Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)

[Thomas coupling]

Any drivers out there with commercial NVG experience, preferably with emergency services?

I could do with some feedback....many thanks



------------------
TC

[PurplePitot]

I've got over 400Hrs mil exp. Gis a job........

[MightyGem]

Try Devon and Cornwall Police Air Support. (01392 452 392), they've been "trialling" them for about 5 years. Also McAlpines instruct foreign students on them at Oxford.

PP, don't be greedy, you already have a job!

[PurplePitot]

Bored over......Could really do with a change of scenery!

[Rude C'man]

Civ heli company at calgary airport uses them to fly in Rockies .Cant remember the name of them but i'm sure someone will!

[Heliport]

Ananova News report "Goggles allow chopper cops to see in the dark

Night vision goggles that allow pilots to see in the dark are being pioneered on a police helicopter.

The Devon and Cornwall force helicopter is the first aircraft to be certified by the Civilian Aviation Authority for the pilot and observer to use the goggles full-time for operational use.

Now other UK police forces are monitoring the use of the £15,000 goggles by the south-west force aboard its German-made £2.6 million Eurocopter - the only one in the country.

The force paid £100,000 to have the cockpit of their helicopter, one of the most advanced outside the armed forces, certified to use the goggles.

The goggles, which are mounted on the helmet of the pilot and observer, enable them to see in complete darkness and pick out landmarks and other landscape features.

They improve the crew's ability to navigate safely and to search for offenders and missing people more effectively, says force air support unit manager Captain Ian Payne.

"The goggles make night flying much easier and much safer," said Captain Payne.

The goggles will be used to complement the helicopter thermal imaging camera, which can also track offenders in low light or at night.

The force helicopter unit is also the only one in UK with pilots qualified to navigate by instruments alone.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Does a pilot or observer need any sort of certification for themselves to use NVG or do you just strap em on and away you go!

[MightyGem]

Vfr, you definately can't just strap them on and go, You need to do a course. It's like flying around looking through two empty toilet roll tubes looking through frosted green glass. Also despite what people think, they're not used for flying in bad weather. You use them purely so you can see where you're going, so that you can avoid bumping into the limpy bits.

[Vfrpilotpb]

MG,
I did really ask that with a little grin on my face, but was'nt sure anyway, thanks for the answer, by the way I hope you saw my small apology from the thread regarding the LLc.
My Regards

[MightyGem]

Yes I did thanks. Not that I felt that one was needed. It was more a dig a the 1500' rule than anything else, although it was nice to know the reasoning behind it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Most of us know, at least in general terms how the night goggles work. I'd be interested to learn a little more detail if anyone who's used them could spare a moment to explain. A Mil pilot?
The force paid £100,000 to have the cockpit certified to use the goggles. What mods have to be made to the cockpit?

The article also says that the force helicopter unit is also the only one in UK with pilots qualified to navigate by instruments alone. Is that correct?

[FJJP]

I'm fixed wing but have touched the perifery of NVGs. Modifications are necessary to cockpit lighting - normal cockpit lighting would blind the pilot, because the NVG is effectively an image intensifier, which amplifies the available light. And it's not just a case of turning the brightness down. All in all it is an expensive mod.

The 2 or 3 public service helio units I have come into contact with (police and ambulance) have been day/night VFR ops only, although the VFR limits have been modified to much lower levels (by special authorisation?)

[PlasticCabDriver]

I have about 200 hrs NVG, so here goes:

All the cockpit lights have to be modified to 'NVG-compatible' which effectively makes all the lights blue/green (with one or two exceptions like the warning lights!). This is because the traditional red/orange instrument lighting appears extremely bright to the NVG. This causes two effects - flaring, which is like a halo around the light source which blocks out chunks of the field of view, and 'backing-off', which happens when the goggles try to compensate for the bright light by 'turning down the sensitivity'(sort of) which makes the rest of the picture go very dim. This is also caused by street lights, security lighting, car headlamps, red obstruction lights, camera flashes, the moon etc etc. The effect is worsened if it is very dark outside. While they are generally invaluable pieces of kit, they are likely to be of little use if operating in urban areas.

NVG cannot be used in complete darkness as they are image intensifiers, not IR scopes. There has to be some ambient light for them to work. Even faint starlight is enough. In an area with no cultural lighting, no moon and thick cloud to block out the starlight, they can be almost unworkable.

To expand the bad weather point, they can actually lead you further into danger than flying without them. They will hide the fact that it is getting misty, or that you are in thin cloud until the point where the picture suddenly goes blank and you are quite definitely IMC, which is not nice if it's winter and you have no icing clearance!

Overall, they should enhance the Police's capability, but I would caution against treating them as the new 'wonder weapon' of night ops. The Police should also brace themselves for a spate of compensation claims for back and neck injuries as a result of wearing them.

(It a lot more complicated than that (lots of boffin techno-wizardry) but I tried to keep it simple)

Hope that helps

------------------
PCD

[Marco]

The Strathclyde Police EC135, G-SPAU, leased by Bond and flown by its pilots, is a SPIFR aircraft. The pilots also have current IR's as well.
Draw your own conclusions

[Hoverman]

Sorry if I'm being slow Marco - but can you give me a little help about what conclusions I might draw? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[Marco]

That contrary to the initial press release that the Devon & Cornwall aircraft is the only police helicopter in the UK able to navigate by sole reference to instruments.

The EC 135 at Strathclyde is SPIFR and certified in the UK by the CAA.

[Arm out the window]

Good summary there Plastic.

Pertinent points to raise would probably be the operational aspects too:

Goggles are by no means a replacement for day vision because they provide a monochrome image (hazy shades of green! isn't that a song title?), markedly reduce your depth perception, and I think most importantly remove a good chunk of your peripheral vision.

With the most common types of goggles around in the military, you only get about 40 degrees of vision (the area in front of your face) rather than the nearly 180 that normal day vision gives you. It means that you have to use other strategies to give yourself a lookout that covers what needs to be looked at.

As one of my goggle instructors succinctly put it, "You have to move your head around like one of those noddy dogs that you find in the backs of cars."

[MightyGem]

Light enters the front of the tube in the form of photons. The number of photons depends on the ambient light levels. The photons strike an input screen in the tube and are converted into electrical energy.
This screen is phot-sensitive and multiplies the number of electrons. These electrons are projected onto a phosphor coated screen which converts the electrons back into light in the form of an image.

As previously stated they do not work in complete darkness. On an overcast, no moon night in the desert, you're lucky if you can see the ground from 50'. However in populated countries such as the UK, the cloud reflects the light from built up areas so visibility is usually very good.

Once you've flown with them, you never want to fly in the dark again.

[Hawk Pilot]

Goggles do need some amount of ambient light to work...and they current models are limited to a 40 degree field of view (though research is being done with 110 degree panoramic NVGs). However, current models are capable of 20/25 visual acuity as opposed to best case 20/200 with unaided night vision.

Cockpit light compatibility is another issue...non-NVG compatible lighting inside the cockpit will gain down goggles so much as to make them unusable. The most predominant compatible lighting is blue/green however I have recently heard of white NVG compatible lighting -- an EMS operation in Asheville, NC recently had their bird outfitted for about $12,000 USD.

And as for weather, NVGs can definitely get you into bad situations -- especially in a "pervasive" precip environment like drizzle, rain, & snow. However, in other areas like mountains, desert, etc. you can see low lying fog or rain shafts and maneuver around them. I've used NVGs to direct a USMC KC-130 aerial refueling tanker that was unaided around a rain shaft to avoid us all going into the clouds. Just my $0.02!

[Vfrpilotpb]

Did I see that the cost of the NVG conversion cost £100,000 to the Cornwall bobbies, if so , why the differance for the American conversion, which has been reported at $12,000.00 , or was the Yankie conversion with a smaller torch?

[Arkroyal]

One of the things that makes these items so expensive, is the twister.

The lense system would produce an upside-down image, so the tubes incorporate a bundle of fibre-optic threads twisted through 180 deg.

Why a simple lense can't be used, i have no idea.

Having flown a lot of hours with them in th RN I held out against them as a ploice pilot. Over urban areas they would be useless, and in our area there was little else. I can see their usefulness to D & C as Dartmoor at night without gogs would be a dangerous place to be.

[NASUS]

I'm a Police pilot with the Victoria police Air Wing in Melbourne Australia. I have used NVGs in the Military and now we are seriously considering them here in the Force. We operate IFR Dauphines (2 off) on 24 hour shifts on both EMS and Police ops both Metro and country (The Air Wing covers the whole Victorian state (approx the same size as whole of GB). The terrain varies from fairly flat desert to mountainous terrain.

All I can say is that if I had a choice between flying with NVGs or unaided I'll always pick using the NVGs. Sure they have limits but these can be overcome with training and experience. I'm not advocationg that they should be used to do NOE or multi-ship assualts onto target areas but instead thay would make night navigation sooo much easier and safer.

Our philosophy is that pilots must be IFR rated and current and flying an IFR Helo. Both the pilot and observer in the front seats must be goggled at same time but the GIB won't as he may have to operate the FLIR.

As for cockpit mods. Well if you have paid 100,000 pounds then you've been had!!!! We got an approx quote of 20,000 pounds to do a Dauphin cockpit which is larger than the EC135 and even if you double that price its still way less than the 100,000 suggested. And that was from an UK firm (Oxley Avionics. You can do it for even less if you use the system that Rocky Mountain Helicopters (with the help of Red Wing Aviation) in the States did for their Mama One EMS chopper. You need to shop around!!!

Anyway I have a powerpoint presentation that we put together here on CD if anyone would like a copy please email me and I'll send it (but not too many otherwise the postage will kill me)....

[This message has been edited by NASUS (edited 12 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by NASUS (edited 12 June 2001).]

[Hawk Pilot]

For what its worth, I've been doing all kinds of research into NVGs for civilians for my graduate research project. The prices I've come across for NVG compatible cockpit mods for the 2 EMS operations currently certified here in the US were approx $12,000 USD for the MAMA One BO-105 and approx $23,000 USD for the Mercy Air Ambulance AStar in Redding, CA. Big difference between the two are block lighting for the MAMA and integrated lighting for the Mercy birds. Each have their own advantages and disadvantages.

As for goggle costs...the current quote I received for ITT F4949 (AN/AVS-9) NVGs were about $9,000 per set. Add another $1,000 for a helmet, goggle mount, and battery pack.

My rough cost analysis for a 3 helicopter, 10 goggle set operation was approx $175,000 USD.

As for NVGs in urban areas...one of the most surpising outcomes of my research survey is that many (about 75%) of Law Enforcement members that have responded are using NVGs right now (public use aircraft -- don't have same FAA requirements as EMS). Most are urban ops and most have stated that they wouldn't fly without them anymore. One respondent stated "If our goggles are out of service, our helicopters are out of service". Interesting.

[MightyGem]

Nasus, NOE and multiship ops is what NVG flying is all abou!!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Although I usually find myself agreeing with Arkroyal, particularly with his contributions to the Chinook thread, I have to differ re his comments about using NVG in urban/ extensively culturally-illuminated areas. Although my current area of ops is primarily jungle, we also have urban tasking and the occasional maritime/ offshore energy installation job. I cheerfully use (and teach the people here to use) NVG in all areas - the only time I move them up out of line of sight is during the final stage of a low-level approach to an oil rig (the other pilot on the 'dark' side of the aircraft keeps his down and monitors the situation ready to take over if I lose references) . Under all other circumstances, the picture obtained by combined use of NVG (which are only Gen2+, by the way) and peripheral unaided vision is far more useful than that available with the Mk1 eyeball alone. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'no NVG, no fly', but I'd rather have them than not.

Over the jungle, we use a combination of focused (sp?)white lights, diffuse IR (Brightstar) and NVG to provide the optimum picture for hovering over the canopy to winch out troops or casualties. Most of the LPs, although OK by day, are in our opinion too small to risk landing by night. We get a better picture by using the treetops as our hover references. Not a tactical application, simply best use of resources to get a proper peacetime job done.

[Thomas coupling]

Can those of you who fly police/ems ops and utilise NVG on certain ocassions, tell me whether you fly with them permanently fitted to the helmet, or take them off in between use. If they are kept on, when does neck/head/strain kick in?

many thanks, in advance

------------------
Thermal runaway.

[NASUS]

To Mightygem. Sure from a military perspective multi-ship formation at NOE heights is what it is all about (but the hazards are greater) BUT not from a civil use perspective which is what Police and EMS/SAR is all about. Sure there might be the odd occasion where a fast rope insertion might be required for our special police ops but again would only be one acft and rare.

Therefore if Gen 3+ ANVIS is used in the emergency services perspective to get from A to B at night below LSALT over hilly country it is quite, quite safe and probably safer than having to punch into IMC and then trying to find a suitable letdown (which is never at the location you want to go)or pick-up icing. Like everything in aviation it has limitations but ones that can be overcome to make it a damn good aid to night flying.

[MightyGem]

Nasus, yes military of course.

TC, they are not that easy to put on when your busy flying. I've worn them for over an hour without any neck problems, as long as you have a counterweight for the back of the helmet.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

TC

If multi-crew (eg working with observer or crewman), goggling-up is straightforward with the non-handler passing the NVG from the box to the pilot. With practice, Nightbird/Nightop can be fitted using only the left hand in seconds. Longest I've done at low level is 8h 30m out of a 10 hr sortie - slept well the next morning. No major discomfort, though.

[NASUS]

I agree with Mightygem and T&B that wearing goggles is OK. A weight bag is essential and a GOOD fitting helmet.....and this is an issue in it's own. Normally in police and EMS work wouldn't have to wear them for more than 2 hours in one hit as by then we have to refuel and stretch our legs.

[psyclic]

REGA, the Swiss rescue agency, initially train their helo pilots on NVG by getting them to ride bicycles on a pitch black airfield!

A very cheap and ingenious way to introduce them to the necessary head movements required to gain adequate visual information.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good morning PPruners,
Re the wearing of NVG's is there any effect on eyes caused by the continued use of these, is it similar to watching a VDU or is it like natural vision only tinted green?

[Fortyodd]

Actually yes there is an interesting little effect called pink eye. Basically, after about half an hour or so on the goggles, your eyes adjust to only looking at the green part of the light spectrum. Going back to conditions where everything is lit by white light, everything has a kind of pink tint to it. The effect doesn't last long and depends how long you were using the goggles for.
My longest period was just over 4 1/2 hours and it took about 1/2 hour for my vision to return to normal. MightyGem used to teach this stuff so he could probably offer a more in depth explanation.

[MightyGem]

Not much to add to that really. Forty, you obviously know me. Any clues??

[Hawk Pilot]

My few pennies worth...like anything else, the more you fly with goggles the more you become comfortable with them (and the bigger your neck muscles become!). I've had a set mounted on my helmet (not necessarily always in the down position though) for over 7 hours on an attempt to rescue a Japanese fisherman in the north atlantic a few years back. My whole body hurt after that nasty mission. In any event, our normal NVG training sorties are in the 3-5 hour range and the goggles are always on (except for the odd "leak" check). The goggles have a loop of cord that allows you to dismount them and let them hang down from your neck. They can be easily re-mounted with 1 hand with minimum practice. We don't do that much on tactical sorties but will do it if transitioning to instruments or required to fly over downtown (Las Vegas) at altitude. I still wear them for every landing if I have them (which is always if planning on being out after dark).

[Vfrpilotpb]

I have just read that the RAF Helicopters were unable to assist the SAS whilst on some night incursion work in Afghanistan, reason given was that the RAF heli's don't have the ability to fly in the dark. Now please forgive me for being a little simple minded, but if you have NVG and associated birds, what else is needed to fly in the dark, or has some vital piece of info been missed out here?. . <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Tandemrotor]

Don't believe anything you hear, anything you read, and only half of what you see!

[eden]

It'll sound like I'm bitchin' - and I probably am ....... but the RAF operate similar ( but not exactly the same)rules to Civilian professional pilots for duty hour time. Now it has always struck me as strange that the RAF use these rules (being a military outfit used to flexible and unplanned ops) .... but they do quote 'duty hours' and I have seen it up close and personal in situations I can't go into in this forum.

So the reason for not night flying might be that they flew during the day and have busted their crew duty time ...... who knows? It might be cos their NVG were U/S?

Please consider this in the category of 'Cat thrown in with Pigeons' - I am convinced I will receive that kind of reaction ...... hey we're here for some fun aren't we?

[AllyPally]

NVGs still need some light to magnify. Not enough light to magnify seems to be the probable reason. As for the crew duty time theory - nonsense.. .AP <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[BHPS]

I would cetainly favour the theory of lack of starlight making the use of NVGs unuseable.

As to Duty Periods, it is true that the RAF have duty times that work in a similar way to civil operators, but they are usually only applied during peace/training sorties. Operations such as Afghanistan would work on different limitations no doubt worked out by those "in theatre". If crews are required to night fly, they will be given the adequate rest prior to being needed.

[MightyGem]

As Ally Pally says, NVG's need some light to work.. .The light limits, for peace time, are about 2 millilux. This is about the amount of light coming from the sky on a clear night with no moon. A quarter moon gives about 7mlux. If there is no moon and the sky is overcast then there is obviously less light.

Over European type populated areas, this is not such a great problem as the light from houses, streetlights etc is reflected from the clouds(especially low cloud), and artificially boosts the light levels.

However, in remote areas, away from any domestic lighting and with an overcast sky it is VERY dark and you literally cannot see your hand in front of your face! NVGs just do not work in these situations.

Some of the more specialised US helos are equipped with FLIR(Forward Looking Infra Red). As these "see" minute changes in temperature, it's possible to fly using them where it's too dark for goggles. I think some may also have terrain following radar as well.

Unfortunately, we can't afford fancy stuff like that. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: MightyGem ]</p>

[Av8r]

Possibly the reason is the aircraft arnt NVG compatable. . .That is the cockpit and other aircraft lighting has to be modified so as to take out all white light.. .The slightest pinpoint of white light can severly effect the gogles..you can imagine unmodified annuciator lights or others lights comming on can effectively blind you.. .It's a major job to get airctaft NVG compatable.

Doogs <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ShyTorque]

Av8R,. .I think you will find that the internal lighting of all RAF SH aircraft has been NVG compatible for some time now.

VfrPb,. .NVG only amplify existing lighting, as already stated (imagine them working a bit like a hearing aid. If there is no sound, then there is nothing to amplify into audible sound). Once in the mountains, the only light is from above rather than from all around as in more populated areas. If there is cloud cover and no moon then there is unlikely to be enough light to allow the gogs to do their stuff. The theoretical minimum light levels are great to bear in mind but the only effective way to assess the light levels is to put the gogs on and see if they work. Unfortunately this can put a crew at risk, and I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more frightening than when you lose visual reference on goggles at a critical moment. Aircraft can use IR searchlights for low and slow stuff but not for cruise flight. However, anyone with an IR gunsight can see the light source...

The FLIR kit isn't affected by low light levels as it works by converting heat into visible light.

[Nigel Osborn]

I don't know anything specific about this incident but during the Indonesian conflict in the 60s in Borneo, a RAF single Pioneer pilot ran out of duty hours on his way back to Labuan and landed at a deserted airstrip and spent the night in his aircraft, no radio call to anyone. At 5 am I was invited to search for him and about 8 am, I heard his radio call for clearance to enter CTA. On asking why he spent the night in the bush, he stated war or no war, he could not exceed his duty hours!!. .PS I was not in the RAF!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> [/LIST] <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Harpooner]

Vfrpilotpb; where did you read about this originally?

