT a moron in the plane. I'm not taking off in zero-zero specifically since I don't have to and more importantly I have no way to get back to the field in an emergency after take off.
Second, We do them as an exercise in accuracy in controlling the aircraft.
Third, I'm fully aware of my own personal limitations, responsibilities to myself, others and my family which are strong motivators NOT to take undue risks in assessing conditions for executing and declaring a miss on an approach should I not have a safely assured landing.
Fourth, In reality, as you know, going below MDA finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal, not that I would fly to that descent point at this time in my experience (or ever for that matter) BUT the point being, that should I NEED to in an event in which the safety of flight has been compromised, it's not an exercise for which I have never had the opportunity to practice. I didn't say that every approach goes below MDA/DH.

Lighten up and give some people credit here folks.
 
jesse said:
I don't teach students to go below MDA with the hood on period. If their hood is on and they hit MDA they better be going missed.


There is some value in doing some of the training with the full panel, else you won't know how to do it in the real world and truly use all the resources you have.
Click to expand...


I would land with Foggles on all the time, just looking up and out. It's not the worst impersonation of restricted vis. On the approach end of it, I would look up, see it, and go back to the needles and he'd pull out the landing at the bottom. The last 200' of an ILS are pretty intense to drive and are good practice. One day I ended up flying an ILS down to 90' OEI for real. Came out fine. Also helped me when I did Cat II at OAK and LAX.
 
DutchessFlier said:
Second, We do them as an exercise in accuracy in controlling the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Just what significant aircraft control skills are built by doing a takeoff under the hood that aren't built by looking out at the runway centerline?
Fourth, In reality, as you know, going below MDA finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal,
Click to expand...
Only if the approach light system is already in sight, and if the hood is still on, the ALS is not in sight.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just what significant aircraft control skills are built by doing a takeoff under the hood that aren't built by looking out at the runway centerline?
Only if the approach light system is already in sight, and if the hood is still on, the ALS is not in sight.
Click to expand...


For me, I was still looking out ahead, just through the restricted vis of the foggles. It's not the worst "restricted vis" stressor simulator, real sim is better but didn't have one.
 
DutchessFlier said:
Fourth, In reality, as you know, going below MDA finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal, not that I would fly to that descent point at this time in my experience (or ever for that matter) BUT the point being, that should I NEED to in an event in which the safety of flight has been compromised, it's not an exercise for which I have never had the opportunity to practice. I didn't say that every approach goes below MDA/DH.

Lighten up and give some people credit here folks.
Click to expand...

You sure on that? I thought you needed "runway environment" ie the approach lights, in sight to proceed down. IIRC "Contact approach" you just need to be able to nav to the runway but continued approach you need runway environment? CAT II quals get you to 100'.
 
91.175 (c) (2)paraphrasing: as long as the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the SIAP being used and (3) (i) approach light system and (ii) through (x) describe various runway environment identifiers for visual references (including and in addition to the runway lighting system, but not the runway lighting system exclusively) to the intended runway as being distinctly identifiable and to the pilot...allows the pilot to go down to 100 feet above the TDZE.

Ron: as you know, the approach light system in 91.175 is one of the allowed circumstances (91.175) (3) (i) Read part (91.175) (3) over: "At least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot" then it goes on to list (i) through (x).

Bottom line. its a practice exercise in being able, if necessary, to fly to 100ft above TDZE and land the plane safely. Doesn't mean anything more than that.

As far as zero-zero takeoffs, well Ron, what can I say, its another environment in which to be able to control the aircraft in an unusual circumstance, and pay real close attention to airspeed and climb rate and pegging the DG bug to the runway heading while flying a departure procedure. YMMV
 
DutchessFlier said:
91.175 (c) (2)paraphrasing: as long as the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the SIAP being used and (3) (i) approach light system and (ii) through (x) describe various runway environment identifiers for visual references (including and in addition to the runway lighting system, but not the runway lighting system exclusively) to the intended runway as being distinctly identifiable and to the pilot...allows the pilot to go down to 100 feet above the TDZE.

Ron: as you know, the approach light system in 91.175 is one of the allowed circumstances (91.175) (3) (i) Read part (91.175) (3) over: "At least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot" then it goes on to list (i) through (x).

Bottom line. its a practice exercise in being able, if necessary, to fly to 100ft above TDZE and land the plane safely. Doesn't mean anything more than that.

