Quichotte

Bad pictures BigMike!

I'm totally agree to Jack Carson. 0,1% !!! Absolutely!!!
How many pilots and how many bosses think " this couldn't happen to me"?

I know enough pilots who think " a short time on instruments on a night VFR flight isn't a problem to me!" Weather limitations? "No problem, ok we have only a VFR ship and i doesn't hold an IR, but i'm an ex mil pilot, 10 years ago i have flown a lot on instruments!" "I need the money!" "I love the boss !" Or simple a non thinking greenhorn (bravery of the naives ) or "I'm the greatest aviator who ever lived !
I say it again, it's up to us as pilots to improve the safety.
The "safety on VFR night trips" series is one of the biggest threads here on PPRUNE. Unfortunately i'm sure this will be also a major thread of the future.

McGowan

Big Mike, Quichotte,

Agree with you both. I had a long, almost sickeningly hard look at the photos. Mind you I have not pushed my luck at night but can assure you I won't in the future, mainly because unlike some, I am pretty sure that if I did go too far on a dark and scary night I would be the one to come undone.
There is too much I have not done or seen to chop my life off early.

SASless

We sometimes find ourselves in a pickle for the best of reasons....that is when the motives or other reasons why we find ourselves in the smelly stuff really does not matter (at that moment anyway). What matters is if we are prepared and equipped for the situation.

What do we do to set up an EMS system that provides for the maximum safety commensurate with accomplishing the mission is the question.

Nick has a good idea....his plan holds water....can the market afford it? Can the industry afford not to do it?

Would the FAA support and facilitate it?

Shawn Coyle

Wasn't there just an article in Rotor and Wing by some guy named Coyle about 'There is no such thing as night VFR'????

I was also surprised to hear that even in helicopters fitted with AFCS/ Autopilot, that a significant portion of pilots don't use the equipment. Anyone anything to offer on that?

ShyTorque

Never heard of that bloke Coyle , but to some extent he's right about no night VFR.

I previously mentioned that the UK CAA doesn't generally allow night VFR, but recognises that it is possible to safely operate helicopters at night outside of the normal IFR regulations. Police pilots are allowed some dispensations by the stipulation of wx minima for "Visual Contact Flight (VCF)" provided that sufficient cultural lighting is available to determine the attitude of the aircraft. Rules are also in place with regard to minimum operating altitudes and separation from obstacles (both less than for IFR). UK Military aircraft also operate "VCF" in what is essentially a similar set of rules, but these days operate with NVGs as routine, using compatible cockpit design and TWO pilots, albeit at lower altitudes. Under those rules, flight without NVG is termed "reversionary" night flying and different regulations (e.g. higher operating altitude) then apply.

If a pilot under VCF is confronted by the weather closing in, he has limited options. If it isn't possible to land (steep terrain / wires / water / insufficent visual cues?) he must either safely avoid the weather and terrain by maintaining sufficient visual cues OR safely revert to IFR.

It's the bit in the middle that kills people, because faced with bad weather, most pilots initially attempt to remain VCF. If they have not allowed themselves an escape route and press on too far, that may be impossible.

When in operating VCF in hilly or mountainous terrain, a reversion to IFR may be impossible due to aircraft performance limitations. This may be an inability to actually clear steeply rising terrain, icing limitations, or insufficient fuel to comply with the IFR diversion requirement.

Irrespective of NVG, or the best autopilot in the world, pilots can still put themselves into an irrecoverable situation.

Devil 49

Helicopter EMS is not “just another helicopter pilot job.”

