Guys please excuse the discussion imbedded in the 120 thread. If we are to continue the NVG discussion, I move to start a thread on its own titled.
NVG's and NVFR-Your Say.
HF, E 86 and Wock............
My 2 cents......
Alternates-WX Minimas (NVFR, ie enroute 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at CRZevel, alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination).-Good stuff sounds robust and achievable and reflects current legislation.
Lighting-Also well covered by current legislation and regs. Again good stuff no discussion required.
NVD failure Below LSALT-If the CMI specifies two pilots in the front both aided and rear seaters as well then this changes significantly the nature of this emerg as it won't be a single pilot op-Again robust and very safe well thought out.
Technology-MTBF-Data is based on equipment being stored in a climate controlled sanatised environment, poor storage and poor servicing schedules will potentially cause equipment to fail earlier than spec. Could the storage and servicings/care of equipment be guaranteed in a GA environment when this will cost extra $$$$ and more infrastructure ( as well as security of the equipment). In a Govt Contract/EMS environment the $$$$ would probably be forth comming however this would have to be a requirement of the inclusion of the capability.
If the flying pilot (FP) had a single tube failure while conducting flight close to the ground (hover, hoist, rapel etc) then continuing to fly or recover ACFT would be difficult and require significant TRG. Try driving your car on the road with one eye closed, or flying an ACFT by day with one eye closed close to obstacles and try to judge closure rates , depth perception and height cues accurately. If you are already a jet at this please let me in on the secret. Again if both pilots in the front are on the tubes no problem as you simply call out "Goggle Failure, handing over" over the ICS hand over and become the NFP (Non Flying Pilot).
TRG-This is probably the most significant issue amongst all the items we have discussed. There is a high correlation between being a good NVG pilot and having good IF skills, ie If you are well skilled at IF you will most likely be good at NVG also. Since the discussions we have had focus on NVG assisting or replacing NVFR we need to make sure that users have the appropriate level of TRG. What would be undesirable would be to see a guy with a bare bones NVFR rating being also endorsed to use NVG.
As you know NVG is all about looking under the goggles unaided at power, attitude and perf gauges and then out to infinity through the goggles to see that what you saw inside matches up with the picture outside (plus the terrain, signicant obstacles, wires etc). HUD will obviously limit the head down time but this is a discussion for another time. Being good at interogating instruments only comes with practice, TRG and the requisite rating (CIR would be desireable). This may be regulated such that to conduct NVG ops you will require a CIR, however GA is all about $$$, especially saving $$$, so there may be pressure to skimp if not properly legislated.
Mate- I totally agree with you when you say "That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair, someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!"-Spot On.
NVG is around the corner and will definately enhance SA, mission succes and safety. I am in your court when it comes to this issue. NVFR has had its day and we need to re-think how to do business, but at the same time we need to cover as many of the bases so the regulator doesn't renig and take the capability away at the first sign of trouble. As for the renegade 5%, I think we all understand the "Darwin Awards" and well you just can't legislate against stupid c- - ts.
Down and dirty NVG courses are of concern as a robust NVG culture and system will require quality TRG. This quality TRG costs $$$$ and no one wants to spend it if they don't have to. Again a dilgent response to TRG is required to coverall aspects of operating with NVG.
The ultimate aim of all flying ops is safe and efficient operations. The big "S" SAFETY must come first. All of us are only as good as our TRG and experience.
Again IMHO
Give It Some
