Takeoff under the hood?

S

snglecoil

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
210
Location
Charlotte, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Chris
I’m doing a “sanity check ride” with a veteran instructor ahead of my instrument check ride next week. He told me to plan for a takeoff under the hood. I’ve heard of other instructors doing that as well, but my instructor never did one with me. Just curious what the value is? I understand that it is technically legal to do a 0/0 takeoff under part 91, but I can’t imagine ever launching in a situation where you have zero visibility with respect to your alignment on the runway. Is it just to get you on instruments asap after wheels up?
 
It's a good exercise in situational awareness, and it's also good in that it increases your scan. It also teaches how minute changes such as control inputs affect the scan and corrections.
 
This is taught a couple of different ways. One is on the instruments from power application. The other is on the instruments at lift off.

The goal is to minimize the time from VMC to IMC after takeoff. Sometimes what you have on one the end of the runway differs from the other end.
 
You are going to learn to not let the dg slip a few degrees left :)
 
I have done one. I'd say the value is two-fold. One, all the stuff Doc Holiday said above. Two, convinced me I don't ever want to do one for real unless I'm fleeing the zombie apocalypse.
 
I had 2 different CFII's during my IFR training. They both had me do one takeoff under the hood starting at power up. Serious pucker factor. I would never do one for real. They were at least on 150' wide runway.

We did not do one on my check ride.
 
We've done IFR departures down to 600 ft RVR, which in a jet accelerating to 120-150 knots, means you loose runway CL and edge lights pretty fast, and as you begin rotation you are on instruments (you're actually on instruments above 60-80 knots).
 
I've done several, and after the first few, found them to be non-events. I certainly wouldn't likely ever do one in the real world, but even in very thick fog, one can usually see the centerline well enough to keep out of the lights.
 
snglecoil said:
but I can’t imagine ever launching in a situation where you have zero visibility
Click to expand...

Ground fog up to 100AGL, then CAVU above that is usually not a reason for me to cancel a (PT 91) trip. Although returning to the airport because of a plane problem might not be an option. All about risk assessment.

Doing a take off under the hood will keep your scan going to keep situational awareness, that is staying in a straight line along the center line. Even in Alaska under ''zero, zero'' conditions I could see the center line well enough to taxi to parking.
 
As a training evolution these have some value. In the real world they are a good way to paint yourself into a corner. Always leave yourself an out...either be able to shoot an approach at the departure airport or have a good alternate within comfortable range.
 
snglecoil said:
I’m doing a “sanity check ride” with a veteran instructor ahead of my instrument check ride next week. He told me to plan for a takeoff under the hood. I’ve heard of other instructors doing that as well, but my instructor never did one with me. Just curious what the value is? I understand that it is technically legal to do a 0/0 takeoff under part 91, but I can’t imagine ever launching in a situation where you have zero visibility with respect to your alignment on the runway. Is it just to get you on instruments asap after wheels up?
Click to expand...

0/0 landing on a ILS is a similar exercise. It is technically illegal, but has arguably more utility than a 0/0 takeoff in case of an emergency. The argument was that if the aircraft is out of fuel, or some other emergency, as long as you hold the needles perfectly centered, you will hit the pavement somewhere near the 1000 ft markers.
 
snglecoil said:
I’m doing a “sanity check ride” with a veteran instructor ahead of my instrument check ride next week. He told me to plan for a takeoff under the hood. I’ve heard of other instructors doing that as well, but my instructor never did one with me. Just curious what the value is? I understand that it is technically legal to do a 0/0 takeoff under part 91, but I can’t imagine ever launching in a situation where you have zero visibility with respect to your alignment on the runway. Is it just to get you on instruments asap after wheels up?
Click to expand...
I've done it a few times (as an instrument student). To me it makes it very clear why you would not want to do a 0/0 takeoff in real life. Doing it under the hood is anxiety-inducing the first time, but honestly, it's really no big deal. Here's a video of me doing one:

 
Thanks for the responses! I’m not uncomfortable with the immediate transition to instruments, but I must admit, the takeoff roll is going to take a little extra courage. Good thing is that the instructor has a vested interest in success :)
 
Sounds like a really dumb exercise. The number of things that can go wrong and the number of ways they can go wrong seem to far exceed the reward.
 
bflynn said:
Sounds like a really dumb exercise. The number of things that can go wrong and the number of ways they can go wrong seem to far exceed the reward.
Click to expand...

Initially I was thinking the same thing, but the instructor is there to take over if things before things get out of hand. Knowing his experience and having received instruction from him in the past, I trust this guy.