The human factors part of these accidents (not necessarily this one) gets far too little discussion here, in the industry or by the regulators who’re charged with our oversight. Particularly, there is no consideration given to circardian rhythm and sleep disruption, or the intellectual deficits involved. Perhaps it’s because we’re so involved with medicine which has a very machismo attitude towards long duty shifts. Physician-interns and residents are routinely expected to be on duty for 36 hours, 48 hours, and at times, longer duty assignments. That’s suicidal when applied to aviation.
The FAA recognizes the basic problem, and that’s the reason for the 10 hour uninterrupted rest requirement. The rule is inadequate for our industry, where split-hitches are routine with 24 hour breaks between a day shift and night duties. The rule of thumb is that every hour of duty beyond 3 into one’s sleep period is the equivalent of a single alcoholic beverage. By the end of that first night’s duty, an EMS pilot is mentally functioning at the level of 9 shots, but without the euphoria.
I’m old enough to remember the days before designated drivers for partiers. I lost a lot of friends to alcohol related accidents in the bad old days of muscle cars, reckless and invulnerable youth, and spectacular crashes. My professional situation is eerily familiar, and I’m not surprised that our night fatal accidents are the majority, while our night runs are the minority.
I work 4 days and 3 nights, ending my day shifts when I sign out at 1900 on Thursdays. My night duties start 24 hours later when I sign in at 1900 the next day, Friday. I’m pretty serious about being rested, and I carry through the Friday night/ Saturday morning shifts pretty well. Objectively, I’m certain I’m operating at a deficit the first shift on nights, but I “feel” okay. The next night, Saturday night, I’m not as well rested, and I feel it- I’m stupid and sleepy. Sunday nights, I’m in better shape, although still tired and less sharp, but progressing in the transition. My experience is that the longer I’m on nights, the better I sleep and the sharper I am on duty, as theory suggests. I’m still tired the whole hitch of nights, a week of nights doesn’t allow a complete circadian realignment- another rule of thumb is a requirement of one day to shift one hour.
That’s why we crash at night: we’re not only 20-200 visual acuity-wise; our aircraft are not just poorly equipped for night EMS ops, including IIMC; and no amount of jiggering WX minimums or risk assessment matrices will make the mental deficit of a sleep disrupted pilot a lesser risk. We crash at night because we’re in a situation requiring maximum capability with “Half our brains tied behind our back”, as Rush Limbaugh puts it. As long as this continues, we’ll have many more fatals at night than day: in twins and singles; IFR and VFR; landing, taking off and cruising, low-level and high- it’s the pilot that’s failing.
Complicating the issue with a twin, or IFR capability, increases the work load and magnifies the possibility of a fatal error. I’ve never been deeper into “it” than when I allowed equipment to carry me beyond my comfort zone, and then encountered issues. Aided night vision will help, at least I’d be able to see, and vision is our primary information source while flying.

We’re playing Russian roulette- maybe with a “thousand shooter”- but there’s still one bean in the wheel, and one’s enough, eventually.

Decks

Devil 49,

That is an excellent post. I firmly believe that if I have an accident in this business it will be CFIT( in one form or another) and there should be little excuse for that during the day... even in bad weather.
And I also agree on the IFR bit. I would much prefer have it than not, but SPIFR is a huge huge workload especially under quickly planned EMS/SAR conditions. Throw in fatigue and its much worse.
Two pilot IFR to minimums is a big workload unless you are doing it regularly.

Thomas coupling

Devil 49:

Just remember those feelings if and when you get into a position of authority when you can CHANGE MATTERS

It's up to everyone of us to shape our FDP's and fatigue cycles. Maybe not now when you are happy to hold a job down, but one day.
And when that day comes, dont allow other issues to push this one to the back of the queue, like trying to impress the hierarchy that you're a great Chief Pilot OR Ops manager by flogging the line to death with even more fatiguing FDP's.
Make it your MANTRA to stop this insiduous soul destroying attitude within the company that all that counts is bums on seats and lots of flying hours that pay. Of course it makes the company tick........but in a crash, the ticks................................STOP

N Arslow

There are old pilots, bold pilots and pilots doing it for the "gold" - if you will pardon the strain on the well-known adage.

Those starting out on their career will be trying to impress their bosses in order to move up the ladder - and inevitably poor decsions will be made, particularly when the regulations give so little room to be broken. Ultimately who is to blame? Well, you can blame the pilot of course, but we have regulating authorities for enhancing safety so surely blame must lie at their feet too?

While we generally hate to be regulated, surely herein lies our protection. If commercial operations in a competitive arena exist then so will the push for profit with consequent reduction in safety. For my part, I suggest the regulators MUST act. If the regulations are toughened (SPIFR equipment, IR pilot(s), NVG, whatever) then this only raises the level for all in the competition - and, for sure, some will fall out - but the overall standards will improve. The regulators need to do their job as much as the pilot who weighs broken kid:marginal weather ratios.

BigMike

This is a very interesting article on NVG's. It might correct a few of the myths surrounding there use.


February 1, 2003

Accessories: Being Green—Then Seeing Green

A firsthand report from two high-time pilots who went through Bell Helicopter’s new civilian night vision goggle training course.
by Ron and Shannon Bower, Reporting from Fort Worth, Texas

Editor’s Note: A father/son team of dual-ATP rated pilots, Ron and Shannon Bower recently attended the first (and only) FAA-approved Part 141 training course for civil aircrews using night vision goggles (NVGs) at Bell Helicopter Textron’s Customer Training Academy in Fort Worth, Texas. Neither Ron nor his son Shannon had previously flown with night vision goggles.
In this report, they describe their educational experience and the state of this safety-enhancing NVG technology, as it applies to civil helicopter operations. They also walk you though the curriculum for the ground and flight training "under the goggles."
Ron and Shannon have a combined 58 years and 15,000 hours of licensed flying experience, including hundreds of hours of night VFR and IFR cross-country.

