Simulating IMC:

[Cat Driver]

Anyone here know why two stage amber is no longer used as a vision limiting method during instrument training in VMC?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was told it was because TC decided that the tinting reduced visibility for the Instructor/safety pilot to see out and thus increased the risk of a mid air. In any case I hate simulating IFR in VMC because at least around the low mainland and Vancouver Island the airspace is so busy that you spend all your time screwing around avoiding traffic and the exercise soon becomes very unrealistic.

I also firmly believe that all IFR procedures should be learned and practiced in the simulator and every flight in the airplane should be a full start up to shut down trip in the IFR system where you practice what you have learned.

[tired of the ground]

It works too well. We can't have students knowing what flying in a cloud feels like, now can we?

[Cat Driver]

I was told it was because TC decided that the tinting reduced visibility for the Instructor/safety pilot to see out and thus increased the risk of a mid air.

Whoever " decided " that had some serious cognitive issues.

One wonders why so many skiers use amber lenses when skiing, is it to reduce their field of vision??

[RenegadeAV8R]

Anyone here know why two stage amber is no longer used as a vision limiting method during instrument training in VMC?

I started flying in 1995 and never heard about the two stage amber thing as a vision limiting method.

What was this system?

[Cat Driver]

What was this system?

It was a military method of preventing the student from seeing anything outside of the airplane.

Amber film is placed inside of the windshield and the side windows, which tints everything outside amber, exactly like using amber ski goggles.

The student wears goggles with blue lenses, everything inside the airplane is tinted blue but vision inside the airplane is not restricted.

When looking at the amber tinted windshield and side windows the blue lenses make everything outside black......thus you must control the airplane by instruments.

It is so simple and so realistic it amazes me it is no longer used.

When I was taught limited panel unusual attitudes on instruments in a Cessna 140 it was using two stage amber.......

......but of course that was over fifty years ago back in the dark ages when our training was sub standard.

[Shiny Side Up]

removed, not qualified to comment.

[Cat Driver]

and really I find the best IFR learning tool right now is the simulator.

Yes, but how many simulators used by the average FTU have full motion with changing G loads and realistic sound etc?

Two stage amber is cheap, and the instructor can see everything outside with nearly zero limiting of vision....in fact on dull days vision is improved.....the amber film is quite light in tint.

[Cat Driver]

One more question:

How many instructors here have used two stage amber?

I at least can argue this method from having used it.

[Cat Driver]

And I can see me digging myself into another black hole again..........by seeming to be so unorthodox in my thinking.

[AuxBatOn]

Yes, but how many simulators used by the average FTU have full motion with changing G loads and realistic sound etc?

Having flown in both types of simulator (those that move and those that don't), I can tell you with certitude that there is absolutely no difference when you don't see anything outside. You can get as messed up in a sim that doesn't move than in a sim that moves.

Now, flying in actual IMC is a different story.

[RenegadeAV8R]

It is so simple and so realistic it amazes me it is no longer used.

(b) where the flight test is conducted in an aircraft, an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.

Nothing in the Flight Test Guide (TP9939E) seems to be preventing the use of the 2 stage Amber system. From your explanation, for the instructor, the view outside was similar to wearing amber tinted sunglasses.

Maybe the cost of the amber film would exceed the cost of "modern" hood... at $15 a piece.

[Shiny Side Up]

Merely was commenting on that it would be interesting to see an experiment with different colors and see what limits vision the most/aids it the most under which conditions.

How many instructors here have used two stage amber?

I at least can argue this method from having used it.

My bad, haven't used it, I'll retract what I had to say since this is a limited discussion.

[Big Pistons Forever]

......but of course that was over fifty years ago back in the dark ages when our training was sub standard.

Sigh...... OK we get all training 50 years ago was wonderful and all training today is crap....do you really have to bang that drum on every thread ?

[Cat Driver]

Maybe the cost of the amber film would exceed the cost of "modern" hood... at $15 a piece.

Wearing a hood does not give normal vision inside the airplane, two stage amber does.

I can not recall the last time I wore a hood on an instrument check ride.

The cost of the film and the goggles is well worth the advantages it gives over hoods.....and you don't need to look for clouds to fly on instruments.

[Cat Driver]

Sigh...... OK we get all training 50 years ago was wonderful and all training today is crap...

You seem to have a real problem with most anything I post.

I have never said " all " training today is crap.

Would you rather I quit posting in this forum again BPF?

[Cat Driver]

Screw this forum, I should have never bothered to come back.

I had hoped it would be something to help me get back to something like a normal life, I have enough problems without this crap.

You can have it all to yourself BPF.

[Frank Gallagher]

......but of course that was over fifty years ago back in the dark ages when our training was sub standard.

Sigh...... OK we get all training 50 years ago was wonderful and all training today is crap....do you really have to bang that drum on every thread ?

