Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)

[vpaw pilot]

One of the N3s is currently in a G inspection, and the NVG mod is being done while the machine is offline. Should be up mid December, and hopefully full steam ahead.

From what we are told, the Helimun goggles meet the CASA requirement, but we haven't had a close look at them. They are priced pretty much the same as ANVIS, but at least they are obtainable....

And there has been a changing of the guard within the big house, as you are probably aware....be interesting to see how the new chap rises to the occasion.

Scouts out!

[cougar77]

Helmet,
Just my views regarding civvy NVG's. Hope that the best possible is given to do the job. The companies will cetainly demand more of their crew. Hope that when the time comes, crews will be able to say NO when it reaches the equipment, environment and human(Mk 1 eyeball) limits to "press on". Stay safe to fly another day.

[someplace]

Heard a rumor that the rescue operator in tasmania is about to do a course in NVG operation and instuction and is fitting out a twin squirrell to be compatable so as to tie up the australian market in training.

[Delta Torque]

... so as to tie up the australian market in training.

Wot an evil plan :eek:

I think a lot of people are waiting in the wings...

[someplace]

It is an evil plan and those who know the person will realise he could set NVG's in GA back 10 years before they even come into use.

[helmet fire]

someplace and delta, Heliport has ressurrected the Aussie NVG thread for us and I have reponded to your post on that thread:

Oz HEMS and NVG (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249961&page=5)
:ok:

[helmet fire]

CASA has released an ammendment to CAO 82.0 that will effectively ban NVG use in Australian helicopters unless the AOC holder gains specific approval from CASA.
Approval will only be considered for operators involved in specialised operations such as EMS, Law enforcement, etc. Operators who have attained approval in accordance with the CMI will be able to continue, all others will need to gain approval. Eventually, CAO 82.6 is proposed for release in July 2007 covering NVG in the form of a 12 month trial.
During the trial, approved operators will have a seat at the review table to examine and evolve the operating procdures with a view to either releasing a more widely available CAO 82.6 (ie not a trial and open to other types of operations) or incorporating the procedures into the new Part 133.
The CASA side of the working group has changed significantly with the appointment of Greg Vaughan to oversee the project in his capacity as Group General Manager (GA), Mick Haxell retiring to greener pastures and the addition of Yvette Lutze (previously of Australian Helos, CHC, etc) into the team. It is great for the industry that Yvette has joined up with her recent industry background and she has bought a really positive drive to the process.
Very unfortunatley for CASA, Duffy has announced that he too is exiting stage left for greener pastures (literally greener - back to Oakey!!). Duffy has been an absolute driving force for NVG within the CASA side of the working group, and the HAA will miss his input greatly. AAARRRFFF! Thanks Duffy!
Although not quite September 1 2005 as promised, the end is nigh! CAO 82.6 is nearly here.

[Ascend Charlie]

Well done, Helmet Fire, for your pushing on this aspect of heli ops. We need people of your experience to keep CASA on their toes.

No tears over Hax departing, but a real shame to lose Doof. Both my contacts in Brisbane are now gone, so I will need to groom some more!

Does that mean that i now cannot buy NVGs in the US and use them? You said previously that if somebody could obtain them, there was no law against using them.:{

[helmet fire]

Yep, the instrument includes you AEC.
Here it is: http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2007/CASA30.pdf (NVD Instrument 30/07)
Previous to the issue of the instrument it was not illegal to use the NVG as long as you could prove you were not doing do recklessly - ie proper training, equipment, resourcing, and on gonig standards.

Intrestingly, they have also moved to ban NV Devices, not just NVG. That woulod include things like the Cheltenham artificial terrain displays, "highway in the sky" type technology and even FLIR. But remember, the ban is not on the equipment, it is on the use of that equipment as the primary means of terrain avoidance: ie flight below LSALT at night established by CAR 174.
It is also a dissallowable instrument that can be removed at the parliamentary level if you mount a sufficient case against it.

