Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged) [Archive] - Page 2

Thomas coupling

17th Nov 2004, 09:46

RichiePAO: With all due respect, observers can never be involved in the final go/no go decision to fly in marginal weather. They may have an opinion regarding the weather but the pilot will be the final arbiter.
Your senior pilot is an IR and no doubt you might get the odd relief pilot with an IR, hence your penchant for IMC flying.
You are also blessed with being based on an airfield with procedural recoveries..luxury of luxuries.
But I would suggest the majority of police ASU's do not have these facilities and taking off in marginal weather is both folly, unprofessional and impractical.
We wouldn't be able to recover to base and all future tasking would be jeopardized.

There was a meeting at the glass house yesterday with reps from the police/CAA/HO/commercial.
It was the second meeting about NVIS. The first was about certification and this latest was about technical and training.
There are many hurdles to overcome before full implementation, but it now seems that these hurdles are being dismantled rather than being errected! "Everyone" wants this to happen and it is hoped that the authorities will help rather than hinder...With an experienced, ex-police driver at the helm, I feel optimistic that common sense will prevail and that this long overdue enhancement to flight safety will see service, sooner rather than later.

There can be no question - and as zorab stated, those whose terrain is not conducive to NVIS, should not be coerced into purchasing it. Ironically, the met (who are purchasing 3 x EC145's) will be specifying NVIS.

NVG's will NOT be used to lower existing POM I weather and visual limits. Those will always be there as our safety nets.

handysnaks

17th Nov 2004, 18:02

FNW, Ritchie PAO thanks for that (That is a relief!). In which case the first part of my answer stands
If your pilot has an I/R and your 135 is certified for IFR then no probs.
:ok:
( What's it like to have a section 4?):p

zorab64

19th Nov 2004, 09:59

SRR - The Cotswold "Hills", South "Downs" and Chiltern "Hills" are all, by their suffix, not "flat"! Take a trip over to East Anglia to see "flat", an area also devoid of significant orographic causal factors.

Some units have already adopted 60 mins IFP in order to give them enough useful time using the IFR aids, and to get to an instrument approachable facility. IR currency (unlike NVG) cannot be maintained by normal operational flying - an efficient operation spends the least time getting to/from a job to allow max time on task, hardly conducive to en-route IR currency convenience. Yes, flying ILSs for currency may be possible, with minimal impact on operations, when in an appropriate area - it's what many units do already. Practicising holds etc. requires dedicated operational time & cost.

Quote:
"If your aircraft is certified it is common sense to certify the driver as well" - I would suggest is ammended to

"If you have the kit to get you down safely, after inadvertant IMC, drivers should know how to use it"
- which is exactly where we stand now - a sensible compromise which effectively & efficiently utilises the SPIFR machine's capabilities in the Police operating environment, improving safety at a sensible, risk managed, cost.

NVG_CAT3_retd

20th Nov 2004, 09:43

You may have guessed that I have had some NVG experience, more than some less than others. I have had the pleasure of flying in 0.2 millilux at 25’ and although challenging not impossible. The idea of using NVG to allow for flight with reduced Wx minima, however should not be a consideration, and was not when I was in the Mill. What if the goggles failed, could the Police do there job in reduced vis and 500’agl, inadvertent IMC low-level would be interesting (remove goggles, revert to white light, terrain avoidance, establish on instruments, fly the aircraft, [not necessarily in that order]).

IMHO
The Wx minima that we fly to now is fine to get the job done.
NVG would be a valuable asset in some instances and for sure in rural areas.
IF ratings would be great.

Can I have all of the above please?

RichiePAO

You said, “I am also perfectly happy if the incident merits it to deploy the aircraft in legally flyable conditions knowing full well that there is a possibility that the weather local to our Base will close in behind us.”

Poor decision making abilities I would say.

What flying license do you have? Just interested in you qualifications re your post.

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2004, 10:09

I thoroughly agree with the above poster.

I was, in a prevous life, a QHI teaching NVG on an operational conversion unit. We were once (briefly) given revised / reduced weather limits for use whilst flying NVG. We very strongly objected because it meant that a pilot suffering a goggle failure had no other option but to carry out an IMC abort.

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the previous wx limits were reinstated.

catseye

26th Nov 2004, 08:46

the canberra refueller was telling me last night that CASA are about to release directions to FOI type staff for operations using NVG. Seems they came under pressure internally, from the standards talking committee and the safety forum.

Anyone else heard the rumour? Would be good if it was true.

The eye.

helmet fire

26th Nov 2004, 20:41

I too have heard that an NVG Compliance Instruction has been signed and delivered.

Without industry consultation.

Good that someone (Victorian Police Airwing) is now able to conduct a sanctioned civil NVG operation in Oz. About time. Mike Tavcar (a contrinuter to these pages) deserves significant accolades for achieing this result. It has taken him over 8 years to get this far - well done Mike.

But there are some small issues:
Some of the provisions will place significant obstacles in the way of other operators possibly stopping their aspirations for NVG. Thus the flight safety benefits of NVG cannot be realised by the majority of operators whom need the kit. These factors were not of particular concern to VicPol operations, but they will be of significance to most others (QES aside), which unfortunately takes the gloss off the exemption.

Secondly, industry was not allowed input into what has become a standard for the industry. How is that allowed to happen?

:uhoh:

Arm out the window

27th Nov 2004, 07:45

Good to see some action, at least...sounds like you have a bit of info about the details, Helmet Fire; has some draft legislation been released?
Big job for CASA to get sorted out to bring goggles into general use for authorised organisations and rated crews, but surely the expertise is there around the world (and here) to do this with acceptable safety and expediency.

Thomas coupling

27th Nov 2004, 08:07

Sounds on a par with the CAA in the UK!

Katfish

1st Dec 2004, 04:58

katfish has also heard the rumour that CASA (Mick Haxell etc), have been told to make this a high priority, and we may very soon see a set of operating and training instructions. Like most of us, I believe it will raise the safety level of our night ops enormously. Possibly the best thing since electric gyros!

Arm out the window

1st Dec 2004, 11:35

Don't know if many of the CASA guys have done much goggling; that will probably be an issue in the implementation.
Also they are a double-edged sword, to use a well-worn cliche, in that people will expect them to be a magical cure-all without perhaps realising how limited they can be on nights with low ambient illumination.

Giovanni Cento Nove

1st Dec 2004, 12:26

I don't know how old this is but read this for info.... (apologie for the large post, can't get it ti link)

Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 1
Handout #3
NIGHT VISION GOGGLES
Topic:
The hours of darkness add to a pilot’s workload by decreasing those visual cues
commonly used during daylight operations. Night Vision Goggles (NVG) has provided
the industry with the ability to see at night and enhance operations. NVG’s have been
cited in several FAA/Industry studies as a means to prevent Controlled Flight Into
Terrain (CFIT) accidents. Continuing technological improvements have advanced the
capability and reliability of NVGs that FAR Part 135 on-demand operators have
requested use of the NVIS in commercial operations as a tool for night.
Night Vision Goggles (NVG) is the common term use for NVIS operations. The
complete description and performance standards of the NVG and cockpit lighting
modifications appropriate to civil aviation are contained in the Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment
(RTCA/DO-275).
Currently, these systems consist of:
• Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
• Interior and exterior aircraft lighting modifications
• Cockpit windows (e.g., windshield, windows, chin bubbles, etc.)
• Crew station design and components
• Radar altimeter
Since NVG do have performance limitations, it is important that proper training methods
and detailed operational procedures to minimize NVG limitations.
Industry request.
Discussion of Issues:
Initially developed for the military, Night Vision Goggles are devices that collect light
energy, amplify and present the light providing the operator with an enhanced view of
the scene outside the aircraft, thus improving situational awareness during night VFR
operations.
Part 135 operators initially petitioned the FAA to allow NVG operations use in the late
1980’s. It was determined at that time that NVGs were not advanced enough to be
utilized in civil operations. A later 1994 FAA study (DOT/FAA/RD-94/21, 1994)
summarized the need for NVG by stating: “When properly used, NVG’s can increase
safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are
typically associated with night operations.”
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 2
Handout #3
The military use of NVGs was to enable tactical Nap-of-the-Earth or low-level terrain
flight at night. This is not intent of civil use of NVG. The intent of the FAA is to
authorize the use of NVG to improve the safety of night-flight. This means that all FAR
requirements must be complied with during a flight. The use of NVG will not enable any
mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s. The
civil use of NVG will be approved for the purpose of enhancing the operational safety.
FAA determined that that NVGs are an appliance and require FAA certification and
specific approval according to specific procedures outlined in 14 CFR part 21 and that
the use of NVGs in Part 91 and 135 operations may only be authorized with specific
FAA approval.
The FAA worked with RTCA to define the training and certification of pilots and other
crewmembers, aircraft, and for the development of a night vision goggle TSO to allow
their usage in the NAS. The RTCA is a not-for-profit corporation formed to advance the
art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems for the benefit of the public.
The organization functions as a Federal Advisory Committee that develops consensus
based recommendations on contemporary aviation issues.
Flight Standards has completed the development of operation specifications, to allow
Part 135 Helicopter Emergency Medical Service operators to perform night vision
operations.
Initial Approval Process.
When the military first started using NVGs, they initially suffered a high accident rate
due to non-standardized training and equipment. When the decision was made to allow
civil NVG operations, we were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to
learn from it. Three major areas of emphasis were identified: 1) the goggles, 2) aircraft
interior and exterior lighting, and 3) training.
The FAA worked with RTCA and the industry for the development of a Technical
Standard Order (TSO) for the goggles NVGs. RTCA also addressed the aircraft interior
and exterior lighting and training issues. The FAA has also coordinated its efforts with
the UK CAA, European JAA, EUROCAE, the Australian CAA and the US Department of
Defense. The FAA also coordinated its activities with operators of NVGs, including
other federal agencies and Rega, a Swiss air ambulance organization.
CRITERIA
The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that
no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.
Initial Operational Approval was limited to Limited to Part 135 Air Ambulance operators.
This process required the use of the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) process for
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 3
Handout #3
certifying 14 CFR Part 135 operators to conduct operations and training in the use of
NVGs. Once approved, the operator was issued 2 STC’s, one for the aircraft lighting
modification, and a second for the training program. Operators were also issued Part
135 NVG Operations Specifications.
Current approval process.
We now have 5 years of Part 135 NVG operational history. The industry has been
conducting training and operations with standardized NVG training programs.
The Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for NVG’s has been
developed and published by RTCA, Inc in RTCA/DO-275. The NVG Technical
Standards Orders (TSO) will be issued shortly. The FAA has published new handbook
guidance to be used by principal operations inspectors (POI) when evaluating request
for use of night vision goggles (NVG), evaluating a NVG training program, and Minimum
Equipment List (MEL) and prior to the issuance of OpSpecs.
The FAA Aircraft Certification Office is responsible for:
• Approving the STC modifications of the aircraft.
• The aircraft lighting and NVG installation.
• The flight-tests for NVIS compatibility.
• Rotorcraft Flight Manual supplement.
Now only one STC approval will be issued for the installation of NVG compatible
equipment (lighting).
NVG INSTRUCTORS
In order to maintain a high quality of instruction the operators approved training program
requires all instructors to have a minimum of 100 HNVGO in equivalent NVG
equipment.
Potential for Future Work:
Flight Standards has completed a rulemaking project, “Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules” which includes the establishment of pilot and flight instructor
training, recency of experience, and qualification requirements to perform night vision
operations.
The FAA proposes to issue a NVG SFAR dealing with the following:
• Defining night vision goggles and night vision goggles operations.
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 4
Handout #3
• Logging of NVG time.
• Criteria and standards for logging night vision goggle time.
• NVG recency operating experience requirement in order to remain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Training for operating with night vision goggles.
• Night vision goggle proficiency check requirement in order to regain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Flight instructor qualifications for giving the PIC night vision goggle qualification
and recency training requirements.
• Certification requirement of aircraft and pilot in order to conduct NVG operations.

Of note are the following.......

“When properly used, NVG’s can increase safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are typically associated with night operations.”

The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.

The use of NVG will not enable any mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s.

It will certainly be an expensive exercise for whoever takes it on when you take into account the issues as discussed in the FAA document. Aircraft modifications and approvals, flight tests, flight manual supplements, MEL's, Instructor training and approval, 100 hours NVG experience for instructors etc etc..................

Gibbo

1st Dec 2004, 21:39

This is an excellent, well overdue step for Aus. industry.

The jist of FAA guidance and control seems quite appropriate (although I can't open the link to read the detail). If the crux of it is that the operations will be conducted IAW with all of the existing rules for night VFR ops then the goggles will enhance safety. When combined with white light , the NVGs are an excellent aid for getting into and out of unprepared pads, in addition to many other chores.

NVGs are a FLYING aid however; they are next to useless for searching.

Gibbo

helmet fire

1st Dec 2004, 22:59

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.

200psi

1st Dec 2004, 23:30

Helmet fire is quite correct in his asumption about NVG vs FLIR. Having used both I have found FLIR to be effected greatly by enviromental/atmospheric conditions eg dust, humidity, sea spray and temperature meaning when an object becomes cold soaked particularly in water the limitations of FLIR become very apparent equally in hot conditions the same applys. Give me NVG any day but remember 6000 x black is still black.

Gibbo

2nd Dec 2004, 00:15

G'day Helmet et al,

'useless for searching' isn't intended as a wind-up and I agree with your points; a successful search can be perfromed under the conditions you described. The point I didn't expand is that IMHO the NVG should be used to get the A/C, crew and other assets to the scene, on job without contacting the ground or other obstacles.

If it is a search job, by a dedicated SAR A/C then it should be suitably equipped with day/night camera, FLIR, RF locator or similar devices to complete the search. All of the tools should come together. If the NVG are assumed to be good enough to search, and they are the primary search tool, then a lot of hours will be wasted and a lot of missions will fail when nothing is found. Having recently used the latest gen FLIR (technology, not brand) I am sold on the kit! I haven't used current gen NVG, and would like to see the improvement over the Omnibus III.

As I said, my observation is that the tool is great, but not a panacea. A step forward for the industry! A good topic for beers I think. :ok:

Gibbo

Mike Tavcar

7th Dec 2004, 21:12

I guess I better put every one in the picture seeing that I have been intimately involved in the CASA approval of NVGs in Aust. and working towards this for the past 8 years!

1. The Compliance Management Instruction (CMI) 04/74 Version 1 for Night Vision Goggles for Helicopter Operations was indeed signed by Head of Compliance, CASA in November of this year.

2. A copy is available in all CASA regional offices (or so it should be)

3. IT IS NOT AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. It is a compliance matter only not a Standards regulation. It was drafted over the past 2 years in response to Victoria Police Air Wing's formal application to conduct NVG operations as a result of it's successful NVG trial conducted November 2002 (Post Trial Report available if you email me).

4. The CMI is to guide CASA Compliance to issue a concession to CAR174B to allow operations at night before LSALT (in Australia there is a rule prohibiting flight by anyone at night below a LSALT).

5. Until such time as CASA Standards can regulate NVGs through the normal industry process into Part 133 the CMI is an interim measure to start operating on NVGs now with some measure of control to allow maturity and experience to be gained by the civil sector.

6. Although this CMI was written in response to our application obviously it cannot be denied to anyone else, therefore anyone can apply for the use of NVGs in Australia if complying with the requirements of the CMI.

7. VPAW had a personal meeting with Mr. Bruce Byron, CEO of CASA last week to lobby for the regulatory process on NVGs to be given a higher priority so that it can be incorporated into the new CASR Part 133. This will require industry input through the DP and NPRM process and therefore will become the industry standard. Mr. Byron gave an undertaking to examine prioritising the regulation of NVGs.

8. The CMI has gone one step further than most regulatory operators overseas...there are two parts to NVG ops under the CMI, (a) Wx below Night VFR minimums and (b) Wx that is night VMC. In the former if wx is not VFR NVG ops will still be able to be done as long as the pilot is IFR rated and current and the aircraft IFR capable. In the later if the wx is VMC then only require a night VFR rating in a NVR capable aircraft. Also NVG flight can be conducted in all phases of flight from T/O to landing.

9. Two crew will be required during NVG flight in the front of the cockpit. This was a hard fought battle as CASA wanted two pilots but VPAW convinced them that this was unacceptable in the civil sector and a compramise was reached whereby the use of a NVG qualified pilot and NVG qualified crewmember can be used in lieu of two pilots.

10. Another battle was NVG training hours but CASA would not budge from a 10 hour endorsement for pilots and 6 hour endorsement for flightcrewmemember (an overkill for NVG civil ops but something that can be adjusted later once some experience is gained to argue otherwise).

11. The CMI as whole is a very workable document and goes further than other overseas regulatory bodies in some aspects of NVG use, especially in poor wx conditions (read IMC conditions).

12. During the NVG trial we looked at 6 objectives, one was SAR and AUSSAR was onboard. NVGs do allow effective searching at night and allows a more effective use of the FLIR especially in mountainous terrain. Instead of waiting for first light before launching (and hence more often than not looking for a body) the helo can be activated immediately to start a search therefore ensuring a better and more successful outcome for the survivor(s).

The effective regulation and safe use of NVGs will not only enhance an operators capability, it will increase levels of safety in SAR, EMS and Law enforcement roles.

Arm out the window

8th Dec 2004, 10:49

Mike, thanks very much for filling us in.
I take it from your post that NVG ops below LSALT are allowed given appropriate pilot qualifications for VFR or IFR conditions as the case may be. What have you worked out in regards to being at low level on goggles with weather around and having to possibly get up to IFR LSALT for inadvertant IMC? This can be a bit of a bugbear in that you can be tooling around at low level in hilly terrain, for example, and find that the vis becomes unacceptable, then be faced with having to get up safely. I'm sure you have considered it, but would be interested in the policy re reduced vis, low light levels etc.
Also, is it just the 6 hrs crewman NVG time you were fighting or the pilot time as well? I'd say 10 hrs isn't unreasonable for a pilot by the time you get general handling, emergencies and a bit of nav out of the way.
Good on you for doing the hard yards to get it rolling.

Homer_Jay

8th Dec 2004, 13:38

Mike,

I would just like to second Arm's congratulations. Well done to you for getting this through. I am certain this will open up avenues for Rescue, EMS and Police ops to enjoy the kind of safety NVGs afford.

Well Done.

Mike Tavcar

9th Dec 2004, 07:23

Guys a couple of quick responses to your queries....

1. Although flight in wx less than IMC is now allowable with NVGs in Australia it comes at a price....not only are the crew to be IFR current and capable but you need an IFR helo. There is also an inadvertent IMC plan required before launching under these circumstances, which are mandated in the CMI. When you read the CMI you will find further restrictions, such as, flight into visible moisture is prohibited and storm cells are required to be avoided by 5 nm...requiring a wx radar. Anyhow things don't really change that much in your normal day practice....don't push it to the point of becoming IIMC. We found during the trial that cloud avoindance with goggles was very good and was not hard to avoid cloud. The danger is if there is heavy rain about one could easily suck themselves into embedded cloud. You have to learn to recognise increased scintillation on the tubes as possibly going into such conditions and decide to turn around. Personally I believe the chance of IIMC would be very rare but we have a policy at VPAW of a high level of IFR recency and awareness to overcome such events.
We will also have an illumination policy in that when the ambient illumination levels fall apprecially due to cloud, etc that there will be an ASI restriction and use of landing/nightsun to improve illumination...we found that the landing light itself provides good illumination forward of the aircraft and at slower speeds it is easier to navigate on goggles on those very dark nights. I recall using around 80 kts on a really black heavy overcast night up in the bush, which was fine. It all comes down to common sense...if the conditions are deterioting and not looking good, its time to turn back and either find an alternative route or go home to fight another day (night). Pilots get unstuck because they push beyond their limits and qualifications/recency.

2. I lobbyed that the 10 hours for pilots should be around 7 hours as more reasonable for civil ops and 4 hours for flightcrewmember. Note that the CMI has further requirements...once you get your endorsement as a pilot that is not it...you can't go PIC on goggles until you have accummalated an additional 15 hours of ICUS NVG time.

rotorque

11th Dec 2004, 05:35

Mike,

What sort of information was included regarding aircraft lighting etc? Were the Vic Pol machines already kitted out for NVG ops prior to the trial?

Cheers

Mike Tavcar

13th Dec 2004, 03:54

Rotorque,

For the Trial we developed with Oxley Avionics, England (a NVG cockpit company) a trial fit requiring no CAR 35 for trial purposes only. The fit was temporary and not suitable as a permanent fit. it worked very well and sanctioned by CASA prior to the trial. Actually it worked so well that it was a pity to pull it off.

Heliport

17th Jan 2005, 12:35

Merged threads.

Thomas coupling

19th Jan 2005, 15:53

The UK CAA are not far behind you aussies.
They're looking at single pilot ops above 500' no need for a crew man to be next to him, but another option to fly <500' takeoff and land might need revisiting - hope not.

5hrs trng for pilots might be the entry level for NVG.

Good news globally then:ok:

helmet fire

20th Jan 2005, 04:12

tc, you are actually ahead of us Aussies if you are considering single pilot NVG at all! The FAA have allowed single pilot NVG passenger charter. They have been running single pilot (to the ground) for 10 years without accident. We Aussies seem to feel the need to change that.

What I don't get is why we replace a more risky operation without redundancies (nitesun approaches) with a fully redundant, far easier, and much less risky operation (NVG) and then make a requirement for another crewmember in the front. It just doesn't compute. And in Australia this requirement rules out NVG operations for all but the richest and most highly resourced organisations. The poorer, less resourced non IFR, single engine mobs who need it the most will be excluded (resource wise) from NVG use by these requirements, for other than transit at and landing to prepared LZs. Now add that to the excessive training requirements and ICUS, and hope fades fast. Without considering the extra crewmember required by the CMI in Oz, I calculate that the training bill for a single aircraft 24/7 EMS operation will be about 40 hours more training than the US regs require (with their 10 years of operational experience) and 95 hours more ICUS. Thats a big cost for a small organisation.

tc, the FAA standard is 5 hours per pilot.

There are some other issues, such as the prohibition of flight into visible moisture, that can be debated, but dont let these issues, or even my arguements above, detract too much from the step forward that Mike Tavcar (and a CASA bloke called John Beasey)has achieved as there is a lot right with this CMI, but discussion inevitably centres around what is wrong with it. The previous discussion centred around whether it would be easier to argue the case prior to setting a standard, or getting one and trying to change it. Now we have got one, we can see how difficult it will be to modify: you Brits should watch closely in order to choose your path.