[MightyGem]

This was well reported in the papers and on the radio.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good morning , from the rainswept, quagmire called Lancashire, . .Harpooner,. .As Mighty Gem pointed out it was in many newspapers , I think I saw it in the "Times", but it was only a very small item , more of a attention grabber than the normal sort of Times reporting.. .I was under the impression that NVG would work in Zero lighting, but thanks to the ocean of knowledge that the Ppruners have I now know a little more.. .Thank you all.

My Regards. .Peter B :)

[VLift]

I know nothing of the origin of the post but, an observation, If I were comming from a training area of very few very tall mountains into an area such as Afganistan, with very tall mountains and very dark shadows (the shadow is an area of less light than the minimal you are flying in), I would be very hesitant to commit folks to flying in that environment with out lots of train-up time.

Have no idea if this was the case. Just an obsrvation.

[Harpooner]

Mighty and VFR; I seem to have missed such news recently as my floating grey hotel was out of range of the paperboy!

The truth of the matter is exactly as gem stated (light levels at Zero) you can practice in any environment you choose but faced with flight anywhere in black velvet bag conditions it is best to skip the odd job - least you end up with a belly full of sand, and no one will thank you for that.

[before landing check list]

Hello there, I saw this post, thought I would reply. As posted earlier, a good reason a NVG flight could not be made in a particular aircraft would be the cockpit not NVG compatable. As stated earlier would be the presence of white light. But red light is deffinatly worse with blue/green lighting prefered. And the NVG's are passive, they need some ambiant light in order to function. In absence of sufficient light a "pink" light is usually incorporated. The light is just a IR filter that is attached to the searchlight (ie UH60) and turns the passive system to active so the use is normally not considered "stealthy". . As for FLIR, dry/cool atmosphere yields the best results. Humidity seems to adversly affects thier performance.. . j

[toothless tiger]

Hi think you will find tandemrotor's comments the most pertinent.

fyi the peacetime limit is 1 millilux. however i reckon allcrews who have operated will agree that there is no real definitive way of stating whether it is 1 millilux or less/more. in reality you lift and fly to the limits of you and your crew and if someone is not comfortable he will say so. lack of sufficient ambient light may have been a reason, but the RAF crews in theatre will be v exp in v low-light conditions and it would have to be practically nil for them to have aborted.

same with CDP and whilst it exists and is used in the RAF it is cited by others as an example of lack of flexibility. far from it, it is a system which is ideal for peacetime and durting ops is taken account of in the planning and if unexpected ops are anticipated, then that will form part of the pre-op planning to ensure the potential commitments can be met.

[Bell427]

if you have NVG compatible helicopter,you must have special lights on helicopters(possition lights), some helos even have one's on rotor blades,so they are seen thrugh NVG glasses.

[ShyTorque]

Didn't see the clip; however it's quite common.

Rock dust blown up by rotor blades may cause minor sparking as it interacts with the metal leading edge protection strips. This causes light which is amplified by the NVGs. At worst it can appear as a halo effect; not good as it makes the aircraft a clear target in the military sense.

We get the same effect to a lesser degree when landing at airfields where there is lose rock dust, our aircraft has titanium blade protection strips and the sparks are white and very visible without NVGs. I believe it is the granite used in many concrete mixes that causes the brightest sparking effect. Even though we don't operate our aircraft into dusty sites very often (UK mud instead), our leading edge strips are rough to the touch, caused by the resulting erosion.

[Nick Lappos]

The effect is astounding, and is even visible with the naked eye at times.

I believe the effect is piezoelectric, that is the production of energy when a crystal is squeezed or distorted. The sand paticles hit the blade and glow fiercely in the rebound. I don't think the metal on the blade is an important part of the equaton.

Try this: get into a very dark environment let your eyes dark adapt fully (20 minutes). Then hit a sugar cube with a hammer and watch the glow.

We ran a long thread on this a few months back.

[Robbo Jock]

Nick,

I tried that. Don't think I waited for my eyes to fully adjust. hit my thumb instead. No spark of light, but the air turned blue.

Colin :D

[ShyTorque]

Nick,

Not discounting your piezo-electrics but I think the metal type of the leading edge protection does play a part in the effect. Perhaps there are two different effects / causes.

The S-76, the S-70 Blackhawk and the CH-53 all do it, especially in dusty conditions. Certainly on the S-76 you can see little white sparks bouncing off the underside of the blades with the naked eye even ground taxying at an airport but other types I have flown with stainless steel protection as opposed to titanium (flown into the same locations) don't seem to do it, even when shrouded in dust.

BTW, Have you seen the titanium studded knee-sliders that motorcyclists use to deliberately throw up a shower of white sparks on corners? Oh, sorry, you don't have corners in Florida do you? :D ;)

Anyone know what type of LE protection the Chinook has?

Can't wait till dark, got my 14lb lump hammer and box of cubes at the ready, not to forget the steel / titanium toecaps and eye protection. :eek:

[Arkroyal]

Nothing to do with this really, but open carefully a self-seal envelope in the dark and the adhesive surfaces glow blue.

Snag is you can't read the letter:confused:

[heedm]

wintogreen lifesavers have a more noticeable effect, but thats because there are other things going on. Same idea initially, quickly break a crystal and you have an uneven distribution of charge. Electrons jump to equal the charge and in doing so emit a light whose color depends on the type of crystal, blue for sugar i think. Didn't know it was called piezoelectrics...learn something every day.

I saw the clip on cnn of a chinook landing through nvg...was very surprised how noticeable the effect was in Afghanistan. Seen it many times before both with and without NVGs, never that noticeable.

Unrelated: Best thing to see with NVG are comets. Hale Bopp light up the sky. That one with a Japanese name about a month ago wasn't visible unaided...awesome with goggles.

[Correcting-nicely]

I've done quite a few jump seat trips in Chinooks while wearing gogs (NVGs) and the effect is very impressive (if a little disconcerting when you first become aware of it!)

[Nick Lappos]

Shy torque,

I learn each time I log onto pprune!

There are differences between rotor blades, but the Sikorsky family uses nickel strips, as does Boeing on their family, at least according to the web sites I found about 5 minutes ago. The Bell 430 uses nickel caps on its steel strips, so the actual impact surface is nickel, I think. Perhaps it is that way for the other newer design Bell baldes.

I must say that I don't know if the spark response different than other helos, I hope ppruners can help out. We can guess that CH-47, Bell 430 and H-60's are the same. Are they in reality?


Anyone with specific knowledge of different spark response (under goggles and not), with different helo types under the same operating environment?

[ShyTorque]

This is interesting, isn't it?

Perhaps this effect should be taken into account during rotor blade design, as it obviously makes helis an easier night target.

There can't be many armies without night sights these days.

[bigdog1971]

The Blackhawk main rotor blade has a fiberglass end cap. Only the Leading edge of the tip cap is Titainium, I was told on my NVG qual course that the lights you see are static discharge from the blade to the dust.
Funny Story, on that same course whilst conducting CCT's at Oakey (Queensland Aust) I eagerly warned my instructor of some inbound traffic that I had spotted far away, feeling quite smitten that I had picked up the moving pos'n lights of the said Acft out of the stars.
I was then informed by my hysterical QFI that the acft did not pose a threat to our operations, as it was in the holding pattern for a approach into Brisbane Int'l over 150kms away.
NVG's very effective..........:eek:

[Nick Lappos]

Bigdog1971,

I don't think that your instructor was right that the flashes we see are static electricity. The effect has been recorded several times that I have seen, and is seen as discrete sparks like glowing objects (a whole trail of them to be sure). Static disharge would be firey glow type stuff, like St Elmo's fire.

The blades on Black Hawk are well grounded to the head and fuselage, so charge will not build up unless the jumpers are misinstalled. I'll have our H-60 Chief Pilot communicate with the IP's at the Qual course to understand how they formed the opinion that static electricity is the cause.

Also, the Black Hawk does not have Titanium strips, they are nickle, even on the fiberglass tip caps. Looks like Ti, as it is a dull gray.

I guess the thing I'd like to understand is - Are the Black Hawk and Chinook different that other helos under the same conditions?

[helmet fire]

there was a huge post about this in late 2001 but I cannot seem to locate it for you. Will keep trying.

Nick,

I think that we "narrowed" down several factors on that last thread:

Airborne Dust density (related to downwash velocity, dust material and airspeed/height)
Dust material
Blade material
Air moisture - humidity

With all these variables, I think only a test pilot like youself could afford the time effort to find out if its different on different machines.:)

I have noticed that the Black Hawk has it heaps, with little dust required. The Chinook obviously has it, but it often seems to require more dust than the Black Hawk, the UH-1 has it but it seems to need heaps of dust. I have rarely, if ever, seen it with a B206. So in short - ******ed if I know!!

:D :D

Edited to add the previous thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18985

That is the link (not good with these). other way to find it is to search in rotorheads for Icing - and other wx nasties

If you are brave enough to read through the pages, there is a lot of info hidden amongst the banter.

[heedm]

This is an about face for myself. The previous thread had someone wondering whether this effect lit up helicopters enough so that someone on NVG could find a helicopter that was trying to hide close to the ground. I went with the consensus and thought that there was not enough light to be a problem. I'm now reconsidering.

Two things changed my mind. One was the CNN footage. I was amazed how bright it was. Of course, the cameraman knew where the helicopter was, and was zoomed in on him, so at first I didn't think it was a problem. Then I remembered SAR Coad.

SAR Coad was a mission I was on right after I converted to NVGs. Two guys in a Cessna crashed in highly mountainous area in April. Aircraft was found and two sets of footprints walking downhill away from the crash site. Two problems with this. One, they weren't dressed for it, and two they were headed for a river. That survival thing about following rivers doesn't work in many mountainous areas. The rivers are too carved out and thus too steep for easy travelling. Anyhow, nightfall approaching, their injuries still undetermined and hypothermia is a real possibility.

We got on scene at dusk, donned NVGs enroute, and started searching. One crewmember noticed an unusual flashing light about three miles from our location. Investigating, we found the two survivors and pulled them out with only scratches, bruises, and a little bit cold.

Good story, huh? What does this have to do with blade sparks? The flashing light was a Bic lighter that had no fluid in it. He wasn't signalling us, just trying to get the lighter lit to start a signal fire. We saw the spark of the flint from about three miles through tall trees.

Makes me think that this blade spark show might just provide enough illumination for someone overhead to spot you.

[virgin]

I saw an advertisement by Bell offering a course in the use of NVG's. I'm not thinking doing it, but it got me wondering how they work.
I know the AAC use them - can any mil pilots explain how they work etc.
Bell say low level, middle-of-the-dark-night missions have become routine with NVG's, you 'can literally see in the dark', and night ops can be completed 'nearly as normally' as during the day.
True or advertising blurb?

What are the limitations?

[flygunz]

Virgin, a detailed reply to your question would take up most of the pprune mainframe memory so i'll try to keep it short!
NVGs work on the image intensification principle, ie, amplifying light energy. Within each tube is a photocathode which receives the incoming light radiation and after impact, a stream of electrons accelerate away from the photocathode and strike a phosphor screen. The power supply creates an electrical field which produces the means of acceleration. Essentially, the phosphor screen emits light in proportion to the amount of electrons that strike it. When voltage is applied, the electrons brighten creating an image that can be seen.

The current generation of NVGs produce superior amplification of somewhere in the region of 3000 times from the ambient conditions. Good enough for low level flying in low light level conditions of perhaps less than 1 mililux.
Limitations:
NVG performance is directly related to the ambient conditions. they will let you down if there is not enough light!
Bright lights will close down, or whiteout the goggles.
Fields of view are in the region of 40 degs so head movement is important to substitute peripheral vision.
Depth perception can be difficult.
No colour, a green image is tiring.
Wires are difficult to see.

Will that do for now?

[RW-1]

A basic page, but fufills your question on how they function.

http://www.morovision.com/howset.html

[Max Contingency]

Virgin -
NVG flight has been the norm for military hels for years now (I believe that they were first used by the French helicopter crews in Vietnam) to the extent that non NVG flight is known as 'reversionary' night flying. It is pretty much true that, if you are a REGULAR user, you can do most things visually at night on goggles. There is no secret to the technology, it is just two TV screens placed in front of your eyes that have had the electrons in the tubes amplified by about a thousand times. In terms of limitations they are bloody heavy, they 'bloom' out if exposed to too much light and they have poor peripheral vision leading to a lack of near field visual clues at low speed/height. The biggest limitation of all however is that a thousand times **** all is still **** all and therefore they will not help you on a dark night over the sea/desert or in the mountains.

:cool:

[hihover]

NVG are excellent aids but must be used wisely and with caution. The number of NVG related accidents amplify this adequately.

I had the great fortune whilst flying low level, solo, on goggles, over the sea from Anglesea to Carlisle, to see the "Northern Lights" on the goggles but not with the naked eye - very spectacular!

I would not go anywhere without them but am very aware of their limitations and mine.

A very wise pilot once asked me to consider what the doctor would say at my next aircrew medical if I told him that my vision was limited to a 40 deg field in varying shades of green...

hh

[ppheli]

I believe Devon & Cornwall Police use NVG in their 117? Anyone any knowledge of this?

[Old cynic]

The D&C BK117 is I believe the only aircraft currently CAA approved for night operations. The Alan Mann Group did the work.

[Draco]

... but a policeman was sitting beside the A1M (a local motorway) late at night was surprised when two cars flashed by at considerably more than 100mph without lights on a dark night on an empty, unlit road.

Turned out it was local heli pilots from a military base using NVGs to drive their cars in "stealth" mode.

could be an urban myth, but heard it from a usually reliable source.

[Bronx]

I've used Litton M949 Night Vision Goggles with ANVIS white LED-based auxiliary lighting system installed in a 206BIII at Bell. They're now using that combination for the factory NVG course.
I thought it was pretty good, but didn't use it on a live mission.
Anybody else used that gear?
Anything out there better?

[Anton van Dellen]

Main points been highlighted, heavy, poor (no) periph vision, poor depth.

I have had difficulty getting the right focal plane when using them as well - admittedly they were cheap ex-Russian stock, not the modern 3rd gen US stuff - does anyone have any experience of how to look at the instruments (close up) and then at a long distance?

And they bleach badly with a Nite-Sun!!

By the way, does the D&C 117 fly with two pilots, or just one at night?

Anton

[Tiger_mate]

This will take a while but is worth the wait:



http://www.artistic.flyer.co.uk/nvg.jpg

[Hezbollah]

Anton,

You can't look at the instruments through the goggles. The goggles are focused to infinity, and are used for looking outside the cockpit. It is best to set them about 1 inch away from your eyes, and you look under them with the mark 1 eyeball to look at your instruments. Of course, you need NVG compatible lighting in the cockpit (blue), or the glare will prevent you from seeing anything through the goggles.

[3 D]

Now I was always taught that it is red light that affects night vision the least, so why do all NVG's produce a green image ?

Just an idle thought

Cheers all

[sunny77]

NVGs are worth the effort and expense. They make night flying without them downright frightening.
They are heavy at first, however if used correctly, with a good mounting system and the battery pack fitted to the rear of the helmet with a weight bag (max 450gm) you should not have too many problems. Weight bags are a personal option where I come from. If you do it properly you probably won't need one. I don't use one anymore.
The key is to ensure your helmet is a nice snug fit. If you cannot wear your helmet for hours without getting 'hotspots' and general discomfort then sort that out first. Wearing NVGs without a helmet is fraught with frustration and discomfort!
As for the rest of fit, the manufacturer's handbook should be ample advice. Other posts on this thread have covered the salient points. Ensure though that they are focused to infinity.
Flying with NVGs is a perishable skill. Conversely, the more you do it, the better you get. IMHO, to maintain your skills at tip top condition, at least 5hrs/mth. That is the ABSOLUTE minimum. 10hrs/mth would be more realistic. The course would likely be 10-20hrs of ICUS type supervision.
Using NVG with 'white light' eg a NiteSun, is not good. Avoid it as their resolution falls away rapidly. It is better to have an Infra-Red filter over a searchlight of about 250W. The later model NVGs don't flare out too badly around external white light, and work well for urban ops.
Many of the civil authorities appear to have a great fear of legalising NVG, however I believe that those fears are only partially founded.
NVGs are one of the best things around for night ops, have no doubt.

[flygunz]

3D, the green monochromatic colour is due to the type of phophor screen used within the tube. A usual after effect when using nvg for extended periods is 'brown eye'. This is evident when you remove the nvg and look unaided. This afterimage is called chromatic adaptation and goes after a while, normally as you get to the bar!

[Thomas coupling]

We're next in line to go (pilot) live. Have been flying observer NVG ops for 3 years with supreme results. Fantastic aid to police night operations (rural). Fenn 700+ Gen II. Gen III too over sensitive for civvy ops.


Max Cont: your private e-mail is u/s. Have been trying to contact you. Send me a serviceable e-mail address!! Check your pprune e-mail.

[ShyTorque]

Anton van Dellen,

Nightsun can be used with NVGs. There is an IR filter available to allow this, unfortunately with the filter on the nightsun isn't visible to the unaided eye. The best fit is a filter that can be brought over the normal glass as required and controlled from the cockpit.

[Per Ordure Ad Asti]

Virgin,
NVGs are a tool like any other and have their limitations. Like most people I wore them for the first time and thought - WOW look at all the things I can see. After you've used them for a while, and if you have good instruction, you begin to think - oh dear, look at all the things I can't see.
Peripheral vision is non-existent and it takes conscious effort to move your head around and not fixate on the view in front. Depth perception is poor and you tend to find yourself underestimating the distance to obstructions. Apart from on the brightest nights you can't see wires, cables and whip ariels, the biggest helicopter killers, so good map reading is essential. You can see through most types of precipitation fairly well, so it's not unusual to look under the goggles on what you think is a nice night to see the windows covered in rain or snow. If you have a goggle failure or approach a well lit area where the goggles won't work you can find youself suddenly trying to fly visually, at night, in 500m vis in mist.
Having said all that, NVGs are still a fantastic tool for helping you fly at night and I wouldn't be without them if I could help it.

[Hezbollah]

Sunny 77

5 hours a month! - I cant help feeling you are being a smidge unrealistic, especially in the Summer, when you can't start night flying until about 22.30. Where I work, we do 1.5/month to maintain currency, and I reckon this is a reasonable minimum. The course is about 10-12 hours, which includes flying and non-flying pilot duties low-level nav, nvg formation, load lifting, deck ops, and remote site field landings ( singly and as a formation). It can be a lot to learn in the time, but it works as part of a properly structured course.

[Rude C'man]

Having spent all my military life on SH ops using NVG's I can say that night flying without them is barking mad. Yes there are lights sources available to be used with them, lip lights cockpit lighting night sun and dragon lights. All have their pros and cons. The major problem with NVG is back and in particular neck strain. The current widely used goggles fit above the eye line on a mount. This tips the moment for neck movement way above the norm ergo acute neck strain at best, bulging disks at worst. It is a known problem and is being closely looked at by the military (only after several court cases). There is a cheap and effective solution on the US market and that is a prismatic cats eyes system that allows the user to use white and black light at the flick of a switch. The UK company specialising in NVG is STS solutions run by an ex RAF SH crewman. I can provide contact details. The guy has 1000's of hours on NVG and will explain all, for a cost obviously.
IMHO, you’re barking mad to even contemplate low-level ops without NVG or FLIR in fact have both! They have saved my backside on many an occasions, they do however, lull one into a false sense of security at times.

PS Check out what the decent opticians have to say about them , one shudders.:cool:

The best simulator I ever came across was an old large fridge in NI, on the door it said" Put on NVG , have a cold shower, climb in and shut the door. Cold, Wet and can't see a bloody thing? Welcome to the world of NI NVG Ops !";)

Any one got an jobs for an experienced rotary crewman come observer please get in touch time to leave Betty Windsor's flying circus!

