Gio, I cant do the link thing either, but I am assuming it refers to the FAA NVG release in Feb 2004. As you point out, NVG will not reduce the wx minima for NVFR in the States, nor allow any mode of flight not currently permitted by the FARs, however, this is where we in Oz, and those in the UK have sufficient difficulty translating the FAA bits, and where NVG WILL permit increased flight profiles for us.
What are the wx minima for NVFR in the US? I have previously been told that they are not very prescriptive , and may be the same as for day. I do know that the NVFR requires a visible horizon which we dont in Oz.
As I understand it, the fundamental difference in Oz is that we have a prescriptive Lower Safe Alt requirement, where as neither the USA nor NZ have. Instead, they have a visible horizon requirement that we do not. (No idea about the UK, how do you guys do it?). Thus, NVG will have a significant impact on our allowable flight profiles in that they will allow cruise flight at 500 ft, and do away with all the visual approach criteria, therefore saving time/fuel and money.
As I understand what has happened in Oz is that a Compliance Instruction has been signed for the Victorian Police Airwing (VPAW). Unfortunately, that document will also be used as a standard exemption to apply industry wide, but the industry has been unable to be involved in its evolution. In other words, CASA have formulated a standard industry exemption with no consultation by claiming "client privledge" with VPAW. All quite legal and in accordance with the rules, but when seen in the bigger picture, it is hardly conducive to the consultative image they are trying to portray.
So what we have now is a tremendous leap forward by officially condoning NVG flight, and we have an organisation (VPAW) that will be able to take up NVG when they can complete all the mods and training. As I said above, this is a significant achievement for VPAW and Mike Tavcar in particular - and he should be congratulated.
On the downside, we now have a set of rules that are "Oz only", and do not conform to the logical FAA rules which is almost an absurdity given the push by CASA for us to adopt FAA style rules in all other areas. The document well suits VPAW and their resource rich environment, but it runs contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the industry who supported adoption of the FAA regulations. Indeed, if some changes are not made, the exemption currently creates an unjustifiable cost barrier to the adoption of a far safer mode of flight. A slight disclaimer: I have still not seen the completed document, but I doubt those changes would have been incorporated.
Lastly, some comments on the previous posts:
Gio, despite your concern of outlay V benefits, 18 US HEMS organisations were approved for NVG and flew them regularly in preference to NVFR by Jun 2004. A further 30 have completed the necessary mods, completed training and documentation and were awaiting final FAA sign off (but there are so few inspectors capable of conducting this sign off). REGA in Switzerland have been operating NVG for more than 10 years. I would put it to you that NVG DO represent a significant cost/benefit ratio, or there are a lot of very wrong people. Does anyone know of an organisation that has been NVG for several years, then stopped due lack of benefit?
AOTW, you have raised an excellent point, and I am still trying to find out if illumination has been mentioned in the compliance instruction. I think it is a failing of the FAA document that they do not have a millilux limitation. But also remember that we are now talking Omnibus IV technology as the stated minimum acceptable equipment, and I believe your experience was Omnibus III and lower, as was the vast majority of mine. I did not believe the improvement that the IV offered, and you would literally need to see it to believe it. But, it doesnt matter which omnibus: neither can amplify complete darkness, thus an illumination minimum may be something to institute as a risk management tool.
Gibbo: "Useless for searching" is a big call. Certainly trying to find a covert enemy is next to impossible, or someone bobbing along in the ocean, or someone running through lit urban areas, but ANY light source on a lost/missing/crashed survivor will stand out like dogs balls. A torch can be seen for 10nm or more some nights. A strobe on a liferaft will be seen for 30 plus miles. A small fire from a crashed aircraft, invisible to the naked eye, will be seen for 5 plus miles. And, NVG will allow you to SAFELY fly through mountain valleys looking. I personally think they are right up there with IR, (I suspect probably even more useful but I have not used advanced IR) in civil applications for searches.