Actual IMC IR training

D

DaytonaLynn

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
697
Location
Sugar Land Texas
Display Name
Display name:
One who misses Daytona!
If flying in actual IMC does one still have to wear the Foggles. When break out to VFR conditions, then put Foggles on?
 
My instructor lets me go without foggles if it is actual IMC. When you break out you break out and you land. :) Just like in real life.

Majority of my time is with foggles. It's a totally different experience without the foggles. Consciously remembering to look at the instruments in actual seems harder since all through VFR training it was "look outside" IR it's "Look only at the instruments"

My CFII likes actual - he gets to log the time as well. :)
 
DaytonaLynn said:
If flying in actual IMC does one still have to wear the Foggles. When break out to VFR conditions, then put Foggles on?
Click to expand...
It sort of depends. Certainly when in actual instrument conditions, you do not have to wear a vision restricting device to log instrument flight time and instrument training time. When not in actual instrument conditions, you equally certainly must wear one to log that as instrument time.

The problem happens when you're operating "in and out", as it's a real pain to keep removing and replacing the device. In that situation, it is my practice to have the trainee leave the device on and log simulated instrument time. Otherwise, they can't get full instrument credit for all their flying, and that makes it harder to get to the magic 40 hours.

BTW, being in IMC is not sufficient -- you must be in "actual instrument conditions" to do that without a vision restricting device. The FAA's various terms are:
  • Actual instrument conditions: Conditions which occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.
  • Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC): Conditions less than those prescribed for VFR operations per 91.155.
  • Instrument flight rules (IFR): The rules governing operations conducted according to an ATC IFR clearance in controlled airspace, or in IMC anywhere.
It is thus possible to be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions (e.g., when flying 1900 feet horizontally from the only cloud in an otherwise clear blue sky), and to be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC (e.g., when flying over the wheat fields of Kansas on a dark, moonless night). Only being in actual instrument conditions allows you to log actual instrument time, regardless of whether you're in IMC or not.
 
For training purposes, I would (when I get there) prefer Ron's approach. Primarily for simplicity, plus less fumbling with something while I'm still trying to keep up my scan, pay attention to the radio, and fly the aircraft.


FYI, for my vision restriction, I picked up a set of these: ViBan View Limiting Device. Very comfortable to wear. And I don't get the glare/flash dazzle in my eyes I would experience with clear foggles.

And for the CABs out there, I remember Bruce has instructions on how to make something from a manilla folder and a rubber band or two.
 
The thing about actual IMC vs. simulated IMC is not just the absence of visual clues, it's the conflicting visual clues. In a solid layer foggles on/off are no different. It's the rapid in and out that cause weird visual clues that you need to train for.

If you're VMC for more than a minute or so, foggles on, but it adds to the training immensely to fly in real IMC and see what you will see when the CFII is not there.

Actual IMC is the best training, night is good too.... Foggles are OK but to blindly (pun intended) wear them and not see the real deal is a missed opportunity.
 
AggieMike88 said:
FYI, for my vision restriction, I picked up a set of these: ViBan View Limiting Device. Very comfortable to wear. And I don't get the glare/flash dazzle in my eyes I would experience with clear foggles.
Click to expand...
Y'all be careful with that one. I've had trainees use it, and I'm not entirely sure just how effective it is in eliminating outside visual cues. The FAA does not certify or otherwise approve such devices, and per FAA Order 8900.2, acceptance of them is left to the examiner doing the practical test. I know several who are perfectly happy with AM's gizmo, but some, like Annabelle Fera, are known for declining such gadgets and insisting on a traditional "hood" like the one below (one of which Annabelle keeps in her office to give you to use if she doesn't like what you bring to the party).
dscn1017.jpg

Trust me -- if you train with one like AM's and then get hit with that thing in the picture above for the test, you ain't gonna do well. If you have any doubts about the acceptability of one of these, it is in your own interest to ask the examiner about it before you do the training with it rather than on the day of the test.