Mike, I have a different perception of your belief that the CMI is not an industry standard. I quote the following from a letter to the HAA from Bruce Gemmell, CASA Deputy Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Operating Officer, dated 10th January 2005.

The Compliance Management Instruction (CMI) on the use of NVG technology was developed to allow for standardisation on the use of NVG prior to the development of formal legislation surrounding the issue. The development of such legislation will follow the finalisation of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 133.
The CMI provides CASA staff with guidance on how to assess applications for exemption from Civil Aviation Regulation 174B, ensuring that that operators are aware of the safe introduction, standardisation and regulation of limited helicopter NVG aerial work operations. As a part of this guidance, the CMI also contains appendices for applicants as to what CASA will expect in their application. The CMI is used to support a standard approach by CASA.

Thomas coupling

20th Jan 2005, 11:15

Helmet fire:

Thanks for that. What surprises me most about issues like this, is the fact that 'authorities' dont take a leaf from other books. Why didnt the aussie CAA visit the JAA, or better still the FAA. Sit down with their equivalents and share ideas. Think of the time and effort saved. Simply cut and paste.
If the yank model is so sturdy, then for christ's sake pinch it!!

Too many ego's too much national pride. The big picture is being missed methinks.

congrats for joining the real world, but with a little more homework, the grades would have been better?

Our (UK) CAA seem to have finally switched onto this and are fully embracing european and american experiences... is it a coincidence that there is a fresh team in the CAA (H)???? Thank ther lord.

SASless

20th Jan 2005, 13:11

TC,

Be careful what you wish for....adopting FAA concepts can be a walk on thin ice sometimes.

What a novel concept however....the UK and Europe adopting FAA practices carte blanche! Sacre Bleu!

Here's to single engine IFR...single engine at night....VFR at night...no type ratings...until you get into really big machines.....no landing fees....free renewal of licenses....one exam for a license....no...be careful here.

JimL

20th Jan 2005, 16:15

As I think I have said before, the FAA/JAA development of regulations for NVG was a cooperative process - both for certification and operations.

The current JAA guidance resides in JAR-OPS TGL 34 and has been in existence for several years. Reading this TGL will indicate where any (necessary - due to variations in regulatory approaches) differences exist. Credit is given to existing FAA, RTCA or EUROCAE documents where they have been used - or amended and used.

Jim

Heliport

23rd Mar 2005, 07:24

From the Denver Post Goggles ease risk for EMS flights

When helicopter pilots with the Flight for Life Colorado team fly into the black of night, they have a new flight command: "Goggle up."
The emergency medical service flight program recently bought nine pairs of night-vision goggles - at about $10,000 a pair - to aid pilots during night flights.

Lead helicopter pilot Rod Balak said there's an old line among pilots that "mountains grow in the darkness." The new goggles, which weigh about 1 pound each and run on two AA batteries, take some of the angst out of that adage.
"It makes the pilots and crews feel a lot safer," Balak said. "It's just like daytime, only it has a type of green tint to it."

http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/0313goggles.jpg

Balak, a former U.S. Army helicopter pilot, said night-vision goggles have improved radically since being introduced decades ago during the Vietnam War as "behemoth" rifle scopes.

Over the years, as goggles became smaller and vision quality improved, interest in using them beyond military applications took root.
Without goggles, flying at night in isolated areas can sometimes be like looking "inside a 50-gallon drum," Balak said.
Mountain contours, trees and rock outcroppings can sometimes be difficult to pick up during the night, depending on cloud cover and the light of the moon, Balak said.

Simply put, goggles make night flights less risky, said Dutch Fridd, an NVG instructor based in North Carolina with Air Methods Corp.
"If a pilot can see the terrain, he wouldn't run into it," Fridd said. "That's kind of a no-brainer; we use it for safety reasons. It just makes our jobs safer."

But the safety measure comes at a cost. Instrument boards on the helicopters have to be retrofitted or else pilots wouldn't be able to read them while wearing the goggles.
And pilots must go through training, in the classroom and in flight, before wearing the goggles during an EMS flight.

All told, training, goggles and retrofitting instrument panels runs about $90,000 for each of the four helicopters.
"The technology to keep us safer and to improve our operations is rarely inexpensive," said Kathy Mayer, program director of Flight for Life Colorado.

A foundation that supports the EMS flight program is funding the costs of the goggles, training and makeover of the helicopters.
Flight for Life has 15 pilots. Training for the goggle conversion is ongoing, Mayer said.
"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down," such as flights in extremely bad weather, Mayer said. "What they will do is allow us to fly more safely during our night operations, especially in the mountains during those dark, moonless nights."

b.borg

23rd Mar 2005, 08:25

"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down," such as flights in extremely bad weather, Mayer said. "What they will do is allow us to fly more safely during our night operations, especially in the mountains during those dark, moonless nights."

Probably the most important lesson for those considering flying, or already flying, with NVg's.

Mars

23rd Mar 2005, 10:03

As this illustrates:

NTSB Identification: DEN05LA053
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, January 29, 2005 in Pilar, NM
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350 B3, registration: N351LG
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On January 29, 2005, approximately 2005 mountain standard time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B3, N351LG, operated by Petroleum Helicopters Inc., was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Pilar, New Mexico. A postimpact fire ensued. Unknown meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The positioning flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91 on a company VFR flight plan. The pilot reported no injuries. The cross-country flight originated from Espinola, New Mexico, approximately 1940, and was en route to Taos (SKX), New Mexico.

According to the FAA inspector who traveled to the scene, the pilot was flying the helicopter to SKX. The pilot was wearing night vision goggles while flying and became disoriented. Upon removing the goggles, the helicopter impacted a mesa.

The 2025 aviation routine weather report (METAR) from SKX, 15 nautical miles northwest of the accident location, reported the weather as follows: winds, 220 degrees at 6 knots; visibility, 3/4 statute mile; sky condition, overcast 200 feet; temperature, 0 degrees C.; dewpoint 0 degrees C.; altimeter, 30.00 inches.

SASless

23rd Mar 2005, 10:59

The goggles will allow you see in the dark...however when you get to the point you cannot see with the goggles I can assure you there is no visiblility without the goggles.

I have sat in the aircraft as a three foot hover within a small clearing in the forest on a officially "dark" night. Minimum natural light due to no moon and overcast sky. We operated without any lights and the circuits and landing/hovering/departure were all good fun. But..at a hover...flip the goggles up and peer outside with the MK I eyes....and one could not even see the ground all of three feet away. That is dark.

Goggles will let you fly into situations that ultimately will end as that accident report suggest or you will have to be able to continue the flight as an IIMC/IFR flight. Thus the goggles can contribute to more accidents if VMC flight is continued into IMC conditions.

The other thought to keep, is what do you do if you have goggle failure (rare...but a consideration) and you are deep into the mountains and have no visible horizion or cannot see the terrain?

Personally, I love goggle flying.....the thought of flying nights without them scares me to tears! It is true they only give you the rough equivalent of 20/40 vision with a mere 40 degree field of view......but what is your vision like on a really dark night without them?:ok:

flyer43

23rd Mar 2005, 11:14

Thanks guys, a very useful Thread for ongoing discussions I have with other parties. There appear to be many positives for the use of NVGs but there are also some enormous negatives if their application is not managed sersiously: Type of NVG employed, correct implementation of instrumentation feed-through and, last but not least, initial training and continued competency.

Thomas coupling

23rd Mar 2005, 11:14

The UK police are going NVIS as we speak (I know we are 15 years late!).
The important fact that will remain with NVIS operators is that :"...in the evnt there is a reversion to visual flight (unaided), the pilot must still be in a position to comply with the night VFR weather and visual requirements..."
Basically, NVG does not allow for departure from the exisiting visual requriements. You should not therefore be in a flight regime where your visual requirements for VFR are diminished.

NVIS will help us because of the topography of our force area Black and more black with some grey in between. We turn down some flights at night because we cannot see where the cumulo granite and the cloud base...meet. With NVIS, this should prove much easier to discern and thus the decision to go/no go is easier to make.

Long live NVIS

:ok:

Robbo Jock

23rd Mar 2005, 11:45

"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down,"
Isn't there a likelihood of being put under more pressure to do a particular tasking if you've got NVG's - "We've forked out 90 grand to fit these things and you're saying 'no it's too dark' ?!?!?"
Whereas without them it's somewhat easier to decline - "if I can't see the aircraft, I ain't going up in it!"

Thomas coupling

23rd Mar 2005, 13:02

It's down to your company attitude and CRM...there should NEVER be any pressure to complete the task from an environmental aspect particularly.

Devil 49

23rd Mar 2005, 19:00

Robbo Jock-
If your program has a real safety program, the fact that you've spent good money for goggles won't be a factor. If your company's culture is such that you're routinely under those pressures (second guessing pilot decisions), you're an accident waiting to happen anyhow- with goggles, two engines, two pilots, full IFR and autohover, anti-ice, whatever- pilot error kills. Anything that interferes with discretion enables pilot error.

Yes, equipment can take you down the lane, fail, and stick you. It can also enable you to operate more efficently. Think IFR, for example- yes, the gauges can fail and put you in difficulty, but is that an excuse to scud-run? Unaided night EMS is even more hazardous than scud-running. We will be low level at some point, where the obstacles lurk. Good technique helps, but the risk of not seeing an ostacle that'll kill you is always there.

One set of numbers posted claimed 77% of the accidents in US EMS in the last five years were in the dark. In my 4 years as an EMS'r, I've logged 31% of my time at night. I think that's about average. I'm not a statistician, but those numbers would seem to clearly indicate an issue.

Goggles aren't a silver bullet, but they will help with the things that could go bump in my nights.

Fortyodd

23rd Mar 2005, 22:43

Agree with TC. Goggles don't mean you can do any more than you do already. They do mean you can do what you do already with a greater degree of safety and confidence.

helmet fire

23rd Mar 2005, 23:10

Come on all you nay sayers: grasp as hard as you can on to one accident PRELIMINARY report of a pilot trying to find a reason why he hit terrain, and lets ignore the HUNDREDS of night unaided disorientation accidents shall we?

What was his training levels on NVG? Which NVG was he using, how good was the cockpit mod? What risk management was applied to the flight? What is the formal risk management requirements of the operator? What level of supervision was involved? What was the forecast weather and moon state? Were these formally considered in the operator's risk management process? What was the pilot's circadian cycles up to? What was the visibility? Why did terrain impact occur after de-goggling? Why did he not affect an instrument recovery? Did his training, recency, currency, etc require this? What was the physiological aspects of the pilot? Stress at home? Cold? Flu? Job stress? Blah blah blah.....

or instead of considering all these (and more) we could simply just throw away NVG and blame them! must be their faultmusn't it?

You know, there is even disorientation accidents during the day: but we haven't stopped flying during the day have we?

Helinut

23rd Mar 2005, 23:46

Not wanting to cause disharmony, but isn't TC's illustration of how NVIS will extend their operating envelope exactly what some others of us were saying should not happen. What happens in the super-black areas, heavily dense with cumulo-granite if the NVIS fails ..........

Just interested to know what folks think.

wishtobflying

24th Mar 2005, 00:40

So the lesson for people wanting to adopt NVG's is ... make sure you have well-established and practised procedures for transitioning to instruments from goggles when you find yourself in 3/4 mile visibility as per that report?

SASless

24th Mar 2005, 01:49

Ah, WTBF...theres the rub .....most of the operations that are going to NVG's in the States are not IFR programs. They are VFR programs looking for some way to fly VMC with no horizon.

wishtobflying

24th Mar 2005, 02:49

What a nightmare for non-instrument rated pilots ... finding yourself flying illegally in IMC, seeing nothing but fuzzy green, and totally unable to cope. :ooh:

helmet fire

24th Mar 2005, 06:19

WTBF, the nightmare you describe in the fuzzy green is different in what way to the scenario he would have faced without the NVG?

Emotive comments using this prelim report are IGNORING the HUNDREDS of NVFR accidents. And even the HUNDREDS of accidents of flight into deteriorating viz during the day. Having NVG is not going to change the stats on people who get caught in deteriorating conditions. The NVG doesnt suddenly change descion making and risk management procedure.

No, lets put our heads in the sand and blame the goggles......

wishtobflying

24th Mar 2005, 11:15

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough ... I agree with you in fact, it's not different at all except that I was imagining a pilot having the goggles on in those conditions who may have been lulled into a false sense of security that he could "see in the dark".

What I was imagining was a pilot, under pressure to complete a mission in marginal conditions, trying to rely on the goggles to see, then finding the visibility reducing around him and realising that not only could he not rely on the goggles, he wasn't prepared for the truly IMC conditions he now finds himself in. Too late, he's ripping off the goggles and doing his best to transition to instruments, panic rising ...

Just thinking about it makes me shudder ... and the difference is that maybe he would have turned back sooner if he didn't have the goggles. And that's what I was getting at two posts back ... having the goggles means there should be even better established mission limits for non-IFR pilots/machines and procedures for transitioning to full instruments under NVG's.

I apologise if my comments came across as particularly emotive related to that particular report.

helmet fire

24th Mar 2005, 11:44

WTBF,
The imagining of what may have happened based on that report is exactly what I was getting at. There is no where near enough info to ascertain any of what you are speculating about. None the less, I get your point that you are concerned that NVG will encourage people to go further than they otherwise might have. I think that is a real concern, but should the actions of the over confident be used to penalise the controlled? As I said before, we have people pushing into reduced viz during the day, yet we dont all scream about restricting day flight.

And as I stressed before, it is not clear from the report that anything even like that happened in this accident: thus the stretch to NVG evils is way too far.

The "ripping off the goggles" and other emotive comments do little to rationalise the debate here. During correctly taught NVG flight, the NVG is the primary attitude reference, but all turns, power changes, attitude changes should ALL be backed up on the AI. The NVG are worn so that an instrument scan can easily be performed by moving your eyes down to the pannel, and never should it be reuired to "rip the goggles" off. Flip them up if you are super stressed, but never rip them off. If you have it set up right then the scan can be done with no action required on the NVG. These are some of the reasons that we need to get a lot more de6tail on this accident before condemning such an advance in technology.

Don't you think?

wishtobflying

24th Mar 2005, 12:52

Agreed ... I think we're both nodding in agreement in the dark but neither of us have our NVG's on so we can't see each other ... :O

SASless

24th Mar 2005, 13:06

Helmet Fire...

On another website...back when that accident occurred...there was a fair bit of discussion and posting of news articles. The thrust of the information seemed to confirm it was a very snowy, dark night. The flight took place along an unlit...desolate mountain highway. The impact forces were relatively minor in that the pilot was only slightly injured and walked to the nearby highway where he was picked up by a State Police Office who was out searching for the aircraft. A look at the map shows the flight to be about 35-40 NM....with not a lot to look at.

All this being said....we will have to wait for the accident report to know what happened. That does not stop us from considering what we do know. I can assure you, there was no visible horizon out there that night and there were very few surface lights and then only in clusters along the highway. If you throw in the strong possibility it started snowing on the guy while he was making that transit....things could have gotten bad quickly.

Mars

24th Mar 2005, 16:45

Helmet Fire:

The accident report was posted as it was considered to be germane to the thread initiated by Heliport and then commented by b.borg (in relation to the last paragraph of the story).

I for one do not understand why are you reluctant to consider the 2025 METAR from SKX - don't you consider it to be relevant? As SASLess has said, there is some information out there - why disregard it?

Few of us have a down on the equipment for NVIS - it is required when NVFR operations are being conducted under circumstances where there is adequate ambient lighting (for NVG operations) but without ground (lighting) cues; it is the human in the loop that we have to worry about - particularly if he/she is the only one in the helicopter.

helmet fire

24th Mar 2005, 23:56

Mars,
I am not down on the METAR and I think it is highly relevant, indeed I think I included weather in my initial list of factors that need more investigation. See previous page.

I do need help trying to consider what the FAA rules are re NVFR, so please forgive lapses in the logic chain below if I have missunderstood the rules.

Let me use the weather that is being suggested to illustrate the point I am making. Dark, snowy, low viz. My question is, does this constitute NVFR in the USA? Isn't that answer a yes IF and ONLY IF I have a visible horizon (not considering NVG here) and sufficient ground or celestial light to enable nav by reference to the ground?

So if the pilot thought he had a visible horizon (no NVG) and in his opinion, sufficient ground or celestial lighting, he was good to go, yes?
If he flies NVG and he is non Instrument Rated, isnt the NVFR what his minimums are?
So technically, IF he FELT he had a visible horizon, and he had sufficient viz with ground and celestial lighting, then he was legal. Right so far?

It appears that if this was the case, then the NVG are irrelevant to the accident. Why would the outcome be any different unaided? He needed NVFR to go and he must have judged that he had that, therefore he could have gone without the NVG. As the flight progressed, the viz drops off and we get into trouble, so wouldn't that have happened regardless of NVG?

If you are suggesting that the NVG gave him confidence to launch into less than NVFR conditions when he otherwise would not have (considering he was not instrument rated) then is that the "fault" of the NVG or does the issue really lie in risk management, rule adherence, supervision, training, go/no go protocols, and most especially, in instrument scan profficiency, etc?

With all that in mind, I am merely suggesting that the ENORMOUS safety benefits of NVG should NOT be tarnished by some attempt to attribute blame to NVG for this particular accident.

WTBF: I think you are right!
SASless: Agreed.

wg13_dummy

25th Mar 2005, 02:07

As has been said already, NVG ops should just make current 'go' ops safer. It shouldnt give the user the impression that they can launch in lesser conditions. Long and short is if the wx conitions are not to the extent to what you would launch 'mortal' or 'reversionary' ie without gogs then you shouldnt fly just because you have a set of gogs strapped to your head. Education and training will go a long way to ensure that NVG is used correctly and not used as a 'get out clause' if its bad wx or darker than a witches tit. Remember, if the gogs fail, would you have launched in the first place? If the answer is No then you arent using the gogs as they were intended. They are not there to allow you to fly below usual VFR limits but to assist you in the conditions that would have allowed you to fly in the first place.

Any user who attempts to fly in more marginal conditions is asking for a short career.

SASless

25th Mar 2005, 02:55

My view of this accident is straightforward....

Weather...200 overcast, 3/4 SM visibility (some reports said it was snowing that night)

Moon...83% illumination, but it did not rise until 2139,1+ 59 minutes after the takeoff, and 1+14 after the crash.

Route of flight.....remote area with very sparse small groups of lights.

NVG's are wonderful devices. They are probably the best things since the Sexual Revolution of the late 60's-70's.

They have their limits as all things do. I suggest that the weather and darkness combined at some point in this flight to the point that the NVG's could not cope with the reduced visiblilty and at that point, the pilot found himself in a very difficult situation.

That is not the kind of weather I wish to fly VFR for any distance offshore in the daytime , much less cross country in the snow covered mountains of New Mexico at night. The accident investigation will have to determine the circumstance surrounding this accident and make a report. We will have to wait for that before we can hold forth on what really caused the aircraft to impact the ground.

We can sit here at our keyboards and what-if this to pieces and that is as it should be. Our industry does a poor job of communicating "Lessons Learned" so we can all be the better for things like this that happen. I think it is healthy to use such events as catalysts to question what we do in our daily work. If we see similarities between what happend to this guy....maybe we can alter what we do to make our flying a bit safer. Afterall, something like this could happen to anyone of us at any time. Maybe not a snowy night in Trindidad or Belize....but maybe a police pilot in the north end.

Personally, I would like to meet this guy, and have a long talk with him and hear his account first hand. It would be educational to see how the chain of events all came together to make this event occur. We know every accident is a set of occurrences that link together to cause accidents and to know how this one happened would be useful to others doing the same kind of work.

The FAR's play a role in it I am sure. Part 91 unlike Part 135 and most OpSpecs does not have a requirement to have sufficient external lighting to control the aircraft. Since this flight was with just the pilot on board, did he use Part 91 or Part 135 to conduct the flight? That would determine what visibility and weather requirements he had to comply with. I wonder what the weather report was at the time he checked weather? Did a snow squall cross his route of flight at a critical time?

Personally, I would like to see FAR Part 91 be changed to parrot the wording of Part 135 when it comes to night VFR weather miniumums. And...I would like to see EMS pilots start adhering to that regulation better than they do now. That one change would improve the safety of EMS flying greatly. If you do not have the external light reference required by the Regs....turnaround and go home or do it IFR with all the bells and whistles, training, and currency required.

wg13_dummy

25th Mar 2005, 03:35

Ref the accident.

Weather...200 overcast, 3/4 SM visibility (some reports said it was snowing that night)

I would be cautious driving home let alone flying. OVC 002 is the big clue. Did this chap either not have a clue to the use and limitations of the kit he was using or if he thought he did, think it may allow him to launch outside the kits performace but allow him to go beyond his own? Training, experience and knowledge. A bit like the triangle of fire, you need all three to ensure it works.

JimL

25th Mar 2005, 10:41

Flungdung - I think your language may be inappropriate; it was not de jure criminal (for the reason that are about to be explored below) although it could have been de facto foolish (if the report is accurate).

Picking up on the last paragraph of SASless’ post and the thrust of Helmet Fire’s; although I am not intimately familiar with FARs it would appear to me that as this was classed as a Part 91 positioning flight and, in the absence of instructions on the conduct of this type of flight in the Operations Manual or a specific requirement in the OpSpec, compliance with Part 91.155 applies.

My reading of this rule is that, in the basic table, the requirement for Class G airspace when below 1200ft is:Night, except as provided in 91.155(b).....(visibility of) 3 statute miles……500ft below, 1000ft above, 2000ft horizontal (from clouds).and, as is the norm with FARs, alleviated for helicopters to be:(b)(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds if operated at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a collision.The interesting thing about this series of rules is that they are - as with FAR 91.119(a) and (b) - in compliance with the ICAO Standard (which permits alleviation from the visibility of 5km down to 1500m for airplanes and below 1500m for helicopters) but, in view of the alleviation for helicopters of the 500ft rule (FAR 91.119(d)), results in a void of regulation for NVFR (see also the recent thread on the amendment of the ANO). (As with the UK (and other States), the dome interpretation of the ICAO 500ft rule leads inevitably to the same conclusion.)

As was also stated by SASless, Part 91 does does specify the additional requirement of visual surface lights required by Part 135:FAR 135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requriements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface references or, at night, visual surface light references, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

Devil 49

25th Mar 2005, 14:55

SASless, you posted this on March 24th:

“Ah, WTBF...theres the rub .....most of the operations that are going to NVG's in the States are not IFR programs. They are VFR programs looking for some way to fly VMC with no horizon.”