The instrument is really only a precursor to the release of CAO 82.6 on NVG approx Jul 2007 which would have the same effect as the instrument. Though even the CAO is a dissallowable instrument if the industry elected to fight it.

The HAA compromised it's position that NVD could be controlled through an outcomes based CAAP at the June 13th 2006 working group meeting in Canberra in return for which CASA agreed to use HAA derived content for the order unless a safety case existed against adoption.

The HAA content was an Australianised version of the SC-196 international standards that was workshopped by HAA members at conferences and was unanimously voted on and ratified by 65 HAA members on the Sunshine Coast in 2005.

The content then underwent significant change in a compromise effort to get CASA to agree to it, even though the sole safety case put forward was in technical standards (and was adopted in whole by the HAA.)

In the last series of working groups, the new members under the direction of Greg Vaughan have made the meetings amiable, constructive and achieving more progress in the first meeting of 2007 than the previous 16 years. I am not exagerating. This kicked off around c1991.

As I said previously - this credit is due to Greg V, Duffy, Yvette Lutze, John Grima, and Peter O'Keefe (soon to be joined by John Beasey who made significant contributions earlier with Mike Tavcar). The result of this progress will pop out in Jul 2007 as CAO 82.6, though not quite what the industry voted for in Jun 2005, the closest compromises that could be reached within the legal, regulatory, and risk culture within CASA. They are not quite ready to hand over control of the assylum just yet!!

CAO 82.6 will represent one of the early outcomes of the CEO's vision that future regulation will be formulated by industry subject matter experts based on international practices and adopted unless a safety case exists against it. Whilst we haven't quite achieved that nirvana, a huge effort within CASA to overcome old approaches (and a lot of perserverance on the industry side) has created a sensible start point that we can kick off from.

The CAO will create a trial framework that will be subject to significant reviews in the first 12 months by a pannel consiting of CASA (particulalry John Beasey and Yvette Lutze) the HAA, and all participant operators and will be taking submissions by other intrested parties.

What a great way to kick off the 2007 Industry/Regulator relationship.

[Torquer]

A new competency standard will be included within the soon to be released AVI08 Aviation Training Package, due in Apr/May 08. This standard incorporates the requirements to conduct night aided vision aviation operations, and has been endorsed by CASA/HAA and various other interested parties. This standard fits within the National Training Framework as an optional 'skill set' for those fixed and rotary wing operators that require the use of night aided vision.
The standard was also written to include FLR/Thermal Imaging and other devices/sensors used to supplement and/or enhance night vision operations. It is anticipated that the training requirements will be clearly understood by all those who read the standard, and the assessment context of the unit will be as directed by CASA and the organisation using them. The CASA flight standard will essentially directly reflect the operational preparation, usage and after use requirements as detailed in the standard.

[peterprobe]

Ok new boy here so be gentle.

Am in the Mil but chat to lots of ex mates who are now civvy drivers. Does any one know why the CAA has this anti NVG thing going on. Or is it barrack room stuff and they are NOT opposed to it's use. I read the glossy mags we all see and it would seem that plenty of other countries are using NVG quite safely (makes night hell of a lot safer in my opinion) whats our story from those who do it civvy please.:ugh:

[Non-PC Plod]

I'm not sure there is an anti-NVG thing going on. I am ready to stand corrected, but I believe the major issue is getting NVG-compatible cockpits. Retro-fitting is expensive, not many people doing it, and does it invalidate all your warranties if you have a modification done by someone other than the original manufacturer?
I am out of the UK game recently, but I think the regulatory issues centre around firstly: training and qualification, and secondly down to the fact that you have to assume that the goggles may fail, so you must be able to carry out reversionary night-flying. Therefore, your weather limits, operating limitations etc will remain the same as if you didnt have them.

[Helinut]

I have not been directly involved, but I was led to believe that there used to be individuals in the CAA that were entirely opposed to the use of NVG in civil aircraft.

