Is that legal?

[Torbiel]

Please have a look at this picture showing LOT's B767 captain in-flight over the Ocean.

http://www.airfoto.pl/index.php?sub=single&id=9151&pict=lr&empty=yes&clr=yes (http://)

In the discussion below the picture one person claims that the practice of covering cockpit window is illegal. Other claim it is done by all pilots around the world. So, is it legal or not?

I'd appreciate your opinions.

[Atlanta-Driver]

Your link does not work

AD

[NZLeardriver]

Try cutting and pasting the link.

I dont know if it is illegal or not. It means that you cant be keeping an eye out of that part of the window, but it would probably help you see out other windows. It can get really bright up there.

[Torbiel]

Link again:

http://www.airfoto.pl/index.php?sub=single&id=9151&pict=lr&empty=yes&clr=yes

[Amabokoboko]

As one of the posters below the picture pointed out:

Buhahahahahaha. To ¿eœ bracie wymyœli³. Specjalista od lotow I. Buhahahahaha

Can't really top that myself, I'm afraid :rolleyes: .

[411A]

Personally, I always used an enroute chart.

Certainly 'legal' that way.:E :E

[ManofMan]

Well im sure that LOT will be able to narrow down who the pilot is seen as you get a good picture of him and they cant have many 767 pilots, so if it is against company regulations/illegal then im sure they will drag him through the fire. You might even get a thank you from the pilot if his employers find out(not!!)

What goes on tour stays on tour !!!

[Tarnished]

He does't seem too worried about listening out or looking out, his headset appears to be hanging up beside him.

Even if it is legal, its is not ideal.

T

[Captain Airclues]

If this is illegal then so is flying in cloud (or doing an initial IR check with the CAA).

Airclues

[Notso Fantastic]

Tarnished- he may well be listening on loudspeaker. It looks like it could be a transatlantic- you don't need 2 listening to HF!

Why not shield from sun if it is too bright? Better to have a headache? As pointed out- aeroplanes fly through cloud- can they be made to keep clear to ensure adequate lookout?

Perhaps a little less uninformed criticism and a bit more understanding of the difficulties that can occur to crew (as in sitting with the sun in the same place for 10 or more hours).

[PPRuNe Radar]

Tarnished- he may well be listening on loudspeaker. It looks like it could be a transatlantic- you don't need 2 listening to HF!

Indeed Notso :ok: and that's why we have SELCAL. Or maybe the aircraft even has datalink :oh:

I think this post is in the right Forum ... some are spotters giving their opinion on operational matters :)

[keithl]

D'you know, I've never been in "Spotters" before...
No-one seems to have pointed out that if that's the window where the sun is - the glare will stop you seeing anything anyway, so there's no point looking into it!

411A I hope your ERCs were in date..

[speedbird_heavy]

Spanair have been doing that for years. Every MD-83 I ever saw had the daily paper or a saftey card stuck in the window.

Click here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/566975/L/) to see.

[Gerard123]

I agree, tarnished replied to one of my questions and it didn't make sense. The flying guys want real answers here not some pretend made up "flightsimmers" ideas.

It is perfectly legal to cover the windshields I often do it in our intolerable african sun. And even C172's have loudspeakers that allow you to keep perfect coms.

There you go forum closed :ok:

[Tarnished]

Was going to let this go, but had a couple of Jacks so here goes.

There has been a load of tosh spouted above.

The question was "is it legal?"

Surely the point is not whether or not some nerd in the rule department has published a rule about this but whether the professional aviators believe this is a sensible thing to be doing.

My comment about the headset has distracted from my point of concern: legal or not is it a sensible thing to be forced into doing.

Is it poor design not to include adequate sun filtering?

Could wearing sun glasses alleviate some of the problem?

In VMC (albeit probably IFR) is reducing your limited field of view a good thing to be doing?

If you fly IFR (in VMC) does that absolve you of all lookout responsibilities?

Why not have bone domes, liquid conditioning vests and adequate re-hydration delivered by the CSD?

Try sitting under a green house canopy like the F-15 for 6 hours plus and see how hot it gets, not to mention trying to pee in a bag while strapped to a bang seat.

Sorry, but I think its incredibly bad practice to obscure your field of view.

T

[Notso Fantastic]

OK, so the answer is..........'it is not illegal'.

If the next question is ......'is it incredibly bad practice to obscure your field of view?', the answer is......'no'.

I'm sure we all sympathise with the problems of flying an F16 vis a vis toilet functions, but they are not really relevant wrt MD-80 operations.

[keithl]

Are you mellowing, Notso, or is it me...?
...'cos I agree with you again!:hmm:

[Notso Fantastic]

Oh no! Anything but that! Must be getting soft in the head in my old age!

[PPRuNe Pop]

Gerard123.