[Harpooner]

The above thread mentions STS low profiles, research will show that no one flys on them because there is no perif vision with them on. If you have a tube failure or strong white light closes them down you are blind.

The best solution is Anvis 9 series, with a Gen 3 Omni 4 tube, they have all the bells and whistles and have been selected by virtually all flying forces around the world except our own! (Not manufactured by UK voters?)

The Police using Fens Gen 2 are doing so because they were sold them in an industry 'off-load' If you think Gen 3 are too sensitive against gen 2 then top marks to that Salesman from Fenns!

Anvis are sold by ITT and Litton, there is a free seminar/sales show in London October 02, Shepard press are doing the NIGHT Vision thing again. Good place to go if you are interested in joining the 'Fly safer at night' brigade. You won't find the CAA there in any number as they seem to object to the use of.

The conference in London is free to view the trade stands but costs to listen to the industry talks, worth it if you are about to shell out the cost of a Sports car on the concept.

http://www.nightvision2002.com/

[3 D]

Flygunz thanks for the reply.

I always wondered why they didn't use a type of screen that produced a red image that may affect night vision less, in case they failed and you had to look outside.

[Thomas coupling]

Harpooner: you talk confidently for an outsider?

I can assure you that extensive trials were done by our unit using operational experts on both types (II and III) No-one else is doing NVG except Devon and Cornwall who have completely different spec.
Gen III are too sensitive for OUR TYPE OF WORK, which is just as well because they are also twice the price of our Gen II. Where is the sales sense in that little profit earner???

Who told you the CAA don't like NVG, you obviously haven't talked to Nigel Talbot recently, have you... Get your facts straight before 'harping' on in this forum...too many people know an awful lot more than you think...

[[email protected]]

3D, the human eye is most sensitive in the green colour band which is the main reason for the colour of the image in NVG. I believe there are some experimental sets that produce a yellow image but I have not used them.
Thomas Coupling - I am sure that some of the improvements between Gen II and Gen III enhance the signal to noise ratio when light levels are high and prevent the automatic gain from closing down the goggles as much in these conditions. I think your 'experts' may have got you cheap goggles but not neccessarily for the right reasons. Gen III are vastly superior to Gen II and the differences are highlighted in difficult conditions. If NVG are too sensitive for your ops then you probably should be using white light or FLIR. In what conditions were they considered too sensitive?

[[email protected]]

3D, on re-reading your post I can't help wondering if you are confusing night vision with night vision goggles. I am sure you know that the eye has 2 different types of cells in the retina - cones which are responsible for colour vision and are packed in to the fovea (the central area where light is focussed) and rods which cannot discriminate colour and cover the rest of the retina but are not packed as closely as the cones. When light levels drop (ie it gets dark) the iris opens to let as much light in as possible and the rods undergo a chemical transformation which renders them very sensitive to light. The cones are just not sensitive enough to work at low light levels so the area you usually use for vision - the fovea - is not functioning (this is why you are taught to look slightly away from an object in the dark to be able to see it - the reflected light from the object must fall on the rods if the brain is to notice it.
Clearly this limitation on eyesight is not much use when you are staring down a pair of toilet roll tubes (NVG) which is why you use the cones which receive high levels of green light (around 550 microns wavelength) from the tubes. So although you are flying around in the dark, you are using the eyes' daylight vision (photopic) instead of night vision (scotopic). Coming out from under goggles (ie failure of tube, battery etc) is not usually a drama as the low levels of cockpit lighting required to allow the NVG to operate efficiently, allow your rods to undergo their normal adaptation to darkness. In effect you get the best of both worlds as you have day and night vision at the same time.
I believe another reason for using the green image is that it reuires less power to produce a certain brightness using green/yellow light than in any other colour.

[Harpooner]

None taken, no need to apologise! Outsiders I take it, are not welcome on the Police forum?

I did not intend to throw mud at you or set a fire under your seat, Out of curiosity what is it that makes Gen 3 worse than Gen 2? Having been down the painful line of aquisition recently I am now wondering if we have it wrong and neglected to look at older equipment to our loss? Is it because in urban applications they do not amplify the light as much as a 3?

As for costs we paid just under £8000 per set of goggles, were the Gen 2s half of that (please)

Apologies to Mr Talbot, I'll be interested to see if he will be on his own in October in London.

[Flashman]

Harpooner

The North Wales Police Unit chose the FENNS NG 700's (Gen 2+) with Omni 4 tubes as they gave better performance when used from an operational altitude of 500'. They also proved better suited to their needs when operating in both rural and urban environments. There were several sets of goggles tested during the trial period and it was hands-on (or should I say eyes-out) experience of the goggles that a decision was made. They were not as you put it "sold in an industry off-load". Gen 3 goggles are superior to Gen 2's, but in this instance the Gen 2+ goggles better suited the needs.
The gentlemen from the CAA are far from objectional to the use of NVG, infact they are doing everything they can to see their early introduction. The stumbling block you may find is the actual aircraft certification.

[email protected]

...or should that read DCFI, MW? Anyway, thanks for the lesson on the anatomy of the eye! The reason a green image is viewed when using NVG is simply due to the type of phosphor used in the manufacture. You have a choice of two! Amber or green.
The main improvements made from Gen 2 to Gen 3 goggles are the reduction in pore size of the Micro Channel Plate (MCP)- a main component of the goggles. The signal to noise ratio has, as a result been improved. Gen 3's are, as stated above superior to Gen 2's but not for the use as required in Police Ops. You are not required to operate in "difficult conditions" (as you put it) during Police Ops and they are actually used in conjunction with both FLIR and white light.
The "experts" did not buy cheap and they were purchased for all the right reasons - Police flying as opposed to military flying.

Take off the camouflaged blinkers, there is life on the other side of the fence!

:D

[[email protected]]

Flashman,

You may have police connections but you are not exactly Hercules Poirot – you are wrong, wrong and wrong again

1. I am not and never have been DCFI at MW – I served for 7 years on exchange there as a Lynx/Gaz QHI – a simple look at the ‘from’ box at the bottom of the post would have told you where I work.

2. You can have phosphor pretty much any colour you like – look at your computer screen (if it’s not LCD) it has red, blue and green phosphor dots to produce the colour image. As I mentioned before, the eye is most sensitive to the green spectrum and can therefore discriminate between more shades of green than any other colour – rather useful if you are trying to interpret a single colour display.

3. The main improvements from Gen II to Gen III were the use of Gallium Arsenide as a photocathode (the bit that turns the incoming photons into electrons and sends them down the Micro Channel Plates) and the coating of the MCPs with an ion absorbing material which helps prevent damage from strong light sources and increases the tube life.

4. If the police are only going to fly above 500’ using NVG then I agree that Gen II would be adequate but if they are going to be used for approach and landing to field sites then they would be significantly better off with Gen III.

My lesson on the eye was meant to inform not patronise as many people use this forum to increase their knowledge of aviation matters – me included and 3D seemed to have confused night vision with using goggles.

[Flashman]

[email protected],

Sorry for the confusion, never assume, check as they say! I should have known better, a crab using an e-mail address for a user name. I now know who you are and no you wouldn't have been the DCFI !. I was also at MW as a Lynx/Gaz QHI. Infact I spent more time in the NAAFI queue than you did on goggles!:D

Yes, you can have phosphur pretty much any colour you like - white wouldn't be much good for night flying though would it?! :rolleyes:
I said only the colours amber and green are used in the manufacture of NVG. Green being the general choice as more shades of green are visible to the human eye.

The main improvements from Gen II to Gen III were the use of Gallium Arsenide as a photocathode and the ion barrier film on the MCP's - I'll give you that one! The pore size reduction of the MCP was and continues to be an important area of advancement. Saying that, Panoramic Night Vision Goggles will be available in 2-3 years.

I can assure you that North Wales Police Air Operations Unit are more than happy with their choice of goggles. As mentioned in my previous post, Gen 2+ proved to be the better goggle during police NVG trials.

Hercules Poirot was a ficticious, fat belgian detective who I believe has more in common with you than me! Give my regards to all the ex-pongo pilots who jumped across and now walk sideways.

[[email protected]]

Come on then Flashman who are you? I flew with a lot of people at MW in 7 years and unless you are really old I probably did your C to I on the Lynx. Don't hide behind a 'nom de prune' give us a clue!

[Flashman]

I'm not that old! By the way another crab, Dave Griffiths did my C to I. ;)

[Thomas coupling]

As Mutley would say:

HeHeHeHeHeHeHe..........:)

[Harpooner]

'The North Wales Police Unit chose the FENNS NG 700's (Gen 2+) with Omni 4 tubes as they gave better performance when used from an operational altitude of 500'

Omni IV tubes are Gen 3! It doesn't matter when the cases were made it is the tubes that decide the Generation, if you have Omni 4 you have a gen 3 set of goggles and they are the next best thing to Gated gen 3. And there we were getting all confused over your choice of Generation 2, which you don't seem to have after all.

Or do you still believe you do have Gen 2?




:cool:

[Green Goblin]

I think you may find they are known as "Gen 2 plus" or "Gen two and a half". Tube is Generation 2 but Tube Classification is OMNI 4. Basically, a 3 litre engine in a Ford Fiesta!

[fat pax]

Flashman -

'Not that old'???!!!.....................hmmmmmmm:)

[flygunz]

Hey Crab@SAAvn type bloke, do you windsurf?

[[email protected]]

Flygunz, at the risk of opening myself up to some witheringly witty punch line yes I do, longboard and short - my best trick used to be a one-handed duck gybe but that was a few years ago when I was young and supple!

[flygunz]

That explains everything, even your ramblings on this thread!;)
If you cant work out who I is I'll email you, but we worked together at 671.:confused:

[[email protected]]

I have it on good authority the NG 700s come in 2 flavours, one with Gen 3 tubes which the military (certainly RAFSAR) use and one with Gen 2 tubes - the ones the N Wales police have chosen. Gen 3 tubes are not available for civilian use, presumably as a means of keeping military capability ahead of the rest. Similarly Gen 4 goggles which exist in America won't be sold to anyone but the US military to start with and will eventually percolate through to other armed forces - at this stage the Gen 3 technology will probably be made available to civvies.
I know that many police pilots are ex military (particularly AAC) and therefore have a good grounding in NVG ops but what training will be given to a civilian pilot flying for the police before he is allowed to use them? And what are the currency requirements for NVG use by civilian operators?


Flygunz - the only other person who windsurfed at MW was the DCFI unless my memory is completely addled!!!Dont use my profile email as it is out of date.

[ASV]

HELLO , I'M NEW WITH NVG & I NEED THE MAX INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING THAT CAN HELP.....MANY TNX :eek:

[Ed Winchester]

A search, using the keyword 'NVG' (spooky or what) would have given you this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56942&highlight=NVG)

:p

[The Nr Fairy]

Ed :

Just as well searching for "NVG" got results, I'm not sure ASV could search for "nvg".

[helmet fire]

Why do you ask ASV?

On a self learner?

[ab139heli]

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ifound this site interesting

www.morovision.com

click on how night vision work

[ASV]

;)

[Avnx EO]

Just as my disclaimer....None of this information is classified - and is readily available from other sources.

NVG (Night vision goggles) is commonly used to describe light amplification goggles or image intensifiers. The goggles typically mount on a bracket from a helmet, like a set of binoculars. The goggles operate by taking in an ambient light image and amplifying it agaist a green phosphor screen inside the binocular. The result is that with very minimal light (eg, even starlight coming through cloud layer on a moonless night) you have enough light to see. This differs from FLIR which uses the heat from objects. NVG has a bit of that - since it covers part of that spectrum, but it is really using extremely low levels of natural light reflected off objects, rather than heat emitted from an object.

The original goggles used in aviation (late 70s early 80s) were Gen-II goggles and amplied the entire visible spectrum and then some. This required that cockpit and instrument lighting be dimmed so much that it was not visible to the naked eye. It also required the pilot to continually shift focus in and out of the cockpit - which the Army found to be a good way to kill pilots.

Gen III goggles only amplify light in the red and infra-red end of the spectrum. Actually the spectrum is optimized for starlight reflected off vegitation. By only amplifying this portion of the spectrum, the cockpit can use the other part for its lighting without disturbing the goggles. Gen-III goggles mount slightly off the helmet and are focused for outside viewing. The pilot looks below and past the goggles to view cockpit instruments without looking through the goggles.

We typically talk about Class A and Class B goggles. The difference is defined in MIL-L-85762A which is the controlling spec for this technology, and for the cockpit lighting. Class A goggles have a 625 nm wavelength cut-off which means everything in the cockpit has to be blue or green only. Class B goggles (Typically referred to as NVIS) have a 665 nm cut-off, which allow use of a greeny-yellow and a dirty-red without disrupting the goggles.

Cockpit light has to be specially filtered. Normal colored filters still let through enough energy in the longer wavelengths to affect the goggle performance. The special filters are designed with sharp cut-off characteristics to prevent energy from escaping in the long wavelengths.

Class A goggles are recommended for operation "below tree-top" level. They give you the extra edge required for NOE (Nap of the earth) flying. Class A goggles do a better job of picking out power lines and other obstacles. SOA and SOF helicopters, for example, are typically set up for Class A goggles. Those cockpits are usually blue-green only with some limited use of other colors (even though the result is not totally class-A compliant.)

Class B goggles are the more typical NVGs in use in civil (police) and other military aviation application. They allow the use of other colors in the cockpit, although special filtering is still required. Pretty much any adaptation of civil electronic displays for NVG has to be for Class B rather than Class A use.

Hope that helps.

[ASV]

yes many tnx :)

[MaxNr]

Outside of military applications, who is using NVG as part of their operation ie Company names, type of operation etc. Thanks in advance.

[S76Heavy]

I believe REGA in Switserland fly HEMS with NVGs.

[Jack S.]

STARS Alberta is currently trying to get certification for NVG use on their Air Ambulance service.
Don't know about their status.

[Helinut]

The only civilian UK operation I know of is Devon and Cornwall police. They use a BK117 and (I believe) 2 pilots. North Wales police uses NVG, but only for the police osbervers (at the moment).

[[email protected]]

Max, I believe Canada is the closest to getting civilian operators clearance to operate on NVG, my question is how will it be regulated. NVG skills are not difficult to aquire with the right training but will civilian operators pay the costs of the continuation training that is required - the skills are perishable just like instrument flying and must be practised.
I read an article in one of the helicopter comics recently that suggested that IFR training wasn't required as part of, or a precursor to, an NVG qualification. Methinks the writer has never encountered bad weather on goggles - as most NVG pilots will tell you by the time you realise that weather has degraded the goggle picture, you are already in the middle of it and are very likely to need your IFR skills to get out.
If HEMS and police start to operate on NVG, how long will it be before private pilots claim their right to use them too - then we will see some interesting accidents.

[Thomas coupling]

There is a move to increase the regulation with civilian NVG in the US i believe because jo bloggs could purchase a pair of NVG's from the downtown gunstore and go flying in his helo at night on goggles:eek:
Here in the Uk in light of the growing interest in NVG, particularly with us in the police world, but obviously GA in general, the CAA are showing a keen interest in the matter and will be regulating accordingly. They are listening to commercial inputs, and it is hoped the end product will benefit all.
The Home Office is actively promoting the procurement of said items for public service helos.
Interestingly one of the main advantages for using NVG is the ability to avoid bad weather.

[Helioil]

Several civilan companies in Norway:)

[ATPMBA]

I believe I heard that a US EMS outfit located in either the state of Kentucky or Tennessee is using NVG. I don’t have any other information.

[[email protected]]

TC, how many times have you only realised it was raining when the goggle picture degraded - it's happened to me countless times. You use a met forecast and regular actuals to avoid bad weather, NVGs just let you fly in it in the dark.
If you have a lovely starlit, moonlit night and there are showers around, the goggles will help you avoid them but in overcast conditions with embedded CB and the likes they do not help a bit. If GA are trying to sell the CAA on 'extra safety' so they are allowed to fly on goggles then they are having a laugh. About the only safety increase is from better collision avoidance except that people will be avoiding traffic that is in airways or 50 miles away.
If Police and HEMS want goggles then I see no problem with it, but letting PPL H holders lose with them is asking for trouble.
Goggle flying is not a black art but you have to practise it, especially that tricky bit of getting into a site and onto the ground.

[GLSNightPilot]

I don't want to stir up anything, but Neville's mag, the Nov/Dec 2002 issue, had an article on Mountain Area Medical Airlift of Asheville, NC that was the first civilian company to be approved for NVG's in the US. Bell also offers NVG courses.

[Mike Tavcar]

I'm somewhat disapointed by comments that if we let the EMS/SAR?Police start to use NVGs it will open a flood gate of pilots of all sorts buying NVgs and using them. There will always be those rogue pilots who will do the wrong thing, who will fly in IMC when not IFR rated, fly at night when not night rated, use VFR GPS for IFR navigation, etc. Anyhow this should not stop reputable emergency service operators from using what we found to be a highly desirable piece of technology for both operational effectivness and safer night operations into what we call "black-hole" operations. As a 24-hour Police/EMS/SAR operator, flying IFR N3 Dauphines, we are routinely required to operate into and land in unlit and unprepared outlandings with nothing more than a powerful torch strapped to the side of the machine. All our pilots are IFR rated and current and routinely do many night hours.
I have used NVGs in the military as well as now civil and I can attest that this is the single best piece of night flying aid since the invention of the night sun searchlight.
There is more than just buying goggles, cockpits have to be properly modified (preferrably to RTCA DO275 or equivalent standard), operating procedures have to be mandated, such as, inadvertent IMC, goggle/de-goggle, tube failure procedure, etc. Syllabus of initial training and recency requirements must be met and as a minimum Gen III ANVIS goggles must be used. We are mandating ANVIS9 (F4949) omnibu IV class B goggles as minimum (although some would argue that ANVIS 6 is OK...and that is true). The civil aviation regulatory body must ensure that regulations are drafted to ensure that procedures and equipment meet at least RTCA DO268 & 275 or mil equivalent. Most operators, other than emergency service, would not have the resources to either fund or operate on NVGs under such regulations. Gen III goggles normally can only be sold to govt or emergency service operators although this could be different in Europe.

Anyhow we have concluded a major airborne study of goggles and if interested the report is available to anyone interested by emailing me or downloading from www.simflight.com.au/NVG_report.htm

Mike Tavcar
Training & Checking Captain
Victoria Police Air Wing
Australia

[2nd2none]

STARS in Calgary Canada, has approval for NVG operations in a EMS operation. The first with a Transport Cat operation It has been over three years in coming. A company called Nite Owl North America ltd helped in the training and Transport Canada approvals.

[helmet fire]

As I said in the BK117 thread a while back - flying EMS at night without NVG should be phased out as a dangerous practice the old guys had to do. We should be already telling our younger pilots "...when I was a lad, we had to do this WITHOUT NVG!" and they would look at us in amazement that we could have been so brave. Instead, our regulatory bodies are making us continue to unecessarily risk our lives by not mandating NVG. :mad:

I reckon NVG are the biggest single safety improvement to HEMS ops since the helmet.

Well done Mike Tavcar for the thoroughness and level of your report, and especially the willingness to share this information for the good of all, rather than harbour it as a "knowledge is power" thing like so many others have. Bravo. :ok:

[Thomas coupling]

Concur with the above - thanks Mike:ok:

[trimpot]

Concur with Mike. The military managed to plow a blackhawk into the dirt in Timor using NVG's. CHC, however has managed to uphold an unblemished record.

