Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Helmetfire: Have a quick look yourself for the technical minutae as it is a nightmare wading thru the tech spec. If you still want clarification get back to me and I'll dig the stuff out.
Bottom line in the UK is that the goggle tubes MUST NOT have the ability to fail simultaneously. i.e. they must be sourced by separate power supplies.
Reference is: DO-275, MOPS.
DO 275
Type that into Google and good luck!!!
Bottom line in the UK is that the goggle tubes MUST NOT have the ability to fail simultaneously. i.e. they must be sourced by separate power supplies.
Reference is: DO-275, MOPS.
DO 275
Type that into Google and good luck!!!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Type that into Google and good luck!!!
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,100,000,000 for that. (0.18 seconds)
First choice was - www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
SS
Thanks tc.
And isn't ss the profficient one on the google search? Loved the link sid.
DO 275 generally concentrates on the lighting standards for the aircraft and I have a hard copy of it. The SC-196 also released a NVG standard called TSO-C64 or something similar, of which I also have a copy. This is not an FAA TSO, but a suggested NVG standard that SC-196 put forward as the min spec NVG pending ratificatoin from the FAA. It is broadly based upon the Omnibus II tubes in terms of acuity, gain, and resolution.
What I am trying to find out is what standard the UK has specified (if any) for the NVG.
Has the UK accepted the output of SC-196 and therefore the TSO, or have they specified a different criteria?
And I am still intrested in why there is no procedure for loss of visual reference on take off and landing.
And isn't ss the profficient one on the google search? Loved the link sid.
DO 275 generally concentrates on the lighting standards for the aircraft and I have a hard copy of it. The SC-196 also released a NVG standard called TSO-C64 or something similar, of which I also have a copy. This is not an FAA TSO, but a suggested NVG standard that SC-196 put forward as the min spec NVG pending ratificatoin from the FAA. It is broadly based upon the Omnibus II tubes in terms of acuity, gain, and resolution.
What I am trying to find out is what standard the UK has specified (if any) for the NVG.
Has the UK accepted the output of SC-196 and therefore the TSO, or have they specified a different criteria?
And I am still intrested in why there is no procedure for loss of visual reference on take off and landing.
Guys, can anyone help me with this?
It appears no one is quite sure here on Pprune, so does anyone have a contact to find out the min spec of the NVGs dictated for UK Ops?
I am involved in the establishment of NVG operating standards in Australia as we speak, and this information would be very benefitial.
Thank you
hf
It appears no one is quite sure here on Pprune, so does anyone have a contact to find out the min spec of the NVGs dictated for UK Ops?
I am involved in the establishment of NVG operating standards in Australia as we speak, and this information would be very benefitial.
Thank you
hf
Helmet fire:
I've talked to the flight test dept @ the CAA and also our certification authority for NVIS.
Basically it all revolves around DO275, but remember that the NVG's are only a small (though crucial) element of the NVIS. There is a bottom line and that is in THIS country it would seem that certification will not cater for common power supplies to the two tubes.
The suggested industry standard too, is GEN III. However GEN2+ might work dependent on the operating environment (urban/rural etc).
I'll give you the contact details of the NVG guru over here who is only too happy to assist you personally - especially as he is a bloody aussie too! - PM me for more.
I've talked to the flight test dept @ the CAA and also our certification authority for NVIS.
Basically it all revolves around DO275, but remember that the NVG's are only a small (though crucial) element of the NVIS. There is a bottom line and that is in THIS country it would seem that certification will not cater for common power supplies to the two tubes.
The suggested industry standard too, is GEN III. However GEN2+ might work dependent on the operating environment (urban/rural etc).
I'll give you the contact details of the NVG guru over here who is only too happy to assist you personally - especially as he is a bloody aussie too! - PM me for more.
Need help again please.....
I cannot find any product info on the "FENNS 2000" NVG mentioned above. Done a thousand Google searches on Fenns 2000 gen III, fenns nvg, fenns NG 700, fenns night vision, etc etc.
Mostly I get a link back to this forum!! I bet siloe sid can get more from his searches, but I am only an amateur.
Is there another name for the product you all mention above, or does anybody have a website that I can get linked to? Perhaps a manufacturer website, etc?
Thanks
I cannot find any product info on the "FENNS 2000" NVG mentioned above. Done a thousand Google searches on Fenns 2000 gen III, fenns nvg, fenns NG 700, fenns night vision, etc etc.
