"View Limiting Device" recommendations please
sjo...@gmail.com
I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
limiting device.
I need to wear glasses for reading (charts), but otherwise I see just
fine. I wear progressive lenses (for presbyopia) that vary from a
diopter of 2.5 on the bottom to almost no correction on the top. Most
"devices" only let you see out of the bottom of your glasses, which
works for reading but then the panel is blurry. I have to remove the
entire contraption if I want to see the "runway environment".
I've tried foggles, and a "real" wraparound hood. The hood seems to
work the best, but I get a "crushing" headache from wearing the
headset, hood, and glasses. Maybe it's because it's an old style that
clamps around you head!
I've noticed some alternatives on the market including; Overcasters,
Hoodwinks, and one called Viban.
Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? I would
be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
progressive or bifocal lens glasses.
Thanks!
Steve Job
VH-UNR
they do take a bit of getting used to.
http://www.downunderpilotshop.com.au/ASA_Jiffyhood-p-1171.html
they look stupid, but help greatly
BT
This is what I have always used..
I wear contacts for distant vision, need reader cheaters for charts.
I put the jiffy hood on before the headset, can easily be pushed up on the
forehead when I really need to see outside.
Never had a headache from the hood.
BT
<sjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0216eb-e545-4a00...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ron Garret
<4b0216eb-e545-4a00...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
sjo...@gmail.com wrote:
I once got one of these:
http://www.goodglasses.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/6010/subcati
d/35404/id/296084
cut out rectangular windows in the appropriate places, and wrapped the
rest with masking tape. Worked like a charm, and since you're cutting
the view port yourself you can make it big enough to uncover part of the
distance-viewing portion of your glasses.
You might also try these:
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?DID=19&Product_ID=1446&CATID=172
They are what I use now (but I don't wear bifocals -- yet.)
rg
tscottme
that looks like this http://tinyurl.com/336cwb except that it attached to
the headset rather than were worn like glasses over you ear. I think that
device was called Hoodlamb or something.
--
Scott
Growing corn to make ethanol to fuel a car is like heating your house by
burning money in your fireplace. Yes, it can be done but it makes no
economic sense.
"Ron Garret" <rNOS...@flownet.com> wrote in message
news:rNOSPAMon-14B51...@news.gha.chartermi.net...
B A R R Y
>
> Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood? I would
> be very interested to hear your opinions, especially if you also wear
> progressive or bifocal lens glasses.
Jeppshades fit over my eyeglasses.
I found several flip-down, clip-on versions to be trash.
I would suggest that the frames make more difference on what works and
what doesn't, and the fact that glasses are bifocal or progressive is
irrelevant.
Jim Carter
that had adjustable had straps - looked a lot like a crew O2 mask. I used
one of those for years with folks that had glasses (bifocals back then). The
closest thing I see to that device today is
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/superhood.php
The Sanderson hood was almost 15" long and gave a tunnel view of everything
in the cockpit. I could tell if the student was scanning the panel because
to see everything he or she had to move their head slightly. That was the
only drawback, having such a restricted view. This new one doesn't seem that
narrow however.
--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
<sjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0216eb-e545-4a00...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
akjcbkJA
training or checkrides.
The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
the instructor/examiner a full view.
In practice they are really good as the head is not restricted, there is no
scope to peak either. A bit expensive as they tend to be fitted to
Instrument training aircraft although I have seen some removable versions.
<sjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0216eb-e545-4a00...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
Mark Hansen
> In England, the hood type devices are not allowed for serious instrument
> training or checkrides.
>
> The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
> completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
> the instructor/examiner a full view.
Of course, during instrument training the instructor should take full
responsibility for see and avoid. However, during my training if the
CFII was unable to spot the conflicting aircraft and it was getting close,
I came out from under the hood and looked for it. IMHO, the safety of
the flight was far more important than staying under the hood and not
helping.
Usually, I spotted it within a few seconds and just went back under
the hood.
I wouldn't care for any system that prevented me from being able to
do that.
>
> In practice they are really good as the head is not restricted, there is no
> scope to peak either. A bit expensive as they tend to be fitted to
> Instrument training aircraft although I have seen some removable versions.
>
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
B A R R Y
>
> Of course, during instrument training the instructor should take full
> responsibility for see and avoid. However, during my training if the
> CFII was unable to spot the conflicting aircraft and it was getting close,
> I came out from under the hood and looked for it. IMHO, the safety of
> the flight was far more important than staying under the hood and not
> helping.
Besides the risk of injury or death, you're also PIC.
> Usually, I spotted it within a few seconds and just went back under
> the hood.
>
> I wouldn't care for any system that prevented me from being able to
> do that.
Same here, and I've only had to help twice, but I'm glad we don't have
to completely block the left front corner of the cockpit.
On a side note, the CRM method I set it up with safety pilots and
instructors, as well as suggest when I'm acting as safety pilot, is that
the person looking will also answer the ATC traffic calls themselves.
The flying pilot will still do all the normal IFR radio stuff, but this
simplifies internal cockpit comms.
Mark Hansen
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>> Of course, during instrument training the instructor should take full
>> responsibility for see and avoid. However, during my training if the
>> CFII was unable to spot the conflicting aircraft and it was getting close,
>> I came out from under the hood and looked for it. IMHO, the safety of
>> the flight was far more important than staying under the hood and not
>> helping.
>
> Besides the risk of injury or death, you're also PIC.
Actually, that must be agreed upon before the flight by both the student
and the CFII (assuming the student can act as PIC with regard to FARs).
At the flight school I attended, it was policy that the CFII would be PIC
during dual training flights. Also, I've heard that in such flights, the
CFII would have a hard time denying PIC responsibility in the event of an
incident (although I never actually tested this).
>
>> Usually, I spotted it within a few seconds and just went back under
>> the hood.
>>
>> I wouldn't care for any system that prevented me from being able to
>> do that.
>
> Same here, and I've only had to help twice, but I'm glad we don't have
> to completely block the left front corner of the cockpit.
Amen. I'm not sure I would fly under such circumstances... I guess it's
no different than being in the passenger cabin of a passenger jet.
>
> On a side note, the CRM method I set it up with safety pilots and
> instructors, as well as suggest when I'm acting as safety pilot, is that
> the person looking will also answer the ATC traffic calls themselves.
> The flying pilot will still do all the normal IFR radio stuff, but this
> simplifies internal cockpit comms.
I do the same. It makes good sense.
Robert M. Gary
> I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
> but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
> limiting device.
Boy, you missed being a Billionaire by one letter.
We just talked about this on the Mooney list. They make "old people"
foggles...
http://www.ifrglasses.com/852.html
They're called "Old Foggies" and they incorporate the reading glasses.
-Robert
Robert M. Gary
> In England, the hood type devices are not allowed for serious instrument
> training or checkrides.
>
> The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
> completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
> the instructor/examiner a full view.
If the window is covered up how does the CFII watch for traffic?
Sounds dangerous. Isn't it true too that in the UK you can't get an
instrument rating unless you first have an ATP?
-robert
B A R R Y
>
> Amen. I'm not sure I would fly under such circumstances... I guess it's
> no different than being in the passenger cabin of a passenger jet.
Except they're not doing low level maneuvers and stalls, as is done in
training. <G>
Thomas Borchert
> The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
> completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
> the instructor/examiner a full view.
>
Well, I've seen those contraptions. That last part of your statement I
definitely don't buy. Dangerous! Unnecessary, too.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
sjo...@gmail.com
Thanks to everyone who responded to this query!
My instructor bought a new hood that I tried out last night. It
attached to my head with two loose straps, using velcro to adjust the
length. Very comfortable!
I like the idea of the "Old Foggies" foggles as well. I just wish
they would change the name!
Steve Job
Steve Job
Cary
and progressives. Here is a link to a web site that sells them.
http://www.cfipilot.com/IFR-Training-Hood-for-Headsets-p/hoodlamb.htm
Good luck with your training.
Cary Mariash
On Jan 14, 11:32 pm, sjob...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
> but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
> limiting device.
>
...
C J Campbell
> Have any of you had success with a particular type of hood?
You know, I just like those cheap ASA gray plastic hoods. They work as
well as anything, even with my trifocal glasses.
I don't wrap the elastic around my headset, though. I take off the
headset, put the hood on, and then put the headset back on.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
bjus...@charter.net
IMHO If you use foggles only, you are cheating yourself:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4849
sjo...@gmail.com
I completely agree. No cheating allowed.
I've only been in "actual" a few times. The most interesting was in
winter during a very dark night, with no moon and several layers of
clouds. In between the layers it was pitch black. While in the
clouds, we started to pick up some light rime ice. I could see the AI
start to indicate a left (or right) bank, but it just didn't "feel"
right. The yoke seemed to be almost frozen when I tried to correct
based on the instruments. I just couldn't reconcile my incorrect
feeling of banking left, with the reality of banking right. It took a
tremendous mental effort to make the right control inputs. This had
never happened using a view limiting device.
There is a HUGE difference to me between actual and simulated.
Besides the visual clues (shadows moving etc.), you always have that
"security blanket" of knowing you can remove the device and see the
real horizon whenever you want.
I've been training mostly at night (to eliminate shadows), and I want
the most realistic (and most comfortable) device I can find.
I've only made a few subsequent excursions into the clouds after that
winter night, and that was while I was wearing my hood. It wasn't as
bad as the first time, but I almost preferred to keep the hood
on! ;>)
Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
>
>There is a HUGE difference to me between actual and simulated.
>Besides the visual clues (shadows moving etc.), you always have that
>"security blanket" of knowing you can remove the device and see the
>real horizon whenever you want.