[md 600 driver]

crab

do you have a problem with private pilots your posts seem to promote doom and gloom for any private pilot using any new equiptment

you may have fortunate for the hm gov to pay for all of your flight training but that does not mean all military pilots have the god given right to fly or they are better or more proffesional in their flying

belive or not private pilots can go to the same training courses that mil pilots do

the courses that are run for nvg. Private pilots can go to so why are they liable to cause interesting accidents

or do you think all private pilots should have a robbie with no extras at all ,as its all they can opperate

did you also know that there are a lot of private pilots flying more hours than military or hems/police/air taxi opps

and flying in better equipt helicopters

rant over still cant spell

[[email protected]]

MD600, I think we have been round this 'you were lucky enough to have the HM pay for your training, don't think this makes you any better' argument before on other threads - YES I was lucky enough but I had to work hard for it and NO I don't think that all military pilots are neccessarily more professional than others.

However, on the subject of NVG - the military are the ones with all the expertees, flying in all weathers, in all sorts of inhospitable environments, at all sorts of ridiculous heights. If the civilian world does not take notice some of the hard lessons learned by mil pilots as the whole sphere of NVG ops has eveolved then they will be doomed to repeat them.
Fortunately the role of introducing NVG to HEMS/police has fallen to ex- mil pilots in the main, partly because so many of those HEMS/Police pilots are ex-military themselves and cannot understand why they are asked to do similar jobs to the military without the same kit.
Hot on the heels of HEMs /police use of goggles will inevitably come private pilots demanding that they be allowed to use them as well (probably citing human rights legislation as their defence) and this is where I have a problem.

NVGs do not make night flying safer! They allow you to do the same job with a helicopter by night as you would by day and operate at low level into and out of unrecced sites. My question is why would a PPLH holder want to do this - so he can press on rather than making the sensible decision to divert, just because he wants to get home on time?

As Mike Tavcar stated, NVG flying is much more than just strapping the green toilet roll tubes to your helmet and pulling pitch - training, compatible aircraft equipment and more training are vital.

I think all HEMS/police crews should be NVG equipped, when you are required to do a job with a helicopter at night, goggles enhance your operational capability without doubt. Do they make it safer? I don't think so, they just let you push further.

Trimpot - have you stopped to consider what the aircraft in Timor was doing when it ploughed in? Do CHC do the same job as the military? I don't think you are comparing like with like.

To all those who see NVG as a panacea for all night ops - they are a piece of equipment which has many limitations, almost as many as the human beings who have to be trained to interpret what they see through them. NVG will often get you to short finals for a site quite easily but white light (or even a combination of the two) is frequently the safest way to achieve the hover/landing.
If you don't believe me just wait til you've frightened the sh*t out of yourself on goggles - the margin for error is not large.

[Mike Tavcar]

I have on many occasions had military accidents thrown back at me when discussing NVGs, not least from our regulatory body, some who have said, and I quote, "I've heard that if the goggles fail you can crash". This same person has since flown on NVGs during our trial and came away a convert. Actually every non-NVG pilot and visitor that we had on goggles during the trial made the same remark,"Hell, I can see!!"

It is misinformation and just plain ignorance that continues to keep NVGs somewhat of a dark horse amongst the tools of trade. It is incumbent on us all who believe in the safety advantage that these things will give to spread the word and inform the uninitiated.

Remember that many of the military accidents, if not all, occur in dificult tactical training senarios. Civil use of NVGs have no place in tactical low level, NOE, multi-ship operations....as I see it. Compared to what we are doing now, with regulatory blessing, NVG is SAFE, very SAFE.

And yes weather is a significant limitation to goggle use. It is important that training and SOPs are used to regulate its use. This is no different then flying unaided. I have heard of many who have gone inadvertent IMC unaided day or night...and this will continue to happen...for those who either push to far or don't abide by SOP. But again this should not be a reason to stop use of NVGs just because some element out there will abuse their privalege to use goggles. We might as well stop all flying that way there will never be any misuse of flying full stop!!

[[email protected]]

Mike, I thoroughly agree that people doing a job with a helicopter at night should have NVGs - I have done lots of normal night flying into difficult sites including mountain ones and without doubt, being able to see makes you feel much more comfortable. The only problem is that pilots become less cautious when flying on goggles, thinking that because they can see that it is just like day flying. That is when they come into a LS too fast and are caught out by the poor rate of closure and depth perception cues and end up overshooting/overtorquing/scaring themselves.

I know that a lot of guys like yourself have put a lot of work into getting civil regs in many countries changed to allow the use of NVG in HEMS/police ops - 2nd2none has been hard at work in Canada as he states in an earlier post. However I stand by what I said earlier - NVGs do not make night flying safer, they just make it easier to see where you are going.

[Mike Tavcar]

I can appreciate what you are saying, Crab. But I will have to agree to disagree. Having flown mostly night ops for the past 21 years unaided of which the last 16 using a nightsun into night outlandings and then doing the same with goggles I am convinced that it is safer doing my job aided then unaided. And yes you can scare yourself flying, hell I've done it unaided day or night but I would scare myself a hell of alot less and have a more relaxed sphincter when going into those black holes. Situational awareness is paramount at night something a big torch strapped to the side of my helo won't do as well. I'll take aided landings any day over the nightsun. NVGs like the nightsun, IFR, FLIR are all aides to flying and that's how it should be viewed...an aid to flying.

On the question of private pilots or other non emergency pilots flying NVG...if they equip properly (both goggles and cockpit) and train to an acceptable standard and maintain recency then I guess, in a free world, they should not be denied the right to access technology...this is the same in anything we do, aviation or not. Regulatory standards will ensure that honest pilots will do the right thing. The risk takers will still exist no matter if you ban NVGs or not. You would be surprised how many illegal NVG flights are going on out there and not necessarily using ANVIS. Example many drug runners use NVGs for cross border smuggling, etc. You're not going to stop so called "private" pilots using them by denying those who should have it. Better to regulate it properly and so control it through training establishments, etc.

NVGs are an extremely good aid to night flying. They are certainly not a panacea to night flying...that I agree wholeheartly but by gee they are sure better than a big torch.

Lets move on from being negative about NVGs and work to make it a positive thing for us all who have to fly at night for a crust.

[[email protected]]

Mike, now that I have actually bothered to download and read your report (which I think is very good by the way) I can understand your evangelical fervour to equip your guys with goggles. I did not appreciate how constrained your ops were by your safety altitude regulations. In the UK mil we can fly at 500' agl without goggles, so being forced into IFR to get to a job was less of a drama. However NVG do make life even easier, especially for completely unlit sites or those away from cultural lighting.
I think the only trick you might be missing is having a halfway house between nightsun and pure NVG approaches, we transfer from goggles to white light on most approaches to the hover whether it be alongside a ship, into a field, against a cliff or halfway up a mountain. Precision hovering for winching is easier on white light than on goggles because you retain the peripheral vision you use during the day; even the fastest goggle scan can't replace that. We have the advantage of 2 steerable landing lights and 4 hover/floodlights that give us a very nice pool of light in which to work. Clearly not much use for tactical ops but top banana for SAR work. On really dark nights when the goggles are struggling the white light comes into its own and the pool of light is much better to work in than just the beam from a nightsun.
We used to use nightsun approaches in NI to both field and HLS landings so I understand the problems flying down the beam of light into the 'black hole'.
I hope you are successful in your quest for the NVG capability, it will give you the freedom in your ops that we have been enjoying for years.

[trimpot]

Crab,
when the fully NVG compatable Blackhawk crashed it was on a night training mission. CHC do in fact do everything the military do in Timor and more! They are flying a partially NVG equiped 212 and non-NVG 332's. Yet they have a higher success rate for night missions than the military. So, yes I do think I am comparing apples with oranges but I'm not sure who are the apples and who are the oranges.
Also, you seem to take it for granted that civilian operators will not/have not learn't from the lessons and experiences of the military. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Lastly, the military are not the only people on the planet that fly in unhospitable conditions. Ask anyone flying offshore in Darwin during the wet or the North Sea, the guys flying EMS out of La Trobe Valley and Canberra and the guys fire bombing in Australia and Canada and the guys flying Aeromedical evacuations in Timor.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Rocky Mountain Helicopters were the first FAA Part 135 commercial operator approved for NVG operation, in 1999.

The programme was established in conjunction with Aviation Specialties Unlimited (http://www.asu-nvg.com/about_us.htm) and addressed every aspect of of initial and recurrent training as well as equipping the aircraft.

I remember moves to utilise NVG's in the North Sea a long time ago (mid 80's?) and various trials being undertaken offshore.

Commercial operators (and regulators) are more than adept at adapting and adopting modern technology in a safe, organised and regulated manner; whilst addressing the safety of their personnel, operation and aircraft. If anyone honestly believes that any regulatory authority is incapable of initiating and regulating an operation of this nature prior to it's inception, then they really must have no comprehension of commercial operation or regulation.

[jungly]

Mike well done on your report....your walk before you run style and methodical approach is commendable. I wish you the best.

I concur with crabbo too (now theres a first) You should really look into the concept of NVG approach to a white-light termination. For precision work (non-tactical) white light is the business. We found the following a great compromise in the hover:

Goggles on, NVG search light pointing ahead, white light search light pointed straight down! The peripheral glow of the white light significantly aides hover references (and if youre winching it allows the crewman to see the many obstacles they otherwise wouldnt see on gogs)

Trimpot old boy.... CHC did fine work in ET - in fact Id say exceptional work and yes they did out often out perform the military (well done)..... but you are generalising about military ops when I think you mean Aussie Army Ops?
When CHC start flying low level fast, 6-8 ship NVG formations to HLS's, receiving ground fire, co-ordinating with Gnd Attack Acft and AWACS, with instantaneous time on target rendevous's in the Bosnian winter....then we can talk turkey. (When its done right m'ol china you are talking apples and oranges)

Lastly Im no guru...I'm still on this earth as much through good luck as good management. I sincerely hope all civil NVG operations can access military accident reports....and not make the fatal errors we made whilst learning the ropes.

As a matter of interest what light/ mlux levels are civil operators flying to? As any experienced NVG operator knows....some nights are just as dark with the goggles on!

Very good thread.........to the RN pilots about to go into action in the Persian Gulf - Good Shooting! "Fear God Honour the SeaKing"

[2nd2none]

Some very good pionts made by Jungly! As a trainer for NVG Operations the non mil white light aid is absolutly outstanding for NVG Civ operations. But for the mil guys it would be Operation Certain Death with any lights. If you can, use white light for most of the operational profiles increases the SA no end. For Mike, Real good report, have a look at some of these web sites.
www.nite-owl-nvg.com
www.ntis.com, search for NVG

Good luck!!

[helmet fire]

Cyclic hotline:

If anyone honestly believes that any regulatory authority is incapable of initiating and regulating an operation of this nature prior to it's inception, then they really must have no comprehension of commercial operation or regulation.

I think you are right, regulatory agencies are not "incapable" but name an example of a regulatory body actually "initiating" the change to adopt NVG. It seems that it has been left to operators to do what Mike Tavcar has done, though I recognise that generally speaking it's due to regulator staffing levels and workload.

Crab: I disagree a wee bit sir: I believe NVG flight IS safer. I am not a fan of the transition to white light prior to the hover as I recall that being the cause fo a few incidents in the Oz Army during the early days of thier NVG ops. I am however a fan of the method described by Jungly of using the white light straight down as a "fill" light, with one caveat: only use it on dark nights. The reason for this caveat is that it appears to be a widely held misconception that white light cannot harm ANVIS 6 and later generation crystals/tubes. As it does degrade the tubes, I would only use this method where it provides a clear benefit, but on nice clear moonlit nights, the light can actually degrade your view through the NVG, in much the same way too bright an IR light can.

Trimpot:

CHC must be fantastic - or are you the marketing manager? You guys fly around below 200 ft at night in formation (you did say: "CHC do in fact do everything the military do in Timor and more! ") and you have learnt all the military lessons. AND you state that CHC have a higher success rate for night missions than the military. How so?

[trimpot]

Jungly and helmet fire,
point taken. However, I did not state that CHC had learn't all the military lessons, merely that they did learn from the military, in some cases directly. As for the having a higher success/completion rate for night missions (and that's actual missions, not training) it's a simple statement of fact. Please don't miss my point, I am not trying to bag the military, but there is a perception that there are some jobs that can only be done by the military. This is true in some cases such as formation at night where civilian operators clearly do not have a need to do that sort of flying. In other cases it is not true and civilian operators do very well.

[[email protected]]

Helmet fire, I understand where you are coming from regarding the white light prior to hover in that just turning on a bright light while you are still on goggles and closing them down completely is a receipe for disaster.
We are able to gradually increase the amount of white light we use, starting with the hover lights on the sponsons which shine straight down and then introducing the forward facing flood lights and then the 2 steerable landing lights. In this way the transition from gogs to white light can be varied according to conditions and light levels.
I understood that the coating on the microchannel plates in the later generation tubes was what prevented high levels of incoming photons from releasing excessive electrons from the plates and thus damaging the tubes - do you have other information to the contrary?
Trimpot - when I mentioned inhospitable conditions it was with specific reference to NVG ops in inhospitable conditions - I am well aware that lots of other people fly in cruddy weather.
2nd2none - good plug mate!!!!

[laidbak]

We are a mosquito control agency (public use) in Southern Florida and anticpate using NVGs on our fixed wing night flying spray missions in the coming season (spray alt approx. 300' agl) ; we did some initial evaluation at end of last season, and will be taking a course from manufacturer shortly in which methods of use will be refined. As the fixed wing ops have the luxury of two pilots in the ac, it is likely that the PNF will utilise this technology as enhanced obstacle avoidance, and it will help with anticipation of wx problems ; PF cannot realistically use them as scan/adjustment significantly degrades ability to fly accurate track and altitude.
One of our staff, an ex Mil rotorhead, observes that for rotary night ops, with correct training and understanding of limitations, this technology is a vast leap forward and is certainly applicable to EMS/Law Enforcement ops and the like.

[helmet fire]

Crab, I had imagined your techniques was to come to a 200 - 300 ft agl hover and go through the transition there - but your method appears far superior to that, thanks for the clarification.

When gogs went to Gen3 they did indeed incorporate the coating onto the objective side of the microchannel plate (MCP) to protect the bit that turns photons into electrons. As I was taught (and my memory has never been that flash) it is the protons that do the damage, and the excess of protons caused by the excess of electrons produced at the MCP during white light ops is the issue. As I understood it, the Gen3 not only incorporated the coating (some form of boron alluminium chloride from memory) but advances with the MCP modulation technology prevented excessive damage in white light. These advances did not stop production of the protons, and the coating is like any other coating - it is able to be worn down. Thus, using white light will not cause the goggles irrepairable damage like in the Gen2 gogs, but it degrades the coating and thus lessens the life of the tubes. The ANVIS 6 publications still contain a warning that they are not to be used in anything more than "full moonlight". White lights obviously significantly exceed this. Hence my earlier comments that white light is sometimes the safer way to hover, but not allways, and when you do, you are causing a bit of wear and tear that may very well be worth it for the safety enhancement offered by the white light. In other words - there are still no free lunches! :D

[Mike Tavcar]

I noticed some discussion about use of white light. In our trial we used both the standard swivelling landing light and the SX16 Nightsun unfortunately we could not trial an IR filtered light.

We found that the nightsun was OK but somewhat too bright (except on a dark night in which case worked well). All in all the swivelling landing light worked very well all the way to the ground. The only time the landing light was a problem was approaching the hover with reflection back into the cockpit causing the goggles to dim down unacceptably but this was corrected by lifting the landing light up towards but not into the blades. The nightsun was too bright near the ground in all ambient conditions. Indeed the standard landing lights worked very well with the goggles.

We used both ANVIS 6 omnibus II and ANVIS 9 Omnibus IV tubes and without a doubt I can say that the 9's worked exceptionally well with white light with less dimming then the 6's. Also when the US restriction is lifted the gated pinnacle goggles will make bright white light use a non event.

Our conclusion from the trial is that all front seat crew must be on goggles all the way to the ground. We strongly oppose any de-goggling on final approach with transition to white light only (as I believe some operators do)....personaly I don't know how they do it as we found it very uncomfortable and disconcerting to do so. We will only goggle and de-goggle whilst over a cultural lighting area or at safe altitude.

For covert police ops an IR searchlight with position and anti-col lights off is essential but all other ops the use of white light landing lights (that can be swivelled) works very well.

We have formulated SOP's for weather, illumination, pilot requirements, crewing, inadvertent IMC, etc. If interested I'm happy to share these with those interested

Regulatory bodies such as CASA here are not placing NVGs on a high priority and as such will wallow and bubble along for years to come. It is up to the emergency service operators and the HAA to actively lobby CASA to lift NVGs to a higher priority so that CASA standards section can be made to work on this project for benefit of us all.

CASA seems happy to issue concessions to the regulations for us to fly below LSALT with a big torch strapped to the side....but are you the pilots at the coal face happy with that? I'm not! CASA rhetoric is that they support the concept of NVGs but they seem misguided in the level of importance they place on having good SA when working under their concessions. Goggles will give us the SA we need when working at night below LSALT and CASA needs to get that message.

[SASless]

I am a recent convert to NVG's and IR lens SX-16 use. Without any reservation at all.....I cannot state how enjoyable it is to have these new tools for use at night. The only way I can describe the difference is to report the delight I had in making repeated approaches to a completely unlit confined area....in the middle of a very dark part of the forest....on an overcast night....with minimum natural light. Without the goggles on....I could not see the trees....or the ground...from a three foot hover. This was done without any use of man made light. With the goggles.....it might as well have been daylight with the one exception of the diminished field of view.

They are clumsy....take some getting used to....require a lot of head turning....but what an improvement. I actually look forward to flying in dark places now whereas it used to be a stressful time. Night flying over unlit mountainous areas used to fill me with glee...but now it would be a cake walk.

I fly a BK....and due to its small cockpit and the resulting restrictions to the field of view....I do find it a bit hard to see all the way around the aircraft and thus in a busy area of the sky....traffic avoidance might become an issue. However, usually, that situation would occur in a well lit place and thus the googles could be flipped up out of the way.

The other situation that I can see that would argue against goggles would be flying over very large bodies of very calm, smooth, glassy water. The reflection of the stars which becomes very easy to see with goggles could present a spatial disorientation problem exactly like it does with the naked eye.

The IR lens works great in conjunction with the nightsun as well...with the advantage that no white light is displayed. Cockpit lights can be seen inside other aircraft with the goggles at some considerable distance....thus very dim lights anywhere can be seen with ease.

The state of the art equipment is great.....I would shudder to think of having to fly the full face goggles such as the military did for so many years.

[Mike Tavcar]

I have been told that Spectrolab is no longer providing remotely driven IR filter for the SX16 only for their new range of nightsuns. Anyone know where we could source a couple of IR filters for the SX16 (the one that can be remotely controlled from inside the cockpit)?

[jungly]

Mike you might want to try the RNZAF. Their nightsuns have an IR filter that is 'flipped up and down' from inside the cockpit. They should be able to tell you where they got them from etc
PM me if you want an email address.

[SASless]

Upon return to work on Monday....will check for the source of ours.....and let you know.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

If you have the luxury of a second crewmember on the same side of the aircraft as the pilot, you may wish to consider using a Dragonlight handheld high-power torch with IR Filter instead of SX16. The Dragonlight is far more easily controlled and responsive when compared to an aircraft-mounted, joystick-steered light. Main disadvantage is that for illuminating targets further forward than the 2 o'clock (assuming the operator is on the RHS) the AS needs to be below 60 kts to enable the man with the light to hold it steady in the airflow. My RAF Chinook experience finished in '98, but this was certainly the system in use then, and also what was taught in Brunei from 98 to 01.

