UK HEMS and NVGs
If it was good enough for......well you get my point!
"If it was good enough for Wellington....".
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no truth in that rumour.
EASA consider that Class 1 Performance profiles are incompatible with the wearing of NVG.
HEMS Operating bases are surveyed and lit, no NVGrequirement.
Hospitals are surveyed and lit, no NVG requirement.
HEMS Operating sites are not capable of PC1 due to the fact the obstacle environment is unknown and sites are estimated for size etc. Operations are PC2/3 and can be flown with NVG.
Effect on operations? Nil
My experience of the CAA is that they are constrained by JAR/EASA and not by any "in house" desire to see such operations curtailed.
EASA consider that Class 1 Performance profiles are incompatible with the wearing of NVG.
HEMS Operating bases are surveyed and lit, no NVGrequirement.
Hospitals are surveyed and lit, no NVG requirement.
HEMS Operating sites are not capable of PC1 due to the fact the obstacle environment is unknown and sites are estimated for size etc. Operations are PC2/3 and can be flown with NVG.
Effect on operations? Nil
My experience of the CAA is that they are constrained by JAR/EASA and not by any "in house" desire to see such operations curtailed.
EASA consider that Class 1 Performance profiles are incompatible with the wearing of NVG.
Any Position Papers issued by the Bureaucrats at EASA where they stake out their position and justify what they are saying?
Norway EMS has been using NVG's since 2002.
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: NVG Certification Needs to be Quicker, Operators Agree at Helitech
How does "Night" and the inability of the Human being to see well in the dark....figure into all this?
When you say the Bases and Hospitals are lit.....what about all the surrounding areas that might be useful in the case of an Emergency Landing? Are they well lit too?
Are all the obstacles sticking up well lit and marked?
These "experts" at EASA/JAA/JAR/CAA......how much real time operatonal experience using NVG's do they have?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Amazing thing is, you can flip NVGs up out of the way if you need to carry out a Class 1 take off or landing.
Even so, unrecce'd / ad hoc night landing sites are always going to be potentially risky, NVG or not. Wires being the major concern.
Even so, unrecce'd / ad hoc night landing sites are always going to be potentially risky, NVG or not. Wires being the major concern.
Transit flying between well lit HLS'? No real need for NVGs. Going to land in the bondu? Yep, I'll take my goggs please. I know the answer could be white light, but the head / goggles move a lot quicker than panning a BriteSun or ldg lamp. Plus, for nav assist, goggs are a big help and keep your head out of the cockpit more than thumbcrawling or watching a moving map.
NVGs are not a panacea but in concert with a FLIR/L3TV they add massively to SA at night.
If I may be a bit controversial, how much of the 'anti' brigade is driven by the non-ex mil trained aircrew? If NVGs began to be seen like an IR then it will place mil aircrew at an even bigger advantage when it comes to recruiting into these areas. I'm inclined to agree with SASLess that maybe the people opposing it are also reluctant to learn new tricks....or pay for it.
NVGs are not a panacea but in concert with a FLIR/L3TV they add massively to SA at night.
If I may be a bit controversial, how much of the 'anti' brigade is driven by the non-ex mil trained aircrew? If NVGs began to be seen like an IR then it will place mil aircrew at an even bigger advantage when it comes to recruiting into these areas. I'm inclined to agree with SASLess that maybe the people opposing it are also reluctant to learn new tricks....or pay for it.
Thread Starter
HEMS Operating sites are not capable of PC1 due to the fact the obstacle environment is unknown and sites are estimated for size etc.
I remember attending a FAA brief during the Heli Expo 08 in Dallas. It was basically a Q and A for the operators.
One topic that came up was about the use NVGs, with the Feds explained the ins/outs certification / proposed rule making and amendments then the "anyone has questions?". There was a murmur and one operator got up and basically let their emotions out with the pretty much the words "people will die or are dying because of this rule". Then a couple of other folk joined in support.
Sure SAS can shed some light on what the Feds were restricting at the time?
One topic that came up was about the use NVGs, with the Feds explained the ins/outs certification / proposed rule making and amendments then the "anyone has questions?". There was a murmur and one operator got up and basically let their emotions out with the pretty much the words "people will die or are dying because of this rule". Then a couple of other folk joined in support.
Sure SAS can shed some light on what the Feds were restricting at the time?