That post is out of line. I am at a “VFR” program that is trying to move to aided night vision. The effort is not “To fly VMC with no horizon.” We don’t do that, ever.
Further, it is my experience that my fellow professional pilots- generally- are as devoted to safety as we are at my program. If there are “cowboys,” and cowboy operators out there, they are the exception. I, myself, know of one pilot in my AO who exhibits the attitude you claim- one- Despite the fact there area a dozen or so bases in my area, and most of the major players and many independents are active in my A.O.- one cowboy pilot. If you have facts and information otherwise, cite it. Your statement is unfounded. I am specifically calling you on this “.....most of the operations that are going to NVG's in the States are not IFR programs. They are VFR programs looking for some way to fly VMC with no horizon.”

The night issue is there in all aspects of aviation: Fixed and rotary; Single and multiengine; One and two-pilot crews; IFR and VFR. In flight, operating with compromised vision- in this discussion, night flights- increases risk. This hazard is magnified in helicopter operations, and EMS in particular. EMS operates off airport, away from formal aviation facilities. That’s the whole value of the helicopter in the equation. It doesn’t matter what kind of equipment you’re sitting in, or how you arrived at the off-airport landing site proposed. You have to see the obstacles, the weather, the landing zone to control risk. You’re condemning the only effort to solve this issue- universally- and you are wrong. IFR and two engines don’t make you invulnerable. What you don’t see, you can’t know about, in this case. What you don’t know can kill you in my profession, "Clear, blue and twenty-two" with a full moon...

SASless

25th Mar 2005, 16:16

49,

You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.

We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.

Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?

A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.

"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really. "

A second post....

"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.
As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "

My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.

Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.

The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.

I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.

You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.

I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"

You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying.

Devil 49

26th Mar 2005, 15:12

Sasless said-
>"You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.

We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.

Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?"<

My answer-
NO! Doesn't happen, period.
At the risk of being misunderstood, I will suggest that you may want to think about that question carefully. It suggests a wink and nudge attitude regarding some important rules.
I will repeat: We never- ever- fly without lights in sight. Further, I will suggest that the reason the posts you cite are significant is that the posters are exceptional. I could theoretically see the situation happening, if- and only if- the ground was clearly in sight, for surface reference. It hasn't happened yet. The only times, as a civilian, I haven't had lights in sight it was because I was IIMC.

SASless, again-
>"A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.

"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really."

A second post....

"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.

As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "<

My answer-
Our program operates from the Georgia-South Carolina coast well into the Smokey Mountains. If the vis is marginal, usually it's possible to plan one's route to follow cultural lighting. Yes, it can take longer. Failing to do so can take an eternity... If we can't do that, we abort the flight, or decline and offer the flight to a program that may be in a more favorable situation. The patient can go by ground, and it's better to make that decision early. I- no- we've spent many nights at hospitals or nearby airports.

The "box of rocks" paradigm rules.

SASless-
>"My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.

"Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.

The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.

I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.

You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.

I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"

You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying."

Final arguments from me-
First and most important point of issue, your statement "...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather." If you abort WITH goggles on, you still have the benefit of the goggles for the remainder of the flight. If you abort without, you do not- The advantage is clear.
A "Cowboy" pilot is a dead man walking, and it doesn't matter how he's equipped- pilot error kills. A program with the attitude cited is Darwinian, too, in spite of equipment, not because of it. If your program policies lead you to believe and behave otherwise, it's time to go elsewhere. You can get another job.

Every day, I pull a NOTAM brief. Unlit towers in my AO are commonly a page and a half, two pages of 9-point type. Power transmission lines and towers are always there. The mountains and national forests are always dark and challenging. Add the fact I operate in an area of almost constant haze and humidity, and low clouds are common. I've been IIMC more often on departure than in cruise- and it's much more exciting then, too.
Those issues would be resolved with NVGs. IFR approval, twins, 2 pilots, do not address do not address most of those dangers- related issues are factors in many 121 accidents...

marc perkins

2nd May 2005, 11:33

I'm looking for comments, inputs, advice wrt single pilot, night VFR , emergency medical services with the aid of Night Visual Goggles.

We operate AS 350 B2 helicopters in the EMS field in South Africa, and are looking at the possibilities/probability as well as the pro's and cons involved. These are single engine aircraft, night rated (not IFR capable) and have no three axis autopilot or augmentation systems.

I personally have approx. 100 NVG hours as a co-pilot in the military on a Super Puma. This was in a multi engine/multi crew environment, where in most cases the area of operation had been previously inspected by day. The goggles we used then were third generation, and training, competency and the necessary arsenal was not an issue wrt costs involved for training, and competencies. A whole new ball game when compared to a civilian operation.

I have a number of reservations: single engine aircraft (not ideal but manageable); single crew without the redundancy of a check pilot to guard against NVG fixation/dependance ; CFIT as the primary cause of most night heli accidents ; VFR yes but we all now how quickly that can change at night and how unpredictably ; rural areas as opposed to built up areas; non IFR rated aircraft with non IFR rated pilots should adverse Wx present itself ; lack of integrated cockpit lighting for NVG and lack of controllable infra red landing light.

The consideration was originally registered LZ (with lighting), to registered LZ (with lighting). Safety altitude with NVG as a navaid - No Problem. Now the suggestion has been made to respond to road accidents at unprepared LZ's. Different ball game once again.

Existing Part 138 law prohibits non IFR rated aircraft from night EMS operations. However this entire Part is currently under review.

I know that a number of military institutions are operating with NVG in the single crew environment. Are there any operators in the civilian field doing this ? Comments from both military and civilian would be greatly appreciated !

Regards

mp

[email protected]

2nd May 2005, 17:27

Marc - I think your concerns are justified, it's all very well saying they will fly at safety altitude using NVG as a navaid but they still have to get down at the other end. That is where you need your 2 crew, 3 axis autopilot, NVG compatible lighting(internal and external) and most of all a rad-alt with an audio warning. Single pilot NVG ops are not impossible but do require well trained and equipped crews in regular practice.
Frankly the extra nav assist benefit of NVG at 1000' plus is only to see other aircraft - a map and a GPS will sort the nav out.
As for IFR - the single pilot must be instrument rated and the aircraft IFR capable. As you know, you can get yourself into bad weather without realising it much easier on goggles than without so being able to IFR abort is a must.
Eventually governments must understand that to provide a night capability safely costs money and if they try to skimp on equipment and training the resulting bad press from the inevitable accidents will come back and bite them in the a**e.

havoc

2nd May 2005, 19:19

Marc,

Check your email, I sent a PM about PHI Air Medical (US) going NVGs for all its programs.

Non-PC Plod

2nd May 2005, 20:31

We currently operate single-pilot ops with (normally 2) police observers. We are day/night VMC only, but with a twin (non-IFR) a/c. Our observers are equipped with goggles, but our cockpit is non-NVG compatible at the moment, so the pilots rely on normal night-flying techniques with the helpful additional input from the fellas who can see.

Part of our remit is to perform casevac at night in life-threatening circumstances, which will normally be in the more remote areas to justify use of a helo rather than a road ambulance.
The transit, weather etc do not tend to give us any serious safety concerns, because our operations manual gives us very clearly defined weather minima (1500' cloud base & 5 km visibility with passengers/casualties on board). If the weather conditions get to these minima, we can easily sack the job & RTB before it gets uncomfortable. The key is making the rules and sticking rigidly to them, no matter what the external pressures are of serious casualties etc etc.

The BIG safety concern is the approach & landing at the scene, because obviously we dont get a good look for wires, FOD, fences, sloping ground etc etc at an ad-hoc site. The key is to take the time to speak to the people on the ground to help select you a suitable HLS, scan it for as long as it takes with a searchlight if you have one, or landing lamps on a dummy approach, and get everyone in the crew to look out for wires (having done a good map recce beforehand).

For us, fortunately, this is a rare occurrence. Potentially, you may be able to reduce the requirements to land at ad-hoc sites by surveying potential suitable landing sites across your area, and holding them in a HLS directory, recording the potential hazards as well as the size, shape, surround etc. , and make this available to your ground colleagues to RV with you at the nearest suitable location.

Hope you find this helpful - Our rules are dictated by the CAA, which makes it easy for us to implement. If there are no laid-down rules in your neck of the woods, perhaps your regulatory authorities should think about it

helmet fire

3rd May 2005, 00:38

marc,
run a search, this has been disussed many times.

In short, the US have had more than 10 years of NVG civvie ops and what they came out with (in relation to your question) is simple:

Cockpit must be modified to DCO 275.

Single pilot ops are OK if you only operate to established and lit helipads.

if you operate to non lit, or non permanent helipads you must carry a second crewmember, trained on NVG and positioned on the other side of the aircraft in a position to scan the area the pilot cannot see. Ie back or front is fine, as long as it is on opposite side.

In all countries starting up NVG, weather is always contentious. NVG in a VFR aircraft or crew should be limited to NVFR minima. If that requires twin or IFR in your country, then so be it.

If you have an IFR aircraft and crew, then IFR weater is your min, but when on NVG you must have in flight VFR at your selected altitude.

I would suggest that the limitation should revolve around in-flight Viz, which is determined by both atmospherics AND illumination levels, ie say house sized obstacles must be clearly visible (including detail) at not less than 5000m to continue on NVG.

Contrary to Crab's statement above, and as you have flown them yourself, I would suggest that wx is easier to see on NVG than unaided (on ANVIS 6 or 9 omnibus IV), thus easier to avoid.

It is crucial to remember in all this, that the flight profiles are not military. In Oz, we are puishing to fly at 500, do a recce and land or winch. We are not trying to fly below 500, NOE, do tac approaches, evasive manouevring, nor formation. Any of these elements requires much more training and caution, and limitation setting.

Try Mike Atwood of Aviation Services Unlimited in the USA who is one of only two fully FAA certified NVG schools in the US. Mike will have all the info you require, is a very competent instructor, and has all the knowledge of civvy NVG ops you could hope for. Incidently, he is speaking at HeliPacific at Coolum on the Queensland coast 13th of july 2005 on everyting you have asked. Should coincide with tri nations time too!!

Also try Graham Gale, Chief Pilot of Otago Helicopters NZ who has just introduced the first civvy NVG ops into EMS in New Zealand using the FAA template.

marc perkins

3rd May 2005, 06:47

Great Replies and inputs Gentlemen,

I really appreciate the comments. I will conduct a search and see what I can come up with. Please will you be so kind as to forward me the web-sites and the e-mail addresses of the names mentioned above. PM me if you don't want to display it here.

As I mentioned to havoc in a PM we have a LifePort system, with the patient down the left hand side, so our crew members are stuck in the back, with the pilot alone up front. Best views/lookout with two up front obviously. Our crew is normally two paramedics/paramedic and doctor. Most of these guys are new to the Heli program, and those that are regulars do not have much exposure to night flying, let alone NVG use. Obviously training, and lots of it is critical.

Please keep the comments, possible risks and other relevant inputs coming.

Cheers

mp:ok:

[email protected]

3rd May 2005, 08:29

HelmetFire, my point about bad weather is that whilst showers and the like are easier to spot on goggles, a gradual reduction in visibility due to mist or precipitation that takes you below your VFR minima is not. I have used goggles to help see the runway lights through cloud on an ILS when I really had to and avoided a diversion which would have been bad for the casualty.

helmet fire

3rd May 2005, 22:51

Understood crab, you are the more accurate and I agree. Again, I think we concentrate on limiting NVG to weather minimums but really, they are limited by in-flight viz which is also affected by moisture, dust, obscurants, illumination, cultural lighting and upper level cloud. For example, some nights you can have nil cloud below 10,000 ft agl and viz reported at 10km plus, yet still have insufficient illumination to fly NVG.

marc,
There is sufficient detail there for you to contact the people mentioned, but I dont have their email.

Two points in response to your reply:
night unaided experience is very valuable for NVG, and a good instrument scan is essential. In the months between now and aquisition of NVG, I suggest you encourage night training and experience, and increase instrument scan practice and profficiency. Get a good PC based sim for the instrument stuff too.

Secondly, your comment on the crew positions. Two up the front is essential for military flight profiles for the lookout, and low level workload. For civilian operations, we need to move out of the military profiles, and I suggest that if you currently fly NVFR unaided in that crew config, then continue to do so NVG. When you are flying at NB 500ft AGL with sufficient in-flight viz on NVG, there is no requirement to have two crew members on NVG, however, should you conduct an approach to land/winch to an unlit area or non permanent helipad, then there should always be two crew on opposite sides. The reason that I dont believe we should stipulate that they be in the front or back is due to horses for courses. Some operators (law enforcement in particular) have two front seat crew, and that is a good combo. Others operate with a rear crewman, who after opening the door, has a superior view of the side of the aircraft over the front seater. Therefore both solutions are acceptable.

If you have an aircraft in which there is no way for the other crewmember to take up the scan on the non pilot side, then I suggest that it is innapropriate for you to be conducting night confined area operations anyway, unaided or with NVG (as per your current restriction for NVFR). NVG does not resolve this limitation IMHO.

Matthew Parsons

4th May 2005, 10:16

Single pilot NVG EMS is fine...depending on the training, the machine, and the operational limitations.

Training has been mentioned already. Get a proper NVG conversion, then learn from someone doing the same role in the same machine (similiar if same not possible).

The machine needs more than cockpit compatibility (which is usually restricted to cockpit lighting compatibility). The switches must be identifiable with NVGs on. The immediate actions cannot be delayed due to the NVGs. The handling of the helicopter must remain acceptable with the reduced visual cues. These issues cannot be taken lightly. Employ a test pilot to evaluate your helicopter in that expanded role.

The operational limitations have been mentioned already. The weather is definitely a concern. I support lower weather minima for unaided night flight over aided. When on scene many operators are hesitant to use white light. Don't be. EMS is not a covert operation. Light up the area and see the wires.

While the safety concerns are valid, the increased service to the customer is invaluable. Lives will be saved.

helmet fire

5th May 2005, 10:32

Marc,
Ammendment to the above, Mike Atwood is from Aviation Specialties Unlimited (ASU).
Worth his weight in gold!

BigMike

5th Nov 2005, 11:53

Has anyone done the NVG course with Bell, or Aviation Specialties Unlimited?

Thanks BigMike

ron-powell

5th Nov 2005, 14:57

Bigmike:

The ground and flight instruction from ASU is first class. When PHI took over the contract here in New Mexico, ASU came out and did the training. It was 8 hours of ground school and 5 flight hours.

At the same time, ASU was getting their cockpit lighting STC for the Astar, so the feds were here looking at everything, including the classroom instruction.

The four of us pilots had limited NVG flight experience, me being the high timer with about 170 hours, mostly ANVIS-6. One guy had no NVG time. The other two had old PVS-5 and some ANVIS time. Our medical crews did the ground school and then one hour of flight familiarization.

There still seems to be leftover attitudes about their use in that they are hard to adjust to while flying. The training gives you the limitations and you work within those restrictions. The ITT certified NVGs themselves are far and away better than even my earlier experience with ANVIS-6 sets. Around Albuquerque I use them even in the brightly lit city because these new intensifier tubes don’t react to bright lights like older versions. You can see down through the smaller “halos” that surround lights and see the ground, so if you have a problem, instead of having to dodge wires on some lighted road, you can put down in the small field next to the road – all because you can see in the dark now.

We fly with two sets of NVGs, with the crew member usually sitting on the left side. We DID NOT reduce our program weather minimums due to NVG use. We all thought that was just a stupid idea suggested by people without any NVG experience or basic knowledge, let alone common sense.

There is quite the impetus here in the U.S. to get more EMS programs equipped but the physical problem is most of the ITT production seems to be toward the military. To my knowledge, a flight program would be hard pressed to get their aircraft lighting certified and crews trained in 12 months, even if the wrote the big checks today. The NVGs are just hard to get. I think the FAA should look at certifying other intensifier tubes, such as those made by DEP in the Netherlands. That would get more NVGs on the market faster.

One other point about the “big checks”. The NVGs are running less than 10K USD a set. The SX-5 Nitesun we still drag around costs about 27K USD. This is the proverbial no brainer.

Sorry to ramble on and go off topic, but I can’t say enough about having NVGs. In my mind they are the most effective and cheapest safety addition anyone can add to their flight program.

If you have any more questions. Let me know.

Ron Powell

BigMike

5th Nov 2005, 20:59

Thanks a lot Ron. We are looking at introducing Primary missions (Scene calls) at night here, and we will only be conducting them if NVG's are used. At the moment we fly Secondary missions, ie hospital transfers, only at night, and that is only into known airfields or Hospital pads.
You are right about the weather minimums. They will not change at all for us, we will just be able to see a little better!

Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the standard at the moment, is that correct?
What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.

Cheers BM

ron-powell

6th Nov 2005, 15:15

BM:

>We are looking at introducing Primary missions (Scene calls) at night here, and we >will only be conducting them if NVG's are used. At the moment we fly Secondary >missions, ie hospital transfers, only at night, and that is only into known airfields or >Hospital pads.

That’s a great start and don’t let anyone back you off that point. Also, if your program has some outreach and training money/time, try to get out and work with the local EMS providers and setup ”canned” LZs, pre-surveyed for hazards. With enough of those, you can further limit your risk.

This is just speculation of course, but if we have a few more night accidents here in the U.S. attributed to CFIT, I could see and understand the feds stepping in and saying no more night flights without NVGs.

>Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the >standard at the moment, is that correct?

I don’t have an answer to that question. The ANVIS-9 designation might be a military term, so you might also see something like F4949, which I think is the ITT model number for aviator NVGs. Off hand, I don’t know of a European manufacturer. Do you have any European military pals to quiz on this?

The thing is, I think the important technical aspects of the NVGs are the image intensifier tube specs and power supply. So is essence, anyone who could meet the specs should be able to supply tubes to the industry. This is of course assuming the basic setup of the housing – adjustable and removable binocular, breakaway helmet mount and battery pack- remain the same.

One thing to consider is the FAA is pretty new to the aided night flight concept, so you can see they would want to certify things very conservatively and limit the equipment until things are proven.

An example of this is the PVS-7. The housing looks the same but you can get various quality tubes made by different companies as the guts with huge swings in price.

>What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.

Can’t answer that either. Google says ANVIS-7 is some sort of heads up display thing though which I assume is mounted to NVGs. There also seems to be quite the variation in the same tubes. You can buy a high resolution tube, say with 64lp/mm of resolution, with a “normal” power supply(whatever that means) or a “gated power supply” and get different performance from the NVGs, I think in terms of the NVGs ability to work in high light conditions. Naturally, you will pay for this difference.

DEP makes tubes and looks like they got bought out:

http://www.photonis-dep.com/night-vision

One interesting thing I’ve found is the ITT tubes have a slight amber tint and a DEP XD-4 tube, for instance, has a slightly bluish tint.

stas-fan

6th Nov 2005, 19:22

Just to let you know the ANVIS system is made by ITT and Northrop Grumman, both are the same, identical except the sticker. ANVIS 9 and ANVIS 6 differ slightly but 9 is the latest, which most people use if they do not want to use a HUD on the end.

As for what tubes are in them, in Europe there is one company already assembling DEP tubes into the ANVIS shells under licence, this is where it gets technical but in essence you still need a licence to buy them but they are in fact better than the US models on offer because of the export rules imposed by uncle sam.

ANVIS 7 are for people driving 4x4s, beware of offers that are cheap, usually there is a non-aviation tube in there (commercial grade) which is cheap but full of blemishes etc.

Expect to pay around €14k for a set of European tubed ANVIS 6 or 9, but they are much better than the restricted performance US ones at around €11K.

Send me an email and I’ll bore the t*ts off you on NVG in general! I will ask my supplier (of NVG not weed) to get on this forum and maybe he will shed some more light on the subject.

This is me: [email protected] hope it helps

SF

[email protected]

7th Nov 2005, 09:26

Ron - good call abouth not reducing the weather minima - in UK mil SAR the only time we reduce our weather minima is if we have an IFR option available.

Heliport

8th Nov 2005, 12:16

Threads merged.

Flying Lawyer

16th Nov 2005, 20:41

CAP 612 Police Air Operations Manual Pt 1 Amendment 1/2005
(16 November 2005)

A new Chapter 11 has been incorporated into Section 5 (Police Operating Procedures) to introduce Night Vision Imaging Systems.

Chapter 11 Night Vision Imaging Systems
General
Terminology
Essential Requirements
Operating Considerations
Training and Checking
Operations Manual

Link here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP612.PDF)

9It's a PDF file so you'll need Adobe Reader installed - readily available free on the net~).

A step in the right direction. I wonder how many ASUs will be applying for approval, and how soon?

FL

[email protected]

17th Nov 2005, 05:58

Also interesting for the Police Observers who will be expected to operate on goggles - how far do they have to go before they are officially classed as crew and require licencing?
Just wait for all the compensation claims for eyestrain and bad necks once NVGs are widely used.

Ariston

17th Nov 2005, 07:12

NVG – Don’t you just love it?

Ac transits for 20 minutes to the scene, pilot flicks the switch and the cockpit lighting switches to NVG compatible blue/green, the pilot and rear crewmember lower the goggles whilst the front observer uses the TI, spot the baddie, talk the ground units in – Job done. Up with the goggles, back to normal lighting and RTB

20-minute transit to a casevac. Same drill as before as we go onto NVG. This time the front observer has a sweep with the TI then onto goggles, high and low recce then in we go for a perfect touchdown.

Who couldn’t be impressed with the benefits of NVG? Couple of questions though. What happens when, as in most modern civilian helicopters, there isn’t enough headroom for the pilot to stow the goggles? How does he revert to and fro? What happens when the side windows are to close to the pilot’s head and he can’t look sideways or indeed up? What does he do with them in an emergency?

Is it really safer to transit all the time above 500ft on goggles? Has anyone tried hovering at 1000ft on goggles?

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for them but I think the only time a pilot needs them is probably the only time the CAA don’t want you to use them!

Crab’s point with regards to neck strain is one to watch and I also wonder how many observers will fail the proposed eye tests?

Let the fun and games begin!
:cool:

Sailor Vee

17th Nov 2005, 09:00

I have a buddy who flies a BO 105 on EMS in the US and he is on a program that has been using ANVIS 9 for the last year or so.