Be aware that there appear to be 2 different thicknesses/densities of Dragonlight IR filter, both with the same part number; the UK-forces issue version gave an excellent light source, whereas the type initially bought by the Brunes was so opaque as to be useless.

No-one seems to have raised the topic of diffuse-light sources; the type used by the UK (Brightstar) on a fixed mounting underneath the fuselage give invaluable reference info without the high contrast problems of IR or white-light searchlights. Very handy on OVC Borneo nights over the ulu...

[helmet fire]

thud,
Good points. I am a huge fan of the diffused IR light, especially for low flying and any hover ops. Having flown NVG on UH-1H and UH-60s, I found that the UH-60 IR searchlight was excellent, but I always ended up with a sore thumb from motoring it around on dark nights and in the hover because it did not diffuse enough. The Huey on the other hand lacked a sharp IR light and this made identification of various features a challenge, especially during low level with no GPS (what was that ancient technique again...clock to map to ground or something? Anybody??;) ;) ). But, the diffused light on the Huey was fantastic for low flying, hover ops and liftoff and landing from the hover. Much better than the UH-60.

I would rather the diffused IR light for civ HEMS ops than the beam style lights. I would be intrested to see what the SX16 looked like with IR filter and no focus, but I suspect it would still be to bright for dark night ops. SASless - you would probably know.

[Kalif]

In the Oct/Nov edition of Defence Helicopter, the Dyfed-Powis ASU try to make a case for the use of NVGs for Police Air Support Operations.

Various arguments are made ranging from we've bought the kit, why can't we use it. Safety enhancement and costs.

Silly move if you've spent money before things are firmed up!

You've got a very good Thermal Image system with a very large torch strapped to the machine. I can see the reasoning for the rear observer using NVG's; he's remote from the front seat crew/pax and it can enhance his ability to operate. Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are. A very real possibility of going inadvertant IMC then exists with the pilot (not instrument rated) then having to go onto instruments and recover what would be a rapidly deteriorating situation.

Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated.

The costs of fitting a helicopter for NVG against the costs of instrument rating pilot would I think come out in favour of the instrument rating.

The Defence Hewlicopter article quite rightly says that as far as the CAA is concerned, police operations are public transport; quite correct. As such public transprot rules must apply and can't be watered down due to a ill-informed view that NVG's are the way to go.

Any way all you Air Support Units, let's have your views.

Oh, by the way, before I get told to not to go on about things I no nothing about, police operations, been there and done that.

[huntnhound]

Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated

Agree 100%:rolleyes: However you partly answered your own question. Costs would be the main thing that the Police Chancellors would object to. As far as I am aware Devon and Cornwall are the only Police unit that has gone the extra mile in this area. :hmm:

[Kalif]

I agree that costs would be an issue. What I'm saying is that NVGs would be a deficit to flight safety and instrument ratings would be a huge enhancement to flight safety. The article gives a figure of £150,000 to convert a machine to NVG, plus there'll be a training add on. I'll bet you'll get I/R's for less than that figure.

Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.

[huntnhound]

Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.

Too many units do get sucked in to the "must haves". But the cost of training five pilots and maintain their currency would surely be prohibitive to most?
Maybe I`m wrong. I would be interested to hear what some of the European countries do in this area.

[MightyGem]

An instrument rating is only of use to get you home. You can't fly to a job on instruments. How do you regain visual? If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there. As for inadvertant, we fly sim IF every 3 months, just in case. Not ideal, but we don't need a fully fledged IR.

Your profile doesn't say whether you have NVG experience, but NVG's are the only way to fly at night when you're operating in amongst the high ground, trying to avoid bumping in to the lumpy bits. Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety.

[Kalif]

"An instrument rating is only of use to get you home."

Wrong answer! An instrument rating will prevent you flying into the ground should you end up in the middle of a cloud. Then you can go home in one piece, as can your crew.

"You can't fly to a job on instruments."

If you're operating amongst high ground then the weather should be suitable for you to do so; I'll bet there's a paragraph in the PAOM about operating above the highest obstacle within a certain distance. That's how you don't fly into that obstacle, be it a building or hill.

"How do you regain visual?"

I think it's called an ILS, PAR, NDB or something along those lines.

"If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there."

Exactly! But people do go inadvertant IMC and end up not going home.

I don't have NVG experience but that isn't to say only the people who do, probably from the military, should advocate the use of them. As I said, the rear observer, yes, and it would help his role

"Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety."

You must be trying to wind me up!

[Thomas coupling]

You don't know anything about NVIS, you aren't aware that the last crash was caused by pilot error, that pilot being instrument rated. You don't know how much it would cost to become IR'd nor to staycurrent with IR's. You don't know jack ***t.
Your observations are incredibly naive to say the least. In fact they're a joke.
Stop fishing and try and be constructive will you?
There, I feel better now......................:*

[Kalif]

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve....

Don't think that I said that the last crash (which one?) was pilot error.
I do know how much it is to be instrument rated, and how much it is to stay current; I'm TRE/TRI with the instrument endorsement!

Trying to create discussion to further enhance flight safety is not fishing but very constructive I would have thought.

So I do think that I know jack ***t...

Please grow up.

[Banzai-blades]

Are we going to install letdown facilities on the bobbie's ( baddies')vehicles?

You're in for a hiding mate.

TC I agree fully. What a joker
:}

[Kalif]

Banzai-blades,

Think through what I'm saying. It's not about using the I/R to operate on task. It's about having the equipment and training to prevent CFIT after going inadvertaant IMC. NVG verses I/R; the I/R must win by the virtue that NVG won't get you out of inadvetant IMC, the I/R will.

If you read my posts you will see that I'm not argueing against NVG, but the use of them; it the back seat yes. Given the large costs involved does the end justify the means.

Are you really telling me that you do not regard an I/R as a benefit to flight safety?

If you think I'm wrong then convince me as to the benefits of NVG over an I/R. It is a discussion...

[TeeS]

Kalif

The problem with the instrument rating, with reference to these sort of ops, is that when you really want to use it, you stand a good chance of not being able to. The 2 main limitations usually being icing and fuel reserves.

Additionally, once you instrument rate a pilot specifically for these ops, you really need to allow considerable IF flying to maintain a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, these sort of operations do not generally lend themselves to disappearing off for an hour to bash the hold!

Now if you were to offer me NVG to go with the instrument rating, then yes please - best of both worlds!!

Cheers

Tees

[HeloEagle]

Kalif,

I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. NVG's are not designed for flying in the goo, but rather to allow you to see and avoid obstacles on the ground when you are operating in close proximity to mother earth, and to safely land in confined areas that you otherwise could not. Flying on instruments is the only way to go in IMC, however, it doesn't help you get your mission done when you are operating at tree top level or landing in a confined area. Yes, in Police work and in the military we have to do such things, and there is not an ILS in every enemy stronghold or field where a bad guy is hiding. So a good pilot needs both NVG's and an instrument rating, and the training to know when to use them. I can assure you, that anyone that has flown the latest generation of goggles will want them on their head as it is always better to see than to not see, and that is what NVG's give you the ability to do. While it is true that some have gone inadvertant IMC with NVG's, that again is a training issue, as with the NVG's you can at least see the WX, and then transition to the instruments and flip up the NVG's if necessary. Without the NVG's, you can't see the WX or anything, only the black of night and lights on the ground. So NVG's certainly INCREASE safety with a properly trained crew, just as instrument training does for the IMC environment. I have over 2,500 hours of helo pilot time, and over 500 of those are with NVG's, so before you discount the use of NVG's maybe you should check with those of us that use them on a regular basis. Fly safe!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

I have to jump in here too. Only about 500 hours police ops, and no civvy IR. Over 8000 hours mil (Proc IRE), with similar time on goggles to HeloEagle including instructional (desert, jungle) and ops (as above plus maritime, urban areas etc).

Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are

1. Situational awareness is why - once you've operated with NVG you will HATE reverting back to unaided night vision. That's what I believe the UK Mil call such flying now - Reversionary.

2. With training, you learn how to stay aware of what the weather is doing. You may think you can see nothing other than the picture through the tubes - not so, they are mounted with a gap of nearly 3cm between the objective and the eyes. Full peripheral vision is maintained, and the instruments/outside world can be scanned without having to move the head.

"An instrument rating is only of use to get you home."
- His point here is that, once you've realised you're India Mike, then although the IR will give recognised skills to safely return the aircraft to base, that is ALL it can do. What it can't do, and this is why the police bean-counters may think long and hard before being persuaded of its benefits, is increase the crews' ability to achieve their police-role tasking. The increased situational awareness that NVGs offer WILL provide that extra capability, without the crew having to look inside to see what ONE crewmember is pointing the TI/FLIR kit at. The instinctive relative-bearing info from pointing goggles mounted on your flying helmet is far more intuitive than reading the screen in front of the LHS observer.

I agree with HeloEagle that once you've become used to operating with NVG and with an IR, you'll want to keep both. This includes operations over urban areas; there were several occasions in my last unit (a metropolitan area) where, had I been using NVG, I would have been able to track suspects that the FLIR wasn't watching. For police tasking purposes, if there has to be a choice between one or the other - real world conditions apply - then the NVGs will offer the police value for money over the IR. The former increase the operational capability of the crew, the latter merely ensures they have the skills to escape from a situation that they are already taught to avoid.

The crash referred to, by the way, is the sad loss of the Strathclyde EC135 around a couple of years ago. It raised many issues, not just night-vision and IF currency - security of items in the cabin, pilot recruitment and other subjects were also aired I believe.

Fly Safe - AND Effectively

[Thomas coupling]

Thud / HeloEagle: excellent and well considered responses if I may say so. Wish I had the same degree of patience:ok:

[cyclic_fondler]

As somebody who hasn't had the chance to fly with NVGs or done much night flying , would the bright lights from street lights, car lights etc not cause problems for the NVGs or even damage them?

[MightyGem]

Cyclic, yes bright lights do tend to cause a lot of "flare" in the goggles , although I understand the problem is a lot better with more recent models.

Rest of the World, 9 : Kalif, minus 5.
Game over, I think. :ok:

[HeloEagle]

Bright lights were definately a problem for the older generation NVG's, but the latest and greatest ANVIS-9's are not affected very much by them. I wore them flying around New York City during New Year's celebration last year, and they didn't white out, and I don't think you can get any brighter than that! We were conducting Homeland Security, and we were flying around all the major landmarks, and even under all the bridges looking for bombs, etc and never had any problems. We would sometimes take turns flipping up the goggles just to see what the different colors of the city looked like in Times Square since everything is just shades of green in the goggles, but other than that, we always used the goggles. The NYC Police guys wished they had them as well. I have even had lightning right in front of me without causing a problem with the goggles, in fact they shut down for a milisecond and save your night vision. NVG's are the only way to go at night.

[cyclic_fondler]

Thanks for the info MightyGem and HeloEagle, much appreciated.

[whoateallthepies]

I've got to say how much I admire Dyfed-Powys for having the gumption to so publicly criticise the CAA.

I haven't used NVGs yet for night flying but all of the pilots I speak to who have used them before wouldn't be without them now.

They surely have to be an enhancement to flight safety and it would be nice to get the issues with the CAA sorted out, so that units such as ours could get on with purchasing them.

[Thomas coupling]

Congrats to Dyfed Powys for that column in the helicopter (defence) mag. It has certainly re-ignited the slow burning fuse in this industry regarding the intransigence emanating from the glass house!
I suspect things will gain momentum now and we shall all be flying with the aid of NVIS sooner rather than later (for those of us who want them, of course - as this should never be a compulsory bolt on).
We're meeting up with them next week to discuss the technical spec (goggles/helmets etc)... Fingers crossed for some enlightenment!
Rumour has it that we might even be allowed to fly below 500' with them - but only if we're very very good ;)

[Thud_and_Blunder]

It's unusual that Shepherd "we print your press handout verbatim" Press actually publish something useful; any chance of a precis/scan so it can be read sand-side?

Chatting to a UK Police Unit Chief Pilot who, while in the RN, knew the fella that became Mr CAA for this subject, it was interesting to note how one person's specific irrational fear of a given subject (flying at night, in this case) could become national Quango-enforced policy. It is a real shame that legislators don't have the opportunity to become as familiar with the equipment as the would-be operators. Bless 'im, even an experienced police heli operator like Kalif is prepared to criticise NVG from a position of, if not ignorance, then at least absence of personal acquaintance with the kit and procedures. Suggesting as he did that the presence of a "very large torch strapped to the machine" might help the pilot somehow with night flying suggests an interesting approach to maintaining orientation. My own experience with Nightsun over relatively-featureless, no-horizon countryside suggests it is far more of a hindrance than a help.

As for costs, most of the new aircraft being delivered to units these days have NVG-compatible lighting built-in at the factory. Gone are the days when the faithful 105 and 355 bore the brunt of the police task - thank goodness.

Training? After the initial course, there would be no extra requirement (unlike IR currency); unless, of course, the extra capability offered by night-vision equipment led to new roles being added to the police task. Line checks and OPCs would cover the necessary work.

Ops below 500 ft - why? We found with the jungle (urban or arboreal) that NVG were still perfectly useful above that height, so as the threat level allowed medium level ops we stayed up there and enjoyed the warm safe feeling of not being too close to stuff that could leap up and grab yer skids. In fact, with most transit tasks it was often easier to go over 2000 feet to keep the big picture, only descending prior to reaching the landing/ winching sites. My gut feeling is to leave the weed-trampling to the youngsters in the military; we more-mature police types have managed to get that out of our system, haven't we?!:ok: :E

(it's amazing the drivel you'll type when you're on nights, it's Ramadan and there's no flying...)

[helmet fire]

Inadvertant IMC dangers is one of the more common fears of NVG flight, and Kalif has touched on that concern by comparing the IR with an NVG rating.

Firstly, the more accurate comparison is to compare the NVFR rating with NVG, becuase that is the regime of flight in which it is used. NVG (or other NVIS for that matter) is now used as a matter of course by most military aviation ops who have access to the technology. It is now considered "aided" flight with NVG and they call NVFR without goggles as "unaided". This is an accurate reflection of reality, and nowadays, unadied flight is considered only as a back up to NVG when the goggles fail. Why on earth would anyone choose NOT to see the ground? Indeed in the Oz military unaided flight has to be specifically scheduled as a check ride to make sure people remain current because it is done so rarely.

As for the IMC thing: Is it easier to go inadvertant IMC on NVG than when NVFR? That depends upon your NVFR wx minima. In Oz they do not have the US requirement for a visible horizon, but you have to be 1000 ft above surrounding terrain (except EMS, Police, and some Marine Pilot transfer work). NVG do allow you to see wx at times and large cloud that is lit by urban or moon light is readily visible, yet few are visible when unaided unless urban lit. In any event, using the technique described by Thud (looking around the goggles) one can get any benefits of NVFR as well. Fog can be seen forming on NVG, but not NVFR, and the NVG allows you to look for open areas that are not affected by fog in order to let down to even unlit areas. Not so easy NVFR. In other words, NVG is safer from a weather point of view than the current NVFR and is infinately safer from a CFIT perspective.

That is not to say that the IR is not an entirely valuable rating - and I am very much pro the IR. Personally, I think the NVFR wx minima should apply to all operators of NVG, except if the pilot and aircraft is IR compliant, in which case wx minima and viz should be reduced. In this way we can keep the motivation high for IR, becuase it really is an important get out of jail free card and CFIT is our second biggest killer.

The US has legislated NVG for single pilot, single engine passenger ops, single pilot EMS, and I believe fixed and rotary wing night ag work. They have the most experience with the technology and that is how safe they believe it is. There is now over 20 approved NVG HEMS operators, with another 30ish waiting for final certification after completing mods, training, SOP's etc.


That is "world's best practice".

[jayteeto]

This thread is far more important than everyone thinks. It has highlighted some of the attitudes of the more conservative and older pilots in police aviation. I have operated at Merseyside for a year now after 24 years in the military. I was a Puma instructor for many years teaching NVG to ab-initio pilots and have used goggles extensively on operations. I class myself as very experienced!!
When we first introduced NVG in the RAF we heard these same arguments, I know because it was me saying it!! I quickly changed my mind. The only reason goggles are more dangerous is because confidence levels go up. Trust me when I say, if you use them a few times, you would not want to fly without. Inadvertant IMC?? Yes it is possible, but sensible airmanship and training lower the risk. There are many levels of use available, however Nav Assist (.500') and no lighting field landings are the ones to concern us. Nav Assist requires very little training for a massive benefit. Field landings are a bit harder, but not that much so. The only problem is that the military generally use a 2 crew NVG cockpit, remember that police observers are officially classed as passengers!! That said, we are a city unit who would mainly benefit from goggles when away from our core task. We are unlikely to spend the money.
Current IF training versus IR? I get enough training to get down safely from an inadvertant IMC. The allocation is just about to increase, it is enough... Just. This unit could not justify spending money on IR currency, the budget is being squeezed as it is!
In summary.... My view is only my view, but an IR would be nice, NVG would be nicer (and safe)

[Thomas coupling]

Thud: apologies for the confusion, when I meant flying below 500' I meant to land or take off on NVG, not cruise:ooh:

It is anathema it seems (by a single rep within the CAA), to want to promote what can only be described as an aid to flight safety, after all!

It is unusual for the UK to be lagging so far behind the real world in this area. Hopefully we have turned a corner and like Jayteeto said
if you use them a few times, you would not want to fly without.

It's worth reminding others that to 'plan' to fly IFR (which is technically what you would be doing if you considered inadvertent imc as an option every time you got airborne), then you would have to
(a) carry reserve fuel - which is impossible in light twins.
(b) be prepared to climb to MSA - which might not be available due to icing, or the terrain you're in.
(c) divert to an airfield to get back down again - which is not always available due to distance or weather limits.

For the police in the UK, assuming we thought IR's were a good thing, lets look at the maths:

Average police unit of 4 pilots: £50,000 / pilot for the course.
Time away for course: 5-6 weeks, cost of replacement pilot?
currency training / year / pilot: £?
Conversion of a/c to IFR (for those not already equipped)£250,000. + downtime.

34 forces with air support, each with 4 pilots (average): 136, plus floaters; say 150 (of which probably 20 are IR).
130 pilots needing conversions in addition to those already in the GA IR pipeline, with about 8 TRI's available in the country - how long to clear the backlog?

And the end product: the use of your new qualifications for about <5% of the time you are employed in police ops.
Best value - I think not :8

It has been suggested that an IR pilot might be tempted to 'push' it that little bit further because of his belief that he always has a get out ticket??? Trouble is what's his currency and proficiency like, (say) 9 months after the last check? :suspect:

Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????

For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................

What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all.

[helmet fire]

Though I sort of understand the rationale that NVG could be used above 500 ft - it is really defeating almost all the benefits of the NVG. The closer you are to the ground the more you want to see it surely - and given that a majority of CFIT are during take off and landing: why dont we let them see?

The US rule is single pilot to take off and landing IF the LZ is prepared and lit. Unprepared LZs require a second crew member (not necessarily a pilot) trained in NVG and positioned so as to observe the side of the aircraft not covered by the pilot's scan.

Amazingly logical for a regulatory body (and I never thought I would say that). Oz lags the same as the UK in the NVG department, maybe even more so: we are still caught on minimum of 2 pilots, IR required, etc, etc, etc, and no legislation in sight.