As far as zero-zero takeoffs, well Ron, what can I say, its another environment in which to be able to control the aircraft in an unusual circumstance, and pay real close attention to airspeed and climb rate and pegging the DG bug to the runway heading while flying a departure procedure. YMMV
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Ron understands the rules. He teaches instrument students for a living. I think that he was simply pointing out that your statement "going below MDA finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal" was incorrect without further qualification.

As you pointed out, 91.175(C)(3) states that you can not descend below MDA/DH without certain visual references...and then lists (i)-(x).

(ii)-(x) are essentially definitions of the runway environment that allow you to descend to a landing. In other words, you do not have to stop at TDZE+100ft when (ii)-(x) are in sight.

(i), on the other hand, is only a reference that allows you to descend to TDZE+100ft in an attempt to see (ii)-(x). So, your reference to TDZE+100ft is only applicable to (i)...which is exactly what Ron was stating.

To sum it up


  1. You can NOT descend below MDA without some element of the runway environment in sight
  2. If you have the approach lights in sight, you can descend to TDZE+100ft in an attempt to identify another element of the runway environment
  3. You can, of course, descend below DH without any of the above in sight...but only as much as it takes to power up and begin your climb for the MAP
  4. It is not possible to have the approach lighting in sight while under the hood, so you could not possibly meet the 91.175(C)(3) while under the hood (which is what Ron was saying).

I think that there is absolutely value in practice searching for the runway environment while in actual conditions. Until you do it, you don't realize how hard it is see the runway environment when it is OVC003 1NM. That said, it is hard to replicate that search with a hood on, so flying to TDZE+100ft doesn't accomplish much.

As for looking up from under the hood at MDA/DH to land, nothing wrong with that, really...as long as you can see well enough to land. It just saves you the step of ripping off the hood and putting it back on again 60 seconds later.
 
Last edited:
DutchessFlier said:
91.175 (c) (2)paraphrasing: as long as the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the SIAP being used and (3) (i) approach light system and (ii) through (x) describe various runway environment identifiers for visual references (including and in addition to the runway lighting system, but not the runway lighting system exclusively) to the intended runway as being distinctly identifiable and to the pilot...allows the pilot to go down to 100 feet above the TDZE.

Ron: as you know, the approach light system in 91.175 is one of the allowed circumstances (91.175) (3) (i) Read part (91.175) (3) over: "At least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot" then it goes on to list (i) through (x).

Bottom line. its a practice exercise in being able, if necessary, to fly to 100ft above TDZE and land the plane safely. Doesn't mean anything more than that.

As far as zero-zero takeoffs, well Ron, what can I say, its another environment in which to be able to control the aircraft in an unusual circumstance, and pay real close attention to airspeed and climb rate and pegging the DG bug to the runway heading while flying a departure procedure. YMMV
Click to expand...

But that's not what you wrote:
going below MDA finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal,
Click to expand...
If you're finding the runway environment at 100' you've already descended without having it in sight. Perhaps you meant to say "going below MDA ONCE finding the runway environment 100ft above TDZE is legal,"?
 
Henning said:
For me, I was still looking out ahead, just through the restricted vis of the foggles.
Click to expand...
OK -- big difference between that and making the trainee do the takeoff from brake release with no external references at all, which is something I've heard of some instructors doing, and which I flat won't do.

One thing I will do with something like JeppShades is drop the shades at rotation, which simulates a minimum (not zero) vis takeoff where you lose sight of everything over the nose at rotation. But if at brake release, I can't see at least as far as the stopping distance from rotation speed, we're not releasing brakes other than to clear the runway and go back to the hangar, and I want my trainees to do the same. If I start teaching them real zero-zero takeoffs, they may get the idea it's an acceptable practice, and that's something I don't want them to think.
 
DutchessFlier said:
91.175 (c) (2)paraphrasing: as long as the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the SIAP being used and (3) (i) approach light system and (ii) through (x) describe various runway environment identifiers for visual references (including and in addition to the runway lighting system, but not the runway lighting system exclusively) to the intended runway as being distinctly identifiable and to the pilot...allows the pilot to go down to 100 feet above the TDZE.

Ron: as you know, the approach light system in 91.175 is one of the allowed circumstances (91.175) (3) (i) Read part (91.175) (3) over: "At least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot" then it goes on to list (i) through (x).
Click to expand...
Right -- but at least one must be visible, and if the hood is still on, none of them are.