That situation changed with the advent of some new CAA guys and a lot of hard work and money spent by a few police operators for whom NVG capability imporved their safety margin. As experience has been gained the CAA have allowed the NVG to be used for a wider range of types of police ops.

In the UK I doubt that there will be a much wider use of NVG than the police ops for a very long time. In the UK there is no HEMS at night (other than for the special case of a few Police/HEMS units). These combined operations have Nightsun and TI camera, and can only operate night HEMS in limited operating areas. If anyone were to press the CAA for pure night HEMS I suspect there would be some resistance. It would no doubt have regard to the US night HEMS accident rate.

[[email protected]]

Although it would seem that the US situation would be alleviated to some degree if NVG were available.

I think that night HEMS in UK with anything other than a 2 pilot, NVG operation would be pointless and they would need clearance to operate on goggles into field sites to give proper 24/7 capability.

I presume one of the arguments against night HEMS is that theoretically the roads are less congested at night and therefore the land ambulances get there quicker - doesn't really help those in remote/rural areas though.

[peterprobe]

Yeh good point crab, but guys I chat to seem to feel that NVG NVS which ever makes the whole operation a hell of a lot safer than doing it mortal/normal ( whatever it's called today). Still have the same limits of course in case of goggle failure but a damn sight easier to see those wires rough ground etc. Am sure that to most of us who are NVG/NVS trained going back to normal flying is going backwards really, and fecking scary!!! those big landing lights/search lights just turn ground into a big green/brown blob from height and it takes a hell of a lot more effort to ensure a safe landing.
Cost yes i agree but even then I think that some companies went to town on NVG compatable gear, always found the cheap strip lights ( ELP s ?) worked well, can;t recall what they are called but thats old age for you. Turn off all the other lights and bingo can see intruments and switches no prob. But then it has been donkeys since I have flown so I suppose it has all changed now somehow.:rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Peter - ELPs worked very well in the Lynx and are a good low-cost option but not as good as a proper NVG compatible cockpit.

We brief goggle failure but I have never experienced any failures and I wonder if it is concern from the old days which is far less valid now since the kit is so much more robust and reliable.

Mortal night flying is scary once you have used goggles, you feel very vulnerable not being able to see what is around you!

[nigelh]

Peterprobe ....you are a brave man suggesting that nvg,s could be the way forward :eek: I suggested just the possibility of having your co pilot watching out with nvg,s on approach etc and was shot out of the sky :eek: Apparently only mil pilots can use them safely and even just as a backup looking for wires etc would be v v dangerous and out of the question !!!! I now have a few friends who use them in non nvg cockpits quite happily and would not dream of going back to not having them .
I have no doubt that everybody here would take up the opportunity of strapping them on when in an auto in the dark :D

[Runway101]

Being on the topic, can anybody recommend any affordable goggles?

[[email protected]]

Nigel - I now have a few friends who use them in non nvg cockpits quite happily and would not dream of going back to not having them .

I wait for the inevitable accident reports then. Your other comment Apparently only mil pilots can use them safely is quite wrong but you do need training before you use them.

In a recent chat with an AAIB investigator we were discussing how many of those who own their own helicopters have been successful in some field (business or sports mainly) and have been successful often because of their willingness to take risks, buck the trends or break the rules. Unfortunately, this mindset is often transferred into their flying and is a major cuase of incidents and accidents.

Flying around, untrained, with NVG in a non-lit cockpit is just arrogant and stupid.

[scooter boy]

"Flying around, untrained, with NVG in a non-lit cockpit is just arrogant and stupid"

Crab, could you please explain why you think this?

SB

[IO540]

I have never flown with NVGs (used to shoot rabbits with them, years ago) but there are basically 3 types: Gen 1, 2 and 3.

Generation 1 and 2 are mostly Russian (those on the UK market) and are not great. Under a full-ish moon, you can see a rabbit well enough to shoot at.