[gadgetguru]

shortly after the bad one a few years back, the Vic Police did a trial of NVG's for their Air Wing, i think this was mostly attributed to the fact that these poor buggers were flying out over bass strait in attrocious weather, plucking yachties that they could find from the mess below, & unlike their Navy counter parts in the sea-hawks without NVG's
having to bunny hop each wall of 'blacker than black' that loomed out of the darkness.
I believe that the current chief pilot is x- army & was a driving force behind the initiative, but am not in the know.

it seems we(helo community) tend to lose a lot of SAR birds at night, i thought it would have been a distinct advantage (& a no-brainer) to insist that Police & SAR be allowed the leverage of such great technology, that is readily available & no longer the singular domain of the military.

personally i have never flown on NVG, but have spent a great deal of time behind some of the older stuff tip-toeing through the 'J'

[Kalif]

Thanks for that chaps.

I am now more convinced of the use of NVGs, but there seems a wide and differing view as to why they are wanted, from weather avoidance, earth avoidance, night landings ( not sure if that meant ad-hoc) and so on. No single solid thread for the use of them but plenty of reasons.

It's my personal opinion that the rear obs is a good idea for them, surely the CAA couldn't argue that in the short term, and the front crew - well let's not go back there.

Thanks for the discussion, I think this has been put to bed.

Sorry that Thomes Coupling gets up tight so quickly, or is that DT, must be the air up in North Wales............:D

[NickLappos]

Kalif,
Sorry to wander into the thread so late, but I'd like to comment:

1) The goggles are always better than not. If you want to see into a dark area, goggles allow you to do so. They amplify so greatly it is spooky. They are pilotage devices, which means you use them to fly with directly, as opposed to panel mounted FLIR, which is not a pilotage device. You can't control your vehicle directly while staring at the screen, it is a prescription for disaster. With goggles, you can fly using them directly, thus the term pilotage device.

2) Why do goggle operations seem more dangerous? Because the military pilots use them to fly low altitude, close to obstructions and dangerous profiles mean more risk. If regular police profiles are flown with goggles, they will be far safer than without goggles, and far safer than military NOE operations with goggles.

3) Why did the FAA approval not allow goggles for approach? Because the FAA did not know how to approve them, and anyone with signature authority hid in the bushes while the Advisory Circular was being passed around. Simply said, in FAA the world, one must have criteria to meet to make an approval, and since no goggle criteria exist, it took years to approve them for flight far away from objects.

4) The goggles help everything at night, because they let you see more. Terrain and obstructons, weather avoidance, pilotage navigation are all made better, and they also let you see the areas you are patroling, so you do a better job too.

5) There should be no debate, goggles are a tool that makes current contour altitude operations safer. They will measurebly improve effectiveness of crews at night, and if the same altitudes are flown, they will always improve safety. Given the choce of goggles or panel mounted FLIR, I would always choose goggles. I would like both, of course!

[ShyTorque]

My apologies also for being late on parade...

From personal experience, (I'm an ex-mil QHI and civvie NVG instructor, ex Police ASU chief pilot with full UK IR, now flying IFR almost every day / night in a different heli job) I think the police role always requires every pilot to have the ability to make a night / IMC abort safely, hence a requirement for instrument flying training and currency and a properly IFR equipped aircraft.

The job would benefit from NVGs on some occasions. On some occasions it wouldn't. NVGs are extremely useful safety equipment if operating at at low level by night, especially so away from cultural lighting in the hills. As someone already stated, the military now see them as esssential equipment. I have aborted police jobs in the past because there was insuffient visual reference in transit, so it was unsafe to continue. With NVG I WOULD have very often been able to carry on and the job would have continued in safety. No one is advocating that police pilots should fly at ultra low level by night but 500 ft agl would be perfectly safe in a known area if the pilot was able to orientate himself with the terrain and obstructions. NVGs are NOT good for ad-hoc landings due to the inability to see wires.

What the police are prepared to buy is a different matter.....

[huntnhound]

2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................


TC... well said

[ShyTorque]

TC,

You said: "Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????

For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................

What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all."
---------

Well, a police chopper is safe parked up at a diversion for the night, that's good in my book. Alternatively, having rebriefed, if it's safe and the VCF conditions can be met, then why not refuel and fly in visual contact back to base? If it's not good enough to do so, then you presumably wouldn't be getting airborne again in any event, even if you had landed back at base instead?

I agree about the anomaly of your point 1. Could be cured by a change to the PAOM part 2. However, an IR'd pilot in an IFR aircraft can practice it any time he likes....

Re. point 2. In an ideal world maybe, but I guess you must work where there is a lot of cultural lighting or spend a lot of time playing cards.... ;)

But GPS self letdowns? You don't need THEM if you have no excuse to go inadvertent IMC!!

[Kalif]

Shy Torque,

Agree entirely. Inadvertant IMC in police ops, has happened and will again.

Nick,

I agree that NVG are a very useful tool. The panel mounted FLIR is not a pilots tool to fly the aircraft, it's for the front obsrever to find, follow and lead the ground troops to the "up to no gooders". It can see in great detail from well above 500 ft agl, 1000 - 1500 usually, and when used with the slaved nitesun the observer can see in very great detail. I still see no reason for a pilot to get involved to the degree that his eyes are on goggles deeply involved in the task. Obviously the pilot is involved but as in all cases be it on task or whatever, fly the aircraft. Being on goggles when things on task are getting very involved will more than often always draw the pilots attention to the operation on the ground, outside of the aircraft and its position in space, and the surrounding weather conditions. As I've said earlier, let the rear observer use NVGs, he's in the position to do so.

I'm not against the use of NVGs, but trying to get reasoned debate on the need and more importantly the use of them. There's no single reasoned argument for them to be used by the pilot from what has been said so far. Dare I say that most of the push for them comes from ex military pilots who used them very well in thier former careers. That's not a reason to fly on them on police operations.

[Thomas coupling]

Kalif:
Why do you insist on the rear seat obs wearing NVG - to what end?
How many police units do you know that slave their nightsun to their camera?????

I'm disappointed you can't see the common thread running through this topic regarding the main reason and benefits for NVIS - it's been made abundantly clear on several ocassions that it is an aid to flight safety. And it will be purchased and practiced as an aid to flight safety. There are spin offs with NVG:
1. Job denials would drop because the pilot could continue with an otherwise borderline flight (due to his concern for unknown weather ahead). The police stats would therefore improve.
2. Using NVG with nightsun, greatly enhances search and locate probabilities - even in the urban areas. Stats improve.

NVIS is a well tried and tested piece of kit. For many operators it has become a 'go/no go' item because of its phenomenal effectiveness. The yanks and europeans have been using NVIS for 15 years+. We will look back in 5 years time and joke about how fickle all the arguments were against NVIS. ALL future police helos will be fitted for but not with NVIS and many operators will equip their cabs with NVG.
For us in particular where 90% of the terrain is dark black with shadows :ooh: and cumulo granite dotted everywhere - it'll not be a day too soon.
You obviously know all about us Kalif - you'd have to concur then, wouldn't you?

[NickLappos]

Kalif,

You sound like the guy who said, "Drowning isn't so bad, it's just water."

The "reasoned debate on the need and more importantly the use of them" is simple. Without them, you can't see squat. With them, you can see in the dark, and that makes you safer. Sorry I wasn't so clear in the first post.

We have blundered anong without such devices for decades, now we don't have to.

[helmet fire]

Kalif: I agree with TC - there is a clear and common reason for the use of NVG: flight safety. And that has been stressed throughout the replies.

I also question your statement re NVG for the backseaters. Again I would ask: who should be the priority for having the ground visual? Surely the pilot first? Why then would control of the nitesun be primarily in the hands of the pilots?

TC: I would add: 3. that jobs could also be continued into unknown or hilly terrain (wx allowing) because you could see the terrain, thus improving stats, and
4. SAR at night would be greatly simplified and more effective as any light source can be seen for 10s of miles (terrain allowing).

Nick brought up a point that we have had no end of problems trying to convey in Oz: flight profiles. Military flight profiles are so removed from either police or EMS mission profiles as to be irrelevant. For example, the reason the military have two pilots is profile driven, not an NVG requirement. But tooling around at 500 ft or so and then conducting a pad recce before landing is not a military profile, and can be safely achieved with only 5 hours of NVG training, single pilot. The US have proved it.

Shy Torque said:
NVGs are NOT good for ad-hoc landings due to the inability to see wires.

I disagree entirely. Wires are our biggest killer, and they kill during the day: ie you cannot see them during the day either. How do we combat that? By a thorough wire recce, the identification of poles, roads, lights, etc. NVG allow you to do this recce during the night which is a TOTAL improvement over the nitesun. We just conduct a pad recce same as day which is impossible with a nitesun: thus NVGs should be the ONLY way we can conduct ad-hoc outlandings at night, and I am confident that in 5 to 10 years legislation will require the NVGs for such ops because the technology is so superior to nitesun.

[ShyTorque]

Helmetfire,

I stick by my statement that NVGs do NOT allow you to see wires. I agree that the risk can be minimised by a recce, looking for poles etc. but it still isn't certain that you will see the actual wires.

[NickLappos]

Shytorque,

Yep, wires are not always visible! But in the dark without NVG, you can't see wires, or dirt, or trees or houses, or anything. So the message is "You can't see wires with NVG, so don't get overconfident!" An IR spotlight on approach makes wires look like downtown Tokyo. You are still safer with NVG than without.

[keepin it in trim]

I spent 10 years in a previous life flying SAR, all of that time for overland ops NVG was our prime night flying aid. We all also held full procedural instrument ratings. Once you have night flown with NVG the shock of doing without them is substantial, they are a huge aid to flight safety and general situational awareness.

While it is difficult to spot wires on NVG it is not impossible using a sensible mix of ambient/cultural light and aircraft lights. It is certainly possible to pick out poles and pylons with relative ease, especially as your nav is likely to be more accurate and maps should key you into the presence of larger wires.

One point which no-one has mentioned, NVG into hilly terrain requires a good deal of instrument proficiency as the scan requires you to look below the goggles to keep a check on attitude, airspeed, altitude etc. So good IF skills certainly help.

You can usually see weather coming, either directly or by picture degradation, certainly more so than without goggles.

IR rated pilots certainly practice more than once a year, unless OPC(I) every six months are optional for some! The CAA require 3 IFR approaches within the last 90 days for recency and the company I work for requires much more than that.

Given the choice...., I would have both, as both considerably aid safety and I think the IR skills are complementary to the skills required for NVG ops. Night flight without NVG, major emergency, chances of safe off-piste landing? ( It happens, and so does inadvertant IMC, as the accident statistics will testify). Hopefully the authority will see the sense in moving positively in this direction in the near future.

[ShyTorque]

Nick,

I totally agree, I spent a few years instructing pilots to use them with and without the use of an IR searchlight. Your military colleagues were good enough to allow me to fly on them while air to air refuelling a Blackhawk lights out from a C130, too.

They DO have some limitations, wires is the main one.

At the moment the UK CAA remain very cautious about the use of NVGs and the thought of ad hoc night landings fills them with horror. The full package needs to be addressed properly and I think unfortunately we are still some way away from that.

Wires! Yes, potential killers day or night. Had a very severe fright myself in hazy conditions, flew over one set over a lake and spotted another set a few feet directly above us, only just visible. Wires incorrectly printed on chart. Lost 3 RAF colleagues and friends in a wires accident in Rhodesia (Puma). Lost an instructor mate to wires in Australia (Chinook). Lost best mate I ever had to wires following engine failure in a military sep fixed wing. Watched as a Blackhawk on NVGs hovering 50 metres away from my aircraft hit a whip aerial and wire on a ship whilst fast roping. Frightening stuff, thankfully they all escaped and the flying debris missed us. Sikorsky make strong blades but the tips are definitely frangible!

[helmet fire]

Shy Toque,
Fair enough, and technically correct, however I was just reacting to the continued concentration on negative aspects of NVG which is what is killing the UK and Oz attempts at getting them approved. I would ask you to re consider your statement in light of that, and perhaps the comment could be rephrased thus:

"Wires are our biggest killer, and are hard to see without a thorough wire recce even during the day. NVG now brings us the ability to conduct such a thorough recce in a similar manner to day ops, something that was previously impossible at night. This is represents a MAJOR increase in the safety of night flying, and in particular night out landings, and should therefore be pursued as a matter of priority by our regulatory authorities."

See what I'm getting at? Yep hard to see wires on NVG but what a MAJOR increase over unaided and thats the bit we need to emphasise. The CAA (and CASA) need to understand that NVGs represent a MASSIVE increase in the safety of night outlandings - particularly if that is an area of current concern.

[Thomas coupling]

The other thing that needs to be considered is accident performance whilst wearing goggles.
With the counterweights and goggles, the alpha helmet weighs in at 3kg.
The ONLY UK trials ever conducted by anyone, is the one with the mil looking at crashworthiness of NVG using an S61 in a simulated crash up to 25 'G's'.

God only knows what spec would need to be applied to civvy performance ratings.

But on the mil results alone, the human vertebrae would have to sustain acceleration forces, the equivalent of 75kg (165lbs)(12st) resting on your shoulders:eek:
And we haven't even begun to look at impact force from goggles.

Any views from experienced wearers????

[ShyTorque]

Helmet fie,

I concur but I think they are more approriate for use in transit for the police role. If you want the CAA to agree to their introduction I suggest you stay away from the ad-hoc landings for now and concentrate on the nav assist at 500ft agl.

P.s. Sorry about your username, I just assumed we aren't using the letter "r" ;)

TC,

My neck went up two collar sizes and I now suffer from neck trouble...... but very glad to say I didn't lose my gonads to a falling pair of goggles at 500 feet per minute ... which was a bit of a worry at the time :uhoh:

[helmet fire]

Good question TC. The NVG to helmet mount is specifically designed to allow the NVG to break away from the helmet in the event of a heavy landing type accident, reputedly around the 5 to 8 G mark. I have personally had the NVG come off and alpha helmet during a heavy landing sequence without neck damage, and I believe the Oz Army Black Hawk accident survivors did not suffer as a direct result of the NVG weight: they broke away as advertised.

There was a concern resulting from this accident that the counter weights may cause damage, and they were re modified in the Oz Army to break away as well, where as previously they were fixed to the helmet by a local ill considered (in hind sight only) SOP.

ST: Gotcha. The night out landing is far more applicable to HEMS ops, but if we dont go for the whole hog now, we may find it impossible to modify later. A quick example: A UK Sea King was conducting an NVG cruise flight at approx 400 ft AGL in 1994 when the crewman noticed oil dripping inside the cabin. As soon as he remarked, the pannel lit up and they conducted an emergency let down due main trannie oil pressure falling. The aircraft was damaged on landing (a bit heavy I think) but all survived. Examination noted that a further minute or so of flight would have resulted in catastrophic failure of the trannie and then of the life on board. Outcome if unaided? I shudder to think: but the incident illistrates 2 important points:
1. Statistical evidence of accidents that were prevented are not kept, thus NVG saves can not be presented as emperical evidence to anal regulators.
2. NVG to the ground is an essential requirment for the enhancement of flight safety at night, and should be the minimum acceptable goal. It is close to the ground where safety is most positively increased: ie take off and landing, and we should continue to advertise this fact.

PS: what was the mount system you were using when your neck was damaged? What about the weight attachment system?

[Mike Tavcar]

I noticed a reply mentioning the Victoria Police Air Wing in Melbourne Australia and their NVG Trial.

Well anyway I'm the guy who organised and ran it 2 years ago now. I have been pushing CASA since 1996 for use of NVGs with stiff opposition that defies logic. But since the trial CASA has certainly become more positive and a CMI (Compliance Management Instruction) has been drafted and refined that will pave the way for NVG use by those who comply with the requirements. I am waiting for the beauracratic wheels to turn to ruber stamp the CMI. I hope!

For those who want to explore the trial in more detail and learn the benefits of aided flight I wrote a detailed report on the NVG trial and is available for download from: www.simflight.com.au/Post_NVG_Trial.htm
It is a declassified pdf file of 421KB

The report goes into depth also on Cockpit mod and ANVIS 9 (ITT F4949 goggles)

For those who have used ANVIS 9 don't need convincing....those who have not or have used older generation stuff then you need to be properly informed because modern NVGs will have an imense impact on improving night flying safety as well as efficiency to do the job. Years from now pilots will look back on us and say, "How come those idiots took so long to get NVGs into civil aviation...they must of been nuts to procrastinate for so long"

[gadgetguru]

the popular comment "what price do you put on a human life..."

so what price do we put on the service of these aircraft & lives of the crew whose role it is to do the life saving of these 'invaluable lives'

personally i believe that this is a technology that could be put to great use saving the lives of the lifesavers.

Mike check your PM's

[jayteeto]

The question of nightsun slaving to cameras.... The EC135 with nightsun2 does this, it is an excellent system. We use it at liverpool all the time.

[Bearintheair]

As a Police unit with a HEMS approval we've been doing night ad hoc landings for years, it's the most dangerous situation in our operation. Anything that adds another string to our bow is welcome. I want NVIS as well !!!!!

[Thomas coupling]

Jayteeto: It was a catch question. Kalif has never flown new gen police a/c...all his police time was with the AS355 which never had slaving as an option???:E

Bearintheair: Have to be careful answering this: You must therefore be the only county in the UK that can do police HEMS at night...so that'll be Wilts? (or is it Sussex).

How in the name of faith you pulled that one over the CAA I'll never know:ooh:

We get round it, much to their frustration by employing 'Casevac'.

[huntnhound]

MmmmH!


well I could say dodgy...but I wont as I dont want to provoke the what is now becoming a flood of rage on another thread.

Best of luck to Wilts.
I would have thought, in the dead of night, a land ambulance would be just as quick?:confused:

[The Nr Fairy]

hnh:

Take a look at a map of Wiltshire before you make statements like that.

Yes, there are some big towns, but there are also some very isolated bits, and the ambulance cover being relatively thinly stretched at night (cabs at Seend fork, anyone ?) still means a helicopter may be able to get there faster.

[semirigid rotor]

Unbelievable, the level of ignorance shown of an IR is staggering. Clearly many of you have never been higher than the bottom of a cloud:mad:

As a police pilot, with an IR, lets look a a couple of situations:
1) How about fog? The horizontal visibility may stop us flying but it may only be a couple of hundred feet thick and you can see down through it.
2) What if it is clear at the other end? Some of us have large areas to cover where the weather can be very different from one end to the other

Currency - You do NOT have to fly a seperate trip to stay current. 3 approaches and a couple of hours every 90 days is all that is needed and at the moment that is only a recomendation. Holds are not even tested on a renewal.

Fuel reserves - its all about planning. If you know the weather is going to be bad, plan for it and carry the fuel. With some thought most of us can divert somewhere (yes I know not everybody will be able to).

Many of us now fly stabilised single pilot IF capable machines with very good autopilots. If you are genuinely in the soup, forget the hands on macho :mad: use the autopilot and manage the situation, don't firefire it.

IF calls for a different style of flying that many dinosaurs call button pushing! When the dinosaurs retire, we can move police aviation forward.

[jayteeto]

I used to teach procedural IF in my last job, so I have been higher than the cloud base. In answer:

Currency: 3 approaches for 4 pilots costs money. Who pays?

Fuel Reserves: Our 135 with 3 crew and all the kit has an endurance of approx 90 mins. We can plan all we want, but MAUW is MAUW.

SPIFR: We dinosaurs DO use the autopilot... It's better than us.

NVG for some units would move police aviation forward. I personally would love an IR, but if I was the UEO I wouldn't spend the precious cash.