He said that they are unreal. He flips them down on start up and back up on shutdown. They now do the high recon to the left due to the proximity of the roof and it seems to work ok. Most of their flights are less than one hour and he said you get used to the weight on your neck.

The FAA have certified their use and I believe they can also be used as a corrective lens. The impression I got from him was that basing your view of NVG on anything other than the absolute latest technology may be misleading.

Imagine if we were only starting to fly IFR now....I'm sure that there would be much resistance. I have no doubt that within ten years goggles will be the norm for all night ops.

SilsoeSid

17th Nov 2005, 09:05

Has anyone tried hovering at 1000ft on goggles?
Yes, in the lovely dark countryside of NI.
As long as you can see references, pretty much the same as hovering at 1000' without.

I would suggest it would come down to practise and familiarisation, however if you find yourself in a location where you need to be on goggs in the first place, why hover when an orbit would suffice?
Noise, fuel burn, etc.

As for eyestrain and bad necks! What is the military rate of occurence of these injuries directly related to NVG use?

How can we reduce any associated injuries?
Eyestrain, proper focussing by operator. ;)
Bad neck, more time in the gym!! :p
(I'll get some stick for that one!)

Interesting to note crabs point on the fine line between pax and crew!!

From 612
Flight Crew - Definition
....All other persons on board the aircraft, including the
police observer, are regarded as passengers.
CAA-Agreed Passenger - Definition
a) Police Officer;
yet later in Sect5 Ch11;
A qualified crewmember assigned to a NVIS flight (e.g. a police air observer).
The minimum crew is to be stated in the PAOM Part 2, but must not be less than one pilot and one crewmember both NVIS qualified.

Also, what stage would each unit apply for or indeed be able to maintain
If a unit only had Stage1 yet needed to operate to Stage2 levels, could they, in certain circumstances, do so?

http://bestsmileys.com/winter/14.gif
SS

[email protected]

17th Nov 2005, 09:24

Hovering at 1000' on goggles - we have had to do a lot of this since the introduction of our FLIR/MSS turret and there was some resistance from some pilots who were won over once they tried it and became familiar with it. As Sid says, with the appropriate references (preferably a decent visual horizon) it is a very straightforward task.

Eyestrain - no you shouldn't get it because you should focus your goggles properly and they have a dioptre adjustment on the eyepiece lens.
Neck ache - the military tend to just get on with it and leave any moaning to the crewroom - I suspect that the compensation culture prevalent in civvystrasse might prompt 'scientific' and 'expert' investigation - to some extent it will depend on which goggles get used as some are worse than others for weight balance.

NVG stowage - we've been waiting for a proper stowage for goggles on the Sea King for years but since you tend to put them on at the beginning of the flight (flipping them up or down as you need them) and then take them off at the end, it is not such a big problem.

The stage 1 clearance will aid lookout and to some extent navigation but NVGs really come into their own for landing in unrecced sites and fields. Can you operate Cat A into a site where you dont know if the surface is suitable for a single engine landing?

Sid, I mentioned the crew issue after reading the thread about an observer failing training and then being reinstated - operating on NVG is another skill they will have to aquire and show some ability on before they are let loose on Stage 2 ops.

Thomas coupling

17th Nov 2005, 11:26

So many Q's so little time:D

Long overdue - and this is categorically down to only ONE agency and yes you've guessed it. Make no mistake here the whole process has been dragged throught the doldrums painfully for at least the last 7 years that I have been involved in trying to get NVIS into police ops and the answer is: THE UK CAA flt test dept.

I believe we have now reached and surpassed the "tipping point" and there is NO going back:rolleyes:

There will be 5 police forces operating full NVIS by the end of 2006. This will open the flood gates for those who WANT it. There is the choice and several urban forces have stated that it's not for them...........(if only they really knew).

This entry into our PAOM is confirmation and acceptance that NVIS has arrived - hooray.

Our observers have been flying NVG's since 1992. Initially on a monocular device until 1994 and then on FENNS 700+ to date which are perfectly adequate for the job of an observer. It has transformed their M.O.
There have been no repeat NO complaints of neck strain because we balance the kit perfectly and this includes female operators too. It should also be borne in mind that the Obs put them on in the crewroom and dont remove them again until they climb out after upwards of 40-60 mins flying :ok:

There is no problem wearing this kit whatsoever for the operative so lets quash that rumour.

There MAY be an issue with freedom of movement around the cabin and contact with objects in the proximity of said wearer.
It is not a major issue with our EC135 but I could understand with other tighter older types (355 etc). The back seat dont have this problem.

The sticking point has been certifying the cockpit and pilot for NVIS (as observers are passengers and can do whatever they like without restrictions).
It is this which has taken 7+ yrs and counting.

With the exception of Devon and Cornwall who are fully NVIS compatible since 1995 I think (old certification process), no-one in the UK can fly civvy crew NVIS yet. But next week could see the first operator doing just that under the new regs.
Stage 1 allows for NVIS above 500' only and stage II for t/o and l/o (i.e. full flight NVIS).

Operators will have to demonstrate their experience with stage 1 first before being approved to go to stage II (by the CAA).

Common sense has arrived at platform number 1 at last..... :mad:

Ariston

17th Nov 2005, 11:47

TC, can the pilot stow the goggles if he needs to? Is there enough headroom in the 135?

[email protected]

17th Nov 2005, 11:51

TC - 40-60 mins won't make your neck ache so if that is the normal sortie length then there should be no problem. When you have them on for several hours at a time there is a real issue, having a 500g weight and a set of goggles on your head as you are vibrated through the bumpy sky certainly does get tiring - it's not a rumour.

Hopefully the PAOM is the first step in towards getting Civvy SAR on goggles and HEMs as well.

Letsby Avenue

17th Nov 2005, 13:56

Yep - Can't believe you said that TC. Wearing goggles most definitely puts strain on the neck, it doesn't matter how much you 'balance' them - If the operator doesn't have his head and neck in the vertical plane i.e.; spends time peering out of the window its going to get sore.... Not sure about how the CAAs limits of seven hours flying in ten is going to stack up either when every minute is apparently going to be flown on NVG? Five sounds better but it probably more of a H&S issue.

Ariston also has a point - How does the pilot stow the goggles?:confused:

Bertie Thruster

17th Nov 2005, 16:35

Will be interesting for the floater pilots migrating between the NVIS and non-NVIS units!

Droopy

17th Nov 2005, 17:09

Who's going to pay for floater NVIS training? I can't see the companies being very keen.

helmet fire

17th Nov 2005, 23:50

I'm with tc: the neck and eye strain is a on issue. Balance, correct adjustment, and just getting used to them avoids this. I have done 45 hrs of NVG in a month with no sore neck, and no eye strain. But. like anything, you do need to get used to them.

Congratulations on getting this up and running. NVG is the biggest advancement to night flying safety that I have seen in my career. Such safety enhancements should not be restricted to Police/EMS, as per the accident report into the Strathclyde EC135.

The Victorian Police are the vangaurd here in Oz and through some fantastic work, they should be up and running shortly. The entire Oz industry owes those guys a thanks.

I have two questions relating to the UK file:

1. What is the minmum standard of NVG that is acceptable?

2. Why have they not included "loss of visual reference on take off and landing" procedures as a requirement? I imagine that due to rain, the dust issue is probably a lot less likely in the UK than here in Oz, but what about snow or non compatible scene lighting causing flareout (this concern is related to the first question though).

jayteeto

18th Nov 2005, 08:58

TC, great news on getting NVG. I have hundreds of hours in differing environments and love using them. 5 hours a night used to be our limit, neck strain usually appeared after about 3 hours. However, we really don't need them in liverpool, the very very rare occasions they would be used would not justify the training burden. Other rural units will love them, even for 1500' transits, the world changes for the better. :D

FloaterNorthWest

18th Nov 2005, 09:05

I see the floater question going one of two ways:

1. Floaters will be trained and kept current on NVIS at the operators expense. A problem will arise if, like other role equipment, everyone does their own thing and buys different equipment.

2. Floaters will not be NVIS trained and when a floater is covering the unit will not have an NVIS capability.

The bottom line is going to be cost.

FNW

SilsoeSid

18th Nov 2005, 13:45

TC;There is no problem wearing this kit whatsoever for the operative so lets quash that rumour. I have a fair few hours myself on mil NVG with no 'after effects', less the temporary 'brown eye'!, however with the profiles that I fly these days, (transit to scene - max 10 mins - orbit for hour+ looking down and right - or pursuit with head looking right and rear constantly for perhaps up to 45 mins, then 10 min transit back), I cannot see there not being any neck fatigue/strain issues.

Perhaps those already using NVIS have different sortie profiles day to day, but this possible RSI should be seriously considered.

By the way, scenario - unit with Stage1 only has to land in the Ulu.
Revert to mortal, correct?
(NVG above 500ft wasn't even logged in days gone by!)

http://bestsmileys.com/army/13.gif
SS

Letsby Avenue

18th Nov 2005, 16:36

Revert to mortal - Correct answer:E

Thomas coupling

18th Nov 2005, 18:19

Ariston: we dont stow during flight, they are worn permanently.
However if stowage was needed there is plenty of room in the cargo bay (accessible in flt).
There is headroom in the EC135 - just! It varies from between 5" and 1" dependant on individual so far anyway!

Letsby: Believe me there have been NO comments/complaints re: neck strain eye strain in 13yrs of nightly use...how long would you like us to fly with them until you're convinced there is no problem?
As discussed, it is the profile we fly. Every night sortie is slightly different, but every one involves a lot of head movement.
Your 7hrs in 10 should read 5-6hrs in 8-9. Have another look at Sect 2 of the POM I.
No-one flies that many night hrs in the police, no-where near!

Floater:
If his contract company want to train him up, they will. They are freely issuing IR's at the moment and an NVIS qual is peanuts compared to the IR!
If a floater turns up at an NVIS unit, non NVIS qualified, then that Unit simply does not fly pilot NVIS that evening - big deal. The Observers can still fly with them though.

Helmetfire: The current favourite is the FENNS 2000,Gen III. I'm not familiar with this model yet as it is the successor to ours (700+) but apparently they have exceptional 'flareout' capabilities and if they are anything like ours cope admirably with large Urban light pollution.
Takeoff criteria like all other aspects of police night flying MUST comply with existing weather and visual cues. IF the goggs fail (unlikely because of parallel power supplies) then we revert to normal (mortal) cues.
Jayteeto: I would concur with your requirements to a certain degree. Our findings have been that a massive spin off for the Obs is that coupled with Nightsun and NVG the dark shadows of buildings become almost 'daylight' in texture and help enormously with tracking hiding suspects.
Silsoesid: Correct!

SilsoeSid

18th Nov 2005, 18:58

TC;
Ariston: we dont stow during flight, they are worn permanently.
However if stowage was needed there is plenty of room in the cargo bay (accessible in flt).
There is headroom in the EC135 - just! It varies from between 5" and 1" dependant on individual so far anyway!

Can you just confirm that you don't stow the helmet goggles in flight?
ie push them up on top of the helmet. (which would add about 6 inches to head height!

Permanently down, would surely cause a whole lot of problems for anyone operating near a lit site.

And should you have to revert to mortal, you are left with a set of redundant goggs obscuring your view.

Multiple :confused:
SS

Thomas coupling

18th Nov 2005, 19:07

Sorry, by stowed I thought you meant uncoupled from the base plate. They are "stowed" in the 'UP' position on the helmet and this is where the height clearance kicks in.

Reverting to normal means flicking them up - a 2 second activity.

Letsby Avenue

18th Nov 2005, 20:27

Thanks for the clarification TC - I didn't think stowing the goggles in the boot when faced with an emergency was a viable option:}

Sid's point with regards to an extra 6 inches head height with them in the 'up' position was the point being made by Ariston. What does the pilot do when there is only 1-5 inches of headroom available?

"Your 7hrs in 10 should read 5-6hrs in 8-9. Have another look at Sect 2 of the POM I"

Can you clarify that? Para 6 is applicable to the standard variation in para 24 - ergo 7 in 10? I always worked to 6 in 10 until it was pointed out that I was wrong (so it wouldn’t be the first time)

Agree about not getting anywhere near that normally
:uhoh:

Thomas coupling

18th Nov 2005, 22:46

For the hard of hearing:

1" - 5" is the clearance AFTER stowage.:bored:

Para 24 actually only mentions the max FDP, NOT flying hours. There is no mention of max flying hours specifically in para 24?
The POM I fails to clarify.

You're hard work sometimes aren't you Lestby:ugh:

SilsoeSid

18th Nov 2005, 23:58

TC;
(post 2)
Ariston: we dont stow during flight, they are worn permanently.
However if stowage was needed there is plenty of room in the cargo bay (accessible in flt).
There is headroom in the EC135 - just! It varies from between 5" and 1" dependant on individual so far anyway!
.
.
(post 3)
Sorry, by stowed I thought you meant uncoupled from the base plate. They are "stowed" in the 'UP' position on the helmet and this is where the height clearance kicks in.
.
.
(post 4)
For the hard of hearing:

1" - 5" is the clearance AFTER stowage.

Nicest bit of back attempted back pedalling I have seen in a while! ;)

However, just to clarify, when not in use, the goggles are stowed in the 'UP' position on the helmet in the cargo bay?
As they are "worn permanently", how does this work?

Not only am I hard of hearing, I must also be hard of reading!!

http://bestsmileys.com/silly/13.gif
SS

stas-fan

19th Nov 2005, 04:35

If you buy the correct type of NVG in the first place then you won't have to worry about where to hide the NVG in those long 1 hour orbits!

Why not do like the rest of the world and use ANVIS, they simply pull off and sit around your neck on a piece of string when not required for extended periods. Re-connecting is simple, it's the technique used for years by militaries all over the world.

So many points from the previous threads on NVG and this current one that when I get back from our current det I’ll address them one at a time.

We shouldn't be re-inventing the wheel now we finally have a UK clearance!

And for some, not all, of those ex-mil Police Pilots out there, try a modern set of NVG over a well lit area! It’s not Bessbrook in 1985 any more, technology has advanced since then.

Letsby Avenue

19th Nov 2005, 05:43

I know the POM Pt 1 fails to clarify - which is why I questioned your 'clarification':rolleyes:

5 inches headroom with the goggles up in a 135? Don't think so old chap.:rolleyes:

Quite agree stas-fan, ANVIS 9 is the way to go - unfortunately the CAA stipulate a dual power source which I believe rules them out.

SilsoeSid

19th Nov 2005, 05:48

If you buy the correct type of NVG in the first place then you won't have to worry about where to hide the NVG in those long 1 hour orbits! That's appreciated, however, what then is the point in having the NVG in the first place if you go A->B above 500ft and when you get to the 'scene', end up removing the goggs in order to prevent any form of RSI/Neckache? :confused:

Re-connecting is simple, it's the technique used for years by militaries all over the world. "Goggling up, you have control." :confused::ugh:

stas-fan

19th Nov 2005, 06:42

Letsbe; I think ANVIS are now approved for use but you can't use the ANVIS that use lithium battery power because you are not allowed to carry spare Lithiums for any system on board (PAOC dangerous air cargo refers) I don't think there is a dispensation, and if there was you would need a metal ammo box to keep them in, hardly handy when you need to change a battery! I have used the ANVIS with 2x 2 AA batteries that last about 20 hours a pair, I haven't flown a 40 hour night mission yet so I thought they were adequate!

SSID: just offering suggestions to operators who may get neck strain. Also the reason to take them off in the over the scene situation is if for example you are not up to anything other than FLIR monitoring. {personnally I wouldn't take them off but some do and some don't)

sf

helmet fire

19th Nov 2005, 06:47

Letsby: the ANVIS 9 has a dual power source, and can be powered by however the opertator chooses. Some mil outfits elect to use aircraft power, but most (in my experience) use the dual battery system. 2 seperate battery "slides" of 2 x AAs are available to power both tubes, with a switch to select between power sources.

What I was really after was what standard of acuity, gain and resolution you guys are stipulating. Did you go for the RTCA draft TSO or did the UK stipulate a model number?

TC: On the take off and landing question I was not refering to weather minima, I am asking why there is no provision for loss of visual reference on take off and landing due to brown out, white out, flare out, or goggle failure, etc.

Over here, in reference to the misunderstanding of the stowage issue, we say "goggled up" to mean the goggs are in the operational position and are being used, and "degoggled" to infer the non operational position, which is rotated up and away from the eyes in the ANVIS series.
I assume tc was measuring clearance whilst degoggled, not whilst they were stowed in the back of the helicopter.

Letsby Avenue

19th Nov 2005, 08:17

I stand corrected... There were a few other issues ref: Anvis but its academic now since we have bought the Fenns anyway..

rotorspeed

19th Nov 2005, 08:30

Thinking of business operation potential with an IFR twin, what costs would involved in obtaining NVG capability?

aeromys

19th Nov 2005, 21:45

We still have to make do with the Mark 0.01 NVIS....

http://www.bestgardening.com/bgc/images-plant5/vegecarrot02.jpg

helmet fire

24th Nov 2005, 01:02

Sorry to keep asking guys, but I am still keen to find out what the minimum technical standards of the goggles have been proposed by the UK.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Thomas coupling

24th Nov 2005, 11:02

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 (http://www.nemspa.org/Shared%20Documents/hbat0402.html)

Type that into Google and good luck!!!:ugh:

SilsoeSid

24th Nov 2005, 23:38

Type that into Google and good luck!!! :ugh:
I did and what did I get?

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,100,000,000 for that. (0.18 seconds)

First choice was - www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

;)
SS

helmet fire

24th Nov 2005, 23:53

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.

helmet fire

29th Nov 2005, 02:50

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

Thomas coupling

29th Nov 2005, 11:02

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.

helmet fire

29th Nov 2005, 22:30

"Bloody Aussie"??

I didn' think we rated that highly now you have beaten us at cricket AND Rugby!!

I have pm'ed you, thanks for the offer.

hf

helmet fire

28th Dec 2005, 04:10

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

Thomas coupling

29th Dec 2005, 10:18

Helmet: the manufacturers: or should I say distributors?

http://www.fenn-night-vision.co.uk/

helmet fire

30th Dec 2005, 09:14

Spot on TC, thanks mate

hf

Heliport

7th Feb 2006, 19:31

http://www.emasu.co.uk/images/Sideveiwdown_000.JPG

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.

Thomas coupling

8th Feb 2006, 11:14

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.......................................

SASless

8th Feb 2006, 13:06

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?

We have flown NVG's for 12 years...trouble is its policeofficers only who can wear them!

Arkroyal

8th Feb 2006, 15:53

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?

old heliman

8th Feb 2006, 16:06

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 :rolleyes:

SASless

8th Feb 2006, 16:41

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).

scottishbeefer

8th Feb 2006, 17:38

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.

PANews

8th Feb 2006, 17:41

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?

Flying Lawyer

8th Feb 2006, 17:45

old heliman

I can't think why we haven't just taken up your standards willy nilly :rolleyes:

Many people in aviation say that - and mean it.

The :rolleyes: 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

MightyGem

8th Feb 2006, 18:17

IFR itself is new to UK police aviation
What IFR is this then? It's news to me, boom boom!

Thomas coupling

8th Feb 2006, 18:29

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:yuk:
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:mad:

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.

SASless

8th Feb 2006, 18:30

The Exeter boys were cadging used batteries off the Junglies at Yeovilton to save money.

Here is yet another example of not thinking out of the box. Commercial AA flashlight batteries work just fine for NVG's....a quick run to Tesco's and you got all you need without getting hung up over MilSpecs and all sorts of silliness.

To think the English call the Scots tight?

others rising thru the system are much more proactive

In light of some recent first hand experience....I find that a questionable statement.

Thomas coupling

8th Feb 2006, 18:41

Sassy: tell us more............................

Coconutty

9th Feb 2006, 08:19

AA batteries ???

From Tesco ???

Don't the gogs ( Fenns ) used by EMASU, and approved by the CAA, only work off the expensive twin lithium "£10 a go and last about 30 hours" type :confused:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

SASless

9th Feb 2006, 12:19

The ones I used at a US Government operation used plain old AA's....just like your mini-mag light. But...one has to remember...Father knows best about such things, right TC?

Thomas coupling

9th Feb 2006, 22:22

No - you daft bugger, not the AA batteries....tell us more about your recent experience with the CAA???;)

maxeemum

20th Apr 2006, 10:58

Sitting in an Aviation Medicine refresher the other day and listening to the all important AME tasking lectures and Boyles Law and stuff and it occurred to me that the EMS world would benefit greatly from NVG/NVD usage (black hole night sun approach arguement already understood) especially when patients require to be flown as close to sea level as possibe due sucking chest wounds and FUBAR type injuries. This currently would be difficult at night given the current rules and regs for flight at LSALTS etc.

So my question to the greater aviation RWcommunity is who is going to strap on the 3 piece suit and sell the capability to CASA from a EMS life saving perspective. Vic Pol have been successful to date with NVG trial (not sure if air ambulance was included), and the folks at Adelaide on the Aust Helicopters contracts are rumoured to be looking at raising a NVG capability for EMS, Pol air work etc, which is why 90% of their last recruitment drive was ex mil NVG rated pilots.

Maybe its time to hang up the nomex and strap on the 3 piece suit, NVG/NVD would logically be the next step for EMS assuming the TRG is conducted appropriately and the ops manual caters for items like storage and security and ongoing check and Trg.

Hmmmmmmmm

Your thoughts Pruners????

Max

:cool:

Bertie Thruster

20th Apr 2006, 11:12

No use to me. (E. coast UK HEMS)

VTA

20th Apr 2006, 14:16

helmet fire

21st Apr 2006, 01:26

max,

All help welcome! Lose the nomex, adopt the three peice suit and go for it!!

So far only clocking over the 14 year mark to get them going against the best efforts of the civil aviation SAFETY authority! Been done succesfully in EMS over seas for 15 years plus. US has more than 30 EMS providers doing the NVG thing. Kiwis are looking at restricting night scene response to NVG aircraft only (after 12 months of NVG ops).

What is your suggestion?

Ring Mick Haxell at CASA on 131757 and discuss the options with him.

The hopes of the industry are with you Luke..........

maxeemum

21st Apr 2006, 06:41

Hey Helmut,

Yes I have heard of the contact you have listed, and if I'm right very light on for making "D's" in the NVG Dept. Not sure if the guy even flew with the full face 5's from last century. Most likely the good old T-Aid, SLS, Bardic type of dude.

The world has turned a zillion times since those days and we are now up to very reliable tubes with better than the ANVIS-6 visual acuity and depth perception that you and I trained on.