Also, make sure you test the comfort and utility of whatever you choose before you get in the plane with your instructor. Headsets and eyeglasses (even half-size "cheaters" for the presbyopics among us) can really be a problem with some of them, and the effect varies with the various components involved.
 
Last edited:
When in IMC, leave the foggles off for sure. In fact, some low-time IFR pilots I talk to I talk to keep foggles in the plane because it makes actual IMC easier for them when they're flying solo.

My technique is usually when in and out to have the student leave them off, unless you're out for an extended period of time. The visual sensation of going in and out of the clouds can be distracting, especially to a newbie. I find a lot of non-instrument pilots or trainees have the hardest time flying right at something they're about to hit. I think this is especially the case for people who've been VFR for a long time. For me, my 2nd logbook entry had actual IMC, so I've been doing it since day 2. Flying in clouds is normal and always has been. If you've spent a long time saying "If you can see it, don't fly into it", that's hard to break.
 
I suppose there is nothing wrong with logging actual instrument time for the time flying inside clouds as PIC, even if the autopilot manipulated the controls and you simply observed the instruments and managed the system as necessary...?
 
I'd kick any CFI in the nuts who tried to make their student wear a hood/foggles/jackolantern during actual IMC. Okay, maybe a little strong, but that is valuable training right there. The world isn't either blue or white........you don't just magically slip into a void of pure and endless white just because you are IMC. And you aren't VMC just because you can see blue and see around you and see the ground/sky. Heck, I've been on an IFR clearance, in grey area IMC, and still had to respond to ATC traffic advisories and no kidding look out and see them to avoid. Learning to deal with continuous transitions between clouds and back, and maybe even being in an almost VMC milky hole between layers are important things that no IR hood could ever teach. I can count on one hand the flights I have flown where it was as cut and dried as simply climbing into the clouds on takeoff and breaking out only at DH (as the hood would simulate). Maybe more of a reality for light single pilots in certain parts of the fall/winter, or those in the PNW for about half the year, but for everyone else, that isn't the norm.

And to echo above, flying instruments with a hood on is absolutely easier than flying actual IMC without one IMHO.
 
Last edited:
In the middle of my training we were bopping along and the instructors said, you can take those things off. We were blasting along in a layer and while we were "in and out" as Ron says, even the out parts were short enough and without discernable horizon enough to qualify as continuous instrument conditions.

I agree with 35AoA's point. One of my suppositions on spatial disorientation crashes is not that people can't fly on the instruments, but that they don't realize when they should be flying on instruments. It's far to easy to look out into the murk and pick up a false (or absent) cue rather than hunkering down and getting on the gauges. Foggles are so black and white. You know you have to fly on instruments when you have them on. Looking out the window in actual, not so obvious to the beginner.
 
35 AoA said:
I'd kick any CFI in the nuts who tried to make their student wear a hood/foggles/jackolantern during actual IMC.
Click to expand...

I know at least one CFI-I who'd take strong exception to that and may hit you back with her purse.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
If flying in actual IMC does one still have to wear the Foggles. When break out to VFR conditions, then put Foggles on?
Click to expand...

I try to make sure all my students get foggle-free/hood-free experience in actual instrument conditions as often as possible, for reasons pointed out by other posters here.
 
BTW, being in IMC is not sufficient -- you must be in "actual instrument conditions" to do that without a vision restricting device. The FAA's various terms are:
  • Actual instrument conditions: Conditions which occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Thanks Cap'n Ron. I had never picked up on this little tidbit. My CFII only logged "actual" during my training when we were in clouds. There were times I flew with him, especially on hazy mid-south nights, when I had to be on the instruments even when theoretically VFR.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
When in IMC, leave the foggles off for sure.
Click to expand...
Semantics point -- "When in actual instrument conditions, leave the foggles off for sure." Just being in IMC doesn't necessarily allow you to log instrument time without a vision restricting device.