[handysnaks]

Once upon a time I used to have an I/R:{. I have always been pro I/Rs for police pilots (maintaining currency where we are would be no problem whatsoever). However, I accept that operationally it would not provide a benefit that warrants the initial outlay (and for all the units in the UK bar D&C, Humberside and some of the Met that is some outlay). In fact it would be easier to raise the weather limits than demand an I/R. Although the only NVG I ever used was a hand held tank sight (Mk 1 PNG as it was then), I do think that the latest generation NVGs are the way ahead for night rural ops, not because we can go out in worse weather but because they would enhance situational awareness at night, in the sticks (for those of you that have 'the sticks!'. I do not know enough about them to judge their effectiveness in an urban situation but I feel sure that they wouldn't make things worse!

[NVG_CAT3_retd]

Semirigid.

You must calm down old chap. You will do yourself an injury with all that ranting. ;)

I do however agree that an IR would be nice...but that is all it would be, NICE not essential. NVG would be far more useful.

And as a dino myself, I love buttons and switches, can't get enough of them, infact the more the merrier.

[semirigid rotor]

Cost, cost, everbody talks about the cost of an IR, what about the cost of converting our machines to be NVG compatable? Makes an IR look like small change. If you have an agreement with your local IF approach airport, so that you can make some approaches during there quiet periods, you'll be surprised how you can negotiate on the price.

I'll admit that I'm not the most experienced NVG pilot in the world, but speaking to those who do have a lot of NVG time-most don't enjoy flying NVG but in the military world there is no option, it can sucker you in to flying in worse conditions than you would accept if you where visual, and finally if they stop working the sudden transition back to visual flight in poor weather, low level makes the palms sweaty for a short period.

I think Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for the rural areas and an IF to back it up. As they fly both could someone from the SW care to throw their hat in the ring and gives us the benefit of their experiences?

[emergov]

SRR,

I've got a lot of NVG hours, and I like flying NVG.

One issue that has not been raised is crew duty limits. Most mil operators impose a loading on NVG hr for the purposes of calculating crew duty because it is fatiguing. There are risks in every aviation endeavour, and NVG flying has its own peculiar set - kind of like flight in IMC.

I think I can speak for every one who has any experience on NVG - it beats the hell out of flying in the scary dark.

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

With regard to cost if you are upgrading to new aircraft for instance the EC135 with FCDS, which has some serious advantages, the Thales SMD screens are available NVG compatible FOC. Altough that would only be part of the equipment required to NVG compatible.

There is also a much cheaper alternative to NVG. Where the cockpit doesn't need to be NVG compatible. But that would be telling..................

[semirigid rotor]

GCN

Thales screens changed for NVG compatable ones FOC/ It will be interesting to see if your maintenance organisation will support that one. What about all the other clocks & dials?

But I'll bite ;) what is the alternative to NVG that we are all missing?

emergov: I can only report what has been said to me by various military types. They did it, but were never comfortable with it.

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

If you are purchasing a new aircraft with Thales SMD displays, so I have been told by more than one Thales person, NVG compatibility is a zero cost option. If you read what I said it did not infer that they will exchange them.

As to the maintenance organisation - have to ask myself one day.

Altough that would only be part of the equipment required to be NVG compatible.

I think that is what I wrote isn't it?

I live about 2 km's from one of the few civvy NVG operators in Europe - no need to guess that one.

[semirigid rotor]

So, the cost of the upgrade for most of us will be huge.

How many forces will be upgrading their machines in the next few years? Not that many I suggest, the rush to upgrade to 135 / 902 is just about exhausted, and I can't see the Met specifying NVG!:E

[NickLappos]

There are outfits that will NVG mod your machine for very much less than a new purchase. If the panel displays are not NVG (could be that they are, many LCD's are actually NVG capable by design - borrow some NVG's and just look at yours!) then minus-blue glass covers can be made. The rest can be post-lit with minus-blue posts.

Some possible links (no direct knowledge of these, just the product of a search):
http://www.oxleygroup.com/

http://www.skyquest.co.uk/nvg.html

[semirigid rotor]

Nick,

As you are one of the most respected authorities on this forum, can I put you on the spot?

Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not?

And to balance the arguement, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

Semi

What I was alluding to is that Enhanced Vision Systems could more likely see acceptance in the civil world than NVG's which really have a few legacy issues. Crashworthiness, like flying looking through a drinking straw etc etc.....

Enhanced vision is certified in the plank world. Check out a current G550 or newer Global Express, Airbus etc etc. Granted not cheap. Check out the Gulfstream EVS site here (http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/#)

You have been able to buy a Cadillac with Night Vision Head Up Display for about the last 2 years!! They are even talking about using it in their Endurance racing at night!!!

With our current aircraft, it would be possible, and is being considered, to install an uncooled microbolometer (read IR camera) which weighs 1 kg in the nose. MaxVision for example.

Because we have an aircraft with Thales SMD45 and 68 displays and video radar unit (that narrows it down a bit) which accepts a video input it is a matter of plugging in the cable and a bit of software configuration.

Bingo IR in the cockpit. Although granted it's not certified (doesn't have to be), its fixed not gimballed and the FOV is about 30 degees and it would be a Head Down Display. You don't have to fly around with anything attached to your head or maybe left behind. One switch.

But the increase in safety and awareness is huge for very little outlay (compared to the alternatives). And it is IR. Granted you are not flying using it as sole reference it is just "enhancing" things.

Next trick is to get it up on the inside of the windscreen along with a bit more info which is already available from the flight displays which would be another leap.

It's the mass produced technologies and the fact that the certifying aviation authorities are aware of these types of systems, have certified them and produced standards that will help.

Synthetic Vision Systems is the next step, but what you are looking at isn't real of course.

Getting back to the mass produced side you could possibly be surprised that the electronic control unit parts in a lot of smaller helicopter FADEC units have a much in common with a Korean car.

Just looking at the issue from a different angle and the return for the outlay!

[Vfrpilotpb]

TC

I think you have shown remarkable restraint!!;)
Vfr

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Giovanni,

Very informative post; delighted for you that your operation has access to something which will make fixed-wing runway approaches easier and safer in poor visibility. Regrettably, it isn't really entirely applicable to the rotary, and specifically the police rotary task. We need to be able to see more than 30 degrees(hover references are commonly 60 degrees off-centre (the 2 o'clock position)), and we need something that doesn't require interpretation before the information is assimilated into our thick heli-pilot brains! Goggles (and remember even Gen2 had 40 degrees FOV, far from like looking through straws) allow the pilot to orient himself in space by pointing his head where he wants to look.

Semirigid,

It is unbecoming for me to assume to speak for Mr Lappos, but if you respect his opinion so much perhaps you ought to read it. He's posted on Page 2 of this thread, a sample herewith:
If regular police profiles are flown with goggles, they will be far safer than without goggles, and far safer than military NOE operations with goggles.
..and again on Page 3, where he is remarkably direct:
You sound like the guy who said, "Drowning isn't so bad, it's just water."

The "reasoned debate on the need and more importantly the use of them" is simple. Without them, you can't see squat. With them, you can see in the dark, and that makes you safer. Sorry I wasn't so clear in the first post.
We have blundered anong without such devices for decades, now we don't have to.
Which rather suggests that your second, "balanced" question is irrelevant having already been answered twice. By using the word "balance" you appear to suggest it should be IR or NVG, that the 2 are are somehow opposed and mutually exclusive. Am I wrong to reach this conclusion?

Oh, and I don't think dinosaurs wore NVG - you may find that progress occurs once all the pilots who've NEVER operated with it have moved on to their next career choice. This will allow those who appreciate NVG's operational and Flight Safety benefits to spread their experience to the police world.

edited to move a misplaced "quote" box

[helmet fire]

The NVG arguement is indicative of just about every other "discussion" on technique, training, etc: we all seem to passionately believe in what we have experienced and are reluctant to believe that it could be done any better. The long line introduction is a good example. A bloke in the States thought it was the bees knees in the 60s (I believe) and yet it is only recently in Oz (last four years or so) that we have seen it as an often preferable way to conduct external loads, and it is still not getting favour in the UK. Why? because we are reluctant to believe it could be better than how we learnt to do it. Same as NVG.

Find me an ANVIS 6 or 9 NVG pilot or crewman who would choose to fly without them. So why is it so hard to convince those who have yet to experience them? As with long line, the yanks were on to it straight away, the Kiwis saw the benefits are changing asap, and the Aussies and Poms? Still saying it couldn't possibly be better than how WE do it now.

The cost of an NVG upgrade is NO WHERE NEAR the cost of an IFR upgrade. A 3 axis autopilot cannot be fitted for much less than $1M US. An NVG cockpit can generally be done for less than $50K US. A slight difference. And I say 50K because you do not need to go to the lengths that some NVG product pushers have you believe. Simply floodlight the cockpit.

But this arguement again pits Instrument flying against NVG. As I said before, I believe they are not competitive technologies, NVG is a direct competitor for NVFR not IFR. So the question is whether or not you want to spend about $80K US on significantly enhancing your safety and response envelope or not - not wether it is more cost effective than an IFR upgrade.

To give you some sense of objective perspective, let me ask how much resistance would there be to a technology that increased your visual acuity by nearly 16 times?

Unaided night vision acuity is 6/200 (metric here) yet ANVIS 9 (omnibus IV) caims acuity of 6/12. Resistance to such huge technological leaps or changes really shouldnt take us by suprise: we see it throughout our past, like we did with long lines, and like we will continue to see with NVG, HUMS, etc.

[HeliMark]

Giovanni, the thought of having an EVS system on the helicopter is nice. But it would have to move/follow with the pilots head. That would either mean another IR ball, or a mad observer. And the added weight and space needed for it is not available in what I fly.

Just to put this in, most major police departments in the U.S. are going to NVG's as money is available. My department is within the next several months, and in the environment that I fly in at night, it is not soon enough.

I do not know of any departments here that have IMC capability in their patrol helicopters. The best solution is to set up a procedure to reduce that risk. Maybe having someone on board that is not using the NVG's. Or going off NVG and looking, then proceeding to a next established point. Just thoughts.

[Kalif]

TC,

"Kalif has never flown new gen police a/c...all his police time was with the AS355 which never had slaving as an option??? "

Oh dear, wrong answer yet again!
Seems that you have a bit of personal problem with me.
I have flown new gen police a/c with slaving. If you like I can give you the details of a reputable company that provides crm or anger management courses. Let's keep things to the point of the discussion...

Back to the original thread, and I say yet again, I'm not against NVGs, just trying to promote discussion.

Take this situation, one I've seen on several instances.
Police pilot operating out in a very dark night over countryside with few nearby external references. In the orbit on task, eyes totally outside of the cockpit with the nitesun being used. Very quickly the aircrafts AoB increases and the rate of descent builds up due to target fixation. Good old rad alt warning or crew prevents CFIT. Non IR pilot not scanning the instruments and totally outside of the cockpit.
Now put goggles on him and do the same again, possibly down at the suggested 500 ft agl. By having the goggles on he will naturally get drawn into the ground situation because that's where his eyes will be, outside. No instrument scan, rat alt warning kicks off to get his eyes off goggles and back where they should be. Training and currency will prevent this, but the risk does increase quite steeply.

HeliMark

"Maybe having someone on board that is not using the NVG's. Or going off NVG and looking, then proceeding to a next established point."

Good point, something along what I've been saying.


TC, stop it before you start....

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Kalif,

Why would a pilot using NVG at 500 ft in the orbit NOT be scanning his instruments? It's what we are all taught to do, isn't it? Bear in mind the RADALT is positioned - in most of the aircraft I've flown - at the bottom RH corner of the instrument panel to allow the pilot to include it in his scan. RADALT audio warning is a go/no-go item for NVG ops. If you hear it go off the HP immediately goes for the climb above min ht, among the first lessons he learns in NVG training. Some units include further SOPs - eg audio is not manually cancelled but left on until the a/c is above safe height so the whole crew knows the a/c is safe; HP only climbs wings-level until above a specified min ht, etc.

If you were orbiting by day and your height crept down below minimum auth'd, you'd use your instruments and your outside references to regain appropriate height. Well, on NVG you use precisely the same technique. At night without NVG, you are at risk of disorientation if you concentrate your scan near the Nightsun beam. With NVG, you still have references outside the beam which enable you to fly your orbit using conventional, daytime-style flying techniques - the sort for which you train and in which you maintain currency already. No huge extra dedicated training bill. Please don't get the impression that the goggles lead to target fixation outside the aircraft. You can, and do, scan the instruments without having to move your head away from the 1 o'clock-2 o'clock position..to get his eyes off goggles and back where they should be.No need to get off-goggles as you suggest; look around them AND through them to acquire the necessary information.

While on the subject of Nightsun, I'll add that as HP I very rarely look toward the beam unless assisting the crew in steering it onto the correct target. I've had to track a vehicle using the collective-mounted steer-switch on a few occasions when the observers' workload has gone ballistic; hardest handling task of the lot. THERE'S where you're going to get an aircraft go below minima. With training and appropriate CRM, however, it was always possible to prioritise effectively.

Of course, with NVG you have the added option of employing the IR filter so that the target is unaware that it is being illuminated. The surrounding neighbourhood is also untroubled by the unearthly shaft of visible light at the inevitably-ungodly hour at which we go to such tasks. When would you use an IR beam? When the heat-source you're searching for is surrounded by similar-temperature distractions. Someone hiding by a transformer perhaps, or a car on a desert road at night here where we work.

I am concerned about your previous, and possibly negative, NVG experiences - did you receive a proper, structured training course? Had you been taught effectively - sadly, one of the best civvy NVG instructors, Pete Rainey, is no longer with us - you would 'view the world differently', I'm sure. No amount of chat on a forum like this will persuade you; the best way is to see it for yourself with expert guidance,

[Kalif]

Thud_and_Blunder,

My comments are not meant to be negative, if NVGs are the way to go then let's get on with it; that was the original point of this topic. There seems to be wide and differing views as to thier use and knowledge of them; yes, I can be included in that.

The situation I described is one that has happened, target fixation leading to a total breakdown in where the aircraft is in space. As you say, we're all taught to scan, but in some cases when things are getting busy this scan can, and does break down.

Re your last paragraph. As I said in earlier posts I've no NVG experience to speak of, but there again, niether have plenty of the others who have posted threads on this.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Kalif,

Fair enough. Perhaps starting the topic with a post which included:As such public transprot rules must apply and can't be watered down due to a ill-informed view that NVG's are the way to go.is why folk have the impression that you tend towards the negative, but I'm sure reason and experience will win through in the end, eh?

:ok:

[Thomas coupling]

Helmet fire: excellent post.

Thud: concur. Is that (was that) the Pete Rainey from the RN who emigrated. Bit of a wild child, exceptional helo pilot? If so what happened to him??

Kalif: what r we going to do with you, perhaps you are one of the dinosaurs Semi was talking about.

Do I have to remind you that you shouldn't have been in the position you refer to where you 'lose' sufficient visual references so as to descend below minimums at night (day even).
POM I lays out visual reference minimums which you must keep to even in one of your 'black hole' areas of operation. If there aren't sufficient lights out there - you can't go there!!!

The introduction of NVG will NOT affect these minimums. The POM I will still be the bible, so if you start having spatial disorientational problems on NVG, you can come off them and revert to good old fashioned night visual POM I references again:ok:

Please don' t go down the road of IFR Vs NVIS again, it's been thrashed to death in this thread, in User Gps, with the CAA, with the HO with my mother inlaws next door neighbours! It won't happen for common sense reasons - THE JOB DOESN'T NEED IT.
What the job needs is NVIS now no more delays, no more pussy footing around by the CAA.
I had a meeting with the HO on friday - guess what, ALL future police helos will be fitted for but not with NVIS, you won't have any option. For those who then want to operate NVIS in anger they simply purchase the goggles and get on with it.
Hooray for common sense - atleast this time from the HO:cool:

PS: Kalif, are you a police pilot at the mo'?

[semirigid rotor]

Nick,

I apologise for missing your post on page 2, my fingers must be a bit quick on the mouse wheel!

Thud & Blunder,

OK, I missed Nicks post, but he didn't mention anything about IF. If you read my post on page 4, I said that Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for their area, with an IR to back it up. I'm not against NVG per se, (this discussion has become a sort of one or the other arguement), after chatting to some of my military friends Iam more convinced than ever that NVG should not be used as a primary means of weather avoidance. Great for flying in very dark areas.

I still find it difficult to reconcile while the rest of the aviation world, inc. a large part of the rotary world, feel that flying IF is a normal part of aviation practice, (I will qualify that statement by saying in a stabilised helicopter IF equipped), there is still a hard core of pilots who feel very different, and make wild assumptions about IF not based on fact.

[Kalif]

Thud_and_Blunder,

Quite agree, cheers...:ok:

TC,

You just had to didn't you....
It wasn't me who got into the situation I described, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

[Thomas coupling]

Semi: you won't shake this IF thing off will you.

You do your fellow colleagues an injustice. All us ex mil guys have a very very solid background in IF. Just because the mil didn't give us a blue peter IR badge at the end of it all doesn't mean to say we don't know what it's like to fly IMC in anger - OK?

There isn't a 135 / 355 / 902 out there that can fly with minimum IFR fuel on board and still offer its force area sufficient airborne time to make it worthwhile.

You can't (and wouldn't) use your IR in anger to take off from your police base can you?(to a task). Unless you live on a procedural airfield - which would also take even longer to get you airborne. So it will never be used here.

How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger to get you down the other end (where the job is), because you certainly won't be descending on top the job, IMC:ooh: So it can never be used here.

So that leaves two scenarios where an IR might come in handy:

1. Task complete - can't get back to base because of weather:
So you go IMC with your shiney new IR ticket and divert to the nearest (to your base) airport. Land on and take the number 14 bus home back to the Unit, I presume. Then the next shift picks the cab up in the morning if the weather clears??
This is assuming you had enough fuel to divert in the first place.
The alternative would have been to land while still VMC, its cheaper and you're no better/worse off than above.


2. While on task you go inadvertent IMC - tut tut naughty boy, never mind, just IFR to that lovely warm diversion 15 miles away. Park it up and come back tomorrow. A/c unavailable to force for the next 12+ hrs....
For the non IR pilot: (a) he trains for this eventuality either for a self let down (like us), or diverts for a radar vector to an ILS (same scenario as yours). Without an IR.

Lets get this straight for the record:
No police pilot has been killed (or killed his crew) because he didn't have an IR ticket.
The E Mids crash was not caused by the pilot's inability to adopt IFR procedures successfully. It was more complex than that and this is not the place to dissect it (I would suggest).
The Strathclyde crash - the pilot was freshly IR current! he was one of yours!!!

Give me ONE example where an IR would therefore be beneficial to the industry when you take into account:
number of incidents / accidents involving NON IR pilots.
Diverse operating areas of each Unit.
Financial outlay.
The aim of an aerial police platform.

For once - the CAA have risk assessed this well.
They have looked at the frequency x consequences (definition of risk).
And what they have laid down in the latest POM I amendment is just about bang on!

Now - all that money can be spent on worthwhile equipment, like...........................................

[helmet fire]

Kalif: you raise excellent points, and it will enable us to discuss some of the other benefits of NVG that are generally not thought about.

The disorientation scenario you describe is not unheard of at night unaided, though the mechanism of entering it is more specific to your scenario. It is precisely this kind of disorientation that NVG would seek to minimise (if not mitigate). What I find fascinating is that you believe that NVG would excacerbate the disorientation scenario, whilst I believe that NVG would have almost entirely prevented it firstly, and secondly, if entered, NVG would significantly aid recovery.