...and to be fair, I did ask him to put me through the wringer to make sure I was ready for the checkride.
 
My instructor did it this way 1) takeoff under the hood, 2) takeoff visual, then put the hood on as soon as you reach 400' agl. It sounds a little goofy, and maybe a little dangerous. But, it does demonstrate the point that it is easier to have your instrument scan established before taking off into IMC, than to be looking outside without a good scan and suddenly penetrate a cloud layer.
 
Done them in helos but never had a CFI that allowed me to do one in an airplane. Done a bunch of actual 0/0 take offs in helos as well. Generally pretty safe but accidents have occurred.

 
Did the Instrument PTS ever have an “instrument takeoff” task? I don’t see anything in he ACS, but it may be a “My instructor did it because his instructor did it because his instructor did it,” kind of thing.
 
We did them as part of a situational plan. I was allowed to see one line on the runway. Could have cheated I guess But didn’t.
He described the simulated conditions Asked questions about taking off. Then when in air simulated different type of urgencies/emergencies with the knowledge of the simulated conditions at field.
Was helpful in learning how to evaluate your outs.
 
I did one in instrument training. While entertaining and affirming the skills necessary were there to do it, it absolutely confirmed that I would never do it in actual conditions. If one needs to get back in a hurry, I have yet to see an approach that can be done in 0/0 conditions with the type of planes we typically fly.
 
I’ve never done or taught an under the hood takeoff. I much preferred doing steep turns under the hood if a student’s scan was sub par.
 
Seems kinda silly, I did it in the no display Fresca sims back when I did my instrument as well as 0/0 landings, but it was more of due it being a sim with no visual window display, first take off would be 0/0 last landing would be 0/0, actually doing a 0/0 takeoff in a real GA airplane that isn’t equipped for anything special seems silly, but as long as he doesn’t waste much time on it, whatever.

Now doing a 0/0 landing, that’s kinda a cool exercise, and in a odd ball emergency situation I guess it COULD happen, never had it happen to me yet.


Personally I carry over most 135 regs into my 91 flying.
 
I have been on one as a passenger, fog so thick we could not see the outboard engine on a C54. Horizontal visibility about 20 feet. The follow me guy walked beside the pilots side, guiding us to the runway, with the pilot leaning out the window to keep him in sight. We reached the runway, he lined us up on center line, then walked aft. The runway edge lights came up to max, the engines revved, and we were on our way.

We broke out into a cloudless sky , and the only terrestrial feature in sight was the very top of the Eiffel tower. We could now see the outboard engines, and I won the bet. Transatlantic military passenger flights were always 4 engine by 1958.

If I had known that we were going to depart without waiting for better conditions, I believe I would have been AWOL, but the reality is,loss of one engine would not stop continued flight, and if I am going to consider loss of two, crossing the ocean in an airplane is out.
 
It is a reasonably common training tool that CFIIs use. It is not a checkride item. It is almost more a test of situational awareness than just how you are on instruments.
 
I have departed at night and thought it would be interesting if the lights went out during the takeoff. Night ops can be more challenging than IMC. Even the worst of my IMC departures I could still make out about 50 to 100 feet.
 
I don't think I would do it. One, I won't do it in the real. I'm not quite that adventurous/foolhardy to take off into something I can't come back and land in. The other is I could see swinging the Johnson bar causing spatial disorientation.
 
steingar said:
I don't think I would do it. One, I won't do it in the real. I'm not quite that adventurous/foolhardy to take off into something I can't come back and land in. The other is I could see swinging the Johnson bar causing spatial disorientation.
Click to expand...

If you are doing a low visibility take off in actual, wouldn't it be prudent to delat the raising of the landing gear on your airplane if you thought that doing so would induce spatial disorientation?
 
Done in training. Done for real. Beautiful sunny drive out to the airport - which sits right near the river. Waited 30 mins or so, and the fog is not burning off. I hear guys on the radio above saying they can't see the airport but can see everything around it. We're getting toward the "must launch" time. I can see one stripe on the runway ahead. Rotate and I don't even have time to count 2 mississippis before I'm blind from the sun hitting the top of the fog, and then right after that we are out into CAVU. Everything from Michigan to Indy was crystal clear and some of the best visibility of non winter months I can remember - except every pond, lake, river, etc had about 50-100' thick fog on it the entire flight down. Finally burned off in the afternoon. Came home, and then had oil all over the windscreen for the last 10 mins of the flight...

Would do near 0/0 again without hesitation.
 