Can anyone tell me what is incompatible with PC1 Profiles and the wearing of NVG's?
I seem to be missing something.....as having flown with NVG's and doing simple things like one skid landings on roof tops....slope landings....EOL's to a power recovery....OEI landings.....Simulated Engine failures on takeoff before and after TDP....and during landings before and after LDP....basically every maneuver that can be done without NVG's.....I fail to see what possible conflict there is....so what does the EASA CRATS know that so many of us fail to grasp?
The one thing I do know for sure....being able to see in the dark beats hell out of not being able to see in the dark.
The other thing I know for sure....once you use NVG's....you don't want to be without them in the Dark ever again. Quoting Uncle Si....."That is a Fact, Jack!".
I seem to be missing something.....as having flown with NVG's and doing simple things like one skid landings on roof tops....slope landings....EOL's to a power recovery....OEI landings.....Simulated Engine failures on takeoff before and after TDP....and during landings before and after LDP....basically every maneuver that can be done without NVG's.....I fail to see what possible conflict there is....so what does the EASA CRATS know that so many of us fail to grasp?
The one thing I do know for sure....being able to see in the dark beats hell out of not being able to see in the dark.
The other thing I know for sure....once you use NVG's....you don't want to be without them in the Dark ever again. Quoting Uncle Si....."That is a Fact, Jack!".
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding EASA view on Class 1 Performance profiles and the certification of NVG have a look here if you are so inclined.
EASA - 7th Rotorcraft Symposium
Look in the ZIP files for a presentation "Helicopter Performance with NVG" by
Ray White, Helicopter Flight Test Engineer
EASA - 7th Rotorcraft Symposium
Look in the ZIP files for a presentation "Helicopter Performance with NVG" by
Ray White, Helicopter Flight Test Engineer
NVG use becoming widespread for Police and HEMS.
Airworthiness Requirements and certification well understood .
Operational requirements not so well standardised as yet.
Some NAA’s requiring Cat A for HEMS.
Cat A is an airworthiness concept .
2 fundamental aspects:
Performance capability .
Engineering standard.
Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight:
Carry out a rejected take off if the engine fails early .
Land within the distance available .
Continue the take off if the engine fails after decision point.
Miss any obstacles within T.O. flight path .
Balk an OEI approach .
Carry out an OEI landing .
Implies a surveyed site available.
Satisfactory OEI power available .
Correctly determined WAT (weight/altitude/temperature).
Acceptable pilot workload.
Visual cue environment .
Night approvals .
Site assumed to be “properly” surveyed and illuminated airfields/helipads etc .
Performance Class 1 has the same objective as Category A .
Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight .
Requirement to operate Class 1 (or 2 or 3) is regulated at an Ops level.
If Ops demand Class 1 performance, this can only be delivered by an aircraft with a full Category A approval .
NAA’s have required Class 1 for HEMS operations.
STC applicants have requested Cat A approval to be included in an NVG approval .
Assumption that, as RFM Cat A supplement does not prohibit NVG, it is automatically approved .
DO275 NVIS MOPS
1.6.2 NVIS Operational Assumptions.
1. NVG enhanced vision is not equivalent to daytime vision.
2. The pilot can maintain VFR flight in the event NVG imagery is lost or degraded.
3. The NVG does not provide adequate imagery under all lighting conditions, scene contrast, and atmospheric conditions.
Airworthiness standard is found in FAR/CS29 MG16
The primary tenet of the use of NVG in Civil flight operations is that they are an aid to night VFR .
NVG are not intended to expand the operational envelope or operational capabilities.
MG16 states in respect of Cert basis:
(3) Certification Basis. The NVIS lighting design, not including the NVG, must comply with the same certification basis as that of the aircraft. The NVIS lighting design should not adversely affect other design approvals (e.g., Category A and IFR).
Note: Category A profiles are not certificated for use with NVGs unless evaluating the profiles with NVGs. Other flight operations that require special training and approval (such as agricultural and external load operations) are beyond the scope of this MG. Approval of such operations with NVIS will require additional coordination with both aircraft certification and aircraft operations civil authorities to determine the scope of the effort .
Anything done with NVGs should be also be capable of being done without NVGs.
It is quite unlikely that a Cat A T/O and landing was done in the basic certification on an unimproved site
If an operator decides to perform Cat A T/O and landing to an unimproved site, this site should satisfy the conditions of what was done in certification. If not, he is not guaranteed the Cat A results and he is doing “lookalike” Cat A profile.