This new five-night course included eight hours of classroom instruction and 7.5 hours of night flight instruction using NVGs. Shannon graduated from both the ground and flight portions, while Ron graduated from the ground portion and rode in the back seat of the helicopter on all of Shannon’s flights taking the NVG pictures for this report. Ron also flew a 40-minute NVG familiarization flight.
Both men researched and wrote this article together. It is written in Ron’s voice and from his perspective.


THERE IS NO DOUBT, AFTER attending the Bell NVG course, that my long-held perspective on NVG use in helicopters was quite wrong. Prior to taking this course, I viewed NVG use as dangerous, deadly, and very expensive. I harbored the preconceived notion that NVGs were only for military use, where sacrificial risks were part of the job.

My perspective has drastically changed. I now see NVGs as an essential safety-enhancing mission tool for many civil helicopter operations—particularly emergency medical services (EMS), airborne police, search and rescue, and other parapublic missions.

Today’s NVGs can significantly enhance safety in night flying, and are astoundingly useful tools in accomplishing any nighttime mission. They’re not just for remote areas with limited light sources.

Flying over the DFW metroplex, the dark areas that might be selected as emergency landing areas for non-NVG pilots became lit up showing unseen obstacles; shadowed and darkened backyards and parking lots were now bright, leaving no place for villains to hide; and dark, wire-strung rescue or medevac scenes showed almost like daytime.

I now wholeheartedly believe it to be much, much safer to use NVGs, than not using them for any night flying operation. Also, instead of being very expensive, the cost of installing NVG equipment in helicopters has being greatly reduced.

The reaction most people have to their first NVG helicopter experience at Bell’s NVG course is similar to the "WOW" reaction to a first helicopter flight. That was certainly my reaction. As I sat in the back seat for seven-plus hours wearing NVGs, I couldn’t seem to get over how "black" it was outside when I would flip the goggles up, and then how bright, clear, and defining it was when the goggles were down.

I don’t care how good your landing or searchlight is, or how good your pilot skill is; without NVGs, you’re missing significant, possibly critical, visual input at night. Today’s NVGs represent a quantum leap in improved safety.
NVGs were not available when I flew helicopters in Vietnam in 1965-66. The infantry was "experimenting" with early Starlight scopes that were large, heavy, fragile, and produced grainy images. If a Starlight scope were turned on during the day, it would burn itself out, a natural self-destruct mechanism for captured devices.

Early military helicopter NVGs in the 1970s and ’80s had many operational limitations. If a bright light was encountered, rather than burnout, protection circuitry was added to automatically shut them off —a rather unhandy feature. They, too, were heavy, peripheral-view blocking, and grainy, not offering the clear image quality that is available today.
In the case of newer NVGs, you put them on when you are ready for takeoff and leave them on until after you land. At Bell, the heliport ramp was lit with bright Halogen lamps, and they caused no noticeable degradation or problems. Also, in an almost pitch-black night, we simulated an EMS scene by landing near a fire truck with all of its strobes, headlights, and flashing lights on. Again, vision was far better with NVGs than without them. The internal circuitry of the NVGs automatically adjust to bright lights.
I know that many older helicopter pilots ("helicopterus-rex") share my previously negative opinion of NVGs. Some, as I was, have no first hand or recent (within the last four or five years) NVG experience. Many of these "seasoned" veterans are in decision making positions in flying organizations, and I suspect in aviation regulatory agencies worldwide. I strongly urge any organization whose mission requires safe night flying management to seriously look into today’s NVGs—you will really like what you see.

Learning to fly NVGs safely
With NVGs, as with any flying skill, initial and recurrent training is necessary. Bell Helicopter’s Customer Training Academy recognized the benefits of NVGs and developed the first (and still the only) FAA Part 141 Approved NVG Special Operations Course for civil helicopter flying. As with any new certification effort in aviation, it proved to be a lengthy process.
Two highly experienced NVG Bell pilots, Cornelius "Mac" MacMillan (chief NVG instructor), and Scott Baxter, (assistant chief instructor) led in the development and certification effort with the FAA. MacMillan and Baxter have more than 2,500 hours of NVG flight experience between them.
While the NVG course was designed for pilots, it is also valuable to other air crew members, helping them understand how night vision works, both in human eyes and with NVG equipment. Non-flying observers/crewmembers may attend the ground-school portion of the course, as well, to develop a better understanding of NVG operation. Short-course refresher training also is available.