I can't see what the hold up is given the amount of NVG experinece in the market place right now. AS long as the TRG was conducted appropriately by an accredited TRG organisation with ISO-9000 compliance etc can't see the huge drama. I suspect that the insurance costs would/could be prohibitive however limited release of the NVG capabability to operators that proved they can hack it in their AOC would stop the back yard operators from tarnishing the right of passage. Have many mates in EMS that are sick and tired of the operation being more complex than it has to be due no NVG. The Black hole and Sea Level patient transfer arguements are nearly arguement enough to get the goggs in service.

Surely we are nearly there with the solution and folks like Mick are only making descisions based on their corporate knowledge? not descisons that are limiting and stalling the value of the capability.

Hmmmmm

:oh:

trapezoid

21st Apr 2006, 06:56

Max,

Mick Haxell was CO 5SQN RAAF in the early 80s and introduced gen III ANVIS into ADF operations. We were probably about 10 !!

I'm sure perceived reluctance to endorse NVG is more likely due process through absolutely unimaginable Canberra bureacracy.

regards,

T

maxeemum

21st Apr 2006, 07:21

Thanks Trap. If thats the case I will remove both feet from my mouth and continue the thread better informed.

If what you say is true, then CASA should have enough info to make a well informed descision and get the ball rolling. NVG/NVD well managed and utilised by well trained crews means a much safer patient Transfer and safer night apps to unlit areas. I can understand the reluctance to approve all commers, however AOC's should be limited to organisations that can prove they can safely manage the capability and conduct appropriate on going check and TRG.

Surely with EMS over seas operators having used the capability for some time now Oz could see their way to CASA approvals in the not too distant future.

Seems like a waste of current technolgies and missions being more complex than they need to be?

Max

:ok:

Revolutionary

21st Apr 2006, 15:13

Sooo Bertie the sun never sets in the Eastern UK then? Aren't you lucky. The rest of us will take the NVG's though, thankyouverymuch.

jackwoelfel

21st Apr 2006, 15:53

I've spent 8 years flying OH58Ds with ANVIS-6s and have scared myself a few times. Hell of a lot better than scaring yourself without 'em. My hats off to the EMS guys doing the job without. Now that the resources and training standards are there from so many organizations, there's no reason mission dependent roles should be without a valuable resource. Pilots like PPRuNers and PHPA members should provide the voice to break through the barriers created by a bunch of old suits who lost their medical and aren't willing to let the next generation do their job efficiently and safely.

SASless

21st Apr 2006, 16:06

Maxee dear friend.....

NVG/NVD would logically be the next step for EMS

You defeat your own point by your proposition.

Since when have the regulatory agencies ever used such a unique and innovative approach to any situation?:{

Bertie Thruster

21st Apr 2006, 16:30

Day only Revolutionary. Nights too dangerous!

Revolutionary

22nd Apr 2006, 14:41

Aaaaah okay. Nights too dangerous indeed. We've been using our goggles for almost a year now in Arizona, over mostly rural and sometimes mountainous terrain. I never thought I would fall in love at my age with a tiny, grainy monochromatic TV tube that is, literally, a pain in the neck sometimes, but here I am with butterflies in my stomach whenever I think about her.

NASUS

23rd Apr 2006, 02:22

Vic Pol have been successful to date with NVG trial (not sure if air ambulance was included),

Vic Pol included all of it's core functions, Police ops, SAR and EMS in the Trial. If you would like the Post Trial report to read send me a message and I'll send you a link to download it.

Where is VPAW with NVG's? The only thing holding them back is the Cockpit Mod which has been a works in progress since last September when the initial cockpit survey was done by Oxley Avionics and BAe. The rest is in the bag, HOM done, ground School PP lessons done, CASA ready to sign off IAW with CMI once cockpit is done, NVG instructor in house. Then flight training will commence and once non ex-military crews are competent and proficient enough ops use will start. Ex-mil NVG pilots will of course be ready after refresher.

New VPAW commercial tender for aircraft and maintenance to commence next year specifies that contractor must make all VPAW acft NVG compatible. This is the state of play for VPAW at the moment. VPAW does not want to procrastinate and argue any further, just do it once and for all!

topendtorque

24th Apr 2006, 04:05

How many patients % wise have to be transported as near to sea level as possible. Does the med profession stipulate max ROC for critical atmospheric pressure or do they just say it is desirable to fly ‘sucking hole’ patients etc. close to sea level?

It could be that a density alt change rate of 300 FPM (say) is quite ok up to a designated density altitude (at or above LSALT) for that very small % of patients.

Have they ever quantified relationships between atmospheric and different combinations of systolic/diastolic pressures?

Given that if a patient is picked up in the OZ populated coastal fringes where most of the work happens, the machine is hardly going to bore holes in rising terrain to keep a low ambient deck pressure or climb very high unless the patient pick up spot is up in the hinterland.

Does the medical and aviation regulatory professions take into consideration the fact that at night, when NVG’s are required, there will be in most places in OZ a ten degree downward shift in temp and therefore much less density altitude than what they might be thinking of as in daylight hours.

I know that every time I have been asked to make sure the pilot (FW or RW) flies at a low altitude I have asked in return, would height xxxx be acceptable and never was my request able to be quantified.

Every time when asked that I made a point of asking the pilot upon his return “was there any change in the patient when you arrived at altitude xxxx?” They always have said no and such was noted in the company daily diary.

Would it be right to say that in rotary EMS work the only requirement for NVG and the encompassing regs is when the machine is to fly below LSALT on app/dep a remote pick up site?

It may be that there is a whole lot of hype and unnecessary regs bogging down the introduction of these procedures.

Surveillance work, different and a multitude of different skills/quals are perhaps required, no questions.

solidity

26th Apr 2006, 00:00

"nil bastido carborundum" Maxee!
:cool:

maxeemum

26th Apr 2006, 00:58

I suspect there are no absolutes when it comes to AVMED, as is the same when it comes to Aviation. Concepts are important. If the pressure decreases with altitude (WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE) then staying as low as safely possible is beneficial when it comes to having holes in your body that leak bodily fluids out board. Many car accidents result in lacerations cuts and holes etc so % wise there are large numbers of folks with holes in them when they are being transported by air. Transport by air rather than road is generally organised for the speed factor. Having to climb up/down to LSALT and let down at the other end adds t++++ (timings plus) to your mission and hence the speed factor is not as speedy as it could/should be.

As far as the DA being lower at night than day, this only makes the machine perform better (more bernoulis) not the patient. The patient is still subject to Press varies proportionally with height. As far as agencies challenging what altitude is acceptable to be flown at, they won't as the Aviatior is supposed to be the subject matter expert and hence advise what is a good compramise for flight safety vs patient transfer. Hence most non aviator folks will be happy with what is offered.

If NVG allow you as the PIC to fly below LSALT at night and hence lower than when you are unaided, then you are presenting the patient at the other end (Hospital facility) in potentially a more stable position so the dudes in the white suits can perform their duties. Enough Said.

The black hole night approach, manoeuvring and departing an unlit area is easier/safer to fly with the addition of NVG and that alone may be enough to tip the scales away from night unaided ops.

At present other EMS operations over seas have and use NVG with all the rules and regs in place, so why not OZ?

Max

:rolleyes:

solidity

26th Apr 2006, 01:47

The use of NVG would/will enhance all types of operations in many ways too numerous to list here. They simply make the critical phases of any flight so much safer.

Recent converts frequently comment that "I don't know how we did it without them" and "I can't believe how much I didn't see."
The wheel will turn and the luddites will eventually be forced to come on board.

Sol

:cool:

helmet fire

26th Apr 2006, 02:03

So many issues, so little time!

Traps: you forgot to mention that Mick Haxell is also a Master Aviator in the pilot's guild, one of very few helicopter pilots to attain that award.
I am intrested in your other comment that NVG reluctance was due "more likely" to paperwork bureaucracy. More likely than what?

TopETQ and Max: low altitude issues are of little relevance to the overall push for NVG, and the statistics and technical aspects are a red herring: though beneficial to the poor ba5tard with the pnuemathorax as they so demonstrably are. NVG are primarliy for safety.
As a secondary, the EMS helicopter essentially justifies itself in only three ways:
1. Speed. Speed of response, speed of search, speed of transport, etc.
2. Access. Ability to access patients that no other vehicle can, or could practically access, to insert medical aid, search remote/rugged/offshore areas, and provide extraction, etc.
3. Concentrate Assets (force multiplier). Ability to bring higher level care/equipment/personnel to patient/incident.

NVG positively impact on all these aspects. It increases speed by reducing planning requirements significantly, reduces need for laborious night-sun approach and landings, reduces spiral climbs for terrain avoidance, dramatically increases speed of locating patients at night, etc, etc, etc. It increases access by safely enabling remote area night seraches (which can be done now, just not efficiently or with low risk). Lastly, the improved speed and access enables asset concentration at night with significantly less risk.

But remember: the number one reason is safety.

There is currently NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to strapping the goggs on right now and flying as long as you adhere to the current rules and regs. There is a Compiance Management Instruction (CMI) out that you can adhere to that allows you to gain the real benefits of NVG and use them as if you were on NVG rather than using them as if you didnt have them at all. Thanks to Mike Tavcar and the Victorian Police Airwing (VPAW).

The whole OZ industry will benefit from the labours of Tavcar and VPAW. Do a search and look up these names with NVG, and particularly the trial that NASUS mentions.

Oz lags the world by YEARS in getting over the fact that not only gifted ex military pilots are good enought to fly NVG safely. Hopefully VPAW will show us what the world has been trying to show us for 15 years.

Cyclic Hotline

26th Apr 2006, 05:42

Contact "STARS" EMS in Calgary, Alberta, Canada...They have been certified to use NVG's for a year or so now on their Bk117's and have set the standard in North America for civillian NVG operations. They are also now approved to use them in the mountains..Miles Mozel is the Chief Pilot...

FAA approved Part 135 NVG operations started in 1999. There are a large number of NVG operators in the US and I hardly think that STARS has set the standard for North America. Maybe Canada?

If anyone is serious about the application and regulatory approvals for this type of operation, they will not go far wrong in talking to Aviation Specialties Unlimited. (http://www.asu-nvg.com/asu-night-vision-training.htm)

NASUS

27th Apr 2006, 00:41

Helmet fire,

Yep Mike T did start the NVG project back in mid 90's and it is a shame that it has taken this long to even get this far, which by the way is still not there yet. I know the MT tried to get somewhere with Haxell who on the surface sympathised with the NVG cause but did substantially nothing to further it. Others, like Greg Olssen and the HAA have in recent years also taken on the battle to further the NVG cause for the benefit of all. It was only after the VPAW NVG Trial, now almost 4 years ago, that things started to move because of an excellent VIC/TAS CASA Team leader who got off his backside and did something positive to see the Trial start and the VPAW application proceed. Thankfully CASA people like Beasy & Anderson are in the CASA system who believe in progressing not stagnating.

I hope that Olssen,the HAA and others continue to lobby strongly for NVGs but I also hope they do not get to influenced by operators who want a cheap fix and FAA rules, which are not necessarily world's best practice.

If you think training is expensive try having an accident.....

helmet fire

27th Apr 2006, 02:51

NASUS: hear, hear! I agree with much of what you say.

I want to pick up your comment re the FAA rules and "world's best practice". World's best practice is unfortunately subjective terminology because it means so many different things to so many different people. We are balancing the significantly increased safety represented by the adoption of NVG versus the cost of introducing the capability. If you make the capability so expensive to introduce, or the rules so restrictive, then few get to attain the desired outcome of a safer night flying method. Conversly, if you adopt ridiculous minimums to ensure the capability is cheap, you create more accidents because the operators are unaware of the limitations.

World's best practice is a throwaway line to articulate this balance. Resource rich operators invariably come up with a different answer than do resource poor ones, and NVG is no different. During the industry consultation phases of the HAA push for NVG there were operators and individuals who made arguements for a 10 hour pilot training courses, 8 hours for crewmen, full military style cockpit mods of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and hours and hours of ICUS before command. Then there were others who argued for NVG to be an endorsement on your night rating like a NDB or VOR. A lap around the block and box ticked, a cockpit mod costing $2000 (yes there is one flying), and lets get on with it. Everyone who presented an arguement claimed it as world's best practice - but who is right?

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded it's Aviation Research Report B2004/0152 – Night Vision Goggles in Civil Helicopter Operations by saying: “NVG’s have the potential to enhance safety but risk mitigation is required by ensuring a comprehensive implementation package AND properly resourcing the capability in terms of equipment and training.”
Though they too failed to quantify what "properly" and "comprehensive" actually meant. Nevertheless, it is an excellent report into the capabilities and limitations of NVG and the HAA used it to have a stab at creating Australian rules.

That brings us to the FAA rules. Years ago (1994 ish I think) the FAA comissioned an not-for-profit organisation to examine the adoption of an appropriate set of rules for NVG flight. That organisation (the RTCA)subsequently formed Standing Committee 196 (SC-196) and invited representatives from all over the world - including incidently, Mick Haxell from Australia (amongst others) and Mike Atwood from Aviation Specialties Unlimited (see link above) essentially steered the committee. I believe pprune's JimL was also there. SC-196 created and published a number of standards documents that have essentially become the international standard for NVG use - or at least the starting point.

This then begs the question - has this international group of subject matter experts got it so wrong? Or could they be said to have created "world's best practice"?

In accordance with the CASA CEO stated vision of adopting established international practices unless a safety case prohibts it, finding middle ground in the Oz industry views, PLUS recognising that SC-196 might have got it right, the HAA went down that line. So did the FAA.

The HAA "Australianised" it a bit: for example few other countries have a night LSALT like Oz (and the SC-196 does not refer to any) and tightened up some of the definitions in response to industry concerns - such as pilot flight training will be a min of "5 hours NVG flight time", not just "5 hours", and instrument profficiency must be demonstrated prior to commencement of the course.

Have the HAA got it that wrong?

Your last comment was: If you think training is expensive try having an accident.....
What about Malborough and Mackay? 8 fatalities that I contend would have been prevented if NVG were in use. 8 fatalities that have occured since the SC-196 pointed the way forward. 8 fatalities that have occurred while CASA have tossed and turned over the meaning of "world's best practice" without resolution. How does that sit with your quote?

And if it was not for Tavcar, Beasey, Anderson (you named him above, I am not sure what role he played) VPAW,and now Byron, I shudder to think where development would be.

maxeemum

27th Apr 2006, 04:52

Ah yes "Sleasy Beasy" a man after my own heart. Not sure what Greg is up to these days and YES its about time SH-T happend with respect to capability.

With any luck VPAW will be seen as the appropriate model from which other templates will follow.

CASA-Get on with it!

:cool:

helmet fire

27th Apr 2006, 05:13

Rest assured Max, Greg, Dave Donaldson, Dan Tyler, Mike de Winton, Tony Wood,and Brendon Balin are still chipping away. Efforts also from Peter Cook, Brett Knowles, and Mark Morrison.

Curious though, why would you choose the VPAW model over the SC-196 model?

NASUS

27th Apr 2006, 11:23

Helmet fire,

I hear what you say...as an ex mil NVG instructor pilot I feel that there are 2 extremes that I do not feel comfortable with; what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high, especially for left hand seat NVG crewperson. On the other hand what the HAA propose of 5 hours only (HAA model) for pilot training is far too low. Somewhere in the middle would be more appropriate. 5 hours could be done in just two nights...and then the pilot is let loose PIC! Not sure if I feel comfortable with this I'm afraid. Has this pilot experienced different environmental conditions in those two nights? Has that pilot done all of his training, in those two nights, with a full moon and clear Wx? Am I missing something here?

Operators don't seem to complain to CASA much about having to pay for a 10 hour endorsement on a medium twin, just accept it, especially for pilots who have thousands of hours on twins yet they have a financial problem with paying out for more than 5 hours NVG for pilots who have never touched NVGs and may only have very little unaided night hours?? Strange! I would be more comfortable teaching NVG in the civil context over a 15 hour period, 5 hours dual and 10 hours ICUS say! 4 -5 hours for a non flying left hand seat NVG crewperson is more than enough. I know the FAA are saying 5 hours and that's it but I'm certainly not comfortable with releasing an NVG 'newby' pilot with those hours PIC! Sorry but that's how I feel.

maxeemum

27th Apr 2006, 12:00

Helmut,

VPAW only to say that it is happening in our own back yard and CASA has formed a relationship that recognises their AOC. Better to cut and paste (I mean this tounge in cheek) from your own lap top than some one elses.

Mike De Winton-Good bloke, Allo to Mike

Max

:)

helmet fire

28th Apr 2006, 01:06

Max,
I understand the sentiment, but by cutting and pasting the VPAW model, you are importing rules and requirements that aare suited to their environment, not necessarily yours. And that may be fine for your operation, but it will not suit others.

NASUS, you asked: Am I missing something here?

Ummm….only since you asked – yes! Ring up one of the guys listed and get the draft!!

The HAA model is a competency based system in accordance with the Australian training system. Unlike the VPAW or even the SC-196 model, it defines the competency outcome of the graduate pilot or crewman, and then breaks down those competencies into the sorties. Experience, however, is a valuable part of the aviation training system that is not really taken into account by competency-based systems. Recognising this, 5 hours was chosen IAW the international standards of SC-196. A “feeling” or being “uncomfortable” about 5 hours is not considered a sufficient safety case to ignore what the international standard is, especially until you begin to break it down into competencies and see how long it takes to achieve those competencies.

Unlike your Mil experience, civ NVG students will not only be the day 1 types. Some of them will show up with 20 years of IFR EMS, thousands of hours on type, more than 1000 hours of night and more than 1000 hours of IFR. Do you really “feel” that this guy will require more than 5 hours to fly from A to B with a GPS NB 500ft, descend, conduct a pad recce and approach and land on NVG? Note that other competencies such as aided winching or rapelling require more traininig.

Now if you are Mil, and a day 1 pilot, I agree with more traininig. But in that very same situation I had 10 hours instruction and came out a Black Hawk NVG Formation captain, doing time on target (no GPS) at 50 ft into non recce’d pads and dust landings. And I am not a good pilot. That’s what 10 hours gave us. Newby civ pilots will also require more hours, but that will be determined by their ability to achieve the competencies, not tick and flick an hours box. Your example of the twin training is exactly my point.

In order to further align the proposed system with SC-196, the HAA model specifies that you must have more than 250 hours total before training, have a NVFR rating with at least 20 hours night, 10 of which Are post a night rating, 5 in the last 3 months. If you have an instrument rating, you are sweet. If not, you have to complete at least a MINMUM of 1.5 hours night IFR (without a visible horizon) training with a night and IFR instructor, to achieve competency in U/A and Inadvertent IMC (IIMC) recovery to VFR flight before training.

Once on the course, you must do it in no less than 5 flights (busy 2 days I think), and one flight must be conducted in low illumination on in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting. And you must achieve all the competencies. A similar sorry for crewmen who have a 2 hour course.

The VPAW model suits VPAW, but it does not hope to cover the variety of operations, operators and pilot types that will be doing training. The SC-196 system did try to cover those.

As for companies letting the newby NVG pilot go PIC straight after, advice of which is also covered in the proposed CAAP, but essentially it is up to the Operator (and they are required to consider this issue), not CASA. What is your safety case to prohibit this international standard?

Any of that make you feel a little more comfortable?

Delta Torque

28th Apr 2006, 12:13

I agree with NASUS wholeheartedly...

Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble..NVGs are not just a strap on and go option...

A whole lot of early NVG accidents US/UK provide the basis for the current Mil Spec....why re invent the wheel, Greg?

Goggle Up!

helmet fire

28th Apr 2006, 21:49

Um, I think NASUS actualy said about the VPAW (CASA CMI) model was:
what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high
and then mentioned the 5 hours of the HAA model as at the other end of the spectrum. I tried to demonstrate that model is a lot more than just 5 hours of NVG and away you go. Which bit of the HAA model troubles you, Delta? Lets talk specifics, not just general degradation of a model I am sure you are intimate with. You are aren't you?

Because you are so well informed, let me take the time to help you out a bit: the mil spec and VPAW models are very different.
What part of the HAA model says "strap them on and go"? Just a tad condescending and emotive, n'est pas?
And if you soooooo dont want to re-invent the wheel, that rules the VPAW model right out. It is not mil spec, and it is not SC-196. The HAA model is based on.....actually read all about this point above - it has been made enough times.

Hopefully I have shown above that the HAA model is not that different from the VPAW model after all, and is competency driven. The VPAW CMI requires 8 hours, (not 8 hours of NVG flight), and includes mission training too. It does not define competency outcomes. The VPAW model was used extensively in the development of the HAA model, and if you look back through the thread you will see that I praise the VPAW efforts as the van-guard of NVG in Oz. I stand by that praise.

But some one needs to mount a safety case as to why we should not adopt the international standard. A safety case is more than a gut feeling. Pointing to an unknown, unquantifiable number of "early" accidents is not a safety case. Delta, over to you to substantiate those claims.
And if someone can, now is the time we need to hear it before the rules are finalised in Oz. We need input, and we need experiences. No good pooh poohing the cake if you have not helped to bake it.

In fact I am aware of only two civ NVG accidents in the US/UK (or the world for that matter), but only one that was being operated IAW the FAA/International standards.
1. Often mistakenly quoted here was a US public use police op where a 500 hour pilot took off at night in fog and flew over water. Accident investigators failed to confirm if he was on NVG or not. BUT....Public Use aare not subject to the FAA rules, and this op did not comply with them in any way, including no documented traaininig course, no instrument profficiency, etc, etc, etc.
2. a squirrel that went in after alleged pilot disorientation. he goggled up, and degoggled during the disorientation recovery (don't remember thhat bit in the traaining), and used the goggles at the bottom to avoid losing his own life.
Meanwhile, how many have died from CFIT without the NVG?
Rega in Switzerland have been doing NVG for 15 years WITHOUT INCIDENT. And their training regimeis....? A clue: it is less restrictiive than the HAA model, and they operate in a slightly more adverse environment, don't you think?

Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?
I know what the kiwis are thinking right now...:}
Any guesses?

