This debate is going on around the UK at present.
UK CAA appointed IR examiners are refusing to do tests with foggles (“the hood”) and are insisting on the traditional window screens. They say this is because foggles enable the candidate to cheat. This is incorrect in accordance with EASA regs, apparently.
When I did the JAA IRT in Jan 2012 I had to make up my own ones from Correx – pictures here
These took about a day, but it was quite a difficult job which needed workshop/craft facilities and is probably beyond many aircraft owners.
I wonder whether the real objection to the screens is the hassle of constructing them, or the requirement to use them. They are actually very comfortable to fly with. I have done a number of tests with foggles and while one can see out a little bit, the little bits aren’t helpful at all and are just confusing. The foggles also obstruct the view of the panel and simply get in the way.
Yes it is. It adds cost and inconvenience to schools offering IR training. Lets no forget we are the only country to require this – EASA or FAA.
Also one would hope the CB IR/EIR will bring allow more owners to get an IR. And I can see some of these guys not wanting to stick/screw covers into the nice leather coated facia. Of course all this will do is encourage these owners to do their training away from the UK.
I personally prefer screens – more comfortable than anything else for simulating IMC. The problem is (a) getting them done – not all pilots are mechanically inclined, and (b) even then the examiner can object to them on the day if he/she feels they give you a bit too much…
Foggles are a joke. I did my IMC rating ages ago with screens, but the aircraft went tech the day before the test so I did the test with Foggles. I felt like a cheat, it was SOOOO much easier.
I use a hood for my revalidations and serious training, it does the job, but gives me a neck-ache after an hour or so.