Gen 3 is what the military have been using since the mid-1980s. I know because I have a Gen 3 image intensifier tube in a cardboard box stuck away somewhere, and it has a 1986 date code on it. These are fantastic and really work, and for the most part don't suffer anywhere near as badly from getting washed out when picking up a stray bright light, but cannot be sold in the UK other than to military, police, etc. They are openly sold in California, and it would not take a lot of imagination to work out how to import something small like that (dismantled, etc). They are export controlled though so this would be quite a crime (if caught), and one legal way is to obtain them in Canada which last time I heard (quite some years ago) did not have export controls on them. The goggles themselves are no problem; it is the II tubes which are controlled, but the II tubes are widely used in all kinds of things e.g. tracking systems for astronomical telescopes.

As stated above, the use of NVGs requires special (low intensity) cockpit lighting. A lot of avionics and instruments are available with this as an option but it tends to be expensive stuff. Looking at the typical GA cockpit, you would have to rebuild the whole thing because you cannot have a bright warning light somewhere, coming on when you don't expect it and messing up the NV.

[darrenphughes]

"Flying around, untrained, with NVG in a non-lit cockpit is just arrogant and stupid"

Crab, could you please explain why you think this?

SB

Hi Scooter boy, Not that I know a great deal about this subject, but I found this post in a topic i've been following in another forum. It's written by a guy that flies for the US National Guard. I thought it gave a good insight into the experience of flying with NVG;

I found it difficult starting out, but yes you get used to it. You do have limited depth perception. Your scan HAS to increase big time, all while not trying to jerk your head around to make sure you don't make yourself spatial. if you only stare straight ahead, you won't see your rate of closure. I personally use about a 45 degree scan when I'm hovering, it gives you fore/aft left/right and up/down view without having to move your head too much. Not even mentioning that you only have a 40 degree field of view. In my opinion, the focusing proceedures are the most important.

So, from what he has said, you have to make some major alterations to your scan when operating NVG at the start. Anything to do with altering your scan, especially at night, needs to be done in training with the proper instruction/safety pilot looking over your shoulder I would imagine.

[[email protected]]

Scooter Boy - trying to fly approaches on NVG without proper instruction is foolhardy to say the least. As Darren's quote highlights, there is no depth perception using NVG and your head has to be moved to scan the whole visual area because you have no peripheral vision and a 20 degree Field of View. It also takes a while to learn to interpret what you are seeing on NVGs because everything becomes a shade of green and surfaces and textures appear quite different through NVG.

So apart from the fact that you can't judge distances or rate of closure and the world looks different I can't see why we don't just let everyone have a set and let them get on with it - NOT! Add in the fact that if you have a goggle failure and your cockpit lights are turned off because they are not compatible you are suddenly in a very disorientating situation - not good when flying a helicopter.

I would suggest that some of those wanting to 'experiment' with the big boys toys will use them to push on when they should have turned back - it is unfortunately easier to get yourself into very bad weather without realising it on goggles - by the time you do notice your only option is often IFR - again not good in PPLH-land.

The military are very good at NVG but we have lots of experience and a well set up training regime - we also mostly fly 2 pilot on goggles. If you don't think that bypassing all that just because you have a big wallet isn't arrogant and stupid then you don't belong in a cockpit.

Back to AAIB man - most avoidable accidents (CFIT etc) are caused by bad decision making, often a chain of bad decisions - going flying untrained on NVG is the first of those bad decisions because being wealthy does not make you a good pilot, nor does being a good sportsman, businessman, motorsports king etc etc.

[ShyTorque]

Turn off all the other lights and bingo can see intruments and switches no prob. But then it has been donkeys since I have flown so I suppose it has all changed now somehow.

