Simulating IMC:

[Cat Driver]

In (Canadian) french, we have an expression that I would translate as "If the hat fits you; wear it" (I don't know if there is something similar in English). That could explain why some people *feel* being attacked.

Humans can only tolerate a small dose of reality at once. And when confronted to a larger dose; they try to shoot the messenger.

Which is as easy as a dog licking nuts on these forums.

The bottom line is I at least speak my mind and do so based on my background in aviation.

I didn't live this long and fly in all the countries I have without having learned a few things that only experience teaches.

[fish4life]

Cat, you know I have a tremendous amount of respect for you its just I guess how you said it.

Even if someone has an open mind and does like so called "out of the box" idea's and takes advice from much more experienced pilots their wage will still be frozen at near poverty wages, nothing an instructor can do short of starting their own FTU will change the wages they make. The reason the wages are frozen at the near poverty level is the relatively low requirements from transport to be an instructor, maybe if transport required all instructors to have a few thousand hours of real world flying then the wages would be forced up. Although that's another topic all together. But I guess that's why I deemed it to be more of a personal attack on instructors cat.

Part of the problem may be I am not suited for this type of communication mode..internet communication.

Yet another reason why I'd like to meet you in person and learn a ton. I do believe much of a message is lost in translation on internet forums. If I remember right from some of those training videos on the emphasis on proper atc terminology the actual words of a message are only about 10% of what the person is trying to say, the tone of their voice and facial expressions account for much more of the real message. I would think that an internet forum probably gets that down to about 5% of the true message gets translated properly into typed words on a forum.

[Beefitarian]

The Two Stage Amber system had been discussed more than 3 years ago.

You will even find some pictures there.

Post subject: Two Stage Amber
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=31749&view=next

Ok let's take a look.

Sorry to reply to myself, but for those who are curious I found a couple pictures of two-stage amber. These are of an RAF trainer that had some permanent amber screens installed in the peripheral and roof windows, with removable amber screens for the front windshield.





It doesn't look like the visibility is too bad when you're in the plane, but I've just read an account of training using two stage amber that says once under the blue goggles the experience is very claustrophobic and unpleasant. Perhaps it was student demand that killed two stage amber? I'm personally the kind of person who prefers an extra challenge if it makes me a better pilot (its the same reason I took tailwheel training) so I don't really understand it disappearing completely though.

[Beefitarian]

I know I'm the newb retard here but this is fact.

I do believe much of a message is lost in translation on internet forums. If I remember right from some of those training videos on the emphasis on proper atc terminology the actual words of a message are only about 10% of what the person is trying to say, the tone of their voice and facial expressions account for much more of the real message. I would think that an internet forum probably gets that down to about 5% of the true message gets translated properly into typed words on a forum.

I have a couple thousand hours on forums and that's how it works.

Maybe we should put on some happy music while reading avcanada.

[Cat Driver]

It doesn't look like the visibility is too bad when you're in the plane, but I've just read an account of training using two stage amber that says once under the blue goggles the experience is very claustrophobic and unpleasant.

Interesting, I guess everyone experiences different physical and or mental changes when doing anything that is a new experience.......maybe they felt claustrophobic because just like flying in IMC conditions one has no outside reference to fly by?

What would the difference be between wearing brown or Grey or amber sunglasses and wearing blue tinted ones? Is blue claustrophobic?

Having flown with two stage amber many hours I never had any effect from the blue glasses except I couldn't see anything outside the airplane....sort of like flying in cloud........

[KK7]

What you are suggesting is I should sugar coat the issue rather than point out the obvious?

No, not sugar coating things is part of what makes reading your posts and/or advice so great. But what I'm saying is that maybe you shouldn't word it so it blames me along with the rest of my colleagues in the industry ... basically everyone but you. I can filter this kind of stuff out, and it doesn't get to me, but maybe this is why people have such pointed negative responses to some of the stuff you say. I just find that the way you write things, or some of the comments you sneak in the middle of some really great stuff makes some people feel like you're blaming everyone else for the world's problems, except for yourself. There is a way to say the same thing without putting down people.

Usually, if someone feels like they are being put down and blamed for things they didn't do, they just walk away much like you're saying you're going to do in the flight training forum, or they fight back.

I want to say again that I mean this with the utmost respect for you Cat, I want to keep reading your input and I hope the responses of a couple of people don't drive you away.