Mostly I get a link back to this forum!! I bet siloe sid can get more from his searches, but I am only an amateur.
Is there another name for the product you all mention above, or does anybody have a website that I can get linked to? Perhaps a manufacturer website, etc?
Thanks
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
East Midlands Police ASU now fully operational with NVGs
I read that East Midlands is the first ASU in the UK to go live with the whole crew now working with NVGs under the new Regs.
Apparently the new system cost a total of £160,000 - almost £50,000 for the three sets of goggles and the remainder converting the aircraft. The bulk of the cost has been funded by a £121,000 Home Office grant with the rest jointly funded by Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire police forces.
Will North Wales be next?
H.
Damn - to the victor the spoils!
We have flown NVG's for 12 years...trouble is its policeofficers only who can wear them! CAA dragging heels etc cost us dearly and wore us out trying to climb their bureaucratic barriers. E Mids took the lead on the final stretch and cracked them.
Now - this industry will be the better for it, by far.
Let the conversions roll.......................................
We have flown NVG's for 12 years...trouble is its policeofficers only who can wear them! CAA dragging heels etc cost us dearly and wore us out trying to climb their bureaucratic barriers. E Mids took the lead on the final stretch and cracked them.
Now - this industry will be the better for it, by far.
Let the conversions roll.......................................
TC,
Ever feel like you are in Wonderland? Just why does the CAA refuse to embrace techology from the left side of the salt water divide? The FAA has gone the other way finally and are promoting NVG use for EMS operators.
Is it a purely British thing...this reluctance to embrace change or progress despite its availibility and enhancement of safety?
Ever feel like you are in Wonderland? Just why does the CAA refuse to embrace techology from the left side of the salt water divide? The FAA has gone the other way finally and are promoting NVG use for EMS operators.
Is it a purely British thing...this reluctance to embrace change or progress despite its availibility and enhancement of safety?
We have flown NVG's for 12 years...trouble is its policeofficers only who can wear them!
Just a numbered other
Having worked for this unit a few years back, I still question the need....
Most work is in well lit urban scenarios.
How will it hang when Warks decamp to West Mids?
Most work is in well lit urban scenarios.
How will it hang when Warks decamp to West Mids?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC sorry to see you pipped at the post 
but glad to see they are in at last.
SASLESS I guess from your posts you are over the pond. The reason for CAA delays resulted from the need by our test pilot brethren to be satisfied with regard to the system of NVIS as a whole, not just the aircraft and they had some concerns about redundancy issues within the goggle power supplies. In particular they were concerned at the potential risks of a single pilot operation by night in hills where an a/c might end up in a position where the pilot had been 'suckered in' to bad weather conditions by using goggles, losing power to them and then having a weather problem. The approval could have been faster and it was frustrating for all of us involved that it took so long. It certainly was not down to the NIH syndrome.
However I do get quite fascinated by the snipes that come from the other side of the pond now and then when it comes to rules, regs and safety. After all the HEMS accident record G o M record and for that matter police safety record over there is so good I can't think why we haven't just taken up your standards willy nilly
but glad to see they are in at last.SASLESS I guess from your posts you are over the pond. The reason for CAA delays resulted from the need by our test pilot brethren to be satisfied with regard to the system of NVIS as a whole, not just the aircraft and they had some concerns about redundancy issues within the goggle power supplies. In particular they were concerned at the potential risks of a single pilot operation by night in hills where an a/c might end up in a position where the pilot had been 'suckered in' to bad weather conditions by using goggles, losing power to them and then having a weather problem. The approval could have been faster and it was frustrating for all of us involved that it took so long. It certainly was not down to the NIH syndrome.
However I do get quite fascinated by the snipes that come from the other side of the pond now and then when it comes to rules, regs and safety. After all the HEMS accident record G o M record and for that matter police safety record over there is so good I can't think why we haven't just taken up your standards willy nilly
Old Heli....
It is not the amount of rules and regulations that generate safety. That has a role to play for sure but is only one leg of that stool. Despite being "from over the pond", I am bi-lingual and have done the CAA Calypso for years...until I decided the Renewal's just flat were not worth it.
Don't tell me with all the experience the British military and other jurisdictions have with NVG's....the CAA study group could not have arrived at a more timely answer. If the situation as described....12 years or more in the doing....is true, I would suggest someone is dragging their feet and trying to make a career out of it.