Yes, it has changed. My own night vision flight experience goes back to 1979, when in fact we (i.e. RAF Puma fleet back then) didn't have "NVGs", but we were experimenting with the use of "PNGs" or passive night goggles, which were essentially tank drivers' goggles. We used to wear them with the old cloth inner helmet and a throat mike; an interesting exercise in CRM, to say the least, especially when used in conjunction with the S-6 NBC respirator in the days before the invention of AR-5. :ooh:

Modern gen. goggles are a huge improvement and less affected by "white light bloom" but unfortunately aircraft cockpit displays have also moved on, giving a modern twist to an old problem. Most civilian glass cockpit displays can't be made compatible in the true sense as easily as conventional "mechanical" instruments. Obviously the light forming the "flight instruments" comes from within the glass displays themselves so electro luminescent panels (ELPs) or "cold" floodlights are redundant and useless.

Another concern with EMS use of NVG is the need for rapid response times. A rushed NVG take-off, especially in marginal ambient light conditions (i.e. marginal for the goggles), is a potential recipe for disaster.

Also, as far as I know, the British military have never allowed single crew NVG ops, nor have the US forces or the Asian service where I used to teach their use. It could be argued that two pilot ops should be the first step, NVG ops the second.

I'm not saying NVGs wouldn't work, far from it, but the concept can't be taken lightly or half-cocked.

[eurocopter beans]

what is the generally accepted work up period for a hems/police twin engine machine? From zero NVG hours, on GenIII goggles, Single pilot, average pilot experience of 2,000hrs approx. I know there are loads of variables but im just interested as to how many instructional hours are needed and then what kind of work-up period prior to operational effectiveness?

[peterprobe]

Lots of good and educated replies here, still kinda tend to think we all ( with good intent) overcomplicate it. Why is UK not doing 24 hr HEMS and Police (some with NVG) and we all are under JAR rules!!!! Yes i know I am still in mil and have no idea about world out there but it seems a bit odd that in France Germany etc they can and do and have been for a long time. Can any civvy driver explain why in Europe you could (hopefully) be CASEVAC by heli at 5 in morning but in UK not a chance. I think some NVG may be involved somewhere along the line............. but I stand by to be corrected.

[ShyTorque]

The funding problem.

[zorab64]

peterprobe - there are a number of reasons why it's not as easy as it might appear as first glance. Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. UK Police fly single pilot, often flying 3-4 hrs in a night shift, 3 or more shifts in a row. It can be intense, and is neck-aching enough sitting in a 1000' hover for 30 mins, even without the added weight of NVG. Much of the work is over built up areas where the lighting can reduce the benefits of NVG. (Many European forces operate twin pilot - but it would significantly ramp up costs for the UK to follow suit.)

2. Police do not operate in the weeds, or near them very often, but generally above 800' and well away from wires etc.

3. Ad-hoc landings in fields at night? I'd agree, NVG might be very useful but it just doesn't happen more than once a year in the three forces I'm familiar with, and would always be surveyed with Thermal Image camera & nitesun beforehand (cos they don't have NVG!). Police aircraft are most effective staying in the air & directing the troops on the ground - as soon as you land, you've lost the advantage of the third dimension so you may as well be in a car!:eek:

4. UK Police do not operate under JAR.

5. The modern police camera & nitesun kit does the job very well with a screen usually visible to both front & rear Observers, as well as the pilot. I'm not sure exactly what happens to NVG when you illuminate a rural field with a 30 million candlepower nitesun?

6. Whilst the price of NVG my be coming down, they're not cheap. Nor is making the cockpit truly NVG compatible. EC-Beans asks the training question - I don't know the answer but I do know it won't be cheap. Police budgets are being squeezed all the time - they don't have the same depth of pockets as the military and all of this would have to be funded by the UK taxpayer which, if the current shenanigans are anything to go by, would probably prefer some fiscal belt-tightening from the Government!

7. If NVG is deemed to be of significant advantage, the places to start are the really rural forces, especially in lumpy areas (like N.Wales, where the Observers have been using NVG for some time).

