Take-offs under the hood

[shdw]

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.

In one situation you are teaching for "inadvertent" entry into IMC, in another situation your teaching for the decision to go knowing it is 0/0. You will never here these words, "oops I accidently took off in 0/0," it is a choice that is the difference.

Yes you listed everything that you need to know for a 0/0 takeoff and none of it is helpful in any other way for any other aspect of instrument.

I have simulated quite a few in my commercial training because it was realized that at this level I may be forced to takeoff 0/0 or be fired. It was not taught at the instrument level for the reasons I have listed, thats the same reason we stopped soloing aerobatic airplanes too. Kids were doing inverted low pass fly overs by their friends houses.

Sorry for the side track, anyways I just can't see what it teaches them outside of "this is a 0/0 takeoff" and not a single person here has given me a single thing. Yet in the beginning of the post it was claimed multiple times that such things exist, I find it interesting so many people are teaching something and the only reason is "because it is another tool."

Tgray hit this same thing in the flap post, we teach things without questioning why we are teaching it and what it is teaching. We will all teach what we think will make our students the safest and the best. But I was hoping to at least get some core concept understanding as to what this actually teaches, besides this is a 0/0 takeoff. That way I can use that information to make my own informed decision which so far is sticking with there is no reason other than the experience.

 

[shdw]

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.

Might I remind you it was tgray that proved you wrong, I just agreed with him because our colleges retired navy guy taught us the same exact thing. I don't know what his job title is but one of his missions included bringing a lost fighter jet over the north pacific back to land and calculating it so close that one engine cut 1/4 out the second on touchdown. His names Thomas Teller you can feel free to look him up he's been cited and published repeatedly.

P.S. Took me all of 3 minutes to demonstrate it and I know how it works so I used it as a lesson to teach my student. I had done the tests multiple times in every aircraft on the line at the college just to see how they reacted. Just cause you can't make it work doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

[MikeD]

.

Sorry for the side track, anyways I just can't see what it teaches them outside of "this is a 0/0 takeoff" and not a single person here has given me a single thing. Yet in the beginning of the post it was claimed multiple times that such things exist, I find it interesting so many people are teaching something and the only reason is "because it is another tool."

.

I posted a couple pages back about having to do them for operational reasons (mission related), knowing full well I wasn't returning to the field of departure.....at least for a good while, not in any short-term way.

 

[wjmiller3]

Yes you listed everything that you need to know for a 0/0 takeoff and none of it is helpful in any other way for any other aspect of instrument.

Are you drunk?? Let me look at my list:

1. A good scan
2.holding heading
3.constant airspeed climbs
4.p-factor as a result of attitude change

If you dont think those things I listed are important in any other way or any other aspect of instrument flying then that just ended my discusion on this topic. I"m done and moving on...

 

[shdw]

Are you drunk?? Let me look at my list:

1. A good scan
2.holding heading
3.constant airspeed climbs
4.p-factor as a result of attitude change

If you dont think those things I listed are important in any other way or any other aspect of instrument flying then that just ended my discusion on this topic. I"m done and moving on...

1-3 you can teach at altitude just as easily as you can on a 0/0 takeoff. The only thing you cannot teach at altitude in your list is number 4 which will only be an issue if you do a 0/0 takeoff. I said is there a reason other than "this is how you do a 0/0 takeoff" and does it teach anything other than that.



MikeD: Same thing bud, I am just curious if this maneuver teaching anything unique that cannot be learned any other way. I just cannot come up with any reason on my own to teach this other than to show a student what it is and how to do it. But yours were also mission related and I certainly hope your more proficient and safer than an instrument private or I am going to loose all my faith in military training!

Since you have done these Mike, then correct me if I am wrong please, but 0/0 you still have enough visibility to fly the centerline for takeoff? or are you in fact with your eyes on the instruments while rolling down the runway? I would presume line till wheels up then instruments since I have never seen visibility less than 10-15 feet which is about all you need in a small jet.



Mshunter: If you are truly just using it to scare them and not teach them I guess that is at least a little better. The same rule of you showing them and them being more likely to do it will still apply though, just only to the bolder pilots you have. Personally, when I decide to get my II I will probably aim to get them 5-10 hours from their ride then overload them with a hard IFR scenario just to show them that they may be ready for their ticket, but there is alot out there they will have to protect themselves from still.

If this means getting additional training for say flight to minimums, 0/0 takeoffs, dodging weather with NEXTGEN or any other number of tasks that I likely won't have time to make them proficient on and without practice they will surely need recency experience to do. If I can I will likely leave 0/0 takeoffs as an untouchable and hopefully they will never be dumb enough to try it on their own.