This ‘lookalike ‘ profile should have been tested during the EASA evaluation (at least while doing STCs) with and without NVGs.
Cat A under NVG is not automatically accepted, just because it is not specifically prohibited .
MG16 identifies need for dedicated investigation
NVG degrades external FoV .
Cat A is very dependent on external cues .
Cat A/NVG could be acceptable to fully approved and illuminated airfields & helipads .
Flight testing at limiting conditions necessary to ensure that degraded visual environment is not detrimental .
Ad hoc (“Unimproved”) sites
Not appropriate for Perf Class 1.
Not formally surveyed for distance, surface qualities, obstacle environment.
Illumination may not be to acceptable standards for night ops.
Ad hoc illumination using e.g. police car headlights is inadequate.
Ops rule does not mandate Class 1 for HEMS. Class 1 required where possible.
Ad hoc sites
Not appropriate for airworthiness Cat A.
External visual cue environment using goggles well below that assumed for normal unaided vision.
Field of view greatly reduced.
Low level of external illumination means goggles are essential for conduct of operation.
Goggle failure at critical point could be catastrophic .
Acceptable procedures for ad hoc sites
No requirement to mandate a take off procedure for Cat B.
Should remain clear of HV curve.
Operator can define best practice.
Cat A take off procedure is known to remain clear of HV .
Cat A procedure is best for dealing with an engine failure .
OK to fly Cat A procedures and profiles .
This does not guarantee Class 1 Perf
Class 1 operations can only be performed by Cat A certificated helicopters.
Cat A is limited by distance available for rejected or continued take offs.
Performance margins and visual cue quality are directly related .
This assumes that you can see where you are going, including at night .
Lack of a formal prohibition (of anything) in a Flight Manual does not mean that it is permitted by default.
Cat A, and Class 1, could be acceptable to a correctly illuminated airfield, but a formal flight investigation would be needed .
Operations to ad-hoc, unimproved, sites would rely on the use of NVG’s.
This is at variance with the basic assumption for civil NVG approvals – no credit to be taken for the goggles .
Cat A, and hence Class 1, approval using goggles not acceptable to such sites .
Cat A TO and Landing profiles acceptable for Cat B & Class 2/3 operations.
Airworthiness Requirements and certification well understood .
Operational requirements not so well standardised as yet.
Some NAA’s requiring Cat A for HEMS.
Cat A is an airworthiness concept .
2 fundamental aspects:
Performance capability .
Engineering standard.
Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight:
Carry out a rejected take off if the engine fails early .
Land within the distance available .
Continue the take off if the engine fails after decision point.
Miss any obstacles within T.O. flight path .
Balk an OEI approach .
Carry out an OEI landing .
Implies a surveyed site available.
Satisfactory OEI power available .
Correctly determined WAT (weight/altitude/temperature).
Acceptable pilot workload.
Visual cue environment .
Night approvals .
Site assumed to be “properly” surveyed and illuminated airfields/helipads etc .
Performance Class 1 has the same objective as Category A .
Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight .
Requirement to operate Class 1 (or 2 or 3) is regulated at an Ops level.
If Ops demand Class 1 performance, this can only be delivered by an aircraft with a full Category A approval .
NAA’s have required Class 1 for HEMS operations.
STC applicants have requested Cat A approval to be included in an NVG approval .
Assumption that, as RFM Cat A supplement does not prohibit NVG, it is automatically approved .
DO275 NVIS MOPS
1.6.2 NVIS Operational Assumptions.
1. NVG enhanced vision is not equivalent to daytime vision.
2. The pilot can maintain VFR flight in the event NVG imagery is lost or degraded.
3. The NVG does not provide adequate imagery under all lighting conditions, scene contrast, and atmospheric conditions.
Airworthiness standard is found in FAR/CS29 MG16
The primary tenet of the use of NVG in Civil flight operations is that they are an aid to night VFR .
NVG are not intended to expand the operational envelope or operational capabilities.
MG16 states in respect of Cert basis:
(3) Certification Basis. The NVIS lighting design, not including the NVG, must comply with the same certification basis as that of the aircraft. The NVIS lighting design should not adversely affect other design approvals (e.g., Category A and IFR).