In fact, some low-time IFR pilots I talk to I talk to keep foggles in the plane because it makes actual IMC easier for them when they're flying solo.
Click to expand...
:hairraise:I hope when you talk to these folks, you remind them that the use of a vision restricting device when solo is absolutely prohibited regardless of flight conditions. You must have a 91.109(c)-qualified safety pilot when you use a vision restricting device.

My technique is usually when in and out to have the student leave them off, unless you're out for an extended period of time. The visual sensation of going in and out of the clouds can be distracting, especially to a newbie.
Click to expand...
I try to do that, too, but remember that when they're going "in and out" without the vision restricting device, they can only legally log instrument time when "in". If you're pushing to make the required 40 hours, that can be an issue.
 
skidoo said:
I suppose there is nothing wrong with logging actual instrument time for the time flying inside clouds as PIC, even if the autopilot manipulated the controls and you simply observed the instruments and managed the system as necessary...?
Click to expand...
That is correct, as answered by the Chief Counsel some time back. The logic was that you are still at least indirectly manipulating the flight controls by manipulating the autopilot controls. Back when they were first instituting the 6/6/6 rule for instrument currency, there was some talk of requiring some minimum number of hours/approaches without the autopilot, but that was dropped before the rule went final.
 
Ron Levy said:
Semantics point -- "When in actual instrument conditions, leave the foggles off for sure." Just being in IMC doesn't necessarily allow you to log instrument time without a vision restricting device.

:hairraise:I hope when you talk to these folks, you remind them that the use of a vision restricting device when solo is absolutely prohibited regardless of flight conditions. You must have a 91.109(c)-qualified safety pilot when you use a vision restricting device.

I try to do that, too, but remember that when they're going "in and out" without the vision restricting device, they can only legally log instrument time when "in". If you're pushing to make the required 40 hours, that can be an issue.
Click to expand...

I push for quality training (I know you do as well, but you've also done accelerated programs a great deal), and having the in/out sensation is part of quality. As far as the logging, it is legal and I've not had a problem. I'll also fully admit that the vast majority of training I've done is "continuous improvement" rather than primary. However there are too many variables to go into specifics. A general would be to have them put the foggles on if we'll be out of the cloud for more than a minute. Then as approaching the cloud, 10 seconds or so out I'll say "foggles off."

As far as the people who have foggles in the plane for helping to fight spatial disorientation, I've never considered 14 CFR Part Anything to be of greater value than not crashing. So I've pointed out to them the legal aspect and suggested they get practice with a CFII. I've also said I like them not crashing. These are friends, not students, by the way.
 
I did all of my IFR training in the plane, and did nothing in the simulator. I had about 5 hrs of actual when I passed my IFR, and so about 35 hrs of simulated with the foggles. I remember the first time I went into a cloud more vividly than anything else I have ever done in training including my first solo. The true IAC experience is nothing like flying with foggles. Even if you can avoid the "visual clues" you still have with foggles, the environement of flying is very different. The cockpit is of a different lighting, and the "smoothness of the flight" is very different. I try to fly as much as possible IFR, and check the ceilings to determine my altitude requested so I can have some chance of remaining in the clouds. Finding the appropriate conditions to get approaches in actual is somewhat more of a challenge in FLorida, and the best I have ever gotten had been about 1000 ft, which is not what I would consider truly challenging given that is where pattern altitude is. I still do a refresher with a CFII every six months.
 
"F" Foggles!

I Kidd :)

I wait for a day with actual and go fly in that, preferably to minimums. I specifically looked at all the surrounding weather for which places were at minimums and went there for my IPC yesterday. I see a lot of pilots keep their IR current using a SIM or Foggles when the day before and after their training was IMC. In fact yesterday only a few GA planes were flying but my FBO had a couple of SIM rides scheduled for currency.....sad.

If the weather is perfect for too long I guess you have no choice, I just don't think it's the same.
 
35 AoA said:
And to echo above, flying instruments with a hood on is absolutely easier than flying actual IMC without one IMHO.
Click to expand...