Doc Holliday said:
If you are doing a low visibility take off in actual, wouldn't it be prudent to delat the raising of the landing gear on your airplane if you thought that doing so would induce spatial disorientation?
Click to expand...
The problem is once the airplane has lots of energy, raising the gear is far harder. I do it right after the wheels come up, when I know I'm climbing. I will never take off at 0/0. What if something goes wrong with the aircraft? Can't come back and land. No way, no how. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's either safe or a good idea.
 
steingar said:
The problem is once the airplane has lots of energy, raising the gear is far harder. I do it right after the wheels come up, when I know I'm climbing. I will never take off at 0/0. What if something goes wrong with the aircraft? Can't come back and land. No way, no how. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's either safe or a good idea.
Click to expand...

Can't slow the plane down at a higher altitude to retract the gear?

As explained above by EdFred, there are situations where the low visibility TO makes sense.
 
steingar said:
The problem is once the airplane has lots of energy, raising the gear is far harder. I do it right after the wheels come up, when I know I'm climbing. I will never take off at 0/0. What if something goes wrong with the aircraft? Can't come back and land. No way, no how. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's either safe or a good idea.
Click to expand...

What if something goes wrong at 6Y9? Welcome to the trees.
 
snglecoil said:
I’m doing a “sanity check ride” with a veteran instructor ahead of my instrument check ride next week. He told me to plan for a takeoff under the hood. I’ve heard of other instructors doing that as well, but my instructor never did one with me. Just curious what the value is? I understand that it is technically legal to do a 0/0 takeoff under part 91, but I can’t imagine ever launching in a situation where you have zero visibility with respect to your alignment on the runway. Is it just to get you on instruments asap after wheels up?
Click to expand...
"Train like you fly and fly like you train," was the motto of Simuflight, IIRC, so you'd only practice this for life and death situations, like getting the vaccine to Nome when even the dogs can't find the trail. Is there a training benefit? Nah.
 
Clip4 said:
The goal is to minimize the time from VMC to IMC after takeoff. Sometimes what you have on one the end of the runway differs from the other end.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean like a deer standing on the centerline?
 
I didn't notice, have the advocates here mentioned their minimum runway width for conducting this procedure in real life (not just during CAVU training weather)? Seems to me it would be pretty important.
 
dtuuri said:
"Train like you fly and fly like you train," was the motto of Simuflight, IIRC, so you'd only practice this for life and death situations, like getting the vaccine to Nome when even the dogs can't find the trail. Is there a training benefit? Nah.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I was given this training. Later on in life I was flying 121 and we were authorized 600RVR take off minimums. Lining up on a runway with 600 RVR gives about 3 centerline lights ahead reference and barely the runway edge lights. Accerlerating down the runway the visibility reduced even more, and the rotation is clearly on the gauges.

So the training does have merit. Also, as previously stated, there are times in part 91 it's beneficial.
 
snglecoil said:
Thanks for the responses! I’m not uncomfortable with the immediate transition to instruments, but I must admit, the takeoff roll is going to take a little extra courage. Good thing is that the instructor has a vested interest in success :)
Click to expand...

I think the transition to instruments is often a bigger deal than many new instrument pilots give it credit for. I personally prefer to wear the hood or foggles to simulate the reduced visiablity and watch the runway and then switch to instruments as you rotate. As mentioned under most situations you will at least be able to see the center line or a runway edge light or two. But it was also mentioned a situation I hadn't really thought about is that in low visiblity as you build speed you might lose these references and have to switch to instruments even before you rotate.

Brian
 
Doc Holliday said:
...there are times in part 91 it's beneficial.
Click to expand...
Before

After
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=g5K3RuC4a3I&usg=AOvVaw1BYYRYVgI5s9xfnsj5wKAp
Part 121 you've got TWO slaved magnetic indicators in front of TWO pilots. Which isn't going to help you much if there's a deer in the landing lights, btw. PArt 91 is more likely to have just one (inexperienced) pilot with one cheap, unslaved and precessing DG that may or may not be aligned with the runway centerline (too foggy to really tell).
 
dtuuri said:
Before

After
Part 121 you've got TWO slaved magnetic indicators in front of TWO pilots. Which isn't going to help you much if there's a deer in the landing lights, btw. PArt 91 is more likely to have just one (inexperienced) pilot with one cheap, unslaved and precessing DG that may or may not be aligned with the runway centerline (too foggy to really tell).
Click to expand...

Your missing the point. I'm not comparing 121 to part 91.

And I'm not here to convince anyone who doesn't want to do a low visibility take off to go do it. It's worked for me (part 91) and I did it routinely part 121.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top