8. And to the 24hour ops question - it immediately adds personnel cost (at least one full-time pilot and probably two Observers), and obviously flying costs to the operation, in order to cover just 4 or 5 extra dark hours where, traditionally, most people sleep and the weather is at it's most inclement - it's a value for money question again.

All in all, and bearing in mind value for money for the taxpayer, any NVG priority should be for rural forces, with metropolitan areas last. As already mentioned, HEMS tend to be day only - and don't forget most of them are run on charitable funding - any move to night ops would increase the funding requirement significantly, even without adding NVG into the mix.

Police aviation in the UK is a very different job to military flying in most areas, even though the skill-set is similar. The use of NVG may be desirable but is not, necessarily, value for money.

[ShyTorque]

5. The modern police camera & nitesun kit does the job very well with a screen usually visible to both front & rear Observers, as well as the pilot. I'm not sure exactly what happens to NVG when you illuminate a rural field with a 30 million candlepower nitesun?

Easy answer - the goggles close right down and can see nothing outside the white beam. Spectrolab produce an IR filter mod for the nightsun, which can be motored over the plain "white light" lens.

[Sky Police]

If you have the night sun on wide beam it does not close the goggles down. It is very usefull when searching in rural areas.

[helmet fire]

I am with Sky Police, the night sun does not shut down the goggles. It can be useful for clearly seeing what is on the ground from 1000 ft, but it is too bright to use low level or for landing. I think the SX5 is better than the SX16 unless you want to stay really high when using it.
When low level and landing, a standard searchlight is more than enough (300 to 450W)

IR filters should be used only for tactical reasons.

On HEMS which we fly, the night Sun is redundant. The 450W searchlight and standard landing light do the job really well. On landing and during winching, we always use the white light and it gives you terrific peripheral vision.

This is a major difference to the military use of NVG where white light will get you shot. The use of peripheral vision on landing is so fundamentally different that I think it has been one of the reasons a lot of ex mil NVG guys are against the proliferation of NVG into the civ world.

[Delta Torque]

Yes, as Helmut says...the Nitsun is good, down to about 1000 ft, then becomes a PITA. I have not used the IR filter on the Spectralabs Nitesun, but I am told it has some airspeed limitations which may render it not so handy on the job.

Some Aussie operators are trialling a new nightsun, called a 'Trakka', or 'Tracker' (I'm not sure which). It has the same output as the SL light, and has the bonus of several internal filters, controlled by a wired handset...IR among them. It also features auto parking.

Hope I'm not breaking the forum rules by giving the new guys a plug, but their light does show potential.. They are manufactured in Melbourne Aus...

Cheers...

[itcameoffinmyhand]

D&C Police have been flying single pilot NVG for approx 12 years. They are inches away from flying to ground level, which has now been agreed and ratified by the CAA. There is only a small contractual delay on the Brightstar (NVG compatible landing light) delivery which is required for flight.
The minimum instructional hours required for flying on NVG is 5 plus test.
There is a further 3 hrs required to go to ground level once the pilot has suitable experience at flying with the NVG which incidentaly is not below 500ft.
Nitesun above 500ft enhances the goggles and acts like a big torch, NVG's are also excellent over built up areas.
It is correct that retro fitting a cockpit to NVG spec that will pass CAA requirements is very expensive, however most new aircraft have the option to have a compatible cockpit from production.
The CAA are not against it, it just hasn't been done before and with something new it is always, slowly slowly catchee monkey.
Hope that helps.

[[email protected]]

With the clearance to ground level, will this still be single pilot or will the observer have goggles to assist with the recce and approach?

[timex]

I would imagine/hope it will be down to GL as the guy in the LHS will be using the FLIR, its not difficult single Pilot NVG, good recce and ref points. If the LHS guy uses NVG then its a bonus.

[20Minuter]

CAA require LH seat to wear goggles if going from 500ft to ground (mandated).

