Is that legal?
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
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
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pop -
Certainly was in my day! It required outstanding skill to locate the required equipment (euphemism to protect those of a sensitive nature
) 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
. There was another option..........................
Really! Are you saying that it is necessary to hold a bag while you are flying?
) 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. There was another option..........................
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
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
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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! 
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
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!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: temporarily unsure :-)
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
And PS:NotsoFantastic...I'm sure you're mellowing (or is it medication?
) i find myself agreeing with you more and more these days!
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!
And PS:NotsoFantastic...I'm sure you're mellowing (or is it medication?
) i find myself agreeing with you more and more these days!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
legal?
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!
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!
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
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
So, saying
Sorry, but I think its incredibly bad practice to obscure your field of view.
The quote thingy doesn't seem to have worked - but "that's not important right now" - there you go - you needed a slash
Last edited by BOAC; 1st Nov 2004 at 14:56.
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I do the same thing. However I have a good pair of sunglasses so the need for total block is a bit less.
AD