[Posthumane]

I think the claustrophobia comes from not being able to see outside rather than the blue glasses, but of course that is the point. Not everyone is prone to claustrophobia, in fact most people probably aren't, but for those that are it is probably better to experience it in a training environment rather than in actual IMC alone. The fact that the use of the amber produces that effect in some people is probably a good reason to keep using it, rather than to stop.

That being said, I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Almost everyone said that although they haven't used the system, it is probably much better than the other "vision limiting devices" such as hood and foggles. So why are people getting upset? Others have pointed out that sims nowadays can replicate IFR conditions even better than the amber can, and that is true to a point, though there is obviously some feel missing unless you have a full motion sim.

The issue then is why don't people use the two stage amber? I think the answer lies in the CARs reference I posted - windows transmitting less than 70% light are not allowed and I think this would include any film/coating on them. Whether the regulation is useful or not, it is there for better or worse. That may not seem all that restrictive at first glance, but 70% tinting (of any colour) is almost clear. Eyes sense light on a close-to-logarithmic scale, which means you need to get down into the sub 20% transmittance level for the tint to really be noticeable.

I'll take a peak around and see what I can find online for amber window tint film, perhaps there is something that would still be usable for this system.

[Grantmac]

., PM sent.

[Big Pistons Forever]

And while we are on the whole training digression, when I learned to do IFR, my sim was done in a link trainer. Anybody who does not think the current FTD's and Sims are not better needs to get a grip on reality. The new generation of sims provides excellent simulation for IFR training, and a student does not have to get into the airplane until they are comfortable and competent in basic flying, procedures, and abnormal events.. A serious and welcome improvement on IFR training, in my opinion.


To get back to the original topic..Amber...shmaber...The new sims do it all, and when you get in the airplane it should not be about keeping it right side up.

.

+ 1

[Hedley]

I just find that the way you write things, or some of the comments you sneak in the middle of some really great stuff makes some people feel like you're blaming everyone else for the world's problems

Weird - I've never gotten that vibe from any of .'s posts.

I have been fortunate enough to have learned from some very experienced pilots. Some of them were gruff, grumpy fighter pllots - hell, one of them was my father - and let me tell you, they didn't spend much time stroking your ego, or "stuffing butter up your @ss", as the old saying goes.

They might not have spent much time stroking my ego, but they taught me things that have kept me alive all these decades, which I think is probably more important than having your ego stroked.

I taught my kid to fly. He's a heluva stick. And you can bet he weathered a mountain of abuse in the process. He didn't get much "butter stuffed up his @ss" in the process.

This need for constant ego stroking grows tiresome, people. I can only imagine some people here, in a few of the really nasty, unpleasant corporate political situations that I have endured. You would be eaten alive and spit out by noon on your first day.

[Cat Driver]

What percentage of FTU's have suitable flight simulators available?

[zed]

I had never heard of this system of IFR training until Cat brought it up, so thanks Cat. Myself, personally I think it sounds brilliant. When I tried to find some scientific material to increase my knowledge and maybe answer his question, I was pretty much stumped. I'm sure there must be some stuff, but its quite dated, and is almost certainly not available electronically. But I did find one article discussing a bit about the subject. Its attached as a pdf.

Dual_Amber.pdf

(696.51 KiB) Downloaded 51 times

And while I understand the legal limitations in CARs that would probably preclude its use, a limitation that probably makes sense if you ever take some time to look at how badly some folk tint their car windows. However, with some restrictions, I would question whether it really is safer not too use this manner of vision blocking.

My argument would be, what tinting is allowed for pilot sunglasses? As far as I know TC hasn't got a standard... Not that I would want them too. I'm just saying that it should be acceptable to use this training during VFR if the instructor does not himself wear sunglasses. Essentially any loss of light/vision would be commensurate with the current aviation practices in terms of sunglasses. I am assuming that the level of tinting is comparable to a pair of sunglasses. But this would need a bit of flushing out in terms of %, etc etc. And whether the effect is still acheivable.

This of course all assumes that the training value would be of greater benefit then using other types of vision limiting devices. At very least it should be an option available to pilots training. Based on the assumption that it provides a measurable increase in benefit, then it can only improve pilot capabilities and improve overall aviation safety. Something that should be in TC's interest. However, experience has shown that they are anything but adaptive. Especially when they have a very good rule that says no.