[[email protected]]

That's what I thought - you want 2 pairs of eyes using the same system going into unprepared sites.

There does seem to be a marked reluctance to mix NVG and white light - sometimes it's not so wonderful (high humidity) but often it can enhance the goggle picture. I encourage pilots to use the white light landing lamps (we don't have black light) to sweep the final approach for wires (especially the field boundary) as long as it doesn't adversely affect the goggle picture.

[tightrope]

8. And to the 24hour ops question - it immediately adds personnel cost (at least one full-time pilot and probably two Observers), and obviously flying costs to the operation, in order to cover just 4 or 5 extra dark hours where, traditionally, most people sleep and the weather is at it's most inclement - it's a value for money question again.

Are there many units left still putting the helicopter away at 0315hrs..??
Seems to be that most are are either going full 24/7 or changing their hours to cover that last bit of the night.
Surely the local crooks arent that stupid that they dont know when the local ASU shuts up shop, and its okay to go out burgling.?
As stated, "most people are asleep"..!

[MightyGem]

Are there many units left still putting the helicopter away at 0315hrs..??
Or there abouts. There are probably less than 10 24hr units.

[sunnywa]

The Western Australian Police Air Wing has been operating with NVG for six months now and find them to be the bee knees. To answer some of the questions:
- cost of ITT ANVIS 9 (Gen 3 Omni 4) is about USD$10K per set (if you can get them through the long process of order and the US State Department). Cost of other sets varies on who you talk to.
- The cockpit should be modified to be compatible. While the ANVIS 9's can only be slightly affected by unmodified lighting, the NVG lighting is better than unaided lighting anyway and corners should not be cut. Our cost was USD$60kish
- Training. In Aust (based on US and Kiwi rules), 5 hours plus test before getting basic tick in box. Additional training as required to meet role (SAR, winching, fast roping etc)
- Use over cities. We fly from the trolley to the trolley and operate over metropolitan areas 80% of aur time and find the NVG to enhance our SA. We fly at 1500ft in the Police role looking for baddies on our FLIR, but the terrain is easily seen on NVG amongst the lights. The biggest improvement is that areas that where just dark (parks, etc) before, we can now look into visually. Use of the nightsun from that height gives a nice light that brightens up everything (and not just inside the glow). Using the IR filter on the light is even better as no-one can see you looking for them. We have found lots of people that way.
-Anybody with a light (ciggy, phoneetc) is easy to see. Using the white light, reflective tape on running shoes is a standout.
- Another bonus for us is that our FLIR is fitted with a laser illuminator (wider beam than a pointer) and we illuminate an area as we approach it (the FLIR op has the area or house on screen). Instead of a vague '2:30 near that roundabout', the light on NVG illuminates the target and we pilots can see it and know where to orbit.
- When we go outside the metropolitan area, the NVG are fantastic as dark is no longer.
- Use of white light in winching and approaches is a must as it makes the NVG work better and you can see those pesky poles (haven't seen a wire yet) no matter what the illum.

We do everything on NVG and I would feel naked without them now. My only point is introduce them properly (good gear, cockpit and cabin, and training) and you are 95% safer. We do 4 hours a night and I personally don't feel the weight and feel much fresher than boring around on the clocks.

Oh, and they are dead easy to fly with, not sure what all the fuss is about. :ok:

[[email protected]]

Sunnywa - I reckon the reason you have found the transition to NVG so easy is because you have done it all properly (lighting, training etc):ok:

You're right - it isn't black magic or for SF ops only but you must have the right equipment and be properly prepared - I hope all the other civilian operators around the world follow your lead.