>
>I've been training mostly at night (to eliminate shadows), and I want
>the most realistic (and most comfortable) device I can find.
I find my Jeppshades, while flying over dark ground or water at
night, just as good as actual. I have a bunch of fields in my area
with over water approaches.
C J Campbell
> On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, bjustu...@charter.net wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 12:32 am, sjob...@gmail.com wrote:
>> IMHO If you use foggles only, you are cheating yourself:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4849
>
> I completely agree. No cheating allowed.
>
> I've only been in "actual" a few times.
I invariably become disoriented upon entering actual IMC. For me, I
think that is a good thing, as it forces me to immediately rely on the
instruments. That never happens to me under the hood or using any other
view-limiting device.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, of course, we have plenty of opportunity
to fly in the clouds.
Stubby
unimportant. I was flying with Foggles on and suddenly something went
"wrong". The plane felt funny, it sounded strange and the instruments were
nutty. I muttered something to the CFII but he didn't say anything. The
airspeed was increasing so I cut the power and centered the ball to get the
wings level. Things got back to normal and Mr. CFII took his foot off the
rudder pedal!
<sjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29930e8e-61b5-41cf...@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
bdl...@excite.com
device for IFR training. While flying in a friends airplane, I
noticed his device and tried it on. I immediatly purchased one:
Hoodlamb - attaches to your headset.
http://www.tagpilotsupply.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=359
I have no problems with adjusting it so that I can clearly see the
instruments while wearing my glasses
The only negative is the process of putting it on and off. I have to
remove the headset, then attach it, then put the headset back on. It
does not lend itself to making an IFR approach then transitioning to a
visual approach for the landing.
John
On Jan 14, 11:32 pm, sjob...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've been working on that elusive instrument rating for awhile now,
> but I still haven't come up with a very good solution for my view
> limiting device.
>
> I need to wear glasses for reading (charts), but otherwise I see just
> fine. I wear progressive lenses (for presbyopia) that vary from a
> diopter of 2.5 on the bottom to almost no correction on the top. Most
> "devices" only let you see out of the bottom of your glasses, which
> works for reading but then the panel is blurry. I have to remove the
> entire contraption if I want to see the "runway environment".
>
>
Alan Gerber
> nutty. I muttered something to the CFII but he didn't say anything. The
> airspeed was increasing so I cut the power and centered the ball to get the
> wings level.
How did centering the ball level the wings?
> Things got back to normal and Mr. CFII took his foot off the
> rudder pedal!
How did you center the ball with his foot on the rudder pedal?
... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com
Alan Gerber
> They are what I use now (but I don't wear bifocals -- yet.)
You will. Eventually.
Brad
> In England, the hood type devices are not allowed for serious instrument
> training or checkrides.
>
> The aircraft have to be fitted with a sort of venetian blind which
> completely blocks out the outside world to the trainee/applicant but al lows
> the instructor/examiner a full view.
>
> In practice they are really good as the head is not restricted, there is no
> scope to peak either. A bit expensive as they tend to be fitted to
> Instrument training aircraft although I have seen some removable versions.
Forget spotting traffic...how does the trainee transition to visual
for the landing? Must the instructor land the aircraft? Seems to be
an odd solution.
Morgans
If money were no object, I would give you a totally blacked out view for the
trainee, and perfect vision out for the instructor.
How to do it? Completely coat all windows with a liquid crystal membrane,
and have it hooked up to blink on and off 30 times per second, (or faster)
for half of each cycle. While current is supplied to the membranes, it turns
black, and would allow no light to enter the cockpit.
Fit the trainee with goggles, sealed on the sides, and with liquid crystal
lenses. It would be timed to be clear, only while the plane's windows were
blacked out. The instructor could see out fine, with no lenses on him/her.
This type of thing is already in use for 3-D movies, with one lens blinking,
then the other, with the film showing a left and right frame.
--
Jim in NC
John R. Copeland
>
>
> If money were no object, I would give you a totally blacked out view for the
> trainee, and perfect vision out for the instructor.
>
> How to do it? Completely coat all windows with a liquid crystal membrane,
> and have it hooked up to blink on and off 30 times per second, (or faster)
> for half of each cycle. While current is supplied to the membranes, it turns
> black, and would allow no light to enter the cockpit.
>
> Fit the trainee with goggles, sealed on the sides, and with liquid crystal
> lenses. It would be timed to be clear, only while the plane's windows were
> blacked out. The instructor could see out fine, with no lenses on him/her.
>
> This type of thing is already in use for 3-D movies, with one lens blinking,
> then the other, with the film showing a left and right frame.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
That's extreme overkill, Jim.
I did my instrument training wearing tight-fitting blue goggles,
in a Cessna 172 equipped with amber-colored film on all windows.
It had the "blackout" effect you mentioned, but at very low cost.