Bottom line. its a practice exercise in being able, if necessary, to fly to 100ft above TDZE and land the plane safely. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
Click to expand...
That's fine if you have at least one of those things in sight, but I don't see the point of teaching people to go below MDA without one of them in sight.

As far as zero-zero takeoffs, well Ron, what can I say, its another environment in which to be able to control the aircraft in an unusual circumstance
Click to expand...
Pretty darn unusual when you can't even see one runway centerline stripe/light in front of you, and in that circumstance, I think you'd have to be either crazy or under attack by the Hovitos Indians to try it.

, and pay real close attention to airspeed and climb rate and pegging the DG bug to the runway heading while flying a departure procedure.
Click to expand...
That works fine for me as long as the hood doesn't go down until after you're airborne, or at least after rotation when you'd lose sight of the runway centerline in a low vis takeoff anyway.

But not before rotation -- too much risk, nothing useful learned. In fact, I think it's counterproductive, since the big issue is making the transition from visual to instruments as the external cues are lost, not flying instruments from brake release with no external cues to start with.

As for looking up from under the hood at MDA/DH to land, nothing wrong with that, really...as long as you can see well enough to land. It just saves you the step of ripping off the hood and putting it back on again 60 seconds later.
Click to expand...
...which is why I like JeppShades -- I can from the right seat pop them up to simulate breaking out, and push them back down to simulate entry/re-entry into the clouds, and the trainee doesn't have to do a thing or pull the device off/put it back on -- just like the real thing. I can just tell the trainee that as long as the shades are down you're in the goo, if they go up you can see, and to react appropriately. The only thing it can't simulate is restricted visibility below the clouds, but there's no way to do that outside the sim anyway.
 
Last edited:
Problem with a 0/0 take off is you can't get back in. I got bit by that out in the Bay Area. I departed HWD in about 300' but it's an LDA approach with something like 560' and significant terrain. Well, I had to feather my left at about 700', told the controler he asked what I wanted and I told him I'd like to intercept the ILS 11 at OAK and he read me the freqs and the plate and got me on vectors for the intercpt and informed that OAK is reporting below CAT II minimums and I responded "Thanks, so am I". Luckily it's a big old runway right down at sea level and I broke out over it at 90' at landing speed and attitude. I was going to fly it onto whatever was below me regardless.
 
Henning said:
Problem with a 0/0 take off is you can't get back in.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with a 0/0 takeoff is not getting back in, it's finding the runway from which to take off. The second biggest problem is staying on the runway until you take off.

Getting back in is the least of your worries, because you know in advance you won't be able to go back, so before you leave the FBO, you've already got a plan for what to do if you have a problem once you pass max abort speed. And that is a problem you must consider long before the weather gets to zero-zero. I remember one day launching for Providence RI from Worcester MA in the Cougar with 100-1/4. As we took the runway, I turned to my son in the right seat, and said, "If we lose one on takeoff, we're still going to Providence, 'cause there ain't no way to get back in here."
 
The value in a simulated 0/0 takeoff is getting the student to realize that if they ever for some reason lose visual reference during their takeoff roll it is very possible to maintain control and stay on the runway using the DG. Without them seeing this during training ts not likely they'd know what to do.
 
jesse said:
The value in a simulated 0/0 takeoff is getting the student to realize that if they ever for some reason lose visual reference during their takeoff roll it is very possible to maintain control and stay on the runway using the DG. Without them seeing this during training ts not likely they'd know what to do.
Click to expand...
If I want to do that, I'll do it in the sim. That way, if we go off the runway, nobody gets hurt, no metal gets bent, and I keep my ticket. Otherwise, I don't see the likelihood of that occuring as being large enough to cover the risk of something going wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
If I want to do that, I'll do it in the sim. That way, if we go off the runway, nobody gets hurt, no metal gets bent, and I keep my ticket. Otherwise, I don't see the likelihood of that occuring as being large enough to cover the risk of something going wrong.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see it as being a bigger risk then some of the first takeoffs I do with private students. Those can be way more...exciting. I'm not saying the risk / benefit make sense, but to some instructors it may.
 
Ron Levy said:
If I want to do that, I'll do it in the sim. That way, if we go off the runway, nobody gets hurt, no metal gets bent, and I keep my ticket. Otherwise, I don't see the likelihood of that occuring as being large enough to cover the risk of something going wrong.
Click to expand...


You don't have rudder pedals in front of you? You're actually in clear VMC, You can see the runway to correct, the student can't.
 