Goggle up? absolutely.:ok:

w_ocker

28th Apr 2006, 23:14

...first to qualify my comments, I'm ex-mil, NVG qual'ed now EMS SPIFR 24 hour ops in mountainous, freezing-level environment (Australian) - Jeeze, talk about outing yourself -
I agree with the model Helmut Fire is refering to for Aust Ops, but only after reading his comments above.
I too at first thought that 5 hours gog trg is way too few to command in this challenging environment (won't comment on non-EMS as I don't feel I have the experience to claim that right). But, to paraphrase some of his comments, this training is competency based, so if the trainee isnt up to speed on the prescribed manoeuvres and knowledge, he wont get the tick in the box.
I also strongly agree with the point that this will be training for crew already experienced in the environment in which they are to opperate . That environment doesnt involve anything like low level tac nav time on target formation in an actively hostile environment. Yes the EMS role takes us potentially into difficult and dangerous situations, but in my operation and all that I know of, it is here where the EMS crew use their experience and knowledge to avoid actual risk, be that by using certain techniques/training/equipment(NVG?), or by turning down the job outright. This will not change with the application of NVG methods.
I am comfortable with the idea of 5 NVG hours training for experienced opperators who will only be allowed to opperate NVG once they prove they are competent.
I'm glad to hear that ops such as winch will require extra training. It sounds like the basic qual will allow us to get airbourne, cruise (say what you like about medical requirements for low level, if I can stay low, avoid ice, decrease the flight time, avoid traffic, help the patient, and have the advantage of always seeing where I am going to land if I or the patient have an emergency), locate and land without ever losing visual touch with obstacles. Simple, safe, smart.
HAA and the guys pushing this deserve our full support and thanks, and the future of our industry deserves our input. From experience, this isnt a closed shop, the guys appreciate all the industry input they can get.
Keep this thread going. It's a great way to get the message out there, and to gather industry/individual input.
W

Delta Torque

29th Apr 2006, 01:20

I didn't 'out' you mate, you 'outed' yourself! :) I mentioned your name because I imagined you would be reading the thread.....

Your response was articulate and well reasoned, and I believe that we both have the same aims in mind...

NASUS makes the point regarding the CMI setting too high a standard, but I think he was referring to the non flying NVG crewmember....

The UK/US accidents I refer to are not civilian...I am talking about the many military accidents which occurred as people started discovering some of the pitfalls in the (then) emerging technology...the weather traps, the new range of illusions, the need for new cockpit ergonomics and crew protocols...these are the things which served to define the 'mil spec'.

I don't think the VPAW's stance is about being exclusive, I firmly believe that the best fallback from a degraded or failed NVG situation is an instant reversion to IFR...and IFR in a well equipped IFR cockpit..it's all about risk mitigation..

Competency based training has its merits...but with NVG, it is important to expose the pilot to the full range of operating conditions..and it may not be possible to achieve this over a short training period.

(sips coffee,....thinks) I make the analogy of deck landing qualifications in the military (because NVG ops in Oz are still confined to the military) You would have probably qualified in Moreton Bay, or some relatively benign location. Remember when you first tried the same procedure,landing on the same ship at sea? You would have found it a little different, to say the least!

NVGs will save lives in Australia...we both know that...but they can bite even the well trained.. you know that too.... What experience level and aircraft capablity was on board 108, when it made its unscheduled (and very lucky) landing on top of a mountain in ET? Fair enough, you say...we don't intend to conduct those sort of ops...I agree...

But it is a contemporary example of a well trained crew in a very capable and sophisticated aircraft, coming unstuck in an NVG/bad weather combination...

Dampen down that fire a tad, helmet...we are both on the same side...:)

Just from different schools.....(of thought)

Happy landings, old friend!

P.S. Your command of French is impressive, to say the least...:ok:

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 02:54

Fair enough. Except for the French bit!! Mon Dieu.

Sorry for the fire, but it has been a long road that is not over yet.

I will post the pilot competency statements tonight and that may help you come to terms with the proposal. As I said above, all input to the current development is welcome, but it really helps if the current standards are well understood before-hand as comments linking the HAA and SC-196 models to a strap on and go scenario are both provocative and wide of the mark: resulting in occaisional fire from mein helmet!!! As w'ocker says, most of those exposed to the actual detail of the model come to agree with the general thrust.

No course of training will expose you to a large variety of conditions, and I hear your concerns. As a direct result of that very issue, the HAA model added to the SC-196 requirements by having to have a sortie completed with low illumination in an area devoid of surroundiing cultural lights. If you are trying to squeeze all your training into two days, then most of your course will be done like that. As for a variety of weather and terrain, that sort of supervision will be an operator responsibility, as it is now.

The ET event is not applicable really (tac formation to very low weather limitations). But your IFR points have also been heavily considered by both the SC-196 and the HAA models. In short, the HAA model is proposing that where no IFR rating/aircraft is used, the min wx is NVFR over the entire route too NVFR LSALT levels. Qualification competencies also include a demonstrated IIMC recovery.

Delta Torque

29th Apr 2006, 04:26

Helmet/Hellfire,

I touch base with the hard working NASUS from time to time, and I am familiar with the proposals on the table.

At the risk of drawing fire from itinerant jet ranger drivers, I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops...and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments.

At the additional risk of 'playing the man', look at yourself, and Daff, and Mike A, et al. You are all highly experienced ex military pilots, who have had the benefit of a thorough and extremely expensive training course, followed by a long period of consolidation, followed by years of experience, during which you would have seen a vast array of NVG environments. Have you forgotten how difficult it was during the first couple of hours? And given you had a crew of four?

You can't buy experience, nor can the average operator afford to buy the sort of equipment you have been fortunate enough to fly...

As I previously mentioned, these environments are not what we envisage for civil ops, but it doesn't take much to move from a benign cockpit situation to a nasty one. You've been there...we all have...

Why do you think companies like IT* don't want to sell this equipment to anyone but 'big chopper' law enforcement and EMS organisations?

I acknowledge and applaud your efforts so far...but there is a way to go yet, and I think the first transition from military to civil ops should mirror the former as much as possible.

Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...

Cheers...

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 11:25

Mate, I appologise for the fire and you come back with Helmetfire/Hellfire.
Ok then.
I am familiar with the proposals on the table
But you think the VPAW model is the mil spec....Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble
sounds like you are well on top of it.

I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops
If you have a safety case to back up this thought, now is the time to share as they are getting close to finalising the standards.
Also, do I really need to explain the relationship between "average pilot" and competency based training?

and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments
And the VPAW solution is what?
When I went through in 1990 or 91, we did our entire course, 10 hours of it, in two weeks in the same Townsville training area. Hardly meets your proposition, how about you?
Environmental conditions vary so much across bases, a one rule fits all is ridiculous. Learning out at Mataranka in the dry is going to be a challenge if you require all sorts of different conditions. So it is left to the operator to supervise the transition into their environment. As it should be. Do you have a superior suggestion?

I did get a 'phone call today with a suggestion that we post a bit of the HAA stuff to get the info out there, so I will do that in response to any questions or issues, starting with the pilot stuff posted below. But before I do, Delta has asked of the system: Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...
Again, I am proposing that we accept that 15 years of safe civil ops meets this measure. And yet again I ask: Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?

I am still keen on hearing from Delta why 5 hours is not enough, or why the SC-196 standards are defective. That is; keen to hear a safety case rather than a feeling, or simply because thats how we did it when we were military.

Here is the current proposal for the pilot training for initial qual.

Training Competency Outcome of this course: Perform the duties of an an NVG Pilot to safely and effectively take off, fly and navigate en-route across country, and descend, reconnoitre and land or hover to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG.
Minimum Qualifications prior to commencing NVG training
Before commencing NVG training leading to the award of an NVG qualification, the trainee pilot must , as a minimum, have the following:
a. Hold at a current Commercial Helicopter Pilot licence or Air Transport Helicopter licence; and
b. Hold a current night VFR rating for helicopters; and
c. Have logged at least 250 hours of aeronautical experience as a helicopter pilot of which no more than 50 can be in an approved flight simulator representative of the aircraft category that will be used for NVG operations; and
d. Be appropriately endorsed on the aircraft type intended for training; and
e. Have logged at least 10 hours of night (unaided) helicopter (not including training leading to the award of a NVFR rating), 5 of which are in the three months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating; and
f. Hold a current Instrument Rating or in the three months immediately prior to the commencement of training, undergo not less than 1.5 helicopter flight hours of dedicated dual night instrument training with an approved helicopter instrument instructor to achieve competency in unusual attitude recovery and inadvertent IMC recovery with sole reference to the aircraft’s instruments.
g. Pilots are to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences.
Training Intent
Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 5 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.

NVG Pilot Training is a competency based system with a prescribed minimum of 5 hours NVG Flight time. The minimum is set with the intent of specifying the minimum training an experienced night/IFR pilot would require to achieve basic competencies. Therefore, where pilots have low night, IFR or total helicopter time, these minimums shall be increased.

The intent is that Operators (as opposed to the Authority) will build extra requirements into training syllabi to satisfy any advanced operational sequences particular to their operation, such as specialised coastal rescue, winch, rappel, etc , and are a component of risk management when seeking variation on the operational guidelines established in this CAAP. As another example, Operators may feel a progression through a period of ICUS is suitable to their operation, and should institute those requirements overlaid on these minimums. Such increases are not limited to the flight sequences, but may also be desired in the ground training phases.

With the exception of inadvertent IMC recovery, and loss of visual reference procedures, training may be conducted in an approved NVG flight simulator. Notwithstanding the minimum flight time, proficiency must be demonstrated in at least the following subjects:
a. Preparation and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for NVG flights and operations.
b. Preflight preparation of NVGs, planning considerations, and appropriate route selection for NVG flights and operations.
c. Correct piloting techniques (during normal, abnormal, and simulated emergency aircraft operations) whilst using NVGs during the take off, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight.
d. Normal, abnormal and emergency operations of the NVGs during flight.
e. In flight simulated Inadvertent IMC recovery to VMC with sole reference to the aircraft instruments. Non instrument rated pilots require training additional to the 5 hours in order to demonstrate instrument proficiency.
f. Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off.
g. Sound crew co-ordination.

These competencies can be achieved in an example of a qualification competency evaluation that reads:
As a minimum, trainee to demonstrate competency in:
1. Mission planning/flight planning for the flight.
2. Determining the serviceability of NVIS equipment, including aircraft components.
3. Performing cockpit drills including switch selection and ‘Goggle/de-goggle” procedure.
4. Performing hover, taxi and transit procedures.
5. Performing crew resource management appropriate to NVIS operations.
6. Performing NVIS practice malfunctions and emergency procedures.
7. Performing NVIS departure and navigation.
8. Performing circuit operations to unlit confined areas located in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
9. Performing Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off .
10. Perform Inadvertent IMC penetration procedures and safe recovery to VFR flight.
11. Perform a selection of practice aircraft emergency procedures, under NVIS conditions, applicable to the aircraft type.

Note that these standards are the current proposal at the working group level. They are not a finalised position, and are subject to change.
All safety cases pointing out deficiencies in the above are invited.

CYHeli

29th Apr 2006, 15:02

Well done Helmet Fire. Good post and it sets the scene for what is being discussed.
Did this make it to a NPRM (or similar) for public discussion?

robsrich

29th Apr 2006, 21:49

I know how much you have all devoted to this frustrating project over the years. The others who have helped, and stayed with you, when CASA had a flat tyre are also deserving of a pat on the back.

This project was first pushed by a group of which I was a member in 1993. At that time I was an Army Reserve instructor using NVG. I was told by CASA that it was a low priority - lacking expertise within the regulator.

The industry members who have fought so hard to run with the ball in Australia need to be recognised. You can image how they must feel when NZ, with their limited NZCAA resources, got the project underway, a couple years ahead of us - when it was our launch!

They have used the current US model (and US advisors under contract). It seems to be working.

Even today, CASA are advising industry that the earliest this will be resolved will be mid-year. So hopefully, we will see some progress - as this is only a few months away.

I hope the CASA move to Brisabne, and new restructuring, and the spilling of the 65 technical positions, will not distract from this important safety issue.

Well done guys.......if you had a dollar for every hour you spent finding a workable paper .... then you would be "millionaires".

And you are volunteers too!

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 21:59

G'day CYHeli,
The original document was directed by the CEO's office of CASA to be a CAAP (or possibly a revised CMI) for NVG. Therefore, the document evolved through less formal public input than the NPRM process. It was widely circulated through the HAA to everyone that attended either of the HAA conferences, and then on to all industry people that had an email contact available, including through to NZ. Comment was recieved and collated, a final draft compiled, and this was distributed, discussed, ammended, and finally ratified by 60 odd people at the May 2005 night conference. A published complete paper was sent to CASA in a outcomes based CMI format by July 2005 as promised, with publication of the CAAP comitted to by CASA of 1st September 2005.

We are still going through the process to publication now. That is not to say comment has finished, but it is late in the picture and thus my call for a demonstrated or evidentiary safety case rather than just a "feeling" at this stage in the process. The NPRM was assesed by CASA as unecessary for a CAAP given the wide distribution and comment already recieved. That may change as CASA are now trying to change the format to a prescriptive CAO.

Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.

Delta Torque

30th Apr 2006, 00:44

Thanks for the reply..

'Hellfire' was firmly tongue in cheek...don't be so touchy...:eek:

I hear what you say, but I still think you are expecting too much of an outcome for the training you propose.... but these are only personal opinions, and time will tell.

Good to see Rob and others lending their support to this very important issue.

Cheers....

helmet fire

30th Apr 2006, 04:20

Delta, your humour is almost as well hidden as your evidence backing your contentions. In fact, if I have you pegged correctly, it was you that once told me opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one. Especially those who are as articulate as you. And I am no diifferent - I too have an arsehole and an opinion.

If you really don't mean offence, I suggest you review the tone of your responses. Posting the correct and intended emotion into the written word is difficult, and you can rectiify miss-understandings with clarity when you see it as not had the desired effect. If you want to. You know where to reach me and talk it through.

But I must say, I really take offence at your last remark: and time will tell
The last resort. Sounds like something we have heard at the working group meetings.
So, you have not constructively put forward a safety case or in fact any evidence that the proposal is flawed, but all is not lost: simply pop in a little parting shot just to show you know best, and just so you can say to the rest of the international industry who created this "I told you so, I knew best and you have it all wrong".

And you are right! Because if anyone has not yet made the leap, there IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE A NVG ACCIDENT. Same as there are day accidents (hold on, maybe we should not fly during the day), NVFR (lets stop doing this as well), and IFR (insert smart-arse comment here too.)

And when it does happen, we can forget all those lives saved because of the technology, and focus on the fact that "we were warned". Delta told us. There was no evidence for his position, but he just, ..well, he just knew the rest of the world was wrong. And see...he was right.

Just wait for the people to stand around the first smoking hole pointing with self justification. Where were they when Paddy smacked in at Malborough, or Andy off Mackay? When....etc, etc, etc.

I will try not to rise to any more of these baits.

I do stress again to anyone intrested, PLEASE put forward any safety case you have to alter the standards NOW before they become published. Any evidentary arguement. Any substantive, reasoned, factual issues at all. w-ocker, (f I have him pegged) actually took the time to do this over icing levels and his contention was adopted.

BTW, I am happy to post the other areas of the proposal if anyone is intrested, including crewman training, equipment levels, or whatever you are concerned or intrested in.

Thank you Rob for the tireless efforts you have put into the NVG issue. The industry owes you many beers.

Delta Torque

30th Apr 2006, 05:21

No, I don't think I was the fellow who made the remark about opinions and arseholes....but I would agree with that observation...I have a similar saying regarding 'advice'....that's my favourite, but nothing to do with this exchange!

But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....

The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...

Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!

And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...:{

If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim? :rolleyes:

It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....

Does that make me narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...

Does that make me wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..

Does that make me an...an..an.....ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!

Keep up the good work!

And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....

Cheers...

robsrich

30th Apr 2006, 21:53

Keep your eye on the ball!

A lot of young pilots today need our leadership, vision and guidance to see this project through.

Helmet Fire is right, we have talked enough. Unless a safety case exists to change things, then let us run with the ball - there is no perfectly round ball. (Even the earth is a bit suspect, with the odd out of shape bits.)

You can only do so many circuits during a confined area landing site recce ... otherwise you run out of gas?

Delta Torque

1st May 2006, 01:15

I hear what you are saying Rob...

The next few months will be interesting...

Cheers...

topendtorque

1st May 2006, 04:47

You guys are taking a god-awful long time to work out something very fundamental.

It has aready been talked about ad-lib and ad-nauseum in this thread. It is the mental bloc in CASA, the one that believes you only drink night time.

I - drink at night because I fly day time, my instructor, my God, his rules.

You - turn night into day with one of these u-beaut goggles.

Then- guess what? No rules to stop daytime drinking.

Surely- not all of CASA are wowsers?

Remedy - take them out all night googling,

At daylight - buy them a round or two,

They will then sleep – and look to do it all again - finish!

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 03:33

I remain able to post other proposed areas of the NVG stuff if anyone is interested.

MPT

2nd May 2006, 05:06

G'day hf,

I noticed that RB was present at the HAA night conference. Has any consideration been given to the use of NVG's in the area where most night hours are flown in Australia, i.e. marine pilot transfers. I had a long conversation with a couple of ex army guys a while back and they couldn't believe that these operations were carried out unaided. I suppose the cost of the gear would be a mitigating factor to its introduction.

Cheers,

MPT

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 05:33

G'day MPT. Yep, Ross has been one of those that has contributed by input and suggestions during the process, and is still making contributions.

The current HAA position ratified at the last meeting by 60 odd attendees was that since NVG are a safety device, all categories of night operations should have access to them. A safety case for restricting NVG to say just Police, or EMS, has yet to surface, the US allow all categories, and having 15 years of civ ops is considered enough of a trial period, hence the industry position.

CASA, understandably, would like the introduction of NVG to go slowly, and their current position is to restrict NVG to police/EMS/SAR/Marine Pilot Transfer (or MPT as if you didn't know:D ). This difference should be resolved in the next month or so, and I would see a compromise as being an initial restriction that is lifted over time as NVG use matures.

The cost of a cockpit is now between $20,000 and $110,000 AUS (or more) depending upon what sort of solution you want. Simple floodlighting on a single is $20K and up, through to an existing STC on a medium twin right up to a fully military covert style cockpit mod (no floodlighting, individual instruments modified, external lighting as well, etc) of well over the $100,000 mark. A factory option is the most expensive, with NVG compatiblility factory fitted on the AW-139 being rumoured to be as much as $300,000 US!

Current proposals covering the use of NVG in MPT and other over water ops reads (remember this is NOT the final draft: just the current proposal and a ratified industry position modified by CASA requirements):

Over water and Shipboard Operations.
Due to the difficulty of accurate height assessment when using NVG over water, Operators intending to allow such operations (including for operations to/from ships, vessels, small islands, platforms, etc) are to establish relevant procedures in the Operations Manual, including a risk management plan. Some of the risk factors that might be considered are (but should not be limited to):
• Illumination levels and hover references,
• Surface disturbance and/or floating objects,
• Hover Vs forward speed,
• Autopilot, auto hover functions and stability systems,
• Training and recency requirements,
• Landing site Lighting compatibility, movement and size, and/or
• Sea state and wind.

w_ocker

2nd May 2006, 22:48

A question for you HF. What is the skinny on NVG recency/currency requirements/ suggestions?

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 23:42

For currency/recency, we had to bridge a gap, or at least try to. The SC-196 came up with an "events" based currency/recency, an event being a take off or landing whilst being the sole manipulator of the controls. As this terminology and implementation was such a new concept, the industry rejected it in favour of a more traditional system based on hours. The last modification done was to recognise that NVG experience is valuable, like the point that Delta TQ was making, and we split currency/recency based on experience. This also aligns with the Oz Army who have tighter requirements on the more junior guys. It was then mapped around the IFR and NVFR 90 day cycle as a start point.

Note that you also have to be current/recent for the operation for NVFR (and IFR if that's what you are). Again the disclaimer: this is NOT the final draft: just the current proposal and a ratified industry position modified by CASA requirements.

NVG Pilots must meet the minimum following recency, or a NVG proficiency check flight will be required:

Less than 100 hours NVG Flight Time as a Pilot

NVG Flight time: 3 hours for command pilots, 1 hour for co-pilots in last 3 months OR proficiency check in last 3 months. 3 hours in 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.
NVG Proficiency Check: 6 monthly. Annually if over 100 hours NVG.
For Ops below 500ft AGL: 3 takeoffs, circuits and landings in last 3 months. In 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.
For ops to HLS other than a Standard HLS for NVG: 3 takeoffs, circuits and landings to an unlit HLS devoid of surrounding cultural lighting in 3 months – can be done unaided. An area is considered devoid of cultural lighting if, at 500 ft AGL, there is insufficient ground lights to maintain an unaided visible horizon. In 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.

NVG Aircrew Members must also meet the minimum following recency, or an NVG proficiency check flight will be required:

Less than 50 hours NVG Flight Time:
NVG Flight time: 2 hours in last 3 months OR proficiency check in last 3 months. @ hours in last 6 months if over 50 hours NVG.
NVG Proficiency Check: 6 monthly. Annually if over 50 hours NVG.
For ops (including winch or sling) to a HLS other than a Standard HLS for NVG: 2 NVG takeoffs, circuits and landings, to an unlit HLS devoid of surrounding cultural lighting in 3 months. An area is considered devoid of cultural lighting if, at 500 ft AGL, there is insufficient ground lights to maintain an unaided visible horizon. In 6 months for over 50 hours NVG.

These proposals come with the call to tailor the minimums to the operation, such that a non instrument rated operation may add IF currency, or you may choose to use the 100 hour reductions only with 100 hours PIC. This will be operator dependant.

helmet fire

10th May 2006, 05:29

I have recieved a few calls requesting the proposed crewman standards for NVG in Aus, and here they are. All comments welcome, but substantiated safety-case based ones especially welcome!

Delta TQ: did you have any specific comments on the pilot standards proposed above, other than insufficient hours? Do they make you feel any more comfortable with all the controls detailed?

Of considerable debate was the percieved need for Aircrew Members to have some sort of medical, and I would like some feedback on that issue from crewmen. As CASA has not yet licenced or controlled crewmen training, qualifications, duty times, etc the ratified industry position is as below: only those standards required by the operator need be met.

