Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)

[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!

[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

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?