I find flying in actual (with no hood) to be less tiring and easier than flying with foggles or a hood.

Maybe its just me, but wearing blinders increases fatigue. A real hood (I prefer a superhood clipped to a ball cap) is better than foggles, but still having that thing in your face is annoying.

Exception - the first few hours after I got the IR ticket, I was definitely distracted by the sensation of going in/out of clouds. But you get used to it. The other day I drove into some early morning fog, and I looked down and scanned my speedometer.
 
dell30rb said:
The other day I drove into some early morning fog, and I looked down and scanned my speedometer.
Click to expand...

This is an issue for me, too. I forget that having an instrument rating doesn't apply to driving.
 
LDJones said:
I know at least one CFI-I who'd take strong exception to that and may hit you back with her purse.
Click to expand...

I have a good block :)

All good points above. I think mine was in agreement with the notion that actual (sans hood) teaches you a lot more about the illusions and spacial D issues of true IFR flying. But I also agree that flying with it is more exhausting in general.
 
My first CFII was a real stickler for keeping the hood on all the time, whether in instrument conditions or not. I didn't get much actual with him either, since MDA at home base is 500 AGL at best and he was unwilling to take a chance on needing a ride back to the field. Some folks here know that I fired him when he procrastinated on finding me a DPE until my written had expired. I didn't really get the complete IFR experience until about a month before my checkride, when my finish-up CFII took me up on a perfect December IFR day. I totally agree with everything that's been said in this thread. Part of me wants to say that it's not either-or, that it makes sense when you're trying to get that 40 hours knocked off to keep the hood on even in the clouds, but also to do some flights in hard IFR with the hood completely out of the picture. Then again, it probably depends on where you train. There just aren't enough good IFR days around the Great Lakes to afford being doctrinaire. I think they're rare enough that if you are lucky enough to have a training flight on a day like that, better get the REAL experience. You can always log more time under the hood.

Speaking of IFR days, we had one this morning... and I was at the dentist and couldn't take advantage. We've had a couple like this in the last week, and I've had other commitments each time. Now it looks like we're tumbling into an early icing season. Frustrating. :(
 
Tonight I flew with my instrument student who is closest to his check ride. We launched after dark into drizzly 0O9 OVC for some real-world experience. Three approaches plus five laps in a hold over 1.5 hrs made for a good night. He was in actual for more than half of the flight, including a long vector for the last approach which included a fair amount of turbulence and some wind shear with a circling approach in pretty steady rain. All in all, a good workout for a soon-to-be IFR rated pilot.
 
LDJones said:
Tonight I flew with my instrument student who is closest to his check ride. We launched after dark into drizzly 0O9 OVC for some real-world experience. Three approaches plus five laps in a hold over 1.5 hrs made for a good night. He was in actual for more than half of the flight, including a long vector for the last approach which included a fair amount of turbulence and some wind shear with a circling approach in pretty steady rain. All in all, a good workout for a soon-to-be IFR rated pilot.
Click to expand...

Solid gold. Do you do circling at night?
 
one of the first things my instructor said to me before starting training was, i there a an IFR day schedule the plane brcause i want to get you in the clouds
 
One problem I've recently identified with foggles is that they cover the part of my progressive lenses that would work for the 430 over in the center stack. I've been wondering why I had so much trouble seeing the count-down timer in the lower right corner of the screen and in my last IPC it finally dawned on me (slow learner, I guess). I never have that trouble in actual without the darned foggles.
 
Ghery said:
One problem I've recently identified with foggles is that they cover the part of my progressive lenses that would work for the 430 over in the center stack. I've been wondering why I had so much trouble seeing the count-down timer in the lower right corner of the screen and in my last IPC it finally dawned on me (slow learner, I guess). I never have that trouble in actual without the darned foggles.
Click to expand...
That's something I've bumped into before with trainees. You really need to test any vision restricting device in the cockpit with your eyewear and headset before you buy it.
 
