Dawdling pilot= go around

A true 0/0 takeoff (real not simulated) is an accident waiting to happen. If the DG happens to start precessing madly while you're rolling you will be mowing runway lights by the time you realize something's wrong. Or if the AI rolls over shortly after breaking ground you will be dead. And that's in a single. Lose an engine in a twin on or near the ground with no forward visibility and you're just as dead. I'm not opposed to a foggles takeoff but the CFII should make it clear (mine didn't) that this is a skill builder not preparation for the "real thing".


Yep, caged it but I had a few hundred feet. Ended up shooting an ILS into OAK to 90' as they had an ILS. It wasn't quite 0/0 at Hayward, but there were times between centerline dashes that I couldn't see paint. Just a lesson learned, never depart an airport you can't get back into and no Low IFR SE.
 
For some reason the "instrument takeoff" shows up in the instrument training syllabi.
Perhaps it's there, but there's no reason whatsoever to do it. A zero-zero takeoff not in any PTS, there's no operational requirement for it, and I think the FAA would tell you it isn't even legal (unless you think that taking off blind when you can't even see if there's a truck or dead airplane in the middle of the runway isn't careless/reckless). BTW, I've run this past a few FAA Inspectors, and they said generally that if they ever were called out on an instrument flight training accident involving a hooded/foggled takeoff resulting in going off the runway, they'd be after the instructor's ticket.

Also, while an ITO is a requirement for the ATP (but no for the regular IR), the hood doesn't have to go on until 100 AGL, and in the sim, the vis need not be set less than 1/4 mile.

My instructor wasn't exactly clear on what the benefit of the procedure is.
Then why do it?

I did my instrument takeoff 2 weeks ago. So far that is the most scared I have ever been in an airplane. I kept it on the asphalt....barely. It doesn't show up in the PTS, which is what caused me to ask why on earth we'd want to attempt it.
Sounds like your judgement is better than your instructor's. Next time an instructor asks you to do something that isn't required by the FAA and scares you that much, just say, "no."
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it's there, but there's no reason whatsoever to do it. A zero-zero takeoff not in any PTS, there's no operational requirement for it, and I think the FAA would tell you it isn't even legal (unless you think that taking off blind when you can't even see if there's a truck or dead airplane in the middle of the runway isn't careless/reckless).

First item on my IR checkride was a foggles takeoff.
 
Was it in the PTS at the time?
It was never in the IR PTS, or at least, not since 1971 when I got my IR without it. However, there are maverick examiners out there with their own ideas of what should be tested even if the FAA doesn't require it. If Dan had wrecked on that event on his IR practical test, the FAA would have yanked the examiner's designation in less time than it took to type this post.

And yes, I've run that scenario past a few Inspectors, too.
 
As a student the instructor would taxi the airplane into position. When I practice I'll as the Safety pilot to do the same.

Again, what is the point? If you can't taxi to the runway, you sure can't get ON the runway to take off. You have to have SOME visibility to do this.

FWIW, even in 0/0 you have SOME visibility.
 
Could have made for a very short takeoff roll had the DG failed or you blew a tire at thw worst possible moment.

I wasn't solo.

I'm not advocating that this be a PTS item, but it is a good exercise to do at least once to to see how difficult it is to do a 0/0 takeoff (and if you're using the centerline to stay straight it isn't a 0/0 takeoff).
 
I'm not advocating that this be a PTS item,
Well, that's a start.
but it is a good exercise to do at least once
No, it's not. It's a pointless exercise with no practical application. If you want to demonstrate its difficulty, do it in the sim where no metal gets bent and nobody gets hurt if something goes wrong.
 
The thing is, though, that you would never be doing a completely 0/0 takeoff as if you had foggles on because you would never be able to get out to the runway. REPORTED 0/0 only means that it's below the lowest parameter for visibility. I've been in places where they are reporting 0/0 and it's not like you can't walk around without bumping into stuff. That's not to say that you should go out and fly an airplane, though.
 