As for the cost, I think the hassle factor from when it was still legal (50/60s) are nothing compared to nowdays. That might be one of the reasons why no one bothered to fight for its continued use. It was simply a difficult/costly way to conduct the training. But this is an assumption. What's changed is that today plastics are lightyears ahead of that time period and are very cheap. And velcro or other types of fasteners very easily done. Consequently this type of training may be much more doable today then it was when it was first thought of. Sort of like the difference between full motion simulators of then to today.

Just my thoughts.

[jump154]

My argument would be, what tinting is allowed for pilot sunglasses? As far as I know TC hasn't got a standard... Not that I would want them too. I'm just saying that it should be acceptable to use this training during VFR if the instructor does not himself wear sunglasses.

If it is legal for a Student to wear a 100% light blocking device (hood) then the sunglasses question is rather moot.

For reference, pulled this from Lee Filters (Theatre Gels)

For a deep straw gel:

For a straw gel (much paler);

So for the blue goggle to work you'd need the deep straw (no blue transmittied) - at some wavelengths is over 80% transmission, so all really comes down to the wording of the regulation and the bandwidth required to be transmitted.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What percentage of FTU's have suitable flight simulators available?

Well in BC:

-Pro has 2 Redbird's in ZBB and one in YYJ,

-PFC has an Alsim

-Sea Land Air has an Alsim, and

- Pacific Rim has a Alsim clone whose name escapes me

The reality is that schools that are still running old technology like ATC 810's and FRASCA's are loosing all their students to schools that have invested in new technology.
GA sim technology had been static for many years but a significant leap has occurred in the last 2 years. The RedBird is IMO a game changer as it offers 3 axis motion, 140 deg visuals with very realistic weather depiction and Garmin 530/430 or G1000 functionality for about 80 K dollars. Anybody who has not tried one of these should give it ago. Ask for them to set the cloud base at 500 feet and the "breakout" altitude at 200 and 1/2. Then try a night circling approach at with the cloud 100 above NDA and the vis set at 1 1/2 miles in heavy rain.... I think you will be impressed. I believe future improvements in IFR training will involve moving more of it out of the airplane and into a new generation sim.

With respect in aircraft view limiting devices, Cat Driver is of course correct that the standard hood is a class A pain in the A** and there has to be a better way. I have wondered if there is not an electronic solution. For example how about a set of glasses that would polarize when you looked out ? Now I am a Biology major so I am probably way out to lunch on if this is even possible, but it would be great if there was a wearable solution that was natural (ie world was grey when you looked out the window but instruments were clear), without any modification to the aircraft

[Cat Driver]

Thanks for taking the time to write than and linking the article.

The CAR's are relatively new and their interpretation can be far more murky than any perceived loss of vision caused by putting an amber sheet of film in the windshield.

My reason for starting this subject was to find out why the training industry quit using two stage amber as a vision limiting method.

My best guess is it was just to much bother for the instructors to install the amber sheets and remove them after the flight.

The article backs up my former statement that in some cases the amber film increases visibility, and Doc also has stated the same.

The amber screen scheme is now
being standardized, since the use of
this type of filter for the screens gives
the instructor improved visibility in
typical English weather conditions,
and is not quite so prospectively depressing
during long periods of flying.

As to cost it is minimal and well worth the bother of installing and removing after each flight simply because it is just like flying in cloud for the student.

Nowhere in these discussions have I indicated that a proper simulator is not an ideal teaching tool, however the airplane is still what one must be proficient in and anything that makes it better has to be better.

Another advantage over simulators to using this method in the airplane is that when practicing unusual attitudes the student will feel the effects of G loading as well as the changing sounds.

Hopefully I am being gentle enough in this post so as not to upset some of you here who love to argue something you have no experience with.

Anyhow this thread will soon end due to lack of interest and I will exit the flight training forum and leave it to people with current flight instructor ratings who are familiar with the way training is done today.

My next subject regarding flying was going to be how to flight plan and fly non pressurized piston engine airplanes with no radar or strike finders through the ITCZ flying the South Atlantic route between Africa and South America, and how to communicate without using H.F. but it would only result in my offending to many here.

The ITCZ is always a grave concern on long flights where you must penetrate it, how you do it is what makes the difference.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My next subject regarding flying was going to be how to flight plan and fly non pressurized piston engine airplanes with no radar or strike finders through the ITCZ flying the South Atlantic route between Africa and South America, and how to communicate without using H.F. but it would only result in my offending to many here.

Fortunately we no longer have to fly through the some of the worlds most dangerous weather, like the ITCZ, without weather avoidance aids, but I bet it was a wild ride back in the day
As for communicating without H.F. that would be using the Sat Phone, something a pilot would IMHO be crazy not to to have when flying transoceanic legs in non jet aircraft.

Nevertheless I, along with what I am sure is true of most avcanada readers, are always interested in good flying stories so fire away

[Big Pistons Forever]

My best guess is it was just to much bother for the instructors to install the amber sheets and remove them after the flight.

I have got to admit you make a pretty persusive argument so I talked to an old time (now retired) instructor friend and asked him if he knew what had what had happen to the two stage amber set up in GA flight training. He thought that it started when an Ontario MOT inspector who decided that two stage amber was not safe and refused to do IFR rides in aircraft that used two stage amber view limiting. For what ever reason this apparently got adopted as MOT policy so no school wanted to train on a system that wasn't approved for flight tests and so everyone went to those horrible hoods.

[fish4life]

What percentage of FTU's have suitable flight simulators available?

Well in BC:

-Pro has 2 Redbird's in ZBB and one in YYJ,

-PFC has an Alsim

-Sea Land Air has an Alsim, and

- Pacific Rim has a Alsim clone whose name escapes me

The reality is that schools that are still running old technology like ATC 810's and FRASCA's are loosing all their students to schools that have invested in new technology.
GA sim technology had been static for many years but a significant leap has occurred in the last 2 years. The RedBird is IMO a game changer as it offers 3 axis motion, 140 deg visuals with very realistic weather depiction and Garmin 530/430 or G1000 functionality for about 80 K dollars. Anybody who has not tried one of these should give it ago. Ask for them to set the cloud base at 500 feet and the "breakout" altitude at 200 and 1/2. Then try a night circling approach at with the cloud 100 above NDA and the vis set at 1 1/2 miles in heavy rain.... I think you will be impressed. I believe future improvements in IFR training will involve moving more of it out of the airplane and into a new generation sim.

With respect in aircraft view limiting devices, Cat Driver is of course correct that the standard hood is a class A pain in the A** and there has to be a better way. I have wondered if there is not an electronic solution. For example how about a set of glasses that would polarize when you looked out ? Now I am a Biology major so I am probably way out to lunch on if this is even possible, but it would be great if there was a wearable solution that was natural (ie world was grey when you looked out the window but instruments were clear), without any modification to the aircraft

I believe Harv's air in Manitoba also has one now

[zed]

If it is legal for a Student to wear a 100% light blocking device (hood) then the sunglasses question is rather moot.

Just in case I confused anyone regarding the sunglasses in my hypothetical "If we were to try and employ this training method again" thought... The reference to sunglasses was not for the student, who is not the PIC and as rightly pointed out doesn't matter what they wear after their vision is blocked. I was just suggesting a reasonable restriction, no sunglass use by the PIC/instructor while employing this type of trainining with windows that would already be tinted. Therefore the use of sunglasses may in fact limit the PIC's ability to provide a proper lookout.

But it really doesn't matter, since currently it looks like the regulations clearly preclude it. And doesn't appear to be any real interest in trying to fight for that to change. But old ideas aren't always bad ideas, especially when some of the negatives of those ideas are not necessarily true anymore.

[Cat Driver]

But it really doesn't matter, since currently it looks like the regulations clearly preclude it.

Really?

Who did the test to determine just how much amber film restricts light/visibility if the system has not been in use since CAR's replaced the ANO's?

I personally don't give a rats ass what the training industry does, but I would still like to believe there could be someone out there who is still capable of using logic and are capable of questioning the ever expanding choke hold your regulator has on your industry.

One thing does stand out here, most all of you agree that wearing a hood is unorthodox and a joke.

And despite the unquestionable value of modern full motion simulators they still do not fully mimic flight, and I worked for Airbus at their factory in Toulouse and was trained on the best simulators in the world.

[Posthumane]

I think for anyone doing IFR training, this is a fight worth pursuing. Since the CARs are pretty vague as to what standard they use to measure the 70% transmittance rule, there is probably some wiggle room. It can't be 70% at ALL wavelengths, since many types of glass filter out UV and near UV wavelengths, including some in the visible spectrum. (Edit: As Cat said, logic should apply here. The intent of the reg was to keep people from putting ridiculous tints on their windows that obscured vision at night, as some people do on cars and motorcycle helmets.)

The deep straw gel filter posted earlier lets thorough less than 50% light, but at longer wavelengths the transmittance is >80% so maybe it could bypass the reg. I wonder if the better bet might simply be to try to get an exemption for the training. Best bet, however, for a small FTU might simply be to use it and not tell anyone.

Btw, I look forward to your stories and advice Cat. I'm flying a 50 year old airplane with very little in the way of navaids, and I find your tips and tricks to often be quite useful.

[Cat Driver]

Btw, I look forward to your stories and advice Cat. I'm flying a 50 year old airplane with very little in the way of navaids, and I find your tips and tricks to often by quite useful.

Thanks, slowly I am coming back to life and find Avcanada is still part of my life.

Just to reinforce what I post to be factual here is a link to my mentor at Airbus, we flew together for two years and it was through him I received the training at Toulouse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Baudry

He was even kind enough to include me in his book about our flying the Aeropostale route from Toulouse to Santiago in 1998.

Here is another link one of many that describes our trip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Op34yWbXQ

The weird part is my home country kicked me out because I dared to refuse to be bullied by the regulator, yet I became well known in France and was employed by some of their biggest companies including TF1....for years.

To the best of my knowledge I am the only Canadian to ever have been granted an airdisplay authority in Europe, I flew the airshow circuit all over Europe for eight years and I started with " The French Flying Legends " .

Oh, I forgot to mention they gave me an exemption from having to hold a JAA license...go figure.

[Cat Driver]

When Pene died one of Frances most influential citizens wrote to me by e-mail and told me I always have my French family to come home to.

My own country still owes me $250,000.00 that I won fair and square for their unlawful treatment of me and for ruining my career.

To this day I have received zero.

Canada is a great country huh?

[Cat Driver]

Please do not make the mistake of thinking I am looking for sympathy, because even in my weakest moments I am still tough enough to make it regardless of what happens.

I just hope some of you understand how the system works.

[Pirate Pilot]

All I can tell you is I used to really enjoy doing the CZBB #3 departure into the clag to the White Rock NDB to the CYXX NDB to the 07 ILS approach at Abbotsford in IMC during training. No hood or other visual impairments other than clouds. Instructors are mandatory at this point.....I would be on the GS "just perfect" speed stabilized, gear down, all the good stuff but my head is down not looking outside at ALL and then at about 1100 or 1000 ft. I would grab a quick glimpse forward as we were breaking out and "HOLY COW" there's the runway right where its supposed to be!!!
I had done that exersize ad naseam probably over 50 times in the sim and knew all the frequencies, procedures, etc. inside out and backwards and had done it numerous times in clear air but the first time a student actually pulls it off just like it's suppose to happen it is TRULY MAGIC!!
Sims are good as they cost less but thats not really the point....you can learn the idiocincracies of SPIFR flight re: radio work, SIDs, STARs, and all the other time consuming training required not requiring an aircraft specifically.
IMHO an IFR ticket is truly only a 'license to learn". Flying around the Interior of B.C. where the 100M. safe is mostly +10,000 ft. situational awarness is VERY IMPORTANT!!! What I don't understand is that we never see the myriad of foreign students from the lower mainland venturing into the interior of B.C. on their cross-country flights. This is real world flying. Bombing around the lower mainland and going over to the east coast of Vancouver Island is not demostrative of the varied geography these students will be experiencing once they are licenced. Somebody mentioned "Walmart Training" ???
Remember my rant re: training and customer service???
We are very fortunate to have our own CatDriver guy here in the interior but he continues to remind us that he is "retired" We pay him whatever he asks plus (I kinda think its about $100. hr.) but none of us really care that much about the money but rather the quality of instruction he is capable of giving us is not readibly available from other sources. Plus he has become a very good friend.
Memorable quotes from "our guy"...."this is not a dump truck....don't fly it like it is" "small movements, small movements, you're makin' luv...." "I don't mind you flying like this but no examiner is going to like it" "Don't worry if we crash...You're so far behind this aircraft you'll be just fine"