The Bell 206 JetRanger is an excellent training platform for NVG training. But, the training is not aircraft specific, rather it is focused on NVG transferable concepts to any aircraft. Training of additional Bell NVG instructors is underway, and Spanish language NVG instruction will soon be available. In addition, for many public-use operators, the Bell NVG instructors will conduct custom on-site training in your own aircraft
For additional information on the Bell NVG course, go to http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.co...ses/nv/nvg.htm.
NVG hardware: What does it take?
The NVG industry terminology of "aided" versus "unaided" is an accurate way of describing how you conduct night flights. If you don’t use NVGs for night flying, you are flying "unaided." Why would someone choose to fly unaided, if "aided" flying is available, and significantly safer?
As with GPS, you don’t have to have a GPS to aid you in navigation—you can still navigate unaided using basic piloting (a map, compass, and clock). However, GPS drastically improves pilots’ positional awareness and results in a far safer method of navigating. Maybe in an even more drastic way, NVGs enhance safety for any night flying by letting the pilot see what was previously unseen.

We were previously unclear as to what hardware was required to fly NVGs. There are two separate major components: 1.) the NVG "goggles" system, and 2.) having an "NVG-compatible cockpit."
The word "goggles" is really a misnomer with negative connotations. It may make one think of uncomfortable, view limiting, swimming goggles, or maybe the old-fashioned flying goggles—both that fit tight across your face and block peripheral vision.
New-technology NVG "goggles" aren’t like that at all. They don’t even touch your face, but are positioned about 0.75 to 1.25 inches in front of your eyes, held in place by a clever mounting system on a flight helmet. The distance from your eyes to the goggles allows you to look around and under them, increasing your peripheral visual cues. The field of vision of the NVG goggles is about 40°, so a proper scanning technique is taught.

The goggle system we used at Bell was the Northrop Grumman (Litton) M949, a Generation III, civilian system. The useful life of the M949 is 10,000 hours, 2.5 times longer than the earlier AN/PVS-5 goggles.
The goggle system is completely independent of the aircraft’s electrical power, operating for ten to 22 hours from a pair of AA alkaline batteries.
The batteries are in a plastic dual pack that is Velcroed to the back of the flight helmet. The battery pack holds two sets of two AA batteries (one pair is a backup) and has a three-position to let you select which side you want to use. A single wire connects the batteries to the helmet mount in front.
A small, unobtrusive red blinking light above the goggles warns of low battery power. With a flip of the battery selector switch, the backup batteries give you another ten to 22 hours of use. (The battery selector switch is also handy to the NVG instructor to reach and flip to "off" for simulated goggle failure, and Bell’s training curriculum includes preparing for this very rare occurrence.)

The mount firmly holds the goggles in position, yet allows you to pivot them up by hand when not in use. When rotated upward, the battery power to the goggles is disconnected to conserve the batteries. The goggles can be attached and removed from the mount easily for storage or daytime flying, yet are designed to stay attached to the mount up to 15Gs.
The older technology goggles were larger and heavier, often requiring a counter weight to be placed on the back of the helmet. However, counterweights increased the total weight. The new technology goggles weigh only 19 ounces, and the four AA batteries provide an ample counterweight.