Note: Category A profiles are not certificated for use with NVGs unless evaluating the profiles with NVGs. Other flight operations that require special training and approval (such as agricultural and external load operations) are beyond the scope of this MG. Approval of such operations with NVIS will require additional coordination with both aircraft certification and aircraft operations civil authorities to determine the scope of the effort .
Anything done with NVGs should be also be capable of being done without NVGs.
It is quite unlikely that a Cat A T/O and landing was done in the basic certification on an unimproved site
If an operator decides to perform Cat A T/O and landing to an unimproved site, this site should satisfy the conditions of what was done in certification. If not, he is not guaranteed the Cat A results and he is doing “lookalike” Cat A profile.
This ‘lookalike ‘ profile should have been tested during the EASA evaluation (at least while doing STCs) with and without NVGs.
Cat A under NVG is not automatically accepted, just because it is not specifically prohibited .
MG16 identifies need for dedicated investigation
NVG degrades external FoV .
Cat A is very dependent on external cues .
Cat A/NVG could be acceptable to fully approved and illuminated airfields & helipads .
Flight testing at limiting conditions necessary to ensure that degraded visual environment is not detrimental .
Ad hoc (“Unimproved”) sites
Not appropriate for Perf Class 1.
Not formally surveyed for distance, surface qualities, obstacle environment.
Illumination may not be to acceptable standards for night ops.
Ad hoc illumination using e.g. police car headlights is inadequate.
Ops rule does not mandate Class 1 for HEMS. Class 1 required where possible.
Ad hoc sites
Not appropriate for airworthiness Cat A.
External visual cue environment using goggles well below that assumed for normal unaided vision.
Field of view greatly reduced.
Low level of external illumination means goggles are essential for conduct of operation.
Goggle failure at critical point could be catastrophic .
Acceptable procedures for ad hoc sites
No requirement to mandate a take off procedure for Cat B.
Should remain clear of HV curve.
Operator can define best practice.
Cat A take off procedure is known to remain clear of HV .
Cat A procedure is best for dealing with an engine failure .
OK to fly Cat A procedures and profiles .
This does not guarantee Class 1 Perf
Class 1 operations can only be performed by Cat A certificated helicopters.
Cat A is limited by distance available for rejected or continued take offs.
Performance margins and visual cue quality are directly related .
This assumes that you can see where you are going, including at night .
Lack of a formal prohibition (of anything) in a Flight Manual does not mean that it is permitted by default.
Cat A, and Class 1, could be acceptable to a correctly illuminated airfield, but a formal flight investigation would be needed .
Operations to ad-hoc, unimproved, sites would rely on the use of NVG’s.
This is at variance with the basic assumption for civil NVG approvals – no credit to be taken for the goggles .
Cat A, and hence Class 1, approval using goggles not acceptable to such sites .
Cat A TO and Landing profiles acceptable for Cat B & Class 2/3 operations.
SAR.....doing One Skids was part of the task guarding Nuclear Weapons....done in an aircraft equipped with machine-guns.....not Public Transport.
If you cannot grasp the fact that NVG's greatly enhance the safety of Night Flight and that in parts of the World we operate on a basis of doing the mission as safely as possible then there is scant hope of having any kind of rational discussion.
You will note that in the current Thread about the EMS Fatal Crash I have made no criticism of the Crew. I did post saying small power lines with Poles/Pylons hidden within the woodbine were very hard to see and posed great hazards.
My post here clearly states I have flown a twin engined helicopter using NVG's and did every maneuver done without NVG's.....with NVG's to include some that are a darn sight harder to do than those done by an EMS Operator operating under Public Transport Standards and Procedures.
So it would appear to me you are just trying to be snotty over something you did not agree with in the past.
You are quite out of order.....personal insult is not the way to win your argument.....in fact it merely means you lose as you destroy your credibility as my response will be to reject your rudeness and skip anything you hoped to say about the issue.
If you cannot grasp the fact that NVG's greatly enhance the safety of Night Flight and that in parts of the World we operate on a basis of doing the mission as safely as possible then there is scant hope of having any kind of rational discussion.
You will note that in the current Thread about the EMS Fatal Crash I have made no criticism of the Crew. I did post saying small power lines with Poles/Pylons hidden within the woodbine were very hard to see and posed great hazards.