Question. Is Cat wrong? Maybe training was better before the system got filled up with useless bureaucratic nonsense.

I started flying in 95 or 96 (Can't remember exactly) I've never heard of this system but it does on the surface seem like a better system.

Since then flight training has been dumbed down to the point of being ridiculous.

Christ even in Hedley's thread about the turn back. I'm not sure TC would ever advocate training like that when "spin training" is something to be feared.

I'd like to hear about how training has become better. Even in the last 15 years. What has happened that have made schools turn out better pilots?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Would you rather I quit posting in this forum again BPF?

I didn't say that. When you post actual information, especially posts that describe piloting technique such as the one on judging the flare, they are invariably insightful and useful. It is the constant back handed jibes against people who currently instruct that I find wearisome. But hey what I think doesn't matter.... you are going to do what you do. I don't get to decide if it is good, bad or indifferent.....ultimately the avcanada readership and the mods gets the vote.

Anyway if one post of mild protest is enough for you to quit, I guess you were not that invested in the forum to begin with.

[Cat Driver]

.ultimately the avcanada readership and the mods gets the vote.

No not in this case BPF.

I get to vote for me and I am leaving the flight training forum to you because I don't heave the desire to put up with your constant dislike of me personally.

I often wonder where we met and just exactly what caused you to have such a strong sense of resentment for me.

But in the grand scheme of things it really is not worth my getting further involved in this training thing.

Anyway if one post of mild protest is enough for you to quit, I guess you were not that invested in the forum to begin with.

Yeh, that sounds like a good reason.

Feel better now BPF?

[Cat Driver]

To the rest of the people here I am sorry but I just am not up to this as I have enough stress just trying to get my life together.

This thing between me and BPF goes back a long way and he has expressed his resentment for me via P.M's in the past and I am not willing to bother anymore.

By the way I have no idea who he or she really is.

[RenegadeAV8R]

... 50 years ago was wonderful and ...

This is what happened:

"Over the last half-century modern man has found himself in a world increasingly stripped of its physical challenges. All that can be explored has been: All the dragon infested oceans sailed, all the dark continents crossed. We find ourselves in a plastic disposable consumer culture, living from purchase to purchase, paycheck to paycheck. Our connection to the world becomes increasingly vicarious, experienced through entertainment media, or seen through the window of climate-controlled cars. The old methods of exploration have become increasingly technology-laden forms of
pre-packaged tourism for an affluent middle-class. "Political correctness" has constrained socially-acceptable thought, action, and speech."

[Doc]

Sigh...... OK we get all training 50 years ago was wonderful and all training today is crap....do you really have to bang that drum on every thread ?

I'm not sure that all training 50 years ago was wonderful, or that all training today is crap. I do know that the "hoods" used in IFR training today ARE crap. They do not simulate actual IMC in any way, shape or form. They are unnatural, and restrict your view of the cockpit. I don't know about you BPF, but I've never been in ANY kind of cloud that restricts my vision INSIDE the cockpit. Actual IMC, I don't have to turn my head to scan. Do you?
Amber screens, like shooting glasses, ski goggles, INCREASE contrast in dim/flat light. It would actually increase the probability of spotting conflicting traffic. As for the visibility of the instructor/safety pilot, they don't have to look around an absolutely stupid training hood. Like Cat, I can't remember the last time I encountered a hood.
I don't know about the rest of you, but until I have 30 thousand accident hours, I'll listen to what Cat has to say. I might actually learn something from him. I suspect most of you could.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Doc

Read my post.... I never said that the two color screen was a bad idea, I simply passed on the reason that a TC Inspector gave when the matter came up in a discussion. I have never used the two color screen so I can not comment on its effectiveness but since the hood is such a pain in the A** anything would be better.

The good news is that the new generation of GA simulators from Redbird and Alsim have outstanding panorama visuals so that you not only takeoff into IMC but you get very realistic breakout conditions. If you set the Redbird to 200 and 1/2 you will just have the required visual references and it will look pretty much exactly like a real minimums approach with everything at first fuzzy and indistinct as you hit the DH . This addresses what to my mind was a major failing in IFR training. When you use any view limiting device, when you reach the DH/MAP you lift the blue googles/hood and are you suddenly VFR in good conditions. The hardest part of a minimums approach can be when when you hit the DH and the last 200 feet to the runway. If you get a chance to try out a Redbird get them to set up a night circling approach with 1 1/2 mile vis in heavy rain. I guarantee the hair on the back of your neck will be standing up. I think this is the beginning of a move to more simulator training and less time in the airplane doing the "traditional" IFR training exercises.

[RenegadeAV8R]

I can't remember the last time I encountered a hood. I don't know about the rest of you...

The last time I encountered a hood was during a Flight Instructor Flight Test. I was seating on the right side, wearing a hood and scanning the instrument located on the left side.

Maybe the TC examiner was doing an experiment on me.