P.S. Just did one with commercial student yesterday since I realized from reading this that I had forgotten to do that and he is only a few weeks away. Still was unable to find something that this 0/0 takeoff did that is unique to the training experience but not related to the actual task itself.

 

[SteveC]

I always thought that potential disorientation on the simulated 0/0 take-off was much higher than in any other maneuver. The horizontal acceleration cannot be duplicated in flight; then combine this with a transition from 0 vertical speed to high climb rate (through in P-factor and the rest) and there is no way to duplicate the amount of inner ear disturbance in-flight short of aerobatics under the hood.

I also think that the scan has to be much quicker than any in-flight maneuvers because the effect of having the wheels on the ground combined with any cross-wind can move the aircraft very quickly away from the desired heading if the scan isn't sharp. Then upon rotation there are other factos that come into affect that have to be quickly accounted for - weather-vaning and P-factor demand responses airborne that are different than on the ground, and the switch must be made quickly.

JMHO.

 

[tgrayson]

Still was unable to find something that this 0/0 takeoff did that is unique to the training experience but not related to the actual task itself.

My observation is that people will come up with all sorts of reasons to maintain a behavior once the original justification for it goes away.

This is cognitive dissonance in action. The contradiction between our behavior and our knowledge creates "dissonance" in our brains which is unpleasant. Either the behavior must change or our beliefs must change in order to reduce the dissonance. Some people are clearly more reluctant than others to change their behaviors and they're the ones who will find all sorts of excuses for this refusal to change. How many instructors still teach "no oversquare power settings" even once they are shown that this is senseless concept? Lots. Most?

I gave up teaching 0/0 takeoffs when I understood that the original justification for teaching them was invalid, which was to develop the ability to make 0/0 takeoffs. While there may still be some remaining training value in the maneuver, placing great weight on these secondary justifications is, in my view, merely an attempt to salvage some utility out of an existing behavior in order to avoid the difficult process of behavior change.

(BTW, how many of you Part 121 guys can takeoff with only your heading indicator as a reference?)

 

[MikeD]

MikeD: Same thing bud, I am just curious if this maneuver teaching anything unique that cannot be learned any other way. I just cannot come up with any reason on my own to teach this other than to show a student what it is and how to do it. But yours were also mission related and I certainly hope your more proficient and safer than an instrument private or I am going to loose all my faith in military training!

Since you have done these Mike, then correct me if I am wrong please, but 0/0 you still have enough visibility to fly the centerline for takeoff? or are you in fact with your eyes on the instruments while rolling down the runway? I would presume line till wheels up then instruments since I have never seen visibility less than 10-15 feet which is about all you need in a small jet.

When we did them, it was definitely mission related......ie- need to get airborne in order to deliver ordnance to a place miles away where its needed by ground forces. Only did them a few times, but the viz was very low, taking off using a combined instrument scan as well as peripheral vision. Could see the runway edges, but not much ahead.

Using that as a guide, there's definitely a difference between practicing them at altitude, versus on the ground. At altitude, you don't get the sensation of rolling on the ground, the ground movement, the acceleration....and the potential spadial-D factors associated with all the previous. Al altitude you don't have the sensation of having to use the rudders to truly steer, no visual illusions that pop up in your periphery or out ahead that can momentarily drive off your scan and attempt to pull off the instruments. Rotation and liftoff are nice spatial-D events themselves with the sensations being felt at those times too.

Worse difference between practicing them in the air versus on the ground is knowing in your mind that you're on the ground, and you'd better do it right, or you'll drift right off the runway, or impact the ground during liftoff or after takeoff.......knowing in your mind that there's no safety net of a ton of altitude below you and airspace beside you.

And that in and of itself can't be simulated any other way.

 

[shdw]

Mike, I am sorry there must have been some confusion, I was not referring to practicing 0/0 in the air for the purposes of teaching it. Obviously if you are going to teach 0/0 you have to do it on the ground period. The in the air portion was to see if there was any unique IMC experience you gain from a 0/0 takeoff (other than the factors involved in the takeoff themselves) that would benefit you in the greater IMC picture.

The question about simulating them on the ground was meant like this, "is the ground simulation anything like an actual 0/0 takeoff," like does simulating it actually help you when you perform it? I have done 3 or 4 under the hood and I doubt I would be ready for the sensations involved under actual but I wouldn't know so...

If it is like typical hood work VMC vs. IMC than the simulation is pointless as the largest issue sounds like spatial disorientation from acceleration and then rotate which with the hood seeing the ground you aren't going to ever get disoriented.

In my experience with hood work no matter what you do you cannot get disoriented under that thing, as soon as you open your eyes and your peripherals catch the ground your set. I have done inverted UA recoveries partial panel in the cap 10 with a hood on with no disorientation issues, this is where that opinions coming from.

Oh and the cap 10 had a full panel, a full tumbling panel after I was done being tumbled. So it was partial panel only due to the tumbling gyros.


On a final note this 0/0 takeoff scan sounds like a recent stage exam I had from a fresh solo student. His takeoff scan consisted of about 80 percent looking for rotate speed and the rest outside. Needless to say I made him do his next takeoff w/o instruments to show him that you don't need a rotate speed, hold a little back pressure and when she flies she flies period. Gotta love those IFR pre private students, damn the computer age.


Edit: Tgray: Thank you for that post on CD it gave me some great insight on how I reacted when the icing regulation changed. It is completely true, makes perfect sense, and leaves me thinking I am certainly on the fence with "anti-authority" when it relates to this situation.

 

[MikeD]

Mike, I am sorry there must have been some confusion, I was not referring to practicing 0/0 in the air for the purposes of teaching it. Obviously if you are going to teach 0/0 you have to do it on the ground period. The in the air portion was to see if there was any unique IMC experience you gain from a 0/0 takeoff (other than the factors involved in the takeoff themselves) that would benefit you in the greater IMC picture.

My bad, I read the argument wrong. Guess I read what the argument was watering down into.... No problem. I was reading the "why would we do them or train for them" as well as " is the training we're doing of them realistic?"

The question about simulating them on the ground was meant like this, "is the ground simulation anything like an actual 0/0 takeoff," like does simulating it actually help you when you perform it? I have done 3 or 4 under the hood and I doubt I would be ready for the sensations involved under actual but I wouldn't know so...

Apart from waiting for a 0/0 day (or night) to go practice or train to them, it's likely the best way to train for them......can't think of a good alternative.

If it is like typical hood work VMC vs. IMC than the simulation is pointless as the largest issue sounds like spatial disorientation from acceleration and then rotate which with the hood seeing the ground you aren't going to ever get disoriented.

In my experience with hood work no matter what you do you cannot get disoriented under that thing, as soon as you open your eyes and your peripherals catch the ground your set. I have done inverted UA recoveries partial panel in the cap 10 with a hood on with no disorientation issues, this is where that opinions coming from.

That's just one of many things that training can only go so far to simulate. Some things out there have to be experienced as the "real thing" in order to really get the "100% solution" of the experience. We all know that training always has its limitation.....moreso in some events than in others.

 

[shdw]

Yes my words have been twisted 80 different ways in this post so I am not surprised your confused. Not to mention I don't read every post over again when I write a new one so chances are I have contradicted myself already a few times.

If this helps my argument has been and continues to be, why train them to a private/instrument. They likely will not have the skills or proficiency to ever perform them again aside from the day they get their license and a few weeks after. I asked if there is any large picture general IMC situation that this demonstration would help to teach a private/instrument that would justify its teachings, again aside from the maneuver itself. Finally, I stated that I certainly agree it should be taught at the commercial level as at this level you might find yourself being required to do one. At the private level you need to learn to limit yourself and not do dumb things like this IMO. Are we on the same page now?

Apart from waiting for a 0/0 day (or night) to go practice or train to them, it's likely the best way to train for them......can't think of a good alternative.

Hey you might be onto something here with this night thing though,
simulated 0/0 at night with the lights at the airport off would be a really good simulation. Depending on how open and unlit the area was it might be dark enough to simulate without a hood that way. I still think it isn't needed for a private/instrument, but I am definitely going to have to give this a try with my commercial student and see how it works.

If you have to turn on a bright flashlight and have them look at the bright light just before roll out for take off, that will kill their night vision for the next 5 minutes and give them a great simulated 0/0 IMO.

 

[MikeD]

Yes my words have been twisted 80 different ways in this post so I am not surprised your confused. Not to mention I don't read every post over again when I write a new one so chances are I have contradicted myself already a few times.

If this helps my argument has been and continues to be, why train them to a private/instrument. They likely will not have the skills or proficiency to ever perform them again aside from the day they get their license and a few weeks after. I asked if there is any large picture general IMC situation that this demonstration would help to teach a private/instrument that would justify its teachings, again aside from the maneuver itself. Finally, I stated that I certainly agree it should be taught at the commercial level as at this level you might find yourself being required to do one. At the private level you need to learn to limit yourself and not do dumb things like this IMO. Are we on the same page now?

Me personally, I don't see a ton of need for them besides some severe opeational need.....my situation, or some life or death scenario. But that's just me. It's a risk vs reward thing (regulations aside).