LDJones said:
Tonight I flew with my instrument student who is closest to his check ride. We launched after dark into drizzly 0O9 OVC for some real-world experience. Three approaches plus five laps in a hold over 1.5 hrs made for a good night. He was in actual for more than half of the flight, including a long vector for the last approach which included a fair amount of turbulence and some wind shear with a circling approach in pretty steady rain. All in all, a good workout for a soon-to-be IFR rated pilot.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's an experience I wish I'd had, or could still have, but launching into IFR conditions after dark is a guaranteed sleep-over away from home for any airplane based at KVLL. At least, unless it goes VFR before it's time to return. That's thanks to our field having no available SIAP at night. :(

I am starting to think semi-seriously about relocating to KPHN. It's a LOT farther from work and significantly further from home, but it DOES have an ILS, and an LPV approach in case the ground based equipment is OTS. No circling allowed at night though, and lots of ground fog.

</threadcreep>
 
azure said:
Yup, that's an experience I wish I'd had, or could still have, but launching into IFR conditions after dark is a guaranteed sleep-over away from home for any airplane based at KVLL. At least, unless it goes VFR before it's time to return. That's thanks to our field having no available SIAP at night. :(

I am starting to think semi-seriously about relocating to KPHN. It's a LOT farther from work and significantly further from home, but it DOES have an ILS, and an LPV approach in case the ground based equipment is OTS. No circling allowed at night though, and lots of ground fog.

</threadcreep>
Click to expand...

How many times a year does that really matter? And if you diverted to KPHN (or any of the closer airports) for those few nights that it did matter, what would the extra cost and hassle be relative to the extra hassle of having to go further to get to your plane every time?

Just a thought. In our case, the local airport with an ILS is actually closer to our house than where we base the 310. But cheaper fuel and cheaper hangars far make up for the once out of the 15 months we've been there that I've had to divert.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
How many times a year does that really matter? And if you diverted to KPHN (or any of the closer airports) for those few nights that it did matter, what would the extra cost and hassle be relative to the extra hassle of having to go further to get to your plane every time?

Just a thought. In our case, the local airport with an ILS is actually closer to our house than where we base the 310. But cheaper fuel and cheaper hangars far make up for the once out of the 15 months we've been there that I've had to divert.
Click to expand...
I've had to divert twice in the 9 months since getting my IR ticket. That's mostly because I like to stay current/proficient by going up on real IFR days and the MDA at home is 500 feet, so there isn't a huge window between not low enough to bother and too low to get back in.

But I'm not really talking about times where you have to divert because of really low IFR weather, which I agree would normally not be all that common. Even MVFR conditions are grounding here at night now, unless you don't plan on coming home right away. The MVA in my area is 2700 feet -- I think, anyway I've never been vectored lower than that. The surface is at 700 feet, so if the ceiling is less than 2000 feet, you can't get into VLL at night unless you stay VFR below, and at night I consider flying around <1500 AGL to be scud running. That's a fairly common situation around here due to lake stratus.

Yes, of course there are a lot of factors to consider when deciding where to be based. Where I am now is a good compromise in a lot of ways, but... I was based at PHN before, and it would have been my second choice with this plane if I couldn't get a hangar at VLL. I'm just thinking some more about it, that's all.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
Why not? I'm curious as a training IR pilot.
Click to expand...

The only time I have come close to having what I would call a serious problem in IMC was doing a circling approach right at minimums about 800AGL. I was performing the circle, in a turn, and watching the runway out my left window when I flew back into IMC (portion of cloud hanging lower) that I couldn't see because it was night. It was VERY disorienting, because I was in a visual turn, when suddenly the lights went out.

Like anything this is a personal decision. I will fly an ILS to 200' minimums anytime, as well as any other approach, just not circling at night (unless high ceilings). Some airlines ops specs do not allow this either.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
Why not? I'm curious as a training IR pilot.
Click to expand...
Because unless you are intimately familiar with the obstructions around the airport, you are liable to hit something you can't see at night. Only ways I do night circling are:
  • Home airport (or other really familiar one)
  • Moonlit night where I can see everything
  • MDA high enough to enter the regular traffic pattern in visual conditions
 
DaytonaLynn said:
Why not? I'm curious as a training IR pilot.
Click to expand...

