flying under the hood

[dazza 38]

I have had a few pilots that havent flown GA, what it is like to fly under the hood. I was thinking,as a OPTION, ie- not manatory, if we could have RAA guys, experience it if they want to. With all the glass cockpits going around. What do you people think ?

 

 

[Mazda]

It does make safer pilots.

 

I'm a fan of any training to improve skill, whether that be instrument training, night training, spinning, aeros, formation etc. Personally I think that people can't be "complete" pilots without the ability to fly in sun and cloud, day and night, and in 3 dimensions. Military pilots don't even get their wings until they've done all this, it is "basic" training. However in saying that, there's nothing wrong with observing the limitations to fly within the training we have.

 

The thing to consider is what RA is about. Do you want to end up exactly like GA? If so, expect the higher costs of GA, and if it is the same, why do we need both?

 

Be careful what we wish for! There's nothing to stop people doing additional training in GA aircraft, then armed with that knowledge they can enjoy the benefits of RA.

 

 

[Spin]

Fine idea, although I'm not sure that it needs to be formalised. I imagine Dave or Ian would be prepared to give you a bit of dual if you asked?

 

This one is always a bit controversial, because there is the argument that by teaching a pilot a little, you are encouraging them to go and fly in IF conditions. I'd rate that approach about on a par with not teaching kids about sex because they will then go and give it a go.

 

I have spent a bit of time under the hood, sufficient to realise just how dammed difficult it is to do properly, BUT I reckon I am now less likely to panic should I find myself deep in the proverbial and needing to do a gentle 180 on instruments. I'm well aware that I shouldn't get myself into that position in the first place and will make every effort not to, but fact is a few pilots do just that every year.

 

 

[Guest check-in]

Beware the hood! Because you will still have good light and some peripheral vision and cues like shadows etc you may THINK you are flying without any outside reference and get a false idea of how easy it is.

 

Flying in cloud or on a dark night with no moon or ground lights visible is a whole different experience altogether. For about the same cost as hiring a suitably-instrumented aeroplane you could probably fly one of the modern simulators that do a great job of teaching you correct scanning techniques and absolutely don't allow you to cheat by having an occasional peep out the window.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have trained flying under the hood, flying for my gfpt, 2.1hrs. I have been asked from a couple of guys whats it like. I started this thread, not for it to be manatory or anything just that it would be easier if they have ago at it instead of me trying to explain it.I liked that part of my GA training when i did years ago. I never want it to be a part of a test or anything, because they might as well go and do their GA conversion. What im getting at, is since alot of a/c now have glass and their sitting front of a big artificial horizon, they might as well have a go at it even if it is for only half an hour or so. I myself feel better knowing that i have experienced flying under the hood, and being tested on doing a standard rate 180 degree turn. Maybe as already disussed by spin, i will ask the guys to approach the instructors, and have ago at it.

 

High check-in, i was lucky to have had a instructor current in IFR, so apart from flying under the hood, i also had a chance to fly in cloud.It was different, i mean you couldnt cheat,(i didnt cheat with hood on, defeats the whole purpose, if someone cheats) no point looking out the window, in cloud it was just white.Cheers

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Agreed. I've done 3 hours under the hood in the last few months, and I loved it. Especially recovering from unusual attitudes after sitting with my eyes closed while the instructor throws it around for a while to confuse my senses. I found there was no temptation to cheat, and no time either. I was too busy on the scan. It does take a lot of focus and attention. As soon as I was distracted, something got away from me - a few degrees in heading or a hundred feet of altitude.

 

I found it very valuable. I would not be tempted to go IFR illegally because of the experience. That's one of those "bold pilot" things which will kill you sooner or later.

 

I recommend some instrument time to all who haven't tried it.

 

The hardest thing is to trust someone else's eyes to check for traffic. It seems weird to fly all the way to a circuit without looking outside.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi slartibartfast,It realy is an eye opener, on just how difficult it is to do.Having done a little bit of it, it does re-enforce not to go into cloud.Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

"Under the hood"

 

Mixed bag this one. ALL training is good and adds to the making of a whole pilot. A bit of IF training with some people may have the effect of giving them a false sense of security. Unless you are CURRENT ie have a fair amount of recent experience at INSTRUMENT flying(and you are unlikely to achieve this, as it is not in your normal environment so you would have to do more DUAL.) you will not put in a very impressive performance

 

IF you peep out the side during training, you are fooling no one but yourself and limiting the value of the instruction you are given. The skill of flying I/F... It's not just keeping the aeroplane "right side up", it is navigating it around the sky and knowing where the hell you are., managing your fuel and all the things that you normally do but under the increased pressure of having to fly the plane on instruments as well. I have been a little concerned as better panels become available with the likelihood of pilots giving it a go. This worries me a fair bit, as every sense that your body is giving you will lead you astray, EXCEPT your vision . Vision is the prime input, particularly when you are looking at the "real" world. It enables you to disregard the other senses.

 

IF you want to find out what I am talking about, go up in an aircraft with another pilot flying and completely cover your eyes while he/she does some manoeuvers, particularly medium turns (or steep ones) that are continued for one turn or more. You would have to explicitly TRUST your instruments. You would have trouble doing this, I have never met anybody who doesn't.

 

AS for doing it in a simulator, you won't be able to afford one with motion, so all you will learn is the procedure. There will be no input to the seat of your pants and your canals in your middle ear etc so it is quite easy compared to the "real thing".

 

Your salvation if you have one is to use the autopilot, (if fitted) as it doesn't know when it is in cloud and flies just as well as when it isn't. You are unlikely to do the same unless you have recent experience and training. Better still believe all the people like me who have the experience and be advised DON'T GO THERE'! then I won't have to read about your untimely demise , or have my priveleges restricted because of your actions...Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi facthunter, i agree,with everything that you have said. Personaly I think it is a good idea,mainly so people have an idea,that it isnt just like flying your flight sim at home.I would hope that people would come away from the experience,not with a false sense of security as such, (im sure some people would) but with a better understanding of what it would be like if some how they got themselves in cloud. Mainly how difficult it can be, especialy if the instructor does make them close their eyes and put the aircraft into turns etc, or simulate heavy turbulence.I remember it was i real eye opener to me. I would hope that they would come away from the experience thinking S@#%t, i will stay well away from clouds.It is more difficult than what they thought it would be.If that makes sense

 

 

[Bidgee]

I've done the required 2 hrs under the hood. The first 90 min of this was tooling around the sky with the instructor giving directions. The most difficult bit I found was slow flight and maintaining alt within limits while changing from cruise to slow and back again. The last 30min was done as part of nav. This was much tougher as I had to rely on the DG and watch to know where I was and time the decent. Brain was mush at the end of it but very pleased I've had the experience.

 

I'd recommend it to anyone and it hasnt given me any desire to fly in IMC.

 

Scott

 

 

[Guest landmann]

:blush:I would not be here today had I not spent some time under the hood....getthereitus got me.

 

Martin

 

 

[Guest check-in]

Training under the hood in GA or RA machines does not fully simulate what it would be like if you got caught out in really poor visibility or cloud or got lost and ended up out there in pitch darkness. Even when on instruments, you DO need to look out eventually, otherwise how will you ever get back on the ground? Being able to fly straight and level or even steep turns under the hood will not equip you for arrival back in the circuit in a black hole or no-horizon situation. Being able to recognize and recover from a spiral dive under the hood isn't going to save you if said spiral dive develops at 300 feet while you are desperately looking for the runway and you don't realise the problem until 200 feet.

 

There are now some really good full-motion simulators available at quite reasonable prices. There is one that has just come on line at Jandakot and the visuals in it are brilliant - you can have anything from CAVOK over a heaving ocean to low cloud and drizzle, day, night etc. with proper scenery and airport models. Unfortunately it can't reinforce correct landing technique, but that is the case with anything less than the very latest of the full level D multi-million dollar airline type simulators. Also this particular sim has a performance range from a typical single up to a light jet and is quite type-specific except for cockpit switch and radio location (which obviously can't represent so many different types). Otherwise, and having worked with 'real' airline simulators for hundreds of hours, I can vouch for its realism. I think it is available for about $130 an hour, byo instructor or hire theirs for a bit more.

 

When you consider the unproductive taxying, climb, descent and approach time needed in the real aeroplane to get to the training area for a little bit of hood flying, you could get quadruple the exposure to instrument flight in the same time for about the same dollars. If you are going to do a bit of instrument training - and it's not a bad idea - please do it properly.

 

 

[Spin]

Check in, I take your point about getting more for your money in a simulator, but as for the rest I think you're missing the point of what a bit of hood time can potentially do for you. It is not about becoming a fully fledged instrument rated pilot, able to intercept the glide slope or fly a perfect hold, but rather giving you a better chance of surviving and getting back into clear air asap. Most IF rated pilots will tell you that flying a properly trimmed aircraft in fairly smooth air, straight and level or even through a rate 1 turn isn't that difficult, it is the high intensity procedural stuff that gets you.

 

 

[Yenn]

I've done a bit of instrument flight, but not for a long while. I do know it is something you have to keep current at and after a lay off I was completely lost last time I tried it. It is good fun with a good pilot alongside you and I would hazard a guess that it would be easier in a GA plane than an ultralight. The Pipers i flew were far more stable than for instance a Jabiru even if only because of the higher wing loading. By all means give it a try, but don't think you can fly in cloud, even if only to avoid a collision with someone else doing the same thing.

 

 

[Guest Dick Gower]

In the beginning it was added to the GA syllabus to demonstrate how difficult it was to maintain control under IF conditions so hopefully nobody would try their first IF solo in real IMC.

 

We teach it now without enough emphasis on the fact that, although we can turn back or descend out of cloud, we are not navigating and have no experience of icing or turbulence in cloud.

 

"It is not a matter of how much IF you have done but how much you have done lately"

 

 

[Guest check-in]

If you go into cloud with a high base, it's probably survivable (unless it's a bloody great Cb) if you don't panic, as you should be able to do a 180 or a steady descent straight ahead and hopefully get out of it with nothing more than a good fright and enough terrain clearance to recover to straight and level if it has gone a bit out of shape during the escape.

 

I once got sucked up into a fairly large Cu in a hang glider and had problems getting it to descend, such was the lift. I knew that I would have terrain clearance, so really only had to concentrate of not going inverted or going so fast that it would break up. Attempting a 180 was not considered because the only instrument was an ASI, so I had to concentrate on that. All the while using minimal roll inputs with a very light touch, and watching my body position in relation to the A-frame as a crude A/H. Scary, but the cues available meant it was manageable for as long as it did not ice up (which it didn't, but I have heard of that happening too, and guys surviving, while others did not).

 

A really neat trick of most simulators is that they can fail the A/H the way it will likely fail in flight - by going to some unusual attitude, or by oscillating up and down, or by developing a subtle pitch or roll indication. That makes life very tricky - just as it would be in flight - as you have to firstly recognise the failure, then fight the urge to continue to use this primary instrument in your scan. When doing 'hood' training in the real aircraft, mostly an instrument is 'failed' simply by covering it. The student immediately knows and because it is covered it gets tuned out of the scan. IMHO, flying under the hood is not much more difficult than flying with a baseball cap pulled down to obscure the horizon. Young Turks may do a bit of under-the-hood time and gain the impression that all this stuff about avoiding IMC is just old wives' tales.

 

I for one have never experienced the 'leans' under a hood but certainly have with simulated instrument failures and in really poor visibility. A bit like sea-sickness, it is the 'leans' which you need to experience in order to eventually overcome, or at least to put the fear into you so you never go anywhere near IMC. Just as those who suffer from chronic sea-sickness usually stay on dry land.

 

 

[Ewen McPhee]

You could write a book about Aeronautical decisions making (In fact I am sure someone has). A rational discussion of Flying in IMC and its issues must be an essential item. Some training should be available for those who desire it - and that is the GA pathway. Having said that Fear is an interesting thing. Saying "Don't go there" to some people is like waving a red wrag at a Bull. Others (like me) start worrying big time about the scenarios, so much that we might over compensate and turn a minor problem into a big one. I was doing a NAV up near Dysart a couple of weeks ago. There was a 90,000 hectare bushfire in the area and we flew right into it. I developed a loving relationship with the EFIS screen on the Speed until almost 7000 feet when we topped out of the smoke. If I had not had the insteuctor sitting next to me saying keep climbing keep climbing not sure what I would have done as I had no clue where I was and could not see a Horizon.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What interests me Ewen, is how we can get better at identifying the early warning signs of deteriorating vision.

 

Our current VFR horizontal visibility requirements are better than the old vertical ones in my opinion because they force us to turn back earlier, but there is always the odd experience which you had to throw a new curve

 

 

[Ewen McPhee]

I agree, Rules and regs dont cover every scenario do they, hence the need for some acquired knowledge. This last weekend was much better, I did a solo nav. There was a nice inversion layer at 4000 feet and the Texan I was in was trimmed up beautifully. The interesting thing about the smoke inversion layer was that the visibility started to drop again near Middlemount and the air became more turbulent over the burnt out areas. Maybe not the best time of year to fly but really reinforced the navex principles for me.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

On that topic turbo, I flew across Bass Strait a few weeks ago in clear weather, viz was 20-miles minimum probably more, but half way across I basically had no visual referance. I could see waves below me no problems, but that was all. the rest was a changing hue of blue getting lighter and lighter the higher I looked. There was no horizon and as I said no visual referances. There was a high overcast so the sun wa sdiffused as well. This was the same as a white out... a blue out I suppose. I was comfortable but only because I am very current with heaps of recent hours in the a/c I was in, but on a clear day I was sucked into this situation and I am a bit of a chicken in these situations. I can undestand how a low hour pilot could easily get into strife.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, I lost a good friend and experienced instructor that way.

 

He was called out, in a C150 to search coastal for a missing fishing vessel, and was found dead in the wreckage.

 

The conclusion was loss of horizon much the same as you experienced.