The simple and quick response to your single pilot in the hills situation could be fixed with a stroke of the pen....write yet another of one HM's Crats most common solution to any question..."Write a Rule" that requires "two pilots for remote area NVG Ops." It would be a bit OTT maybe, but that would have solved that bar to progress in about 15 seconds of penmanship. The NVG's could still be in use today industry wide even if in a restricted manner and thus we would all benefit. One has to question what the mindset is....from my perspective it certainly is not ...."How can we make this work?" "How do we accomplish this?" But rather more the opposite it would seem.
Our own FAA got struck by lightning one day....and overnight the NVG thing turned right around and once someone from on high dictated it would happen...it did happen in a most expeditious manner. That was not the case for years however. You guys just don't have enough serious convective activity over there.
As to incorporating our rules vice your rules....why not compromise and use what works and contributes to maintaining a healthy standard of safety and efficiency. Neither the CAA or the FAA have the exact right answer to all of this despite what some folks think over there. (....or in Oklahoma City).
It is not the amount of rules and regulations that generate safety. That has a role to play for sure but is only one leg of that stool. Despite being "from over the pond", I am bi-lingual and have done the CAA Calypso for years...until I decided the Renewal's just flat were not worth it.
Don't tell me with all the experience the British military and other jurisdictions have with NVG's....the CAA study group could not have arrived at a more timely answer. If the situation as described....12 years or more in the doing....is true, I would suggest someone is dragging their feet and trying to make a career out of it.
The simple and quick response to your single pilot in the hills situation could be fixed with a stroke of the pen....write yet another of one HM's Crats most common solution to any question..."Write a Rule" that requires "two pilots for remote area NVG Ops." It would be a bit OTT maybe, but that would have solved that bar to progress in about 15 seconds of penmanship. The NVG's could still be in use today industry wide even if in a restricted manner and thus we would all benefit. One has to question what the mindset is....from my perspective it certainly is not ...."How can we make this work?" "How do we accomplish this?" But rather more the opposite it would seem.
Our own FAA got struck by lightning one day....and overnight the NVG thing turned right around and once someone from on high dictated it would happen...it did happen in a most expeditious manner. That was not the case for years however. You guys just don't have enough serious convective activity over there.
As to incorporating our rules vice your rules....why not compromise and use what works and contributes to maintaining a healthy standard of safety and efficiency. Neither the CAA or the FAA have the exact right answer to all of this despite what some folks think over there. (....or in Oklahoma City).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasn't the Devon ASU been flying (the pilots I mean) with gog's for some years? The Exeter boys were cadging used batteries off the Junglies at Yeovilton to save money.
Believe money's the main issue for the feds/Air ambo's - these things ain't cheap. The units' paymasters are tighter than two coats of paint when it comes to springing for stuff that costs much but delivers a relatively small increase in capability. Cultural lighting being strong where they tend to spend most of their time as stated above.
Believe money's the main issue for the feds/Air ambo's - these things ain't cheap. The units' paymasters are tighter than two coats of paint when it comes to springing for stuff that costs much but delivers a relatively small increase in capability. Cultural lighting being strong where they tend to spend most of their time as stated above.
Quote:
One has to question what the mindset is....from my perspective it certainly is not ...."How can we make this work?" "How do we accomplish this?" But rather more the opposite it would seem.
The feed back I have at the moment is that yes they took a awful long time to get there [and they are still not there yet as they still have a 500 foot lower limit] but the progress was a careful walk forward not a run and a trip. Yes there was a great deal of military background knowledge but it is a civil scenario that is being played here and SPIFR to boot. IFR itself is new to UK police aviation without this additional complication. It is difficult enough to get any pilots without throwing the additional skill requirements into the melting pot and making sure that all members of a unit are trained up to a decent standard and you do not have a mix and match situation of some pilots being able and others not.
There were additional difficulties in that EASA washed their hands of the deal because the police in the rest of Europe simply solved their problems by being 'Public Aircraft' and left the UK problem to the CAA.
Perhaps the problem from their perspective was as difficult as inserting UAV's into the civil scenario?
One has to question what the mindset is....from my perspective it certainly is not ...."How can we make this work?" "How do we accomplish this?" But rather more the opposite it would seem.
The feed back I have at the moment is that yes they took a awful long time to get there [and they are still not there yet as they still have a 500 foot lower limit] but the progress was a careful walk forward not a run and a trip. Yes there was a great deal of military background knowledge but it is a civil scenario that is being played here and SPIFR to boot. IFR itself is new to UK police aviation without this additional complication. It is difficult enough to get any pilots without throwing the additional skill requirements into the melting pot and making sure that all members of a unit are trained up to a decent standard and you do not have a mix and match situation of some pilots being able and others not.