Going from eyes outside to looking at the DG when your eyes should be outside sounds pretty sketchy to me.
 
Henning said:
You don't have rudder pedals in front of you? You're actually in clear VMC, You can see the runway to correct, the student can't.
Click to expand...
When I do that with a brand new primary trainee, my feet are usually resting on and often blocking the rudder pedals, and I'm talking a constant stream. We do that over and over until the trainee has it because it has to be done. If once you become an instructor you want to do that on most every takeoff with your trainees during IR training (because it will take quite a few to get it right and usually there aren't that many takeoffs in IR training), go ahead. But since I hope none of my trainess will actually be doing zero-zero takeoffs, I'd much rather use those takeoffs work on the transition from visual to instruments after takeoff which a) they will do a lot, and b) too often kills people.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Just what significant aircraft control skills are built by doing a takeoff under the hood that aren't built by looking out at the runway centerline?
Click to expand...
Heading control - plain & simple.

I know you are a Pro, Ron, and I respect all that you do here on POA.

Having said that, I do find that having students practice heading control from the beginning of the roll helps a lot in the initial capture of heading control with rudder, rather than aileron, which so many are prone to do.
(we're talking slow accelerating trainers which you should have no trouble controlling)

The lazy student who won't correct (in the air) until 5 or 10 degrees off will suddenly tighten up to the goal of zero heading change tolerance when he/she is able to lock in to heading on the runway where there is a real consequence to heading drift.

This is about primary heading control - not a zero-zero take-off: that's another subject.
 
I've done a zero-zero take off. Well, more like 0-20. It had been a clear night, and it was a perfectly clear morning without a cloud in the October sky. I had my sunglasses on for the drive to the airport. Get to the airport...fog. Only at the airport. 1/4 mile in any direction, nothing. But at the airport, no visibility at all. Heard guys on the CTAF flying over "Only the airport is fogged in, everything else is fine."

Climbed in the plane, taxied out, couldn't even see the next stripe on the runway as I was on my takeoff roll. Less than 2 seconds after Vr, clear and a bazillion. Flying around the only places that still had fog were rivers (one wraps around the airport) and small lakes and ponds. Would have been stuck there for another 2 hours had I waited for it to burn off.
 
EdFred said:
I've done a zero-zero take off. Well, more like 0-20. It had been a clear night, and it was a perfectly clear morning without a cloud in the October sky. I had my sunglasses on for the drive to the airport. Get to the airport...fog. Only at the airport. 1/4 mile in any direction, nothing. But at the airport, no visibility at all. Heard guys on the CTAF flying over "Only the airport is fogged in, everything else is fine."

Climbed in the plane, taxied out, couldn't even see the next stripe on the runway as I was on my takeoff roll. Less than 2 seconds after Vr, clear and a bazillion. Flying around the only places that still had fog were rivers (one wraps around the airport) and small lakes and ponds. Would have been stuck there for another 2 hours had I waited for it to burn off.
Click to expand...

What rating do I need to obtain to be able to do THAT? You make it sound so cool.

From- a sub-100 hour, inexperienced and still impressionable pilot.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Note the sarcastic tone
Click to expand...


But the reality is, it is kinda cool. I used to do it when I kept my plane out in Rio Vista CA and the Tulle fog would be in, and it is dense, but if I stand on top of my airplane, my head is in the clear. You get just a bit of visibility around, enough to see the runways edge. You square up with the sides on the middle and start rolling till you see the next stripe, accellerate as you get the gaps timed and plane oncourse as the plane gets light switch to instruments and rotate and breakout into the early morning sun in severe clear air shimmering across a gossamer mist as the valley floor to the surrounding hills and mountains. It's one of those times and views that makes me thank God I'm a pilot.
 
Last edited:
:rofl:Hmmm......and you have 2100 more than Ed...what are you trying to say, Ron.:rofl::lol::lol::lol:
 
Hey, I just added another one. Man, these things hurt.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
I took off special VFR once, to find the crystal clear air above me. Not quite the same, because I had "plenty" of visibility and could see the runway just fine...

It wasn't even fog, it was smoke. It was when I went to SC. Apparently wild fires in Floriday, had smoke blowing out to sea, then back inland in the mornings.
 
Ron Levy said:
I said "a number of," not "the number of."
Click to expand...

Okay, I read that wrong. But maybe we can put that idea in a spam email and send it out, see how many hits we can take awY from the Viagra spammers:rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top