As TC says: NVG would have almost certainly prevented fixation on a nitesun becasue ALL the countryside is visible, not just the circle of light. Even if he kept his head still, the NVG visible circle (Field of View) on the ground would also be much larger than a nitesun beam width allowing far more oreintation cues. Once disorientation starts, the unaided pilot must hop onto the instruments he neglected and effect an instrument UA recovery. The NVG pilot simply moves his head and is able to find the horizon and effect an instant visual recovery using the AI and RADALT to cross reference his visual cues. Should he fail to find the horizon in that glance, it is simply a matter of conducting the instrument recovery in the same manner as the unaided pilot by glancing under the tubes (they are set so he can easily see the full instrument pannel without looking through the goggles) and using the AI as his primary horizon.

Thus it can be seen that the NVG pilot holds all the trumps: not only is disoreintation SIGNIFICANTLY less likely, but he has the option of conducting a visual recovery AND then reverting to the instrument recovery if still unsure. The poor old unaided pilot, whose chances of disorientation are much higher, can only rely on an instrument recovery. The choice is simple.

To put this safety margin in more perspective, whilst we are concentrating on Police/military/HEMS ops here - the yanks have already allowed the benefits to flow onto passenger charter. That should be our aim: ALL NVFR ops would be routinely conducted by NVG because it is SAFER than NVFR. Semirigid: As TC says there is no need to lower NVFR minima or even change the way we operate (including for weather avoidance), just add NVG to help what we already do.

[keepin it in trim]

I don't believe the pilot in the strathclyde accident was Instrument rated, he had basic IF training for an OPC(N). And inadvertant IMC was certainly a significant factor in the accident.

I am a great believer in NVG but I also think a full IR can be obtained and maintained for a lot less cost than is being mentioned here. Further quite a lot of police units are located very close to or on airfields that offer IFR recovery. How often do the met liers get it wrong and weather is either worse than forecast or closes in behind you and terrain makes an IFR pull up a safe option.

To use the example of strathclyde, an area with lots of hilly terrain, the ability to do an ILS into Glasgow to land or break cloud for a return down the river to base is a worthwhile option and I am sure this is not the only unit where this option is useful.

I feel this arguement should not be either or, it should be have both NVG and IR, they are compatible. There have been enough tragic night accidents with people operating night VFR, who I am sure felt that given their training they could cope with inadvertant IMC but didn't. Also, not everyone has masses of previous military IF to fall back on and instrument flying is a perishable skill, doing it 5 years ago doesn't ensure you are still an ace now.

[Kalif]

helmet fire,

Thanks for that. If current NVG do what you say, then that's excellent. Recovery from UA's isn't so simple when it really happens and coupled with inadvetant imc, sorry for going back to this one.

I'm not pro I/R against NVG; both would be the solution but bean counters will dictate otherwise.

Cheers:ok:

[TeeS]

Hi TC

What does the 'self let down' consist of, is that a GPS based cloud break procedure?

TeeS

[NickLappos]

Semi Rigid Rotor asked:

Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not? And to balance the argument, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?


Do I have an Opinion!! Does Santa Clause have cold toes??

1) All professional helicopter pilots should be instrument rated, and all commercial helicopters operated at night should have baseline IFR capability. Police, Offshore, Corporate, all of them, PERIOD
To place professional helicopter pilots (especially emergency responders!) in situations where they must personally decide whether they do their job, earn their pay, please their boss and save that life is wrong, unless that person has an IFR escape route. There are few operational helicopter situations at night that can’t be cured by climbing into the cloud and shooting an ILS to an airport. The US EMS industry learned their lesson years ago, when they started upgrading their equipment and people to stop the CFIT epidemic.

2) All patrol and emergency responders who operate at night should have NVG available. The darkness is the problem, goggles lift that darkness. Those who think the goggles require extensive training and add to safety concerns are wrong, they are extrapolating Military experience. Military pilots fly Nap of the Earth (NOE) profiles, which require extensive night training and expose the arcraft to many hazards. Goggle contour profiles (500 ft AGL, as a swag) need just a few hours and are far safer than those same profiles without goggles.

3) Do Goggles and compatible cockpits cost money? Does Instrument training and equipment cost money?
No, accidents cost money.

[ShyTorque]

One of those great aviation sayings:

"If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident..."

[212man]

TC,
Peter Rainey was tragically killed in a drowning accident in Cyprus last year, whilst trying to save his wife and son. Left his two children orphaned. There was a thread on the subject at the time.

[semirigid rotor]

TC.

No, I won't shake off this IF thing because I believe passionately that it will enhance flight safety.

I have not said anything about ex mil pilots and flying IF. I have flown with many ex mil pilots and they have all been excellent IF drivers.

Not use an IR to depart an airfield? Maybe not at your base, but please try to think outside your area. We have an agreement with ATC and we get out of our International airport very quickly indeed.

Quote: How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger. Answer: Look and keep up to date with the weather.

I can't believe you put the next phrase in writing.

NOBODY IS SUGGESTING EVEN REMOTELY LETTING DOWN IMC WITHOUT AN APPROVED AID.

A couple of scenario's:
1) missing small child, it's foggy. Depart IF - the fog is not that deep - maybe patchy so a search can be carried out. Spend as long as you can on the task then back to base if it has cleared or divert and fly an authorised approach. After the approach, land suck of gas and maybe back to the task again. Remember if you have good visual contact with the ground in the area of your search you can cancel IFR.
2) do I need to carry on? Not every job is a rush out the door job.

Why after a divert park up and walk away? The weather may change / there maybe a change of circumstances ie your base becomes clear so you can depart IF and return home and keep the aircraft online as long as possible.

I will not comment on your interpretation of those accidents. This is a public forum and friends and family read this regularly. The AAIB reports are for all to see.

And finally, are you suggesting that non-rated pilots fly IMC in controlled airspace for an approved approach? That is about as daft as saying that when your cockpit is NVIS you just strap on some NVG's and go!!

Glad your not my Flight safety Officer!:uhoh:

[Kalif]

Nicely put semirigid!
Thought that I was the only punch bag for TC...

[[email protected]]

Kalif - your thread has certainly provoked discussion but I do think you should have tried NVG yourself before commenting on their shortcomings.
We in the UK SAR (mil) world have probably the best handle on mixed IFR/NVG ops as we have the ability to depart on instruments, transit to the job, either let down using ILS etc over land or internal aids (radar) letdown over the sea and then continue using NVG to do the rescue/search, often transitioning to white light for the actual winching before departing IF or NVG for the hospital. I have flown ordinary (mortal, reversionary, NVFR) whatever you want to call it, in sh8t conditions and have come much closer to getting disorientated/inadvertant than when using NVG.
There is NO doubt in my mind that anyone flying at night in Police/HEMS role should be using NVG as a matter of course.

[Kalif]

[email protected],

Yep, the idea was to promote discussion, and it cetainly did that.

I'd love to try NVGs but the local B&Q aint got any in; must be the christmas rush...:D

Seriously though, I've no NVG experience but there again a fair number of others who have had a rant and rave haven't either.

Cheers.....

[semirigid rotor]

Kalif, no problem. I don't believe TC really believes what he says, he's just trying to wind us up!:D

Crab@SAA,

You have kind of hit the nail on the head. You have a number of skills plus the equipment at your disposal, also you are trained / current. You mix and match as the task / situation demands.

We don't have that onshore in the Police / Air Ambulance world. But we are expected by our masters and the public to operate at times, in conditions that could leave us embarassed.:\

Hopefully someone at the Home Office will read this, and realise the strength of feeling. No one piece of equipment or one piece of training will do, we need both. When we have both we can start to make CFIT a thing of the past.

:ok:

[NickLappos]

My frst NVG experience was a checkout at the factory with one of our TP's who was a USAF instructor. I then took the goggles home, and drove in the back routes, lights off for a few dozen miles. I could see opposing traffic miles away because they made the sky glow minutes before they came in sight. I had to tape over the car internal indicators, of course. Stunning experience. It is as if I was a different species (no cracks, SASless!)

[ShyTorque]

Hey Nick. I hope you remembered that oncoming traffic can't see YOU if you're lights out, sounds silly now but.......

I know a certain eccentric RAF pilot who decided to cycle home no lights wearing his helmet and NVGs. First car he met round the corner came close to wiping him out..... :ouch:

[NickLappos]

shy -
If they don't like my driving, they should stay off the sidewalks!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Nick,

That's one that shows the difference between US English and our version. When I was a wayward 3-year old pedestrian in Canada, my Mum (note the 'u') told me to "stay on the pavement" - to the horror of passers-by.

[RichiePAO]

I have read this thread with great interest. I am a Police Air Observer and on a few occaisions the pilot has been flying quite happily in IMC using radar vectors and an an ILS approach back to our base.
I would much rather do this than attempt a landing in the dark in poor weather is some random field in the middle of nowhere.
I am also perfectly happy if the incident merits it to deploy the aircraft in legally flyable conditions knowing full well that there is a possiblity that the weather local to our Base will close in behind us. We all know police work is not black and white and we all should use the combined experience of the pilot and the crew to make a decision to deploy the aircraft in marginal conditions.
One of the main reasons for declining police tasking is the weather, and Units around the Country take flak from ground based colleagues on a regular basis. In my opinion Air Support Units make themselves as available as possible as in the current finacial climate, otherwise observers and pilots alike could be looking look for work elsewhere.
Bring on full Instrument ratings and we get on with the job that we are paid to do.:ok:

[ShyTorque]

"shy -
If they don't like my driving, they should stay off the sidewalks!"

:ok:

My grandmother often used to say whilst driving her old Ford "Look at that bl**dy idiot driving on the pavement (sidewalk)!"

We used to scream: "Grandma, it's because you are driving on HIS side of the road!"

She never had an accident, but saw lots...... :ooh:

[handysnaks]

RichiePAO, a provacative little post and I'm more than happy to take the bait. If your pilot has an I/R and your 135 is certified for IFR then no probs. However, I assume that you would have mentioned that. So...if your pilot does not have an I/R (and your aircraft is not certified), then ( aside from you stitching him up ;) ), if he is making a decision to go IMC (when there is a possibility that he could land), then he is (as I understand it)
a. not flying in accordance with his licence
b. not flying in accordance with the PAOM /ANO/I Spy book of Civil Flying
c. not flying in accordance with the Flight Manual
d. not flying in accordance with the aircrafts C of A
e. probably flying outside the units insurance cover (although they are very flexible and understanding, those insurance companies)

I hope the next time you are after someone who may not be driving in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, you show as much understanding.

Now, it doesn't matter whether the pilot is capable of flying IMC or whether he had bags of IMC time in the military if he is not Instrument Rated (and current on type), he is not allowed to fly in IMC.
Of course, if he went inadvertant IMC, a radar recovery would be in order, maybe he should at least declare a PAN (that should get some responses!:p ) and I would expect to see at least a chirp report!!

[JimL]

This subject was introduced by Kalif who poured scorn on the need for NVG for the front of the helicopter and gently inferred that instrument ratings were preferable.

The fact is that the basis for the operational requirement for NVIS and Instrument Ratings are totally different. The intersection of the two issues occurs only when considering the possibility of inadvertent IMC. The main raison d’etre for NVIS is to enhance visual contact flying at night and, as far as possible, to reduce the probability of inadvertent entry into cloud (the fact that cloud ceiling is used in forecasting always introduces the possibility of cloud below the indicated level). Equally, the use of NVIS does not reduce the existing requirements for landing away from base at night - also regulated in JAR-OPS 3 (and the PAOM).

When the JAA was considering the introduction of regulations for NVIS it formed a working group of interested parties from: operators with existing knowledge of NVG (REGA of Switzerland, BGS from Germany etc.); and European NAAs. This group worked on the subject for a couple of years and produced a text that was acceptable to all parties.

REGA were particularly welcome because of several decades of experience and because, in Switzerland, punching up into IFR when encountering cloud is never an option. The whole basis for the work was the reduction in workload for flying at night in VMC - i.e. it did not permit the reduction of existing weather limits but increased the safety of night operations. As explained by many on this thread, the use of NVIS is constrained to enhancement of night flying - particularly in those areas where there is a distinct lack of ground references (light sources). (As a side issue, JARs do not have a minimum light requirement or, as in FARs, the requirement for visual contact with light sources on the surface.) As a matter of interest, the whole working group decamped to Switzerland at one stage to experience night operations using NVG with REGA.

We debated the requirement for Instrument Ratings but, as with the parallel discussions in the CAA after the unfortunate Harding accident, we concluded that that to obtain and, more importantly, maintain recency and currency on operations that were essentially conducted visually would be too expensive and would not be appropriate (mainly in Europe we were considering NVIS for HEMS - although we thought that Police work would also benefit).

The work culminated in the acceptance of the RTCA MOPS and the production of a TGL giving guidance on Operational Approval; this has been available as Leaflet No. 34. Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS) Operations since June 1st 2003. The document consists of six parts: The text that will eventually become the NVIS requirements and associated guidance;

Training Guidelines & Considerations;

Ground Training Instruction;

Flight Training Instruction;

Pre-Flight Briefing and Checking; and

Concept of OperationsInside the final document is an edited version of the US CONOPS which as an introduction states the following:This document, prepared by a Sub-Group of EUROCAE Working Group 57 “Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Standardisation” is an abbreviated and modified version of the RTCA Report DO-268 “Concept Of Operations – Night Vision Imaging Systems For Civil Operators” which was prepared in America by RTCA Special Committee 196 (SC-196) and approved by the RTCA Technical Management Committee in March 2001.

The EUROCAE Working Group 57 (WG-57) Terms of Reference included a task to prepare a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) document describing the use of NVIS in Europe. To complete this task, a Sub-Group of WG-57 reviewed the RTCA SC-196 CONOPS (DO-268) to assess its applicability for use in Europe. Whilst the RTCA document was considered generally applicable, some of its content, such as crew eligibility and qualifications and the detail of the training requirements, was considered to be material more appropriately addressed in Europe by other Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) documents such as JAR-OPS and JAR-FCL. Consequently, WG-57 has condensed the RTCA CONOPS document by removing this material which is either already addressed by other JAR documents or will be in the future.

In addition, many of the technical standards already covered in the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) For Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment (DO-275) have been deleted in this European CONOPS.

The JAA is grateful to RTCA, Incorporated, for permission to reproduce text from RTCA DO-268 in this CONOPS applicable for NVIS operations in Europe.

[MightyGem]

Semirigid wrote:

" And finally, are you suggesting that non-rated pilots fly IMC in
controlled airspace for an approved approach? That is about as daft
as saying that when your cockpit is NVIS you just strap on some NVG's
and go!!"

TC actually wrote:

" While on task you go inadvertent IMC...

For the non IR pilot: (a) he trains for this eventuality either for a
self let down (like us), or diverts for a radar vector to an ILS
(same scenario as yours). Without an IR."


Note "inadvertant IMC".

[SiClick]

JimL
I don't want to get to deep, because I essentially agree with what your saying and its late, and I am several beers worse for wear, however,
Your comment/suggestion that JAR's should stipulate a minimum light level, is like what a lot of what many people are pushing, impractical!
For a long time the military pushed 2 millilux as the number, but on a cloudy night with no moon, when 2 millilux was not achievable? Then we just use ambient/artificial light! Such a get out, while fine for the military would never work in civy street. However, the idea that the pilot assess the light levels, as he does the weather in a helicopter away from an airfield, is essentially sound.
We need to keep the argument sensible and achievable.
All helicopter pilots with NVG experience will agree that flying in the dark without goggles is like driving a car on an unlite road without lights, ******* stupid!
NVG need to be, and will soon be accepted in civil flying, and the sooner they are available to police units, the better.
SiClick:yuk:

[EESDL]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original post raised the topic that pilots should not be trained on NVGs but the 'cheaper' solution of an IR would/should suffice?

Following the originator's thread, the ideal progression would be to follow the Obs instructions to the scene of the chase then use the radalt and cheaply-installed hovermeter to lower onto the scroat's roof. To what end?

We've all received banter for not doing a shout if the wx's dog (and probably flown when we shouldn't have) but some brave person mention the go/no-go decision.

If the wx is that bad that you need goggs, then you are probable having to fly too low in the first place, at a speed that mocks your 'safe single engine' parameters and frankly, pushing the limits - and for what, some scroat that will be cautioned at best!!

Yep, been there and done it and fully aware that once the user uses goggles and accepts certain jobs then it opens the gates for abuse by the people who account for it.

Those in the know, know how much lip service is paid to millilux limits, nvg currency and crew competency.

Yes, as a pilot, i would like a set of NVGs in a box by my seat, or even attached to my head, but, as someone who does not wish to rely on 2 retina-burning scopes strapped on my face, pray they stay switched OFF.

If money was no object, then we should all have an IR, to use as and when.

Are you telling me that without an IR we cannot fly a 180 or stay upright? Heavens, your training needs help.
Safe flying folks!

[ShyTorque]

[If the wx is that bad that you need goggs, then you are probable having to fly too low in the first place, at a speed that mocks your 'safe single engine' parameters and frankly, pushing the limits]

The wrong idea about night vision aids here. They AREN'T a way of flying in worse weather, not what they were invented for. Who on earth taught you that NVG technique?

[FloaterNorthWest]

handysnaks

RichiePAO's 135 is a SPIFR T2 and some of the pilots who fly it do have IRs, mainly relief pilots who also do IFR charter work or ferry flights.

FNW

:ok:

[zorab64]

Sorry - very late to the discussion, but it can't be left without comment.

Concur, in many respects, with TC & others who see NVG as the step to take BEFORE IR, if the latter can possibly be justified, operationally or financially.

The one thing hardly mentioned to date (XMT Manch/L'pool) is the operating area. For those operating around Cumulo-lumps, one can only be supportive of the NVG argument. However, for those whose closest proximity to Cumulo-alluvialsand is 500' (at 1000' QNH) over the whole operating area, and further beyond, the argument is less clear - and there is even less excuse for inadvertent IMC and, by inference, IRs. For flat-landers, especially with 80+% ops in areas of significant cultural lighting, NVG or IR can only be regarded as an expensive luxury.

There are those who may frequently land ad-hoc at night (normally in more remote (& probably lumpy) regions) & those who do so less than once a year. For the former, NVG make sense (if the CAA allow below 500'), for the latter, save your cash. Some reckon you could land more often with NVG - but why? The helo invariably exerts a more effective circle of influence from 1000' than grubbing about in the mud when there are troops on the ground anyway.

Re the IR discussion: - whose Force can justify the initial training expense (TC, 14 Nov 10:30), as well as the currency requirements, when it's so infrequently used in anger. None of the Police kit works through cloud and we remain better orientated VCF below, en-route to a job, than hopping up above & letting down through the goo into goodness knows what. In the flat-lands the goo's the same all over, so no benefit there whatsoever. Massive cost to maintain currency though, as well as extra downtime/training hours on the Police budget, when you're trying to remain available to get the job done each day. At least NVG operators can keep current AND do the job.

And finally - for those "lucky" enough to live on a real airfield, where IR procedures can be practiced regularly, don't forget those who aren't close to such luxuries. Flying to/from the equivalent of a well-lit frigate flight deck in the middle of the blank stuff might be an argument for NVG, but if it's lit i.a.w. CAA / PAOM guidance anyway, just devoid of electronic aids, it's not a problem.

All in all - horses for courses. NVG won't significantly benefit everyone but it makes absolute sense for some units/areas, especially if allowed down to the deck. But IRs? An unjustified operational (and financial) burden, unrelated to the job we do.



And before you ask - I've been doing the job for enough years, don't have an IR, have not flown NVG in anger, and have an equal number of landings & take-offs in my log book. I do pay taxes, however, and would be pleased to see some of the dosh going to those who can benefit realistically.:ok: