IR Training - hooded (0/0) takeoff

[ejensen]

Bill's post on a tough IR training flight reminded me of a question I've had everytime it comes up. Rather than steal his tread, I'll start a new topic.

What training value is there is a hooded takeoff? I never did one during training (or since), my instructor didn't believe in them. She felt if you couldn't see a few strips on the runway you shouldn't be flying. Other CFIIs obviously differ and find some value in the manuver. What say you?

 

[Bill]

Bill's post on a tough IR training flight reminded me of a question I've had everytime it comes up. Rather than steal his tread, I'll start a new topic.

What training value is there is a hooded takeoff? I never did one during training (or since), my instructor didn't believe in them. She felt if you couldn't see a few strips on the runway you shouldn't be flying. Other CFIIs obviously differ and find some value in the manuver. What say you?

Obviously not a CFII, but I'm with you, why in the world would you do this? Even if it was a low level layer with VFR on top, what if you had some kind of post takeoff emergency that required return to the (or a nearby) field.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Bill's post on a tough IR training flight reminded me of a question I've had everytime it comes up. Rather than steal his tread, I'll start a new topic.

What training value is there is a hooded takeoff? I never did one during training (or since), my instructor didn't believe in them. She felt if you couldn't see a few strips on the runway you shouldn't be flying. Other CFIIs obviously differ and find some value in the manuver. What say you?

1. They're too much fun NOT to practice while the II is on board.

2. The only training value I could ever see for doing hooded 0/0 T.O. was in prep for the super-rare superemergency which found the IR PIC needing to takeoff from an actual 0/0 field to save someone's life and who's life could not otherwise be saved by staying on the ground at that actual 0/0 field. Could happen in Alaska out in some of the wide open off airport spaces and other places up there we've landed but in the eternal risk/gamble commitment, an engine out on T.O. could of course mean injuries or death for all, or worse.

 

[Bill]

2. The only training value I could ever see was in prep for the superemergency which found the IR PIC needing to takeoff from a 0/0 field to save someone's life

Ah, Dr. Bruce's tribe of wild Zulu

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Ah, Dr. Bruce's tribe of wild Zulu

Yes, possibly to save a tribe of wild Zulu but, not for the tame Zulu, because the actual 0/0 takeoff itself would kill them.

 

[EdFred]

Or the Horvido tribe is after you. (Sorry, Ron, I beat ya to it. )

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We did these in the Army. While we might have cause to actually need to perform one in the case of a combat emergency, it was more of a confidence builder. We also did under the hood landings. Once you sucessfully performed several of these, landing when conditions were at minimums and taking off with minimum legal visibility was much less stressful.

We also disassembled and reassembled our weapons blindfolded in Special Forces training to practice for the time a weapon might malfunction at night. Same principal--you know where everything is and can perform under the most rigorous conditions. Normal conditions become much less stressful.

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

The Horvidos Indians and the Viet Cong aside, there are times when you are launching from an airport without on-site weather capability (ASOS, etc) where you don't really know what the ceiling/visibility are until you're in it. You may well be surprised someday to see the windshield go white on rotation, and the zero-zero takeoff is the only way to prepare for that.

Now, you're never going to head down the runway without being able to see far enough ahead at least to steer on the ground, so releasing brakes with the hood on isn't realistic (if you can't see the centerline, the Horvidos can't see you). But historically, hoods were not designed so you could flip them up and down the way modern devices like the Jeppshades do. With those modern devices, I'd have the trainee flip it down (or I'd reach over and do it) at rotation rather than do the old fashioned "set the DG and keep it steady" game. But that maneuver (simulated IMC at rotation) has realistic benefit even if you never catch a charter for Indiana Jones or an airlift mission out of the A Shau Valley.

 

[Bill]

But historically, hoods were not designed so you could flip them up and down the way modern devices like the Jeppshades do. With those modern devices, I'd have the trainee flip it down (or I'd reach over and do it) at rotation rather than do the old fashioned "set the DG and keep it steady" game.

I'll bring that up with my doubleeye, as I do use Jeppshades. Thanks, Ron!

Keeping that DG steady was tough.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Bill's post on a tough IR training flight reminded me of a question I've had everytime it comes up. Rather than steal his tread, I'll start a new topic.

What training value is there is a hooded takeoff? I never did one during training (or since), my instructor didn't believe in them. She felt if you couldn't see a few strips on the runway you shouldn't be flying. Other CFIIs obviously differ and find some value in the manuver. What say you?

I remember hearing from one IR pilot that landed routinely at low tide on one of the many very wide, Pacific NW ocean beaches in BC while the fog bank lay offshore about 3 miles as it had been for a few days, which is quite common in the summer and fall.

Of course the pea soup fog had then rolled in before he could break camp and take off VFR so, instead of saltwater and airplane on the beach tumbling in the surf for who knows how many tide cycles, he took off in actual 0/0 by using the DG method, judging that the odds of engine failure were not significant enough against the nearly certain odds of saltwater totaling the avionics at the least.

 

[Aztec Driver]

It's also good for showing the not so brilliant that a 0/0 roll down the runway is not too easy and not too smart.

 

[waldo]

Not a CFI, just an IR pilot but I think the purpose is to practise "beyond" what you would normally do so that you will feel more confident when you are in the plane all by yourself with say 1 mile and 1000' overcast.

By the way, I ALWAYS setup an approach before takeoff. Example: Take off on 4R so I setup the ILS 22L.