The thing is, though, that you would never be doing a completely 0/0 takeoff as if you had foggles on because you would never be able to get out to the runway. REPORTED 0/0 only means that it's below the lowest parameter for visibility. I've been in places where they are reporting 0/0 and it's not like you can't walk around without bumping into stuff. That's not to say that you should go out and fly an airplane, though.
Note to self: If airplane cannot be seen while walking on ramp before bumping into it, do not fly.
 
Nope - "0/0 reported visibility" isn't the same as wearing foggles.
You're right -- in reported zero vis, you get a second or two to say "Oh, foot" and tense up before you hit whatever it is you run into. With the foggles on, you crash relaxed and ignorant of what it is you hit.

If the reported visibility is zero (i.e., below 1/16 mile or 300 RVR, which are the lowest values I've ever seen reported), there's no way to make a safe taxi-out and takeoff. Given that a vision restricting device is even more limiting than that, practicing takeoffs with a vision restricting device is place is a pointlessly risky exercise, and everyone in the FAA with whom I've discussed it agrees.
 
Last edited:
practicing takeoffs with a vision restricting device is place is a pointlessly risky exercise, and everyone in the FAA with whom I've discussed it agrees.

Is there more risk associated with that than there is allowing a student to take off for the first time? In the latter case, I'd say there's a reasonable possibility the student will stomp on the wrong rudder pedal and veer off the runway. In the former, the veering off the runway will be less extreme.

In both cases, there is an instructor in the plane with another set of controls.

I also think one benefit to this exercise is to demonstrate to the student that it's probably a really bad idea to try in actual 0/0 conditions.
 
Is there more risk associated with that than there is allowing a student to take off for the first time?
Yes, I believe there is, but it is a risk which must be undertaken.

In the latter case, I'd say there's a reasonable possibility the student will stomp on the wrong rudder pedal and veer off the runway.
Pretty rare, in my experience. They more often try to use the ailerons (driving habit), and that does not exacerbate the situation. Also, we get to practice steering the plane at low speed on the taxiways before trying a takeoff.

In the former, the veering off the runway will be less extreme.
The big problem is the fact that the heading indicator is far less sensitive compared to the external visual perception of the nose/runway/centerline. The result is that inputs are usually late and wrong in magnitude (and even in direction). This can send you into the weeds faster than you know what happened. Unless, of course, you practice a bunch of hooded taxiing first, and the taxiways are usually a lot narrower than the runway (leaving less margin for error) -- and imagine the FAA Inspector asking you why you were having your trainee practice hooded taxi.:eek:

In both cases, there is an instructor in the plane with another set of controls.
True, but the biggest point here is that we must eventually get the new Student Pilot to conduct takeoffs. There is simply no need for an instrument pilot to conduct takeoffs in conditions when the runway cannot be seen from the cockpit.

I also think one benefit to this exercise is to demonstrate to the student that it's probably a really bad idea to try in actual 0/0 conditions.
It's probably also a "really bad idea" for combat troops to get shot, but we don't have them practice bleeding to reinfoce that idea. I think my students get the idea well enough when I tell them that despite my decades and thousands of hours of experience, I will not let them even try a hooded takeoff with me in the airplane, and explain the reasons why I won't.
 
Last edited:
You're right -- in reported zero vis, you get a second or two to say "Oh, foot" and tense up before you hit whatever it is you run into. With the foggles on, you crash relaxed and ignorant of what it is you hit.

If the reported visibility is zero (i.e., below 1/16 mile or 300 RVR, which are the lowest values I've ever seen reported), there's no way to make a safe taxi-out and takeoff. Given that a vision restricting device is even more limiting than that, practicing takeoffs with a vision restricting device is place is a pointlessly risky exercise, and everyone in the FAA with whom I've discussed it agrees.