My post here clearly states I have flown a twin engined helicopter using NVG's and did every maneuver done without NVG's.....with NVG's to include some that are a darn sight harder to do than those done by an EMS Operator operating under Public Transport Standards and Procedures.
So it would appear to me you are just trying to be snotty over something you did not agree with in the past.
You are quite out of order.....personal insult is not the way to win your argument.....in fact it merely means you lose as you destroy your credibility as my response will be to reject your rudeness and skip anything you hoped to say about the issue.
EC,
Reading through Ray White's presentation....it strikes me as being a telling discussion on how "Rules" once written seem to take on a life of their own and are never amended or repealed to include situations not considered when the original Rule was crafted.
We all know RFM's can have different forms....with the Performance Section and/or Limitations Sections having restrictions on how the aircraft is operated but with one Section being Mandatory and the other not.
Ray talks of a Failure of the NVG's at the Critical Point of the Maneuver and insufficient visual reference being available to complete the maneuver. Yet, he accepts the notion that NVG's are to be an aid and not alter the conditions under which the aircraft is to be operated. Which makes me wonder why you can do the maneuver without NVG's to begin with.....but cannot with a NVG failure and reverting to your MK 1 eyes....if the conditions are the same for each situation?
I think even Ray is getting confused.
He spends a fair bit of time talking about Certification of the Aircraft, the RFM, and requirements for Cat A/Class One Performance and Take Off/Landing Profiles....and shows how they create difficulties for getting NVG use approval by the various NAA's. It seems the NAA's are more prone to vary from existing policies re landing site requirements for the Class 1 profiles but seem to get very reluctant to make any variation for NVG's. The focus upon NVG's failing at a critical point in the Profile seems very important to the NAA's but in my opinion those concerns are excessive.
I can think of some other failures at the Critical Points that would be far more dangerous than a Goggle Failure. The Safety Enhancement of NVG use for all phases of flight far exceed any additional risks they might pose should they fail at the critical point following an engine failure.....as we are talking about a very small risk of the engine failing to begin with.....and then adding the very slight chance of having a Goggle failure at the same time. I am not a Statistician by any means.....but that seems like a very weak argument against using NVG's.
The concept of requiring Class 1 Performance is another topic that needs to be argued......as again.....Engine Failures are pretty darn remote and present a very small hazard compared to the most common killers of EMS Crews who fly at night.
Weather, Wires and Obstructions, and CFIT are the killers of EMS Crews.....not engine failures.
Reading through Ray White's presentation....it strikes me as being a telling discussion on how "Rules" once written seem to take on a life of their own and are never amended or repealed to include situations not considered when the original Rule was crafted.
We all know RFM's can have different forms....with the Performance Section and/or Limitations Sections having restrictions on how the aircraft is operated but with one Section being Mandatory and the other not.
Ray talks of a Failure of the NVG's at the Critical Point of the Maneuver and insufficient visual reference being available to complete the maneuver. Yet, he accepts the notion that NVG's are to be an aid and not alter the conditions under which the aircraft is to be operated. Which makes me wonder why you can do the maneuver without NVG's to begin with.....but cannot with a NVG failure and reverting to your MK 1 eyes....if the conditions are the same for each situation?
I think even Ray is getting confused.
He spends a fair bit of time talking about Certification of the Aircraft, the RFM, and requirements for Cat A/Class One Performance and Take Off/Landing Profiles....and shows how they create difficulties for getting NVG use approval by the various NAA's. It seems the NAA's are more prone to vary from existing policies re landing site requirements for the Class 1 profiles but seem to get very reluctant to make any variation for NVG's. The focus upon NVG's failing at a critical point in the Profile seems very important to the NAA's but in my opinion those concerns are excessive.
I can think of some other failures at the Critical Points that would be far more dangerous than a Goggle Failure. The Safety Enhancement of NVG use for all phases of flight far exceed any additional risks they might pose should they fail at the critical point following an engine failure.....as we are talking about a very small risk of the engine failing to begin with.....and then adding the very slight chance of having a Goggle failure at the same time. I am not a Statistician by any means.....but that seems like a very weak argument against using NVG's.
The concept of requiring Class 1 Performance is another topic that needs to be argued......as again.....Engine Failures are pretty darn remote and present a very small hazard compared to the most common killers of EMS Crews who fly at night.
Weather, Wires and Obstructions, and CFIT are the killers of EMS Crews.....not engine failures.