The PROPOSED Aircrewman Standards:
NVG Aircrew Member Instructor. It is recognised that there are currently no formal qualifications or licensing requirements in other legislation detailing the Aircrew Member. Until such formal recognition is achieved, operators who intend using a NVG Qualified Aircrew Member to fulfil the NVG minimum crew requirements shall ensure that the position and duties of an NVG Aircrew Member Instructor are formally recognised in their Operations Manual. The NVG Aircrew Member Instructor may be a pilot or Aircrew Member, but must meet the following minimum qualifications/experience:
i. Meet the minimum qualification requirements of an NVG Qualified Aircrew Member or NVG Qualified Pilot.
ii. Meet instructional experience, standards, and qualification requirements as stipulated in the Operations Manual for day and night (unaided) operations for the relevant crew position, and type of operation (i.e. observation, SAR, winch, or sling, etc).
iii. Have logged at least 20 hours of NVG Flight Time post a CASA recognised NVG qualification.

NVG Aircrew Member. Operators who intend using an Aircrew Member to fulfil the NVG minimum crew requirements shall ensure that the duties and position must be formally recognised in their Operations Manual. NVG Qualified Aircrew Members must meet the following minimum qualifications/experience:
i. Meet experience, standards, and qualification requirements as stipulated in the relevant Operations Manual for day and night (unaided) operations for the relevant crew position.
ii. Meets existing physical and medical standards prescribed by the operator’s Operations Manual.
iii. Have logged at least 50 hours flight time as an Aircrew Member post qualification.
iv. Have logged at least 10 hours night (unaided) flight time as an Aircrew Member, 5 hours of which must have been conducted in the 3 months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating.

NVG Aircrew Member (Helicopter) Flight Training – 2.0 hours minimum NVG flight time.
The intent is to achieve competency in an NVG Aircrew Member to safely and effectively assist an NVG Pilot during take off, flight and navigation en-route across country, and descent, reconnoitre and landing or hovering to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG. Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 2 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon away from significant cultural lighting.
A trainee NVG Aircrew Member must be NVFR current and recent prior to commencement of NVG training flights, and is to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences. Training may be conducted concurrent to NVG pilot training, however, due consideration should be given to time lost to individual trainees on the same flight.
It is recognised that many operators will have a requirement for the Aircrew Member to fulfil other duties outside the basic provision of scan sector observation such as aided winching, or cockpit duties, etc whilst under NVG. Those operators should build instructional sequences and time to these basic minimums to achieve those competencies.

Delta Torque

10th May 2006, 08:25

Yes, m8...

Certainly moving in the right direction...

What are your current cockpit and goggle specs?

Cheers...

Capt Under Pants

11th May 2006, 09:36

Have you all seen the latest Rotor & Wing on NVG and EVS (Enhanced Vision Systems)?

helmet fire

11th May 2006, 10:34

have not seen the R&W articles yet, thanks for the heads up.

Delta TQ: The tech specs currently prooposed are quite different from the industry ratified proposal, and this new position was adopted by the HAA members of the working group in response to the safety case put forward by the CASA members - the only safety case they have so far made.

note that no NVG are yet qualified under the TSO, but the standard basically requires Omnibus II or higher.

Here is the current proposal, and unlike other areas is essentially agreed to by both CASA and Industry members (well done Charles Lenarcic from CASA Airworthiness):

NVG Equipment Standard
The minimum NVG standard is that stipulated by FAA TSO C164 dated 30 September 2004, or a CASA approved equivalent in terms of resolution, acuity, gain and reliability.

Front seat crewmembers with flight control access using NVG must utilize an approved head mounting device for the NVG to enable “hands free” aided flight.

NVG Maintenance. All NVG used during NVG Flights shall be maintained, stored, and checked for serviceability prior to NVG flight in accordance with the manufacturers requirements and procedures.

Use of Dissimilar NVG. The pilot in command is to wear the highest level (in terms of resolution, gain, and acuity) of goggle where dissimilar types are used in the aircraft.

B]Aircraft NVG Compatible Lighting Standard [/B]

Before an aircraft can be used in NVG operations the Aircraft lighting systems are to be modified to be NVG Compatible. Unless a more suitable design can be demonstrated to the Authority, the design of the NVG lighting modification is to be based on the requirements of RTCA Document DO-275, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment. The requirements of MIL-STD-3009 Aircraft, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Compatible Lighting may also be used where appropriate. A CAR 35 Authorised Person is to submit a design advice to the Authority in accordance with existing procedures.

An Operator intending to conduct NVG Flights or Operations must establish approved procedures for the ongoing maintenance, inspection, and serviceability criteria for the incorporated NVG system (including the NVG itself) to appear in their relevant system of maintenance. This must include a method for assessing NVG compatibility for subsequent aircraft modifications or equipment introduction/repair.

Pursuant to CAR 196, the pilot in command may turn off non NVG compatible exterior lights if they adversely affect the operation of the NVG and the PIC is satisfied that there is no collision risk with other aircraft.

Minimum NVG Aircraft Equipment

In addition to legislated NVFR or IFR equipment as applicable, the following additional equipment must be carried for NVG Operations;

A serviceable radar altimeter with a display providing both an instantaneous impression of absolute height and rate of change of height which requires minimal interpretation and incorporating an audio and visual warning system to each control seat position that indicates the aircraft has descended below an in-flight adjustable height, and

For NVG operations to/from a Standard HLS for NVG or above 500ft AGL, a serviceable pilot steerable searchlight adjustable in both pitch and azimuth from the flight controls. For other NVG operations, in order to counter the risk of NVG failure at low altitude, operators fitting NVG compatible IR Filtered searchlights are to either:
a. be capable of reverting immediately to a non filtered search/landing light, OR
b. carry two pilots with access to the flight controls.
Note: NVG Operations do not absolve any operator of the obligation to carry additional equipment required to meet class of night operation, i.e. charter, airwork, etc.

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 00:14

I have been asked several times about the preferred helmet colour for NVG operations, but I really dont have a clue...can anyone help?

Having a military NVG background, colour was not a choice. But in the civ world, there are those who say only matt colours like grey and olive are acceptable, and others who say it really doesn't matter. Some say you need to get rid of all the reflective tape, and others say it makes no difference.

On the face of it, if you have compatible lighting, does it really matter if the helmet is refective because it is reflecting compatible light? Or, does it hinder NVG ops when you are using non compatible external lights like landing, winch, and position lights?

Anyone have experience with this?

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 04:37

Yep...good..

Though I am surprised that CL signed off on the use of dissimilar goggles...

IIRC, the US Army decided that this was not a good idea in the '80s :eek:

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 04:44

?

It doesn't matter...none of that helmet stuff is hot...and won't affect a decent tube :rolleyes:

Your peripheral vision should be able to cope with any stray reflectivity.

996

12th May 2006, 09:30

As DT said - however if you are thinking about ambient cockpit light reflecting from the helmet surface to the cockpit perspex's - I would'nt worry it is unlikely to be visible through the tubes. I'd go for the colour based on other considerations.

Broadcast Control

12th May 2006, 19:11

The colour does matter! Non NVG compatible colours/reflective tape etc will cause reflections in the windshield that can be seen through the goggles. The importance depends on how you operate. The worst case being if you are operating under very difficult conditions, e.g. over the sea with a total cloud cover (IMC, but with some visibility). Under such conditons you will be able to see reflections from white paper on your kneepad, of your hand (if you remove your gloves), etc.
However, for operations under most VFR night conditions it will not be a major factor.

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 22:46

Hi Whatlimit!

I must confess that I haven't recently operated over the sea, NVG with total cloud cover, IMC but with some vis:eek:, and I defer to your experience in this area.

In a more benign environment, I have flown with a shiny helmet and reflective tape without any problem....

Food for thought.....

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 23:12

Sorry DT, what is "IIRC"?

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 23:15

Thanks for the responses.
So, it seems that colours are important in the lower viz, less illum nights, but no so important on high illum high viz nights?

How about the reflective stripes on typical EMS uniforms?

Have any of the respondants actually flown NVG with different colored helmets and/or reflective tape in the civ environment?

Delta Torque

13th May 2006, 02:28

If I recall correctly...

Delta Torque

13th May 2006, 02:31

I believe the guys at the VicPol Airwing conducted their 'industry' trial in a 365 N3, with white glossy helmets, (Alpha) and reflective tape...police chequer style.

You would probably need to confirm this with MT down there....

Capt Under Pants

13th May 2006, 23:17

Is there a list stating which pair is the better for the PIC to wear when the crew have dissimilar NVGs?
I personnally feel they should all wear the same then they are all on the same playing field. Once you start having members of the crew using different bits of equipment its a reciepe for disaster.

helmet fire

14th May 2006, 11:06

Capt Undies,
I am sure you are not suprised to learn that the dissimilar goggles piece was quite contentious at the working group meetings. The example Delta Tq uses, and feelings that were similar to yours were expressed and defended, however to date, there has not been a safety case mounted against using dissimilar goggles. On the flip side, there were several cases put forward in support of the current wording.

It was not felt practical at the working group level to create a hierarchical list rating the different models, but to refer to the gain, resolution and acuity specs as the primary driver for what would be considered "higher level" NVG. In addition, the operator is compelled to rank the NVG in the Ops Manual, and must therefore present a case for this ranking to be reviewed by CASA. The operator must also do a specific risk management appraisal, and develop procedures when using dissimilar NVG.

Delta Torque

14th May 2006, 12:33

That's not sound logic, Helmut...

Just because no one has mounted a safety case against a preferred course of action does not make that course of action a sound one.

Using dissimilar goggles in the cockpit is just wrong! (IN MY OPINION..)

It flies in the face of contemporary protocols of cockpit scanning responsibilities...and also undermines the foundation of CRM. Surely you must agree with this?

These issues were put to bed by the US Army in the 80's, and also the Australian Defence Force...when only ANPVS5 and ANVIS 6 were available...mixing tubes up front is not the answer.....

helmet fire

14th May 2006, 15:07

DT, You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I think it is always appropriate for the development of new standards/regulations to be continually questioned. I am not being condescending. Your opinion has been repeated by several members at the working group level many times, but eventually when determining standards there must be some tangible reason for doing things or imposing restrictions. Just because we used to do it that way in our military is not a reason to impose a restriction. It is a reason to very carefully examine why you would elect to remove such restrictions - and that is what happened. The result was a safety case in support of dissimilar goggles, and no case against. We are all ears to any case against, it's just that no one has presented a tangible reason - yet.

None of these rules, the pilot training, dissimilar goggles, weather mins, etc, etc have to be imposed on your particular organisation. The current CAAP proposal actually spells out that operators should build their own levels on top of the minimums published in the CAAP, and you are quite able to (indeed encouraged too) impose your opinions for training increases and dissimilar goggles onto your own organisation. It is just that we felt the industry needed a more substantive reason for the creation and imposition of a MINIMUM standard.

What I am really curious about is why you pooh pooh the idea because it is just wrong
without even considering why Greg, Mike, Daff, Bails, Tony, and Dan may have come to a different conclusion - and I am not saying they all did. Then lastly, how did that position get ratified by the industry if it is so obviously wrong?

I will rise to your emotive bait of CRM and what is required up the front only if you make it juicier by explaining what you are on about. Slowly please.....I obviously dont understand the basics of CRM.

robsrich

14th May 2006, 20:56

Helmetfire - I'm on your side.

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 02:46

Fair enough, Rob :)

Helmut,

Sorry, I forgot you were a CRM peddler....I would have thought the adverse gradient caused by the right seat pilot (ANVIS 9) descending into the confined area with confidence, with the left seat pilot (reject I*T tubes on Chinese 'Night Eagle' mounts) looking at video noise would constitute a valid CRM issue. Thats not emotive......

But..yeah....no one has submitted a safety case against....so by your logic...all is OK...:rolleyes:

And producing a laundry list of people who support your case does not, in itself constitute a valid argument.

Must fly..

Cheers...

P.S. On your point regarding 'the military'....'the military' have used NVGs pretty much from day one (Gen2) , and they have had many years of operations, during which they have identified the pitfalls and benefits of this equipment...often at great cost...not just economic cost...

I say again...why re invent the wheel? Do you think the military operate NVG as they do for financial considerations or flight safety? Are you just going to discard years of military development as 'anecdotal', because it does not fit your criteria for a safety case?

Come on m8!

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 10:01

:D
Come on mate??? Ok then....
Dulta Torquu: still you fail to even seek an understanding of what the case for dissimilar NVG is, you just repeat the fact that 'the military' dont! The argument you pose is in fact a "Straw Man Argument" (google will help if you dont know what I am on about).
Why are you not even interested in the counter argument? Or the reasons why the "laundry list" of people have accepted there is a case for dissimilar NVG?

Even though I accept that I am unlikely to convince you, I will attempt to explain to others reading this thread what might really constitute a reason for the adoption of dissimilar goggles - not just unfounded hysteria about some military cultures. If you think that your statement is, in any form, a "safety case" then we need to sit down and have a few beers. Again I extend that invitation to you mate, its well over due.

Lets first look at Dulta's argument:
I would have thought the adverse gradient caused by the right seat pilot (ANVIS 9) descending into the confined area with confidence, with the left seat pilot (reject I*T tubes on Chinese 'Night Eagle' mounts) looking at video noise would constitute a valid CRM issue. Thats not emotive......
Two tiny issues here old mate:
1. Two people in the front is not a requirement. Nor is two pilots.
2. Reject tubes are illegal.

But lets, play along anyway......
What Dulta is saying is that one crewmember on goggle set A may not be able to see anything, whilst the pilot on better set B, can see. What could they do? ....um how about:
Crewmember on left says simply "Lost visual reference left, not clear in, go around"
Would that work? Just a thought.
You want "adverse gradient" created by someone who is visual and someone who isnt? Try a nitesun approach right now, under current rules and regs. The pilot flys in looking down nitesun beam,...and left seat sees what???? How on earth has everyone coped with this situation to date? Maybe they all need to stop. Maybe they are all CRM disasters.

But the other important aspect that is implied in Dulta's argument is when we examine the really bad NVG sets Dulta is freaking out about. NVG MUST meet the following spec (maybe he missed that bit):
The minimum NVG standard is that stipulated by FAA TSO C164 dated 30 September 2004, or a CASA approved equivalent in terms of resolution, acuity, gain and reliability.
Also, each model number proposed will have to be included on the STC, procedures developed for dissimilar use, and a risk management plan created.

Thus the "poor set" can be no poorer than the minimum acceptable set. In other words, all crewmembers must be using NVG that meets or exceeds the standards. But now we get to the really radical bit about "outcomes" vs "prescription" and how this aspect is affected by Dulta's argument.

The outcome of banning dissimilar NVG would be that everyone gets stuck on the bottom level of the capability, because as new technology becomes available, it gets more expensive. Only now, in Dulta's world because we have banned dissimilar NVG, we cannot afford to replace all company sets at once with this new technology - therefore the "outcome" is that we will have to stay with the older technology.
But, if dissimilar NVG were permitted, the "outcome" will be that we would be able to replace individual sets with newer technology as funding and attrition allow - the "outcome" being that new technology is adopted and operations gain safety.

Rewind to Dulta's argument and apply its outcome to his scenario: both have to wear the same level of NVG. Therefore both (instead of one non-flying crewmember) see just "video noise". No-one gets to see clearly.
Um,....how is that safer? :confused:

DT's final quote was equally devoid of a safety case (nearly everybody's concept of one any way). . He has repeated over and over again how the military dont do dissimilar NVG. We hear you mate. Repeating mantras without evidence is not a safety case to be used for the imposition of restrictions...oh, there I go again as well!

DT said: Do you think the military operate NVG as they do for financial considerations or flight safety? Are you just going to discard years of military development as 'anecdotal', because it does not fit your criteria for a safety case?

Instead of falsely quoting me as having said "anecdotal", what I did say was: we are (and should be) intrested in is any safety based reason why "the military" don't do dissimilar NVG. And I said above, we are really intrested in hearing any such arguement NOW before the standards are solidified.

Yes, the military had years of development - but that does not add credence to your assertion that dissimilar NVG are dangerous until you can substantiate WHY they dont do it. On the working group were 6 pilots and two Aircrewmen who are NVG military qualified NVG instrcutors. All but the two CASA pilots instruct in the civil industry. Not ONE of those present could identify why the military did not fly dissimilar NVG. Indeed, TWO of them have for MORE THAN 10 YEARS flown in the "the military" WITH DISSIMILAR NVG.

Is it possible that some military forces with years and years of NVG development think it is quite acceptable to fly with dissimilar NVG? Havent they heard it isn't safe? Is it possible that the military you grew up in is not the only professional military in the world?

I say again...why re invent the wheel?Are you saying then DT, that because this military allows dissimilar NVG, then we should avoid re-inventing the wheel and ban dissimilar NVG? :} In the same way, why are we in Australia re-inventing an international set of standards at all?

BTW I thought you were a military man DT. The military operate NVG for mission capability, not flight safety nor for financial reasons. Another "Straw Man". The flight safety benefits only came to light when they tried to take them off again :eek:

Thank you for the opportunity of explaining some of the more contraversial outcomes of the working group proposals. Tomorrow we can start on Single pilot V dual pilot if you like.

Cease fire. But I wont safe up just yet!

maxeemum

15th May 2006, 10:16

Helmut is right. His arguements are well reasoned and more to the point bolstered by fact. It is obvious that this has been his "lifes work" for the past few years.

It is clear that we are no closer to achieving NVG & EMS for the present. This is a real shame because it aint that hard.

Keep at it.

Max

:ugh:

robsrich

15th May 2006, 10:46

Maxeemum,

I agree.

Also, I have about three year's experience and was an instructor on these and later used radar/flir SAR systems to compare. NVG win in most cases.

There is no magic solution - just hard work and study.

Much the same as learning to do an ILS approach, ya just gotta accept state of the art and be good at it - with care!

Helmetfire and his helpers have put a great amount of effort, thought and research into this project, with little success from above. I trust their judgement totally.

I have just come home from NZ, and chatted with some HEMS people. They say maybe night HEMS flights should not be launched unless you have NVG! This may become a rule?

Lets put pressure on the regulator to give their people the will and resources to get this importnat project finished.

I wonder how many years it took to get steam engines into Australia in the nineteenth century?

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 10:51

Well, that was a bit of a barrage...thanks :eek: Always brings a smile to my face! But have you really said anything here? I get exhausted just reading your responses!

1. I didn't THINK I was being hysterical.....but hey...if that's how it came across.

2. With the exception of Mike, and maybe Dan (who I don't know) I don't think you guys have had any experience in a dissimilar goggles environment. Correct me if I'm wrong here...maybe ANVIS 5 1/2 + 6 at worst?

3. I would have to agree with you on the nitesun argument, but then again, that was not my argument....

4. Did I really have to explain the (Western) military's safety case for similar goggles?...did I really?

5. And my name is not Dulta...

Cheers.......

P.S. Thanks for your input Maxeemum...but there are sections of the industry, who are on the verge of getting airborne, NVG style....it will happen sooner than you think...

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 11:22

:D

BTW I thought you were a military man DT. The military operate NVG for mission capability, not flight safety nor for financial reasons.

Cease fire. But I wont safe up just yet!
Whether or not you thought I was a 'military man', I have a vague assumption that mission capability and flight safety are related....whats that current saying....'mission first, safety always?' And I was talking about similar NVG ops...not simply NVG ops...but don't let that small fact obscure your verbose and overly aggressive argument....<g>

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 11:23

It was a genuine invitatoin to come and have a beer.

The idea of engaging in this discussion is to examine the arguments in the cold light of day, make sure everyone can find out what is proposed, and to get the info out. All this so we can pick out the weaknesses in the industry proposal and help make it safer.

So, did I say anything in my last post? Not, it seems, for you.

1. Hysterical. That's sort of how it came across in those more emotive bits you used.

2. You did ask me to correct you: dissimilar also aplies to Omnibus II and Omnibus IV, and now Omnibus VII and in the future..who knows? 2 people of the group have more than 10 years doing it in a WESTERN military- whatever you may "think" about that. "Dan" is Dan Tyler. Not one of the two.

3. The nitesun is exactly your argument. 1 pilot can see, the other cannot.

4. Did you "have" to explain it??? I must of missed where you even attempted to explain it. You didn't look up Straw Man did you?

5. I was using your name-spell-checker :8 Seems a few "e"s get "u"ed.

Cheers,

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 11:33

4. Did you "have" to explain it??? I must of missed where you even attempted to explain it. You didn't look up Straw Man did you?

5. I was using your name-spell-checker :8 Seems a few "e"s get "u"ed.

Cheers,
4. No...that was my point! I didn't attempt to explain it...did I have to? (don't make this a circular argument now)

5. Wot?

P.S. I don't think you can really claim victim status in the 'Straw Man' context here hombre!

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 12:23

Helmut is right. His arguements are well reasoned and more to the point bolstered by fact. It is obvious that this has been his "lifes work" for the past few years.
Max

:ugh:
Gawd...I'd have thought Helmut had enough wind blowing up his *rse without you adding to the gale!

Good day to you sir!

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 12:23

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 12:44

4. a matter of tense mon ami. "did" I really... Vs 'Do" I really... Can be read in two ways and "Did" implies you already "have" spelled out the case. To stop rotating around this semantic point, and in any event - yes, mate you really DO have to explain the reason.

5. review spelling of hard hat. I know you dig the cryptics.

PS: The Straw Man is a victimless crime. But a clever one in the hands of experts like you.:ooh:

Straw Man Explanation 1 (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

More detailed Straw Man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elilyth/strawman.html)

4. whatever...those who are interested can do their own research...

5. OK, fair cop Helmet....I also dig the critics...

P.S. The 'Straw Man' argument is a 'crime' against logic and reason..

P.S. (2) No experts in this game porro, just survivors......

Cheers!

[email protected]

15th May 2006, 16:21

The main reason for not operating with dissimilar goggles is so that both pilots or pilot and nav can see the same things. If one guy is navigating and trying to talk the other one on to the LS, it is fairly entertaining when the handling pilot can't see what he is being told to look for. In a high threat environment, all the crew need the best visual acuity they can get and having one person miss an enemy position/tank etc because he had the crap goggles could lose the aircraft. So for military ops, generally using mixed goggles is a false economy.

Also the safety aspect of flying with one set of goggles one night and another the next just means more potential for cock up in the cockpit when the battery fails and you can't instinctively go for the battery switch because it's in a different place each time.

For HEMS/police work I can see no real safety case for avoiding mixed goggles, it's just nice if you can, that's all.

rivnut

15th May 2006, 21:39

Helmetfire - I'm on your side.

Of course you would be!

rivnut

15th May 2006, 21:46

[quote=maxeemum]It is obvious that this has been his "lifes work" for the past few years.
[quote]

You and Rob Rich seem to make out that it is only Helmet that has put "his life's work" into civil NVGs in Aus....there have been others who have also put a hell of a lot of "lifes work" over many years with civil NVGs but conveniently left out of your accolades.

As I see it Helmet and 'other' have put alot of work into progressing NVGs for civil helo ops and 'ALL' deserve an equal level of ass blowing!:hmm:

vpaw pilot

15th May 2006, 22:09

You guys have been giving DT a bit of a flogging...

We don't want to get involved in your debate except to say that after a 'straw' poll of our NVG qualified pilots:

1. We fully support DT's case for the highest levels of training and equipment.

2. We don't think that a case based on the opinions of 6 or 8 'experts' is any more 'reasoned' or 'bolstered with fact' than DT and his 'stand for standards.'

3. We don't have time to get into the politics...we just get on with the job.

4. We are surprised that no other international folk (bar our AAvn friend Crab) have made comment.

5. We think that Mike Tavcar's 15 years of research, writing and lobbying will shortly pay off. And he isn't looking to make a 'quick buck' out of it. Not that anyone is, of course...

6. We hope that CASA regularly read this forum...

Signed 6 'experts' and Julie, the office lady...

maxeemum

16th May 2006, 00:39

Rivnut, thank you in advance if you are a contributor to the cause. In fact thanks to all that have carried the torch thus far.. As for blowing wind up peoples arses, just acknowledging some credit where credit is due. Helmut and I know each other from a previous life and in that life we gave lots of S- - T to each other. Now that I am re-incarnated as an ex serving Mil guy I am less tense these days.

Having been a NVG QFI for many years, I follow with interest how the capability can be introduced/inculcated into the Civil industry. Fact is it is long over due and is required.

All that have contributed-Thanks

CASA get on with it.

Max

:ugh:

Capt Under Pants

16th May 2006, 01:56

Here Here!

Delta Torque

16th May 2006, 08:04

Concur......

gadgetguru

16th May 2006, 10:10

The main reason for not operating with dissimilar goggles is so that both pilots or pilot and nav can see the same things. If one guy..... because it's in a different place each time.
All valid, but I fear that when NVG's are finally adopted, some operators (bean counters) will procure the cheapest & nastiest pieces of crap they can get their hands on (regardless of what the NVG experienced (or otherwise) flight crew recommend), & it will probably require fatalities or aircraft loss or both to rectify such decisions.
For HEMS/police work I can see no real safety case for avoiding mixed goggles, it's just nice if you can, that's all.
As was already mentioned, allowing mixed goggles would allow evaluation of new technologies in an affordable replacement cycle, but establishing a minimum standard should be high on the safety agenda too, even if it's an internal operator decision (for better than minimum) perhaps I'm pipe-dreaming again . :(

helmet fire

17th May 2006, 00:32

vpaw and the six experts: welcome to the debate, even though you claim you dont want to get involved!! And a special welcome to Julie. The more people exposing arguments, the more likely we are to get a stronger and more balanced end result. In answer to your points:

1. This was not meant to be a personality contest where you have to stick by someone because they are a much better bloke than me, it was intended as a way to examine the proposed standards. The beauty of the industry proposal (not my standards) is that you can easily implement higher standards and training on top of the minimum so as to suit your environment and your opinions. The bonus here is that you dont even have to justify those higher standards with any evidence!! Nor do you have to convince arseholes like me. Should suit you guys just fine.

But if you want to impose higher standards on all other players - I politely suggest that the way to do it is to back up your requirements with a reason.

The industry proposal will only affect the VPAW CMI in that competencies are established, and the minimum sequences for award of a NVG qualification or renewal are listed.

2. Welcome back the Straw Man! Never have I said or implied, that "our" six or eight experts are any better than "your" six or eight experts. What I said was that to impose any further requirements on the INTERNATIONAL standards created by SC-196 then we should have a justification. Is your experitse, or mine, any better than that international pannel of subject matter experts? I certainly cannot claim that.

3. What politics are involved here? I really do not understand your point. Is it political down there?

4. Perhaps because it is so Australian-centric and they have no real stake in the development of our regulations.

5. With a name like vpaw, perhaps you should 'know" rather then "think" Mike's work will shortly come to fruition. What a fantastic day for the industry: at last an NVG operation. It is a significant milestone for all of us, and Mike Tavcar can take an enourmous amount of credit for the achievement.

6. Bruce Byron has been driving this process throughout. He asked the industry to put forward a ratified position paper. He stated that divergence from international practice or industry ratified procedures must only be made with a safety case. His vision is for CASA to create usable regulations by relience on international practices and established procedures, helped by industry groups for the industry. His vision is to examine rules by using outcomes, and to reduce prescription where possible. He wants to move to two tiers of rules: CAR and CAAP.

We need to support this vision 100%, less it be destroyed by the old method of the industry waiting for the "fatherly" regulator to tell us what and how.

So I really hope that CASA do read this thread. They can see, as can we, that as yet there is little substantive reason put forward to justify divergence from the international standards. They can see that we certainly support Bruce Byron's vision.

rivnut: look back through the thread carefully. Throughout the thread, many people have been credited with work toward the NVG development, and just because I had the time to put out the proposal onto a public forum doesn't at all mean I am the one who "owns" all the effort. Neither you, nor I, have yet mentioned the 50 or so industry people who have replied in writing with suggstions and contributions to the industry paper. Nor have we mentioned the many Kiwis (Chris Moody, Graeme Gale, John Funnel, John Fogden, etc) who have helped, nor the 65 people who came up to Queensland and spent hours of their own time going through the paper before voting unanimously on the current position in May last year. Nor the CASA people for whom this whole project has become representative of the change that Bruce Byron strives for: Rob Collins, Charles Lenarcic, Greg Vaughan, Warren Duff, and Joe Tully. What about David Fawcett MP, David Earley and Peter Heath of the Australian Safety Forum and Mike Watson and others from the ATSB? I am sure that I have forgotten some.
Any attempt to claim that credit is due to one or two people is to fly in the face of reality.

I find your comments to be insulting, bizarre, and smacking of some sort of hidden agenda.

gadget guru: there is a minimum standard of NVG set down, so you cannot simply go and get the "cheapest & nastiest pieces of crap". Given that you are unable to buy Omnibus II tubes any longer (they are out of production), it is most likely that the "cheapest and nastiest" you can buy is the same set of NVG stipulated by the VPAW CMI - Omnibus IV.

gadgetguru

17th May 2006, 04:09

all good

have been long accustomed to using the cheapest contract bid winners' product
(green machine)

I sir*, like many others, I'm sure look forward to the acceptance of NVG ops.
& appreciate the efforts of all to get it off the ground.

[sir*: don't take it personally - it's just a word]

rivnut

17th May 2006, 06:39

I find your comments to be insulting, bizarre, and smacking of some sort of hidden agenda.

Take it as you wish, it was not directed at you peronally as you are one of the handful of peole who have put 'lifes work' into this as have a couple of others....I was refering to another person in particular.;)

robsrich

17th May 2006, 21:57

Agree with helmetfire.

There have been so many people pushing this project.

From many angles.

Mike T was a pioneer in getting a formal "in house" thing going with CASA. Their "confidential" study was based on maybe roles the rest of us do not need. Probably police stuff?

Time has brought all of these people closer together, and the HAA group has taken a slightly different approach, but on the same playing field, aiming at the same goal posts.

Problem, is the Kiwis came and listened to the Oz conferences, linked up with the overseas experts and took our ball home and scored their own goal.

They have NVG in service, we are still arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Recent CASA email to an industry member suggested another six months delay. (Resources?)

Keep rowing, we can see land ahead..........

Delta Torque

17th May 2006, 22:49

Their "confidential" study was based on maybe roles the rest of us do not need. Probably police stuff?

Oh come on Rob, you scalliwag!:)

I don't know that VPAW had a 'confidential' study....My understanding was that it was about operating below LSALT at night on NVGs! Hardly police stuff that the rest of the industry do not need..:confused:

Their industry trial, which was certainly not confidential (as I got an invite), as did other major operators..consisted of takeoff, fly to destination and land...

Cheers...

Capt Under Pants

18th May 2006, 00:40

I look at the past accidents that have occurred and think, Would NVGs have possibly made a difference?

I believe a strong YES is the answer there, then I get angry at the inaction and dithering by the regulator and think boy if I was a relative of those victims, I would be looking to see if it is possible to file a civil suit against the regulator for their inaction. Thoughts anyone?

I do feel that collegues and relatives of people who have died in the past would be just as frustrated and upset as much as we are in the industry, upon reading this thread knowing there is a capability that can improve safety and may have potentially prevented the deaths and injuries sufferred by personnel involved in these past accidents.

Normally nothing is done until someone gets hurt (its called "blood priority". look at the recent case of Sophie Delezio and traffic lights at school crossings). But in these accident cases the regulator still just did not get it! A big failure of their responsibilities! Sad really.:(

helmet fire

18th May 2006, 06:45

Vice like: dont tease me like that!!!

which wish - the one about the Japanese Twins - or something else?

:}

Bell427

24th May 2006, 15:52

Hay!
I'm doing an seminar work at electro-engeneering class about lights and optical signalisation on airplanes and helicopters.
One of topics that i would like to write about is "NVG lights(exterior and interior) on helicopters".
So i would like to ask you if you have any data on NVG lights instaled on helicopters, any pictures, wiring diagrams, any data on how lights are constructed, how do they produce light, voltages... anything.

I would be very gratefull if any of you could help me!

Matthew Parsons

24th May 2006, 16:24

Are you doing the work or are we? :)

I think the most promising field for NVG compatible and NVG friendly lighting is in LED's. I don't have a company, but there's three terms to use in your search.

widgeon

24th May 2006, 18:43

http://www.aerodynamix.com/

this guy did some good work at my previous place of employment.

He has really cool tea shirts.

Neil

Bell427

28th May 2006, 08:21

WOW. Thank you,great page...very usefull!

Heliport

28th Oct 2006, 09:54

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.

Coconutty

29th Oct 2006, 07:44

Heard the other day that following a modification to the power supply, Anvis NVG's have now received approval from the CAA to be used by UK Police pilots - ending the monopoly in that particular market, although their web site Defence Optical Systems (www.dosystems.co.uk) does not seem to carry the info yet. :ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

MINself

29th Oct 2006, 08:23

Finally the CAA have realised how useful NVG are whilst operating in the night low level enviroment, its a shame that its taken as long as it has to grant the authority to use something which without doubt adds to flight safety.

Having used NVG for years I appreciate how effective they are at seeing obstructions and terrain, especially on low or no moon nights away from the house or street lighting.

MS :D

Coconutty

29th Oct 2006, 08:32

MIN,

The CAA had already realised - It's just that there had previously only been one approved manufacturer / type, so this should open up some healthy competition. :D

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

MINself

29th Oct 2006, 11:02

Coconutty,

Thanks for filling in the details, do you know what the delay was in approving this other NVG type, surely the technology of one manufacturer is similar to another all be it some have battery packs as a seperate box and are mounted differently with slightly different ways to focus the tubes, or was it just too complicated an approval procedure that other NVG manufacturers couldn't be bothered with the obstacles until now?

Or am I just being cynical

:suspect:

MS

stas-fan

29th Oct 2006, 18:23

I think you will find, as I did when I tried to buy some last year, that the CAA only like the made in England, Lithium battery powered, £15,000 a throw, made in England, no back up power to tubes, but made in England, very smart, however not used by any other nation, NVGs.

I contacted the UK company mentioned above who make ANVIS for UK Apache but it seemed they couldn't get the ANVIS concept past a certain former CAA person, (known to all in the industry for various certification antics over the years, now working for Augusta) they have been trying for 2 years to have ANVIS accepted without modifications,:ugh: but have now finally given in and degraded the system to comply with CAA requirements. On the plus side you can probably use them this winter without needing a letter from both of your parents, countersigned by the last King.

I am still unsure how the rest of the world seem to be ok with ANVIS but the UK CAA know better, it must be all of that military and Para mil experience they have..........

Coconutty

30th Oct 2006, 09:01

That's pretty much the deal - Previously the only gogs that CAA would certify were the Fenns version which has an independent power supply to each tube, so in the event of a battery / power failure, you would still be left with one tube working and not totally blind. ( Seems to make sense ).

Other makes, including Anvis, had a power supply that powered both tubes simultaneously, with a back up set of batteries selectable with a flick switch, and the CAA didn't like that.

"Apparantly", despite a number of factors and arguements put forward, the CAA would not move on that issue so the company have modified their Anvis so that the power supply does what the CAA require. The main difference is that Anvis are powered by 4 x standard Duracell type "AA" batteries ( 2 powering each tube ), whereas the Fenns version uses Lithum ones.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[email protected]

30th Oct 2006, 13:35

What a feat of *rse - the beauty of Anvis was that, in the unlikely event of a battery failure, a simple flick of the switch gave you both tubes back instantly. On the 'battery per tube' type you have a major faff on your hands to change the battery while you give control to the other pilot or climb to MSA. I know which I think is the safest.

Coconutty

30th Oct 2006, 13:53

..... the other pilot :confused:

This is for UK Police single pilot ops !

( And didn't you get advanced notice with Anvis when the batteries were getting low - a warning LED came on, letting you flick the switch well before it all went dark :ooh: )

With most flights well under 2 hours, and battery life well in excess of that ( 30 odd hrs ? ) it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind the CAA mandating that there must be independent tube power sources. :rolleyes:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[email protected]

30th Oct 2006, 15:18

Coconutty - that was part of my point, for single pilot ops anvis would be much better, I don't fancy trying to fly and change a battery and it would certainly reduce your operational effectiveness while you sorted your life out.

And yes you got a red led warning of impending battery failure so the changeover was always preplanned. I've given up trying to work out how the CAA comes to some of its conclusions.

PANews

30th Oct 2006, 21:38

I followed this up with the UK reps DOS over the weekend and it seems that all is still not ready and they are in fact still waiting to get their hands on what they describe as EASA [not CAA] paperwork before they go public with it.

It seems that the rumour you heard was a 'quiet' pre-launch briefing to likely users.

Anyway they expect to go public this month so my pen is only temporarily sealed!

cougar77

1st Nov 2006, 03:40

Most know that NVG's are useful aid to safer night flying...that is if used correctly, with proper training and procedures in place. However, it is also a double edged sword where it can be one's worst nightmare.
I certainly feel that its about time that civvy ops eg EMS and police work be given the green light for countries still opposing it.
Civvy regulators IMO should take the more prudent step in adopting the procedures and measures that the military have in place and not try to "re-invent the wheel". These measures can then be tailored accordingly to the demands of civil operations over time.
There have been countless accidents in the military when NVG's were first used and we should learn from these mistakes.
The US army flightfax magazine is an excellent resource for lessons learnt with lots of info on NVG's.

Just an example:
NVG Currency
Perishable Skill — Currency is Not Proficiency

Perishable Skills. We have all heard the phrase, “That's a perishable skill,” but what does it really mean? I have heard it for almost 20 years and always thought of my golf swing as my most “perishable skill.” But a recent accident investigated by the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center brought the phrase back to mind in a much more appropriate way.
This UH-60L accident serves as a prime example of how perishable some skills really are. It involved a crew that no one ever expected to have an accident.
The instructor pilot had over 8000 hours of rotary-wing experience; the PI was young but highly thought of; and all the crew members had flown together many times in the past. Both aviators were qualified and current for the night vision goggle environmental training mission.
The problem? Neither crewmember had significant recent experience in NVG flight. The hostile conditions overcame their skills. They became disoriented during a takeoff and crashed, destroying the aircraft. Fortunately, everyone on board will fully recover from their injuries.
We are all aware of “NVG currency” requirements as stated in the Aircrew Training Manual (ATM) for each aircraft. Instructor pilots and unit commanders constantly monitor aviators to ensure that everyone remains current by flying at least one hour every 45 days under goggles. As long as we maintain that standard, we can report combat-ready goggle crews to the chain of command every month.
But, in the back of our minds, we all know that one flight every 45 days does not maintain the proficiency necessary to execute the tough missions we may be called upon to complete. This mission is a perfect example.
The aviators involved in this accident were NVG current. They met the ATM standards required to conduct the mission. However, neither crewmember had flown more than 3 hours of NVG flight in a single month for over 7 months. We have all seen this in our units at one time or another. Other mission requirements, administrative obstacles, or flight time restrictions have put nearly everyone in this position at some time. Most often, we manage to get the mission accomplished when called on. The problems arise when an aviator who is just maintaining currency is placed in conditions with which he is unfamiliar and that requires real proficiency rather than currency.
In this case, we put these aviators in a dusty, windy environment, with low illumination, with little recent experience under NVGs, and all these things added up to a situation primed for an accident. The cumulative effect of the 16 risks associated with this mission exceeded the capability of the crew, and a major accident was the result.
If any one of the conditions — low recent experience, dust, winds, or low illumination — had not been present, perhaps the accident would not have occurred. If the aircrew had more recent experience, they would have been better able to deal with the harsh environment. If the illumination had been better, their low recent experience might not have been a factor. If the conditions had not been as dusty, perhaps the crew would not have become disoriented. If, if, if...
The key lesson to be learned is that there are perishable skills. Night vision goggle flight is one of the most perishable skills in our business. When circumstances force us to maintain NVG currency rather than proficiency, we must be aware that those aviators are not ready to proceed directly into harsh environments. Commanders must transition through the crawl, walk, run scenario. NVG currency is the crawl. NVGs in adverse conditions, such as the desert or other severe environments, are Olympic events. We can't expect aircrews to go straight from one to the other.

Just my opinion

helmet fire

1st Nov 2006, 04:02

Civvy regulators IMO should take the more prudent step in adopting the procedures and measures that the military have in place and not try to "re-invent the wheel"
You may like to know that an international committee of NVG subject matter experts convened in the 1990s with just that goal - to bring NVG out of the military and into the civil world by establishing a set of minimum operating standards.

The committee became known as Standing Committee 196 (SC-196) formed by the RTCA, and was almost exclusively made up of military or ex-military personnel with an NVG background from around the world. These military people were at pains to translate as many of the military lessons across as they could, but at the same time, to leave behind unnecessarily restrictive practices borne out of earlier generation technologies or military mission requirements.

They invented the wheel for civvy ops. Specifically designed it for civvy ops.

So rather than go back and re-invent the wheel by importing all the military stuff, why not simply use the wheel specifically invented for civvy ops, designed by military and ex-military people with all the factors in front of them? Designed by the same people who probably helped write most of the military procedures you are referring to.

The question is – can an international committee of NVG subject matter experts be trusted?

Just a devil’s advocate here with the UH60 accident: are the perishable skills NVG or dust operations? :confused:

cougar77

1st Nov 2006, 08:33

Just a devil’s advocate here with the UH60 accident: are the perishable skills NVG or dust operations? :confused:[/quote]

Helmet,

The example was from the flightfax. Each individual will learn certain things from there and if that's the case, then i think it has served its purpose.

Wont comment on the accident, however as i believe you would agree that whenever an accident occurs, all factors are considered and normally it would not point to a single sole factor but a combination of contribution factors of varying percentages, with environmental factor (dust and poor illum) as part of the cause.

With this in mind, its hard to detect detiorating weather/brown out on a dark night when using goggles. Of course, poor video noise and halos will give you indication of moisture content. This will certainly spell trouble if non-IR.

I guess whats holding back NVG's for civvy ops is really the $$ cost versus benefit factor.

Quite surprised that Shawn Coyle is missing in here. Have seen the excellent sand table in the dark room at his facility in Mojave. You would be able to appreciate quite a lot eg moon angle, moon illum, shadows etc without having to actually be airborne.

helmet fire

1st Nov 2006, 21:50

Cougar,
You inferred that the accident article was your opinion, that is why I asked.Just my opinion
The author of the article concentrates on NVG perishable skills as the major contributing factor here, but it is hard to see how the outcome would be any different day, night unaided or even in snow. brown out and white out have the same recovery technique regardless of the flight conditions - level the wings, adopt hover attitude, apply beaucoup de climb power and non flying crew members strain for an outside glimpse of reference to help.

Why is it that we never seem to blame brown out and white out day time incidents on the perishable skills of day flying, or even dynamic roll overs on the perishable skills of take off and landing? But throw NVG into the mix and it nearly always seems to be the NVG that are the problem.

I guess whats holding back NVG's for civvy ops is really the $$ cost versus benefit factor
I agree totally. The more we impose a military training regime on the civvys, the worse the ratio will be. Fortunately, the military gurus before us have created a reasoned set of minimums for us to adopt, and we need to spread the word that NVG can be achieved cost effectively.

vpaw pilot

2nd Nov 2006, 03:26

BTW Helmet,

Have you had an opportunity to pass your bifocals over the Helimun equipment? Pretty much the same specs as ANVIS, but without the crippling US export restrictions...

We have the distributor snapping at our heels and we have referred him to the HAA; we thought he may have some stuff of interest to you...

Scouts out!

cougar77

2nd Nov 2006, 04:39

Helmet,

I should have inserted the line "just my opinion" right after the 1st para before the example.

Quote "I agree totally. The more we impose a military training regime on the civvys, the worse the ratio will be. Fortunately, the military gurus before us have created a reasoned set of minimums for us to adopt, and we need to spread the word that NVG can be achieved cost effectively."

I believe there are quite a bit of differences between mil and civ ops where its not in agreement eg. mil special ops go in with all lights "off", dont think you can do that for civil ops as you need to display your nav lights.

Have to be careful with "cost effectively", dont want civil operators to try and spend the bare amount as it would then make NVG unsafe putting the lives of crew and pax at risk not mentioning the $$ cost of aircraft.

The best should be given and nothing less to do the job safely and sucessfully ie.
1. External lightings mod with IR landing light, aux anti-col and dimmed position lights - prevention of flicker vertigo.
2. Internal lightings mod - mentioned before in numerous past posts hopefully UV lightings for cockpit as well as cabin.
3. Best possible NVG equipment for the job - with proper maintenance support.
4. Good training and training aids - to equip crew with proper knowledge to do the job safely. Have a dark room to check googles with Hoffman set.
5. Proper SOPs in place - Crew rest and duty periods, flying hours limitations (we use 2 times ERF), currency requirements, go-no-go criteria (weather, illum etc).
6. Some may disagree but i feel Instrument Rating is necessary.

These are the basics we should insist as we are the ones in the aircraft. EMS should all be NVG equipped (if not already so). Lives saved outweight the cost many mnay times.

Just my thought that the best should be provided rather than rush out and strap on that pair of "miracle tubes" which can lead to undesirable consequences for those that are not quite ready.