NVG Training: Atwood challenges legality of Latest FAA guidelines
Mike Atwood founder of ASU, Boise, ID., a company established to offer night vision training for civilian groups has been closely involved in the evolution of the regulatory base to define training and operation regulations within the FARs.
He recently reviewed a new copy of a key FAA document - an HBAT (Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation - used to set policy guidellines for FAA districts as well as to establish standards for field inspectors. His reactions to the document are expressed in the following letter he recently sent to colleagues in the NVG training field.
Full text of the letter:
All:
I have attached a copy of the latest NVG HBAT Handbook Bulletin for Transportation document that is supposed to give guidance to the FAA, POI’s, and the operators on getting their NVG programs established.
This document affects each and every operation.
As all of you may remember, last year when this document was first going through revision, I voiced concerns about the industry not having an opportunity to provide input to this document. There were (21) recommendations forwarded to Hooper Harris for review and implementation into the HBAT document. The recommendations were based on previous operational experience and discrepancies included in the original HBAT document.
The new HBAT revision is out, approved, and not one of the (21) recommendations we had supplied were included in the revised document.
Also, the FAA has now seen it fit to increase the NVG Initial Pilot training time from 5 hours to 8 hours (Page 8).
This is a 60% increase in the training and will have significant economical impact on the NVG program.
The additional flight hours per pilot, coupled with increased aircraft flight hours, crewmember overtime, shift coverage, and aircraft out of service time will have a massive impact on the operators program, both operationally and economically.
The HBAT document is in direct conflict with the joint FAA and Industry approved training program through the RTCA Committee SC196 and contained in RTCA/DO-295, dated Oct. 19, 2004. Which was approved for (8) hours Ground School and (5) hours flight per pilot and included guidance for the training of medical and additional personnel.
I believe that what the FAA has done with this document is illegal, not only from the economic/operational impact to the operator with no justification, but from a previous legal action of RMHC vs. the FAA, where the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FAA cannot regulate through policy, i.e. HBAT, AC, Order, etc., this can only be accomplished through a CFR or FAR.
There is absolutely no reason or justification for this increase, especially since there are now over 100 bases, 600 pilots, and 1,800 medical crew that have been trained over the last 8 years under the 5 hour program.
If this 8 hour requirement is allowed to stay in this document, I can guarantee that the average FAA POI will interpret that the program will require 8 hours of training.
Also, I might add that during this 8 year period, there have been no documented accidents or incidents attributed to NVG operations or NVG training deficiencies.
The (2) accidents that occurred with NVG’s onboard were not attributed to the goggles and the (3) hours flight time would have had no effect to the outcome of the accident.
Also, the new HBAT has added additional criteria that increases difficulty for the operator in establishing their NVG programs, plus opens the door for more individual broad interpretation from the FAA, by individual POI’s who have no industry (civilian) NVG experience.
One of several of the criteria, calls for a “Detailed Maneuver Guide” for the NVG training program, the HBAT also states that either the POI or the NRI will give the check rides on completion of training. Based on the FAA Travel Budget, plus the Inspector’s available time, this task is near impossible, plus the delays in scheduling the observation and check-rides would be unrealistic. Why not a qualified Pilot Check Airman to accomplish this?
The NRI program that was to help and assist POI’s and operators is “Broke”. It seems that the only criteria to be an NRI, is to have been an Army aviator. Two of the NRI personnel that have been associated with NVG programs since the very first approvals in the late 1990’s and have grown with the programs, have become frustrated and quit. There does not appear to be any selection process for the NRI program, based on Operational Experience and knowledge of the operator’s mission requirements.
One of the major problems that the FAA refuses to admit, that industry has taken the lead and has developed the expertise and experience for civil NVG operations, “Not the FAA”.
Because an individual flew NVG’s in the military, this does not give them the knowledge base, operational experience, and absolute qualifications for civil NVG operations, especially if they have never flown civil operations.
It seems that there is a mentality within the FAA that they need “To protect us from ourselves”.
Conversely, industry has NVG qualified IP’s who possess both military and civilian operational experience, which makes us uniquely qualified to recognize the differences in these operational environments.
This has gone on long enough. The old adage, “Go along to get along”, does not apply in this case, we have been patient and have been told that the FAA is working on streamlining a document that will give “Clear and Concise” guidance in establishing NVG programs. In actuality, we have now taken a giant step backwards.
I urge each of you as an individual, as a company, or an organization to send an email protesting this latest HBAT document and demand that we have a voice in making the change.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the potential damage to NVG programs this document can cause.
If you don’t, then we will be stuck with an inadequate document. All of us have spent too much time, energy, and money incorporating NVG’s into civil aviation to allow this to happen. We have been on committees (RTCA), attended conferences, and given 100’s of presentations in support of night vision goggles in the interests of “Safety”. This has apparently gone unnoticed to the FAA.
It is probably time to call for assistance and support from our Congressmen, Senators, and the News media.