Simulated IFR without a hood

[labbadabba]

Had an instructor advise me not to use the hood on a long IFR x/c. I questioned whether or not I could log it as instrument time and he said as long as I'm flying using the instruments as my reference then I could log it as Simulated Instrument.

Now, I know that I was using the instruments to keep my course and was attempting to do my scan as if I were in actual conditions but the fact of the matter is that even with my chin on my chest staring at the instruments under the glareshield I could still perceive what was happening outside the aircraft. Because of this, I really didn't have to focus on avoiding an unusual attitude scenario and I certainly didn't have to worry about Spacial Disorientation.

I'm still fairly early on in my instrument training but did I just do myself a disservice?

 

[midlifeflyer]

"''Simulated' instrument conditions' occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles." That's the FAA Chief Counsel way back in 1984.

If your CFII really said you can log simulated instrument time just because you used the instruments, he was incorrect. I recall this piece of misinformation was very popular at one time. Probably where your CFI got it. I recall one CFII telling me years go that all I had to do was look down.

The legalities aside, yeah, I don't think you need anyone to tell you you did yourself a disservice in terms of your readiness for real, solid, instrument conditions.

 

[Jaybird180]

What Mark Said

 

[EdFred]

Had an instructor advise me not to use the hood on a long IFR x/c. I questioned whether or not I could log it as instrument time and he said as long as I'm flying using the instruments as my reference then I could log it as Simulated Instrument.

Now, I know that I was using the instruments to keep my course and was attempting to do my scan as if I were in actual conditions but the fact of the matter is that even with my chin on my chest staring at the instruments under the glareshield I could still perceive what was happening outside the aircraft. Because of this, I really didn't have to focus on avoiding an unusual attitude scenario and I certainly didn't have to worry about Spacial Disorientation.

I'm still fairly early on in my instrument training but did I just do myself a disservice?

Disservice - absolutely. However, 61.65 does not say how the instrument time is to be simulated in an airplane, nor does it say a student must wear a view limiting device except if you were in an aviation training device 61.65(i)

Instrument training should only be done in actual or at night - this eliminates 'cheating.'

 

[midlifeflyer]

Disservice - absolutely. However, 61.65 does not say how the instrument time is to be simulated in an airplane, nor does it say a student must wear a view limiting device except if you were in an aviation training device 61.65(i)

Instrument training should only be done in actual or at night - this eliminates 'cheating.'

Actually the view limiting device language appears in other places, like instrument currency regs and the instrument training requirement for the commercial certificate.

At one time it didn't. I think it was added precisely because of the nonsense I referred to earlier. They somehow forgot to add it to 61.51, which would have solved it in one shot, and to 61.65, perhaps figuring that they could at least rely on CFIs to get it right (silly FAA!).

 

[James331]

Disservice - absolutely. However, 61.65 does not say how the instrument time is to be simulated in an airplane, nor does it say a student must wear a view limiting device except if you were in an aviation training device 61.65(i)

Instrument training should only be done in actual or at night - this eliminates 'cheating.'

That.

 

[jaybee]

I don't know how big of disservice it actually is since I can still accidentally see outside references with foggles on, I would say its an integrity thing more than anything but Mark did cite a reference also.

its especially laughable flying partial panel and you look up to the top of the dash for the whiskey compass or to one up that even in the R44 helicopter the vertical card compass is at the top of the canopy, it would be virtually impossible to not cheat in those situations.

 

[EdFred]

Actually the view limiting device language appears in other places, like instrument currency regs and the instrument training requirement for the commercial certificate.

At one time it didn't. I think it was added precisely because of the nonsense I referred to earlier. They somehow forgot to add it to 61.51, which would have solved it in one shot, and to 61.65, perhaps figuring that they could at least rely on CFIs to get it right (silly FAA!).

Oh, I know the FAA has their head you know where when it comes to writing regs, so there's the letter and the spirit. That said, I've used a baseball hat for myself many times as a VLD. What's interesting is I could not find view limiting device or simulated instrument defined in 1.1

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh, I know the FAA has their head you know where when it comes to writing regs, so there's the letter and the spirit. That said, I've used a baseball hat for myself many times as a VLD. What's interesting is I could not find view limiting device or simulated instrument defined in 1.1

I agree there's no formal definition or (potentially worse) certification of view-limiting devices. Sometimes it's just English and the spirit is the letter. Y'know, like a "view limiting device" is a "device" that "limits" one's "view."

I haven't done the baseball cap thing alone but the manila "Best IFR Hood" is a pretty good example of hood creativity.

 

[frfly172]

Wish it where true,then you wouldn't need a safety pilot. My long instrument cross country was a real pain due to wearing goggles for the entire time.

 

[labbadabba]

"''Simulated' instrument conditions' occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles." That's the FAA Chief Counsel way back in 1984.

If your CFII really said you can log simulated instrument time just because you used the instruments, he was incorrect. I recall this piece of misinformation was very popular at one time. Probably where your CFI got it. I recall one CFII telling me years go that all I had to do was look down.

The legalities aside, yeah, I don't think you need anyone to tell you you did yourself a disservice in terms of your readiness for real, solid, instrument conditions.

Thanks - this was my feeling as well. After my first leg, I donned the hood (Best Hood manila folder thingy) and obviously the flight became much more challenging. I'll admit that I was sort of put off by his suggestion, afterall, I do view IR training as building life-saving skills not just meeting regs. So I told him it's my ass if I don't know how to handle SD.