BigMike

Part 2.
The helmet was still comfortable after eight hours of wearing it with the NVG unit attached. Most police, EMS, and SAR pilots already wear flight helmets. Because the goggle system is self-contained, you can keep them operational if you exit the aircraft on the ground, as I did on several occasions to take photos.
I noticed no eyestrain as a result of the NVG flights. Flying with NVGs is less stressful than flying unaided, particularly with the GEN III technology.
Since most NVG operations have a pool of goggles, rather than each of the pilots having their own, a brief adjustment and focusing procedure is accomplished as part of nighttime prestart check. It takes less than a minute to get them adjusted just the way you want them. If you wear glasses, you can still wear them with the new NVG goggles.
Unlike binoculars, however, you don’t look through NVG goggles, you look into them. Think of it as looking into miniature display screens at the back end of the goggles. Ambient light enters the front of the NVG goggles and is multiplied 2,000 to 3,000 times, then converted into green-tinted, monochromatic images on the screen.
NVG-compatible cockpit
We were under the misconception that the cockpit had to be lit in such a way as to allow the pilot to see and read the instruments through the NVG goggles. This used to be the case in early technology NVG goggles.
Because of focusing problems, in two-pilot aircraft the co-pilot would focus his goggles for close work to handle the inside of the aircraft (instruments, radios, maps), while the pilot would focus to infinity for distance and handle the flying. The other bad choice was for the pilot to focus one eye for close work inside, and the other eye for outside flying distance. I can understand why accidents occurred during the early days of NVGs, especially in low-level and formation flying.
With new-technology NVGs, the smaller off-the-face goggles are focused for flying and the crew simply looks below or around the goggles to adjust radios and to see the instruments and maps. Yet, the interior lights must not interfere with the NVGs. In some missions, such as EMS, even aft cabin auxiliary lighting must be made NVG compatible.
The Bell 206 JetRanger we flew has a low-cost STC’d night vision-compatible lighting system from Texas Aviation Services of Fort Worth, Texas. This lighting system, called the Spider Illumination System, uses the latest ANVIS-white light color, rather than the older technology blue-green lights.
According to Tim Woodard, vice president, Texas Aviation Services, "the Spider system costs about one-third of traditional NVG compatible cockpits." To learn more, go to www.texasaviationservices.com.
Ground school
We found the ground training to be informative and well presented. Numerous photos, graphs, and charts helped in understanding the smoke-and-mirrors of being able to see in the dark. The eight hours of afternoon classroom time was paced to match the night flying schedule.
Topics covered in the ground school included an introduction to the NVG hardware and system including NVG preflight adjustments, emergency procedures and limitations, physiological considerations, night terrain interpretation, and night mission planning. Also included was "blind" cockpit training so you can be familiar with the general location of critical system switches and circuit breakers.
Through the years, we have been to numerous JetRanger, LongRanger, and 407 flight training classes, both initial transition and recurrent courses, at Bell’s Training Academy. The syllabus of required maneuvers in this course seems identical to the day/VFR pilot training courses—except all of the 7.5 hours were done at night and under the NVG goggles.
The NVG course’s detailed maneuver guide listed the training object, performance requirements, common errors, and special NVG considerations.
Bell considers its NVG course to be unique, in that it covers all emergency procedures that are normally taught in daylight flying. Detecting visual cues, when looking through a 40° field of vision in 2-D instead of 3-D, is different than in daytime flying. Our training periods were in accordance with the maneuver guide.
Included were all the normal tasks for preflight, engine start, run-up and before takeoff. The NVG goggles were put on and adjusted before takeoff. Hovering required scanning to pick up more visual cues to keep stationary. Normal and steep approaches and running landings were procedurally the same as daytime.
We performed numerous touchdown night autorotations from all flight regimes—hover, takeoff, landing, straight-in, 180°, and even a hover out of ground effect (HOGE) at the top of the H/V curve, all under the NVGs. In addition, a variety of emergency landing procedures were performed, including hydraulics failure, left and right stuck pedal, and go-arounds.
Since inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is more likely at night, we performed inadvertent weather recovery procedures, including basic instrument flying (with the goggles switched off) and then a flight to a nearby airport to shoot an ILS approach. Other important maneuvers were "mission realistic"—confined area takeoffs and landings, slope operations, wire obstacles, and even low-altitude hover in a simulated search pattern.
NVG flying confirms the age-old truisms: "The helicopter doesn’t know it is dark" and "black air provides lift." The difference with NVGs is that the pilot can now see what was previously unseen.
At the conclusion of Bell’s new NVG course, my son Shannon and I were convinced that we gained NVG competence.
With this new technology, special skills must be developed and "best practices" understood. Bell’s new NVG course helps make NVG pilots safer and aviation organizations more effective in carrying out their nighttime missions.

GLSNightPilot

I've never understood EMS's insistence on rotating shifts. I"ve flown nights almost exclusively for years, and it's hard enough doing that, with two pilots. Whenever I get stuck flying days, I feel very much 'behind the power curve', tired and not as alert as I should be. But at least it's in the daylight, with another pilot who is used to flying days. Rotating from days to nights, or vice versa, means you're far below peak performance capability, and it's very dangerous, IMO. It's far safer to put someone on nights and keep him there, and it's not that hard to get someone to volunteer. Night differential pay would increase the incentive, if necessary. Rotating everyone around is just silly, and increases the risk of a fatal accident exponentially. But get a bunch of pilots and medical personnel together and the ego level is too high to measure, so the lemming parade continues, and people keep getting killed.