Take-offs under the hood

[ppragman]

Yes, it is true that all flight ops has some amount of risk involved. Hell, even driving to work has some risk involved. The answer is not to avoid every situation that has an element of risk. The answer is to manage, minimize and mitigate the risk that you do accept. I try to not fly single engine if I don't have an out. If there is a low ceiling then I am screwed if my engine quits because I can not see and manuever around to a good forced landing field. Now if I have a ceiling high enough to where I can break out and still have time to manuever to avoid houses, trees, etc then I have more of that warm and fuzzy feeling that I like when I fly. Same for flying over mountains Single Engine... I fly high enough so that I can always glide to a survivable landing area. I hope to become an old pilot one day so I am trying to avoid the bold and reckless type of flying.

Note: FWIW, I did perform an actual 0/0 takeoff once a few years ago in a piston single and I knew that if the engine quit on me I was screwed. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach during the entire taxi, takeoff, and departure. I did not enjoy the thought of having no out if something went wrong and I decided afterwards that I would never again put myself in that sort of situation.



What good does that VFR airport or the option to get vectored back do for you if you lose your engine on departure SE? You are not going to glide to either one of those options and if you have 0/0 then you have zero control in what the plane goes into when it hits the ground. Good Night!

If you lose your engine on departure VFR you're probably just as screwed. Yeah, you might be able to make it if you're lucky, but if you're flying a fully loaded bird out of a max performance field (or to be honest, even a lightly loaded bird out of a fairly long field), then you are probably going to be SOL when you lose a motor because guess what, most airplanes don't really glide that well. Basically, if you lose a motor in the first 500' in general you're probably SOL unless you're taking off out over a field, warm 2' deep tropical water, or an empty city with wide boulevards and underground powerlines. If operational needs dictate the departure, you're legal (e.g. 0/0 135 is a no-no), and you feel that you won't be overly taxing your abilities as an airman (e.g., maybe you don't want to take off into the 50kt winds at night IFR over the mountains in a steam guages only airplane with half of your equipment MEL'd, a baby on the way, a divorce in progress, and a bad case of the brown bottle flu), then launch.

 

[shdw]

All I have to say, is that by demonstrating these "marginal yet legal" activities you WILL save lives and prevent accidents, by either the student realizing that it's a dumb thing to do, and not attempting it in the first place, or by giving them a little experience to go back on, when they attempt to do it, because "hey, it's legal".

"Marginal yet legal." I wonder if the idea behind that along with, "the more they see it the more likely they are to perform it someday because they think they can (stalls)" had something to do with the FAA removing it from the training syllabus in the first place. Just my opinion of course.

Another example that falls into this category are actual soft field landings. This one I completely disagree with (meaning I wish it was a PPL requirement) and I take all my students to soft fields. They are safe, easier than a runway is on most light aircraft. If you are proficient, going to a legal soft field, and the field is within your aircrafts limitations (I personally add 40 percent fudge factor) then why not.

I see people all around here that never get soft field experience, at college I did 2 landings soft field. Bother were great and I felt much easier so now I teach it.

 

[PeterPilot]

Yes. Singles into IFR is dumb. Yeah, I did it. No, I didn't like it. If I wanted to keep my job, I'd launch.

Singles into IFR is dumb.

For those that will pick nits, IFR/IMC...whatever you want to call it today.

-mini

Do you know the difference between IFR and IMC?

 

[BajtheJino]

Maybe you and Jhugz could get together and share notes on mediocre instructing techniques....

Oh, Snap!!!
I've done several 0/0 takeoffs. The fog was gone by about 300agl and there were several fields within 10 miles totally VFR. Its not a big deal if you can keep the nose straight.
At my air line were authorized 6/6/6. We do have to have all the stuff required, even then its not a big deal. Can you keep the nose straight?

As far as doing IMC single engine-its the most dangerous thing in the world. Every night Jr. Freight Dogs are out there doing it. Are any of them even alive to do it again tonight? The Lord only knows.
(Do I need a sarcasm tag? Do I?)
In the hands of a barely competent pilot IFR in a single is a safe mode of transportation. The stats are just not there to back up the claim that its foolish, reckless let alone dangerous.

 

[shdw]

Oh, Snap!!!
I've done several 0/0 takeoffs. The fog was gone by about 300agl and there were several fields within 10 miles totally VFR. Its not a big deal if you can keep the nose straight.
At my air line were authorized 6/6/6. We do have to have all the stuff required, even then its not a big deal. Can you keep the nose straight?

As far as doing IMC single engine-its the most dangerous thing in the world. Every night Jr. Freight Dogs are out there doing it. Are any of them even alive to do it again tonight? The Lord only knows.
(Do I need a sarcasm tag? Do I?)
In the hands of a barely competent pilot IFR in a single is a safe mode of transportation. The stats are just not there to back up the claim that its foolish, reckless let alone dangerous.

It is obvious you are one of the many rooted in this way of teaching, give them as much as possible just in case. Just because 2 to 3 percent of the pilots in the world are good enough to fly as freighters and survive out of an environment like that does not mean every student in the world needs to learn it. Especially at the instrument level, for commercial I would agree there can be argument there but I don't see why you can't spend an hour learning it after you get your commercial ticket either.

Not to mention the 2 or 3 percent of you are often of a particular type/mindset similar to the surgeon, "oh heck just do it its easy" might work for you guys. For normal pilots it gets them killed and statistics prove that. Currently 75 percent of all aviation accidents are pilot error (Jeppesen book), so obviously teaching the average joe how to do procedures that only skilled professionals should perform at their instrument/private level is ludicrous.

I cannot see where you have an argument otherwise. I have asked this now a few times let us see if someone answers it now. What can you teach in a 0/0 simulated takeoff that you cannot teach at altitude? Note: While it is a wonderful demonstration of "macho" I don't think this is the best way to demonstrate that.

IMO why don't we just teach full aerobatics to every private pilot student so that they know how that works. Well 2 or 3 percent of pilots do that, why not teach it? They might want to do it to be really stupid one day, oh and it teaches stalls and turns better...(do I need to put sarcasm here?)


P.S. I am referring to hard IFR not 300 foot break outs, that I understand teach for your environment the student is operating in. This student will get repeat practice with it as well which will keep them current, plus the 300 foot break out is fairly safe (about 30 seconds from wheels up). Still sucks, but hey if thats the only way to fly from your specific airport then thats life, but there are few airports in the world like that.

 

[mikecweb]

It is obvious you are one of the many rooted in this way of teaching, give them as much as possible just in case. Just because 2 to 3 percent of the pilots in the world are good enough to fly as freighters and survive out of an environment like that does not mean every student in the world needs to learn it. Especially at the instrument level, for commercial I would agree there can be argument there but I don't see why you can't spend an hour learning it after you get your commercial ticket either.

Not to mention the 2 or 3 percent of you are often of a particular type/mindset similar to the surgeon, "oh heck just do it its easy" might work for you guys. For normal pilots it gets them killed and statistics prove that. Currently 75 percent of all aviation accidents are pilot error (Jeppesen book), so obviously teaching the average joe how to do procedures that only skilled professionals should perform at their instrument/private level is ludicrous.

I cannot see where you have an argument otherwise. I have asked this now a few times let us see if someone answers it now. What can you teach in a 0/0 simulated takeoff that you cannot teach at altitude? Note: While it is a wonderful demonstration of "macho" I don't think this is the best way to demonstrate that.

IMO why don't we just teach full aerobatics to every private pilot student so that they know how that works. Well 2 or 3 percent of pilots do that, why not teach it? They might want to do it to be really stupid one day, oh and it teaches stalls and turns better...(do I need to put sarcasm here?)


P.S. I am referring to hard IFR not 300 foot break outs, that I understand teach for your environment the student is operating in. This student will get repeat practice with it as well which will keep them current, plus the 300 foot break out is fairly safe (about 30 seconds from wheels up). Still sucks, but hey if thats the only way to fly from your specific airport then thats life, but there are few airports in the world like that.

never mind

 

[OldTownPilot]

If you try to teach an insular world to students, and they break out of that little protective world, what happens to them? They kill themselves. Thats thy 75% of accidents are pilot error, not because they do it, but that they have NO experience because overprotective instructors fail to provide that.

Since you asked:

What can you teach in a 0/0 simulated takeoff that you cannot teach at altitude?

Are you serious? There is NOTHING that can be taught at altitude that you learn in a 0/0 takeoff.

 

[wjmiller3]

What does your company's operations manual say about departure minimums?

Your department does have an ops manual, right? You should. It should address t/o minimums, fuel minimums, runway lengths, yadda yadda.

Also...what are you flying in the corporate environment?

-mini

1. There are no departure minimums.
2. All our minimums are part 91 minimums, as far as runway length-its pilots decision based on performance charts.
3. several SR22 turbo's.


We make lots of short runs(HOU,SAT,AUS,DAL,ect) , for the most part staying in Texas. Usually out and backs for last minute business deals, so if we dont fly it better be for a better reason than "I dont like IMC in a single". I can say it bothered my a little in the beginning when I first started flying for them, cause up to that point all my flying in any kind of weather was in a twin.

 

[minitour]

Do you know the difference between IFR and IMC?

No, I've never ever thought about or taught the difference before in my life. I've never taught an instrument student or done an IPC. Please enlighten me. *insert two or three sarcasm tags*

All I have to say, is that by demonstrating these "marginal yet legal" activities you WILL save lives and prevent accidents, by either the student realizing that it's a dumb thing to do, and not attempting it in the first place, or by giving them a little experience to go back on, when they attempt to do it, because "hey, it's legal".

I'd agree with this.

1. There are no departure minimums.

Problem #1

I can say it bothered my a little in the beginning when I first started flying for them, cause up to that point all my flying in any kind of weather was in a twin.

Complacency kills.

-mini

 

[shdw]

Are you serious? There is NOTHING that can be taught at altitude that you learn in a 0/0 takeoff.

Still waiting for an actually answer...a list of what a student learns on an instrument simulated 0/0 takeoff that cannot be taught at altitude. I am sure something out there exists and I would actually like to know it if someone could point them out, I have not come up with anything.

From what I can think of there isn't anything, but there has to be some reason to do this other than "its another experience." It has been stated repeatedly how important it is and how there are so many reasons to do it, yet 2 pages in I still haven't been told what it even teaches.

 

[OldTownPilot]

I'll turn the question around for you, How do you simulate a low visibility take off at altitude? Because that is what we (I) are trying to teach/ demonstrate/ give students experience with now, right?

Still waiting for an actually answer...a list of what a student learns on an instrument simulated 0/0 takeoff that cannot be taught at altitude. I am sure something out there exists and I would actually like to know it if someone could point them out, I have not come up with anything.

From what I can think of there isn't anything, but there has to be some reason to do this other than "its another experience." It has been stated repeatedly how important it is and how there are so many reasons to do it, yet 2 pages in I still haven't been told what it even teaches.

I don't know how anyone can be more clear with this, but a simulated 0/0 takeoff teaches the feel/sensations of a low vis takeoff. Of course being a CFII you should know that and not have to put up a brick wall front on a forum.

I'm confused now. So you now agree with me that in order to experience the feel/ sensations of a 0/0 takeoff you actually have to do one? Imagine that.

 

[shdw]

I'm confused now. So you now agree with me that in order to experience the feel/ sensations of a 0/0 takeoff you actually have to do one? Imagine that.

Haha yes I always agreed with that, did I write something earlier that says otherwise? What I don't agree with is doing at an instrument pilot level as it is not something that should realistically be performed by any non commercial pilot IMO.

For the few operations in the world where a private/instrument pilot will fly out of 0/0 often sure teach it there. For the majority though it doesn't give anything that can't be taught in the air other then the experience of 0/0 takeoff which again I don't think a private/instrument pilot should be participating in.

This has been my position all along, sorry for the confusion I thought that was clear.

P.S. I am not a II, simply thinking about it and planning it early so when I am a II I don't go into it cold.

 

[mshunter]

P.S. I am not a II, simply thinking about it and planning it early so when I am a II I don't go into it cold.

Wow, advice from someone on how to teach an instrument student, and has never instructed one, or is even allowed to sign one off. Just wow.

P.S. On makeing your own sylibus, don't bother, it's not worth the effort unless you want to be a lifetime CFI. And just haveing a CFI isn't going to do you much good, better get the rest of them certs. After listening to your discusions in a flappy thread, I now know the whole story. :whatever:

Edit: Teachinge every student a 0/0 takeoff WILL be benifical to EVERY inst. student, private pilot or otherwise because it will scare most of them away from it, and those who do attempt it will know what to expect. Bottom line is that when you cut a student loose and he/she is now on there own, YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEIR ACTIONS. I heard this at a friends funeral on thursday, "You only have control over one person in this life, and thats yourself. The reckless decisions on makes is based solely on their own judjment."

Sorry for mis-spellings, work dosn't have a spell checker, and I can't install one

 

[shdw]

Wow, advice from someone on how to teach an instrument student, and has never instructed one, or is even allowed to sign one off. Just wow.

P.S. On makeing your own sylibus, don't bother, it's not worth the effort unless you want to be a lifetime CFI. And just haveing a CFI isn't going to do you much good, better get the rest of them certs. After listening to your discusions in a flappy thread, I now know the whole story. :whatever:

Edit: Teachinge every student a 0/0 takeoff WILL be benifical to EVERY inst. student, private pilot or otherwise because it will scare most of them away from it, and those who do attempt it will know what to expect. Bottom line is that when you cut a student loose and he/she is now on there own, YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEIR ACTIONS. I heard this at a friends funeral on thursday, "You only have control over one person in this life, and thats yourself. The reckless decisions on makes is based solely on their own judjment."

Sorry for mis-spellings, work dosn't have a spell checker, and I can't install one

Wow you don't need to teach to give an opinion, which I clearly stated in my first post I did not have a II.

As for the course, thanks for the advice but I plan to be a career CFI and took multiple courses in college for teaching because of it. The knowledge from those courses is what I use to form my opinion that showing someone how to do a maneuver that at their level they (since you used B/U...) SHOULD NEVER PERFORM is ridiculous. (Again, as I stated earlier and to avoid flaming, there are exceptions for areas of the world where you can't takeoff unless you do it 0/0)

If you show someone how to do something, especially till they are comfortable, all you are doing is increasing the likely hood that they will do it alone, it is likely the FAA came to this conclusion on spins (IMO of course) and it isn't a theory that is new to the teaching world. That being said, if there was a reason other then to show them a 0/0 takeoff to teach this then I would agree, however not a single person on here has given me a reason other than to teach 0/0 takeoff.

As for the flap thread, you were wrong, do we really have to go over that again?


A general rule for all instruction across any field, lead by example and expect them to do the things you teach them about and avoid the things you don't teach them about. IMO avoiding 0/0 as an instrument private that flies maybe 10 hours a year (thats our instrument private average at my airport) would be a good idea, but maybe I am nuts too.

 

[wjmiller3]

If you show someone how to do something, especially till they are comfortable, all you are doing is increasing the likely hood that they will do it alone, it is likely the FAA came to this conclusion on spins (IMO of course) and it isn't a theory that is new to the teaching world. That being said, if there was a reason other then to show them a 0/0 takeoff to teach this then I would agree, however not a single person on here has given me a reason other than to teach 0/0 takeoff.



A general rule for all instruction across any field, lead by example and expect them to do the things you teach them about and avoid the things you don't teach them about. IMO avoiding 0/0 as an instrument private that flies maybe 10 hours a year (thats our instrument private average at my airport) would be a good idea, but maybe I am nuts too.

I see what you are saying, but you also teach all of your PPL students 3 hours of hood right? There is NO reason, EVER, that a PPL should be in IMC, but you teach inadvertant IMC. So should we take away the 3 hrs hood requirement too? So they don't get comfortable....

 

[shdw]

I see what you are saying, but you also teach all of your PPL students 3 hours of hood right? There is NO reason, EVER, that a PPL should be in IMC, but you teach inadvertant IMC. So should we take away the 3 hrs hood requirement too? So they don't get comfortable....

How can you compare a situation that you can end up in from fast moving weather to a situation you plan and have time (on the ground safe) to decide if you want to do. Edit: I forgot to add, while I don't agree they compare at all due to the nature of their occurence, I do agree it is a double edged sword. There most certainly have been pilots (I am sure everyone knows one) that were VFR rated and flew into IMC purposely. Hopefully nobody knows one of these, but statistics would make it seem likely that there must be some fatalities from pilots with too little experience (a 500 hour weekend warrior private/instrument taking off 0/0 *cough*) purposely opting to flying into conditions they cannot handle.

Though I think it is funny from what I have read a VFR pilot will last 30-120 seconds before becoming disoriented in IMC. So those 3 hours really don't do much according to those numbers, it still is needed IMO but it should be actual.

There needs to be a regulation that allows you to contact ATC and request an at altitude VFR into IMC for training purposes and get a small block to operate. Of course a stipulation for CFIs to be able to operate with that clearance above 2.5 AGL or something like that without current instrument proficiency since that isn't needed to hold level at a cruise altitude IMO. At least I had no problem 2 weeks ago when I went up with a fellow CFI and I haven't been IMC since March 07.

The hood doesn't do a damn thing in comparison to actual, especially early in your training. If anyone is wondering (since apparently if you don't have experience your opinion cannot matter) 6 hours into my instrument training I flew a night IFR with occ light/moderate turb. It was only down to 800 feet, but for an early on instrument student that was rough for me. I left the strobes on the first time into the clouds (first time at night in the clouds) and was disoriented instantly from that, not spacial just caught off guard.

Point is I learned alot that flight, I was disoriented by the strobes, later that flight I was inducing extra turbulence which my CFI pointed out, and I ended up with light spatial disorientation on a GPS approach to above mins so as not to pop out. She wanted to demonstrate a descent through a turbulent environment and then accelerate going missed in IMC. Well it worked I felt like I did a back flip, was a great way to end the flight and probably the most beneficial flight in my IFR training.

 

[wjmiller3]

How can you compare a situation that you can end up in from fast moving weather to a situation you plan and have time (on the ground safe) to decide if you want to do. Edit: I forgot to add, while I don't agree they compare at all due to the nature of their occurence, I do agree it is a double edged sword. There most certainly have been pilots (I am sure everyone knows one) that were VFR rated and flew into IMC purposely. Hopefully nobody knows one of these, but statistics would make it seem likely that there must be some fatalities from pilots with too little experience (a 500 hour weekend warrior private/instrument taking off 0/0 *cough*) purposely opting to flying into conditions they cannot handle.

Though I think it is funny from what I have read a VFR pilot will last 30-120 seconds before becoming disoriented in IMC. So those 3 hours really don't do much according to those numbers, it still is needed IMO but it should be actual.

There needs to be a regulation that allows you to contact ATC and request an at altitude VFR into IMC for training purposes and get a small block to operate. Of course a stipulation for CFIs to be able to operate with that clearance above 2.5 AGL or something like that without current instrument proficiency since that isn't needed to hold level at a cruise altitude IMO. At least I had no problem 2 weeks ago when I went up with a fellow CFI and I haven't been IMC since March 07.

The hood doesn't do a damn thing in comparison to actual, especially early in your training. If anyone is wondering (since apparently if you don't have experience your opinion cannot matter) 6 hours into my instrument training I flew a night IFR with occ light/moderate turb. It was only down to 800 feet, but for an early on instrument student that was rough for me. I left the strobes on the first time into the clouds (first time at night in the clouds) and was disoriented instantly from that, not spacial just caught off guard.

Point is I learned alot that flight, I was disoriented by the strobes, later that flight I was inducing extra turbulence which my CFI pointed out, and I ended up with light spatial disorientation on a GPS approach to above mins so as not to pop out. She wanted to demonstrate a descent through a turbulent environment and then accelerate going missed in IMC. Well it worked I felt like I did a back flip, was a great way to end the flight and probably the most beneficial flight in my IFR training.

I agree the are not totally the same, but I was just making a point and I think you saw it... AND, if you plan on the ground like you stated in the bold, you should be able to make the decision not to fly cause you will be closed in by that fast moving weather and possibly fly into IMC (the vast majority of the time, I know there are exeptions).

 

[shdw]

I agree the are not totally the same, but I was just making a point and I think you saw it... AND, if you plan on the ground like you stated in the bold, you should be able to make the decision not to fly cause you will be closed in by that fast moving weather and possibly fly into IMC (the vast majority of the time, I know there are exeptions).

Not sure I do man sorry lol

 

[wjmiller3]

Not sure I do man sorry lol

Let me quote you:

"my opinion that showing someone how to do a maneuver that at their level they (since you used B/U...) SHOULD NEVER PERFORM is ridiculous"

"If you show someone how to do something, especially till they are comfortable, all you are doing is increasing the likely hood that they will do it alone"

My point was you do EXACTLY that when you teach a PPL how to get out of idavertant IMC (hood work). You can debate all you want that the senerio's are different, but it doesn't matter because thats not the point. You do this to make the student a better and safer pilot, not because you want them to feel comfortable about doing something that they shouldn't be doing.

If you dont see the benefit of helping a student become more familiar and become much more efficient in flying an airplane in IMC conditions under the controlled environment of flight training with a II on board, then I have nothing else to say. Holding heading on the roll, after rotation when P-factor kicks in, and changing the pitch angle as airspeed increases to establish the constant airspeed climb after takeoff requires a very good scan and understanding of what is going on with the plane.

I assume from your opinion you have never done one, if you haven't you should try one next time you get a chance. And not because you want to go do 0/0 takeoffs in real conditions, but to improve your skill. Because I think that it is a valuable tool in IFR training. I try to do at least one with each of my students toward the end of their IFR training just to give them another situation to test the skills the have aquired.

 

[mshunter]

If you show someone how to do something, especially till they are comfortable, all you are doing is increasing the likely hood that they will do it alone, it is likely the FAA came to this conclusion on spins (IMO of course) and it isn't a theory that is new to the teaching world. That being said, if there was a reason other then to show them a 0/0 takeoff to teach this then I would agree, however not a single person on here has given me a reason other than to teach 0/0 takeoff.

I left your part highlighted for a reason. Most people will only teach a 0/0 takeoff once. When I do it, depending on what kind of sense I get from the student, I either use it to show a wise student how diffcult things can get and cover up the vac. powered insts. as we rotate, or I use it to scare the bold students into their place, and cover up the vac. insts.

As for the flap thread, you were wrong, do we really have to go over that again?

I was wrong? IIRC, that thread is still being debated. I still haven't been able to get it to work(on my own dime, shall I remind you. I am not useing a student to try it), or find anyone locally that agree's with this method. BTW, I'd much rather trust a few master CFI's (ALL hold all three instructor tickets, not just one), than some 500hour CFI who has yet to have the 1000 hour realization that they don't know what they think they know apafiany.