If you look at that Commander 690B crash in CT a few months back, that's pretty much the reason. I used to do circling approaches at my home base regularly (at night), but that's because I was intimately familiar with the area, and circling mins were 1500.

Basically, circling approaches are the most demanding at mins, because you've got to remain close to the airport, not hit anything, and do a pattern. Just too many risk factors that take the risk scale up. Can I do it? Yes. Will I? Only if it seems to be the safest option. But in most cases, I will take a tailwind on landing.

Now, for your IR training, you should absolutely do them. But when you get your ticket and you're doing it for real, ADM would prompt you to figure out what is the lowest risk approach. The only reason you'd do circling over straight-in anyway is because of a tailwind. In most cases for the slow planes we have on airports we'd land at, the tailwind is less risky.
 
azure said:
I've had to divert twice in the 9 months since getting my IR ticket. That's mostly because I like to stay current/proficient by going up on real IFR days and the MDA at home is 500 feet, so there isn't a huge window between not low enough to bother and too low to get back in.

But I'm not really talking about times where you have to divert because of really low IFR weather, which I agree would normally not be all that common. Even MVFR conditions are grounding here at night now, unless you don't plan on coming home right away. The MVA in my area is 2700 feet -- I think, anyway I've never been vectored lower than that. The surface is at 700 feet, so if the ceiling is less than 2000 feet, you can't get into VLL at night unless you stay VFR below, and at night I consider flying around <1500 AGL to be scud running. That's a fairly common situation around here due to lake stratus.

Yes, of course there are a lot of factors to consider when deciding where to be based. Where I am now is a good compromise in a lot of ways, but... I was based at PHN before, and it would have been my second choice with this plane if I couldn't get a hangar at VLL. I'm just thinking some more about it, that's all.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting you hadn't thought about it, was just asking the question. There are lots of factors that go into where to base, as you pointed out. When we were in Pennsylvania, the choice was pretty obvious (although I did consider moving a few times because the FBO management was so rotten when I lived there). When when we moved out here, the choice was less obvious and we had to give some consideration to where we wanted to base. Doesn't mean we'll stay there forever, either.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you look at that Commander 690B crash in CT a few months back, that's pretty much the reason. I used to do circling approaches at my home base regularly (at night), but that's because I was intimately familiar with the area, and circling mins were 1500.

Basically, circling approaches are the most demanding at mins, because you've got to remain close to the airport, not hit anything, and do a pattern. Just too many risk factors that take the risk scale up. Can I do it? Yes. Will I? Only if it seems to be the safest option. But in most cases, I will take a tailwind on landing.

Now, for your IR training, you should absolutely do them. But when you get your ticket and you're doing it for real, ADM would prompt you to figure out what is the lowest risk approach. The only reason you'd do circling over straight-in anyway is because of a tailwind. In most cases for the slow planes we have on airports we'd land at, the tailwind is less risky.
Click to expand...

There is an easy way to mitigate the risks associated with losing visual contact with the runway on a circling approach. Assuming you are lined up on the opposite runway to begin with and with runway in sight, begin your circling maneuver with a coordinated standard rate turn until you are on the heading perpendicular to the runway then immediately turn at standard rate in the opposite direction until you are again on the opposite runway heading. You are now on the downwind leg. Here's where timing comes in handy. Stay on this heading until you are at the place where your base leg should begin. Your base turn should be a coordinated standard rate turn 180 degrees. Don't square the base or final turns, just make one steady turn onto the final heading. Remember, you are in IMC so looking out for other traffic should not be an issue. The key to success with this technique is to nail the turning rate and rollout headings. Crosswinds complicate it and you'll have to compensate a little but if the crosswind component is small you can catch up on the final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top