 

[gismo]

I posted on this very subject in Bill's original thread before noticing this one. As I said there, I believe that CFiI's should be careful to point out that this is a training/confidence builder to be done only under simulated conditions with a CFI(I) on board. The real life application of this technique could too easily lead to a real death situation. Even if it were the only way to save an airplane from the surf, I think I'd pass under most circumstances.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I posted on this very subject in Bill's original thread before noticing this one. As I said there, I believe that CFiI's should be careful to point out that this is a training/confidence builder to be done only under simulated conditions with a CFI(I) on board. The real life application of this technique could too easily lead to a real death situation. Even if it were the only way to save an airplane from the surf, I think I'd pass under most circumstances.

"Even if it were the only way to save an airplane from the surf, I think I'd pass under most circumstances."

A very straightforwardly stated but wishy-washy statement IMO ! IOW, "Yada, yada, yada, it's too dangerous and I THINK I'd pass under MOST circumstances."

 

[Eamon]

I think you should never fly in IMC.. It is way too dangerous.

Why do they even have an IR add on anyway?

Why have any gauges?

Why do we spend all this money for ILSs at airports?

Why did I spend 6,ooo$ on instrument training?

 

[gismo]

A very straightforwardly stated but wishy-washy statement IMO ! IOW, "Yada, yada, yada, it's too dangerous and I THINK I'd pass under MOST circumstances."

What can I say? I guess I have a little trouble saying absolutely never and felt this might have been one of those times where you had to be there in person to fully appreciate the situation. There's 0/0 and then there's ZERO!/ZERO! I was thinking along the lines of miles of uninhabited beach, a slow airplane, and enough visibility to be able to avoid hitting something.

 

[grattonja]

I demonstrated one of these for my IR checkride. In fact, it was how the checkride started. "you are going to do a 0/0 departure. You cannot fail this, as it is not required, but it is good to know what it feels like to take off without seeing anything." Set DG to runway heading, keep it centered, and try to stay right on it. Fortunately, I "passed" this part, because I had done one on my final stage check. It is darned hard and I will never try a 0/0 departure in real weather.

The rest of the checkride seemed a lot easier after this was done. It was a real confidence builder to get the plane off without coming off the runway or needing DE input.

Jim G

 

[Everskyward]

What training value is there is a hooded takeoff? I never did one during training (or since), my instructor didn't believe in them. She felt if you couldn't see a few strips on the runway you shouldn't be flying.

I agree with your instructor. You have to be able to see something. If you can't see anything at all like when you're under the hood, how are you going to get out to the runway? Should we be practicing taxiing under the hood too?

I think being under the hood can simulate some things OK but a low visibility situation isn't one of them. Even on landing, popping the hood off at minimums and making the landing is quite a bit different than actually landing with limited visibility since you can see clearly when you take the hood off unlike the real situation.

 

[Bill]

Even on landing, popping the hood off at minimums and making the landing is quite a bit different than actually landing with limited visibility since you can see clearly when you take the hood off unlike the real situation.

Hmmm. So, maybe a set of glasses with an internal LCD or similar membrane (like plasma TV?) sandwiched into the lenses. uP controlled, with adjustable visibiliy, maybe controllable by the II's laptop or PDA.

Haze, fog, rain? Just hit the right button, while the instrument viewing portion stays clear

Hi-tech foggles, why not when people snap up $1k headsets...

 

[Everskyward]

Hi-tech foggles, why not when people snap up $1k headsets...

LOL, I didn't say I had a solution other than going up in low visibility in a supervised setting or trying a multi-million dollar simulator.

 

[Bill]

LOL, I didn't say I had a solution other than going up in low visibility in a supervised setting or trying a multi-million dollar simulator.

I was just thinking of ways to try and make my first million

 

[Everskyward]

I was just thinking of ways to try and make my first million

Good plan if you can pull it off!

 

[poadeleted20]

I demonstrated one of these for my IR checkride. In fact, it was how the checkride started. "you are going to do a 0/0 departure. You cannot fail this, as it is not required, but it is good to know what it feels like to take off without seeing anything."

That's one of those "maverick" examiners. Doing something on the practical test that isn't part of the PTS is hanging his butt out a mile and strongly discouraged by the FAA. Imagine what would happen if your went off the runway while attempting this -- you bust the check (an accident is an automatic bust), the FSDO Inspector investigating the accident asks you why you as PIC agreed to this, and they pull the examiner's designation. Bad news all around.

From the Examiner's Handbook, FAA Order 8710.3D, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2:

"Examiners must conduct the practical test using a written plan of action developed from the Examiner Test Guide (Figure 5-1) and appropriate practical test standards (PTS). The examiner must conduct the practical test in accordance with (IAW) the appropriate regulations, PTS, operating limitations of the aircraft, and procedures prescribed in the aircraft flight manual (AFM). Examiners must not use, or ask the applicant to use, procedures contrary to those specified by the AFM. Under no circumstances may an examiner intentionally allow an applicant to violate a regulation, fail to comply with an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or create a potentially hazardous situation. Practical tests not conducted IAW the applicable PTS, regulations, and safe operating practices may be invalid and may be grounds for termination of the examiner’s designation."

 

[Ken Ibold]

That's one of those "maverick" examiners. Doing something on the practical test that isn't part of the PTS is hanging his butt out a mile and strongly discouraged by the FAA.

I ran into the same thing. I had never done one in training -- in fact it had never actually occurred to me that one would do such a thing -- and then the examiner asked me to do it on my first takeoff of the checkride. Being young and stupid, I agreed. And I certainly did not sneak a peak out the left side of the foggles to keep me on the runway.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What can I say? I guess I have a little trouble saying absolutely never and felt this might have been one of those times where you had to be there in person to fully appreciate the situation. There's 0/0 and then there's ZERO!/ZERO! I was thinking along the lines of miles of uninhabited beach, a slow airplane, and enough visibility to be able to avoid hitting something.

That's dissecting one of the possible 0/0 TO scenarios a little better I'd say...