A foggles-takeoff was on my practical, I did it once in training, and once with a Safety Pilot from the right seat (preparing for the CFII with the same DE I used for my IR).

Each time on a large runway at familiar airplane and airports and a competent look out in the other seat.

Somehow I didn't hit a single water buffalo. :D
 
Whatever. If my IR DPE decides he wants me to do a hooded takeoff, it'll be a "just say no" moment. If it earns me a pink slip, so be it -- I don't know any of the DPE's well enough to trust them with MY airplane on the ground where split seconds count.

Heck, I wouldn't even trust my CFII that far. It's just not worth the repair bill or the increase in insurance premiums if something happened.
 
A foggles-takeoff was on my practical, I did it once in training, and once with a Safety Pilot from the right seat (preparing for the CFII with the same DE I used for my IR).

Each time on a large runway at familiar airplane and airports and a competent look out in the other seat.

Somehow I didn't hit a single water buffalo. :D

Still a pointless exercise.
 
I've done it once. If a tire blew I could tilt my head up and see just fine. That's the advantage to the physical hood I guess. The real value in the exercise was the realization that if I ever lost sight of the runway during the takeoff roll I could switch to the DG and get reliable enough information to either stop the airplane on the runway or complete the takeoff without breaking anything. Had I not done it at least once I'd have a lot less confidence in the DG while on the takeoff roll.

I'm not saying a 0/0 takeoff is a good idea - I'm not saying one should continue the takeoff if they lose sight of the runway - I'm just saying that the exercise gave me the skills to handle a situation. Another tool in the box and I'll be thankful come the day I need it.
 
Last edited:
Still a pointless exercise.

I don't see it as pointless. It does demonstrate the difficulty involved, and also gives you a reference for the required skill set when you are on your takeoff roll in marginal but acceptable conditions and hit some denser obscuration while already at speed. If you are already stable on course down the runway just below rotation speed, it may very well be safer to continue than to try to stop.
 
I don't see it as pointless. It does demonstrate the difficulty involved, and also gives you a reference for the required skill set when you are on your takeoff roll in marginal but acceptable conditions and hit some denser obscuration while already at speed. If you are already stable on course down the runway just below rotation speed, it may very well be safer to continue than to try to stop.

I think the value is the transition from visual to IMC on takeoff. A few times in low vis takeoffs I've glanced at the panel while taking off. VFR I rarely do except for power indications.

I would probably be the same pilot without that particular exercise, but doing it a few times has helped ingrain the proper IMC mentality: All you got is the panel -- you ready for this?
 
I'm not saying a 0/0 takeoff is a good idea - I'm not saying one should continue the takeoff if they lose sight of the runway - I'm just saying that the exercise gave me the skills to handle a situation. Another tool in the box and I'll be thankful come the day I need it.

Jesse, you're illustrating logic and common sense again. You know those are two items that have no place on internet forums.
 
Interesting thread creep. Go from go arounds to 0/0 takeoffs.

Keep in mind, in the professional world, a 0/0 takeoff is not allowed. At least not in the 121/135 world.
 
I think the whole discussion of 0/0 takeoffs isn't a useful discussion anyway. Even in Williamsport (which tends to get fogged in), a true 0/0 is extremely, extremely rare.
 
Neither are circling approaches,
Really? Which sections of Part 135 and Part 121 prohibit them?

And I never said there was only "One Correct Way" to conduct instrument training, but I will say there are many incorrect ways, and a hooded takeoff is one of them. If you don't believe me, just ask an Inspector at your local FSDO.
 
Really? Which sections of Part 135 and Part 121 prohibit them?

And I never said there was only "One Correct Way" to conduct instrument training, but I will say there are many incorrect ways, and a hooded takeoff is one of them. If you don't believe me, just ask an Inspector at your local FSDO.


An inspector at my local FSDO is in the hangar next to mine. We chat frequently.

Which Air Carriers are doing circling approaches these days?
 
Back
Top