There were additional difficulties in that EASA washed their hands of the deal because the police in the rest of Europe simply solved their problems by being 'Public Aircraft' and left the UK problem to the CAA.
Perhaps the problem from their perspective was as difficult as inserting UAV's into the civil scenario?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old heliman
Many people in aviation say that - and mean it.
The reaction of many CAA personnel at the mention of the FAA is very common - often accompanied by a sharp intake of breath. A very experienced proessional pilot friend of mine summed up the syndrome very well: 'Listen to the CAA and you'd think America was some third world country which had just discovered the aeroplane.'
Some specific examples might be arguable but, despite the enormous difference between the FAA's 'Can Do' and the CAA's 'Can't Do' approaches, there's no significant difference in flight safety. The stats vary depending upon events in a particular year but, overall, the evidence doesn't justify the CAA's famous (notorious?) strict approach.
Still, it's a good thing we didn't just adopt the FAA system. If we'd done that, we'd have been deprived of the joys of working under the European Joint Aviation Authorites - and wouldn't have the exciting prospect of working under the European Aviation Safety Agency.
Bet you're sorry you're going to miss that pleasure.
FL
I can't think why we haven't just taken up your standards willy nilly
The
reaction of many CAA personnel at the mention of the FAA is very common - often accompanied by a sharp intake of breath. A very experienced proessional pilot friend of mine summed up the syndrome very well: 'Listen to the CAA and you'd think America was some third world country which had just discovered the aeroplane.'Some specific examples might be arguable but, despite the enormous difference between the FAA's 'Can Do' and the CAA's 'Can't Do' approaches, there's no significant difference in flight safety. The stats vary depending upon events in a particular year but, overall, the evidence doesn't justify the CAA's famous (notorious?) strict approach.
Still, it's a good thing we didn't just adopt the FAA system. If we'd done that, we'd have been deprived of the joys of working under the European Joint Aviation Authorites - and wouldn't have the exciting prospect of working under the European Aviation Safety Agency.
Bet you're sorry you're going to miss that pleasure.
FL
The CAA is lightening up big time. The dept rep responsible for making a molehill out of a mountain in this regard is moving on - thankfully to make more mountains elsewhere
He is not being replaced (as is the the norm at the CAA lately) but others rising thru the system are much more proactive and from our industry perspective there is a definite sea of change ongoing. It is thanks to these that we have seen a major escalation in progress with NVIS.
I feel sorry for the CAA in a way - their numbers are being decimated but their tasking is, if anything being increased [Where have I seen this before?]. EASA is taking its toll and I hope, for all our benefits that it's for the better. The CAA is a shadow of its former self, leaner and more efficient maybe, but I feel they could soon be overwhelmed by these tidal waves of regulatory changes coming from Europe. A field day for the sharks and cowboys out there no doubt.
Perhaps we should introduce a whistleblowing scheme to self regulate
NVIS is to flight safety what seat belts were to cars. Over the top maybe, but true. It'll transform night ops in the police world and even more so in the HEMS world. [Though rumour has it that there is absolutely no momentum in this direction by the county Air Ambulance fraternity].
Old heliman, I've noticed you're much more active here at Pprune lately. But I'd rather the devil we know so welcome....and don't be put off, your insight is too valuable.
He is not being replaced (as is the the norm at the CAA lately) but others rising thru the system are much more proactive and from our industry perspective there is a definite sea of change ongoing. It is thanks to these that we have seen a major escalation in progress with NVIS.
I feel sorry for the CAA in a way - their numbers are being decimated but their tasking is, if anything being increased [Where have I seen this before?]. EASA is taking its toll and I hope, for all our benefits that it's for the better. The CAA is a shadow of its former self, leaner and more efficient maybe, but I feel they could soon be overwhelmed by these tidal waves of regulatory changes coming from Europe. A field day for the sharks and cowboys out there no doubt.
Perhaps we should introduce a whistleblowing scheme to self regulate
NVIS is to flight safety what seat belts were to cars. Over the top maybe, but true. It'll transform night ops in the police world and even more so in the HEMS world. [Though rumour has it that there is absolutely no momentum in this direction by the county Air Ambulance fraternity].
Old heliman, I've noticed you're much more active here at Pprune lately. But I'd rather the devil we know so welcome....and don't be put off, your insight is too valuable.
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 9th Feb 2006 at 22:20.