Why are you getting wound up? What do you expect from a forum. Sometimes to us 'what has been flying towards the sun for years' we do things like that. In DC10's it was 'normal' to stuff a bundle of tissues in the cracks so that in a descent the condensation didn't soak you. The same with a shield - of ANY sort - to stop you have glare - which can be quite severe. Anyway, you will get all kinds of answers - some of which are humorous - take it as it comes.

Tarnished.

You are the same. But your profile with a PPL is a mix of aircraft that is hard to swallow. Perhaps you were in the air force perhaps you are a sim 'pilot' but I/we would assume that you are aware, if you know about these things.

You make some strange suggestions:

Why not have bone domes, liquid conditioning vests and adequate re-hydration delivered by the CSD?

That one is of course quite ludicrous. It would spoil the hairdo!

Try sitting under a green house canopy like the F-15 for 6 hours plus and see how hot it gets, not to mention trying to pee in a bag while strapped to a bang seat.

Really! Are you saying that it is necessary to hold a bag while you are flying? Please phrase your answer won't you.

Sorry, but I think its incredibly bad practice to obscure your field of view.

You really think that that one shield obscures ALL the view? Now I am worried about you.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt but I REALLY need convincing. :ouch:

[Gerard123]

PPRUNE POP, Sorry , I don't quite catch what you're saying (damn another blond moment!)my bad ;)

I'll unwind sorry. But you have to agree tarnished gives some strange answers. I just think it blocks up the forum with irrelevant info.

My stance is that it is perfectly A OK to block the window even when flying VFR but under certain conditions.

In certain airspaces where it is the responsability of the pilots to report their positions and keep a look out for others it can be dangerous. This is especially because a lot of GA pilots don't use the radio properly and take advantage of these airspaces (class D I think) some may be flying from illegal airstrips and don't talk at all !!

However whilst in a controlled enviroment ie in a circuit controlled by ATC or while flying in airspace where you are monitored by radar and informed of other traffic it is perfectly fine. There is no apparent risk because if you were IFR you would have to trust that information anyway (and do trust it) so why not trust it in VFR ?

Anyway back to the unwinding....... you obviously see I have a stress problem so please feel free to contribute to my beer fund:D

[Tarnished]

PPruNe Pop and Gerard 123,

Still don't think it is a good idea to even "partially" obscure the view the the designer chappie gave you, no matter what sort of airspace you are in ore what sort of service you are or are not getting.

I am guilty of using extreme examples to help support my case, but as you question my credentials here is a summary:

FLYING HOURS AND QUALIFICATIONS “TARNISHED”

RAF Qualified Flying Instructor , Central Flying School Feb 94
RAF Qualified Weapons Instructor, No1 Tactical Weapons Unit, gained Dec 88
USAF Instructor Pilot, 325th Tactical Fighter Wing, gained Mar 90
Test Pilot, United States Navy Test Pilot School, gained Jun 95
RAF Instrument Rating Examiner, gained Dec 89

Total Hours 4150
Captain 3210

Hours by type
Typhoon 200
Lightning 650
Hawk 1650
Tornado 480
F-15 510
Hunter 150
Jet Provost 145
Bulldog 225
T-38 40
T-2 30
Yak 50 20

Other types flown include:
Jaguar, F-16, F-18, F-14, Harrier, Lear Jet, BAC 1-11, P-3, Mig 29
U-1, U-6, Tucano, P-51, MB 339, C-130, C-23, OH-6, Gazelle, Pitts S-2
Various Piper/Cessna, approximately 160 hours

UK PPL gained 1979

Two more take off's than landings, guess that makes me a bad pilot.



Legal or not, it is not a good thing to have to be doing.

T

[BOAC]

Pop - Really! Are you saying that it is necessary to hold a bag while you are flying?
Certainly was in my day! It required outstanding skill to locate the required equipment (euphemism to protect those of a sensitive nature:D ) inside a goon-suit, woolly liner, long-johns and g-suit, all done in semi-darkness, bone-dome and oxy mask on, and IMO extreme bravery to do this just behind an armed bottom bang-seat handle at 0300 in the morning with a cold ocean below you. I never managed it:O. There was another option..........................:eek:

[Tarnished]

Drugs, Nappies and Suction devices are all available alternatives to the sponge in a bag solution of days past.

Think of the new breed of female fighter pilots (and WSOs/Navs)

This is a real problem for fighter pilots (OK crews) in recent conflicts where the mission durations have been very long indeed.

Dehydrating yourself is a poor option because it reduces your g tolerance.

T

[PPRuNe Pop]

Tarnished.

Very impressive. A good career without a doubt, and I AM convinced - thank you.

Is it legal? The CAA seem to think so, since examiners will put an Aerad or a Jeppeson on the coaming to remove your outside vision - but not THEIR outside vision. That happens in all forms of flight with any examiner doing IR training. The hood is another example of taking vision away but it's legal - so long as their is another pair of eyes.

Some will say, as indeed they have, that it is not a good thing but it beats glare shields and sun glasses for a lot of pilots but not for others.

BOAC.