So as a follow-up, should I adjust my log accordingly? You pointed out that under Part 61 it's technically not defined what it means to fly by instrument reference. I did do my best not to cheat but in a DA40 it's pretty hard to limit your view even with the hood....

 

[Kritchlow]

Did mine at night. Some was above a layer. Without flying by reference to the instruments it may not have ended well. That said, I could see and used no view limiting apparatus.

Was I legal?

 

[Kritchlow]

That was 1986 if that matters.

 

[EdFred]

Did mine at night. Some was above a layer. Without flying by reference to the instruments it may not have ended well. That said, I could see and used no view limiting apparatus.

Was I legal?

Why would actual instrument conditions need to also be simulated?

 

[Kritchlow]

Why would actual instrument conditions need to also be simulated?

That was pretty much my question. Wasn't sure if the the Feds, or more importantly the POA police, would consider that actual. As I alluded to, some was night VMC.

 

[EdFred]

That was pretty much my question. Wasn't sure if the the Feds, or more importantly the POA police, would consider that actual. As I alluded to, some was night VMC.

You can be in VMC and actual. Moonless night, no ground lights...

 

[flyingron]

Did mine at night. Some was above a layer. Without flying by reference to the instruments it may not have ended well. That said, I could see and used no view limiting apparatus.

The FAA says that if the visibility conditions are such that you have to fly on instruments to keep right side up, then that is ACTUAL instrument conditions and loggable as instrument time even if legal VFR.

Why would actual instrument conditions need to also be simulated?

In this case not, but that raises the point of "if I have the foggles on in actual do I need a safety pilot," which I contend is still yes.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks - this was my feeling as well. After my first leg, I donned the hood (Best Hood manila folder thingy) and obviously the flight became much more challenging. I'll admit that I was sort of put off by his suggestion, afterall, I do view IR training as building life-saving skills not just meeting regs. So I told him it's my ass if I don't know how to handle SD.

So as a follow-up, should I adjust my log accordingly? You pointed out that under Part 61 it's technically not defined what it means to fly by instrument reference. I did do my best not to cheat but in a DA40 it's pretty hard to limit your view even with the hood....

It's "technically not defined" only in the sense that the FAR definition of "simulated instrument conditions" in 61.51's instrument "box" does not use the words "view limiting device."

But there is plenty in Part 61 (including the dozen or so times the phrase is used) and other regulatory and guidance documents to give us a pretty good idea that's exactly what it means.

I can't tell you what to do with this information.

 

[James331]

Thanks - this was my feeling as well. After my first leg, I donned the hood (Best Hood manila folder thingy) and obviously the flight became much more challenging. I'll admit that I was sort of put off by his suggestion, afterall, I do view IR training as building life-saving skills not just meeting regs. So I told him it's my ass if I don't know how to handle SD.

So as a follow-up, should I adjust my log accordingly? You pointed out that under Part 61 it's technically not defined what it means to fly by instrument reference. I did do my best not to cheat but in a DA40 it's pretty hard to limit your view even with the hood....

Regardless of the hood.

If you were cheating, change your log

If you were trying to fly off instruments, leave your log alone.

 

[vancinad]

I don't know how big of disservice it actually is since I can still accidentally see outside references with foggles on...

When I took my IFR checkride the examiner explicitly proscribed the use of "foggles". I hear a lot of people agree they're not nearly restrictive enough.

 

[Henning]

Had an instructor advise me not to use the hood on a long IFR x/c. I questioned whether or not I could log it as instrument time and he said as long as I'm flying using the instruments as my reference then I could log it as Simulated Instrument.

Now, I know that I was using the instruments to keep my course and was attempting to do my scan as if I were in actual conditions but the fact of the matter is that even with my chin on my chest staring at the instruments under the glareshield I could still perceive what was happening outside the aircraft. Because of this, I really didn't have to focus on avoiding an unusual attitude scenario and I certainly didn't have to worry about Spacial Disorientation.

I'm still fairly early on in my instrument training but did I just do myself a disservice?

I would not log any time or approaches without a safety pilot as Simulated IFR. You can practice and maintain proficiency by mentally shifting into IFR mode, but I only do it when on FF with no traffic showing or reported. Long night cross countries I often shift into IFR mode, and may ask for a practice approach and fly it; but I don't log any of it.

 

[Hank S]

When I took my IFR checkride the examiner explicitly proscribed the use of "foggles". I hear a lot of people agree they're not nearly restrictive enough.

I showed my homemade foggles to my DPE. He wasn't impressed until he put them on.

Buy cheap $2 "visitor" safety glasses. Sit in the plane, trace the outline of the panel with a sharpie on the glasses. Put masking tape on the INSIDE of the glasses along this line, and cover everything really well. Then sandblast the inside. Instant cloud!

Or you can pay $25-$30 for some storebought ones with "texture" on the outside. These will work well until you drop them and scratch the texture; these will become a blinding starburst every time you fly towards or turn across the sun . . . Make them like I did, you can scratch the outside all you want, the texture is on the protected inside.

 

[Hank S]

I would not log any time or approaches without a safety pilot as Simulated IFR. You can practice and maintain proficiency by mentally shifting into IFR mode, but I only do it when on FF with no traffic showing or reported. Long night cross countries I often shift into IFR mode, and may ask for a practice approach and fly it; but I don't log any of it.

You're supposed to record the NAME of your safety pilot in your logbook for your Simulated instrument time, so flying Simulated IMC solo is a moot question.