The last 'option' is the one I would have gone for :eek: Thought that in these modern times they had that sorted. So..........what do the girls in F-16's and the like do? And I know a girl who CAN answer that! :E

[tescoapp]

I think my first line training sector the captain told me about sticking a VFR chart up as a glare shield.

Never had any bollockings for doing it and also it has been used to obscure my view for IR renewals. And this was by an ex RAF trapper

Personally i wouldn't have it up operating in anything other than controlled airspace (this includes transatlantic tracks) or +FL100 (except in class G).

To be honest it seems standard SOP. Even if it is technically illegal its pretty much one of this rules that everyone ignores for common sense reasons in civilian flying. Mil flying i can see your point bit like always wear your webbing in the back of the lorry in case you get bumped and never carry your rifle on its sling ( this is from the old SLR days, I believe things have got a bit better with funny clip things with the SA80)

Tescoapp

[Hamrah]

I find these (http://www.greatbabyproducts.com/axiussuncutterside.htm) work very well.

H

[Stan Woolley]

Grumpy Old Man Alert

I prefer to remain VMC - especially when I'm clear of cloud.

Had an airmiss a few years ago (pre TCAS), if the windows had been covered there's a good chance we'd have hit. (757/737)

Bah humbug!

[Tarnished]

Were they in formation or is your recce not up to scratch??

Too far away to tell the type, not really a near miss then:O

[Stan Woolley]

Tarnished

I'll try to simplify it further.

We were the 757 - the other guy was a 737.

I was impressed with all those qualifications.:ok:

[Tarnished]

Aaahh,

I got it now.

Thanks very much.

I was just joshing you understand.

You have to take small pleasures where you can, especially on this program.

T

[RUDAS]

i think some very valid points have been made here:

1/If you're on an IFR flight plan,you're expected to be able to fly in IMC,meaning in zero viz,so seeing outside would not be required.

2/if the glare is that bright,you probably wouldn't see a thing anyway.

3/better than getting a headache.

4/TCAS should do the job anyway.

I reckon you'd be hard-pressed to find a pilot who HASN'T put something up to shield a glare.Flying East-West all afternoon and into the night in Africa can be a 'dazzling' experience,so thanks to Jeppesse for their nice big foldout format Hi/Lo charts!:cool:

And PS:NotsoFantastic...I'm sure you're mellowing (or is it medication?;) ) i find myself agreeing with you more and more these days!

[rubik101]

why ask 'is that legal?' Is there a law governing such things? Not that I know of.
I seem to remember the sun shines during the day. Looking into it or having it shine directly in your eyes is not a good idea! Sunglasses won't help much here.
It doesn't shine at night and looking out then is much less dangerous. So I will put the chart up like everyone else who values his sight.
If someone wants to make a law about it, get them to sit there for 10 hours heading east in the sunshine!

[keithl]

Tarnished - with that background you'll have done plenty of formation and air combat. You'll surely know, then, that when your leader puts himself in the sun or when you know that's where the "bounce" is - it's no use expecting to see him again till you are out of it. And that's with a visor. And those periods last for, what? Seconds?

So, saying
Sorry, but I think its incredibly bad practice to obscure your field of view.
in the case of an airliner, when the sun is sitting in a particular window for maybe an hour is a bit academic. No point looking out of that window 'cos you can't see anything. No reason not to cover it to stop the glare.

The quote thingy doesn't seem to have worked - but "that's not important right now" - there you go - you needed a slash :D

[Tarnished]

Keithl,

Lets consider your example for a bit. If there is no point in looking out a window that has the sun in it and you choose to cover it up using any available means, what do you then do when you are told of or alerted to a traffic advisory coming from the direction of the covered window?

I venture to suggest that you will peak behind it, albeit squinting somewhat.

You are not going to say, well I won't be able to see him, so if he hits me there was nothing I could have done, ho hum.

Fly safe

Tarnished

[keithl]

Thanks for the help, BOAC! Must be getting senile if I didn't know I needed a slash...

Tarnished. Absolutely! That's exactly what you'll do. Provided that the DIY glare barrier can be moved for a squint, the benefits of glare protection (against headache, as mentioned by someone, also sore eyes) outweigh the obscuration.

As you'll tell from my profile, I've flown the helmet-and-visor stuff as well as sat for hours on airways in headset-and-sunglasses. That windscreen panel with the sun in it actually forces you to look away sometimes, so I think it can be a "good idea" to cover it.

[Vladivar Smirnoff]

If this guy is in the cruise, why would he need to look out assuming this is an IFR flight in controlled airspace?

[Turn It Off]

I think you all missed the point.

I remember the flight well, the window fell out on taxi so the crew stuck a newspaper in the hole to keep the draft out!!! :cool: :cool: :ok: :ok:

TIO

[Atlanta-Driver]

Judging by where his left hand is and how he sits in the seat I think he is out for nappies... A good pravtice on a very long sector with min crew.

I do the same thing. However I have a good pair of sunglasses so the need for total block is a bit less.

AD