[Flying Bull]

Hi folks,

read the thread with interest.
5 hrs training seems to littlte for me.
Having done more than 600 hrs on NVG in the last few years I experienced, that all scary moments in the last years were with NVG on.....
(and we operate with a two pilot plus FLIR-operator crew- NVG certified helos)
Doing real missions with live on stack you´re surely go closer to the limits - and at night with NVG they are not always that clear to determine.
As long as the wheather is good, there are only a few trapdoors which can get you.
(i.e. a car with coming up a hill and blinding you with the frontlights)
Wheater bad or getting bad i.e. due to cooling and upcoming mist or just low cloud and rain in the valleys, can make you whish to be on the ground instead of the air....
Mistwetter - fotocommunity.de (http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/543282/display/12011872)
Photo was taken before take off after an outsidelanding such a night. You might see, where the clouds were on take off - at the time of the landing, they were lower.
And winter is about to come - snow and NVG a very special adventure itself....
Single Pilot NVG operations is only an accident to be waited for cause your eyes need time to focus between looking inside for instruments - and outside again through NVG.
In case of any emergency you´ll get problems finding switches and fuses with the NVG on, handling the emergency while still have to fly the helo.
Imagine i.e. a birdstrike - yes, there are also birds around flying at night!
In all these cases, a second guy with NVG in the front and with very good aircraft knowledge - best a pilot - could save your butt.
I wouldn´t like to fly tactical single pilot cause I have experienced the value of a second pilot!

Greetings Flying Bull

[helisteve]

Anyone out there using a luminosity calculation to decide go/no go on NVG, or restriction of NVG ops with low luminosity (Translation:black as the inside of a cow calculation) Thks in advance

[[email protected]]

Steve, the UK Met Office produces light level tables for the Brit Mil but I don't know how widely available it is to others. The figures give compensation for varying degrees of cloud cover but don't take into consideration cultural lighting.

The figures used to be in millilux but are now in NVISlux because sensors (NVG, NVIS etc) have a different response to the human eye.

[helmet fire]

sunnywa is right: why would you fly without them??

Civvy NVG ops is NOT A NEW THING guys. There are well established methodologies, training courses, and cockpit mods. One company in the US (ASU o Boise ID) has done more than 280 cockpits!!! And contrary to Shy Torque above: modern glass cockpits are amongst the easiest to modify. There is an international standard that formed the basis for many of the countries already using them - SC-196 created the DO268 and DO275.

Swiss: 25 plus years, US: 15 plus years, Sweden/Norway: 7 plus years and now mandatory, NZ: five plus years and used by every single govt contracted night helo, Aus 2 years and used in every state. No need to re-invent the wheel, though I am sure it will be tried.

White external lighting does not need to be "compatible". Dont get conned by the salesmen. It needs to be considered in direction (that it does not shine into the cockpit or stop the rear seaters viewing outside) but compatible? No.

As I had said earlier - the use of white external lighting when landing so fundamentally alters the landing environment that alot of the fears of the military guys are just not realistic. White light provides ample peripheral vision, enables the NVG image to be very clear near the ground (and on finals when the recce is important) even on very dark nights.

For you UK gents, I suggest a quick trip to a scandinavian operator as a study tour will bring you up to speed with how different it is to our old military days. Banning NVG single pilot plus crewman and rapid response is very supportable when doing tac low level no white light ops, but this proposition is unsupportable for non tac white light situations. 128 subject matter experts have already gone through the issues on the international level and produced the standards. They have all gone slowly and now proven them over many many years.

All you have to do is open your eyes to other operations. It is all done for you.

When we tackled illumination levels as a limiter we realised that it is an outdated military concept, not at all applicable in areas of cultural lighting, and less and less an issue with Omnibus IV and above. We chose visibility. Australian and Kiwi rules state that the terrain (not light sources) must be visible 5000m ahead, or climb to LSALT. Note that there is no cruise flight below 500ft allowed on NVG. This vis tool enables us to consider atmospheric obscurants as well as illumination and cultural areas in one go. Norway has recently reduced the vis to 3000m and I would support that once a system is mature (say more than 5 or so years of widespread use).

To finish where we started: why fly without them?

[[email protected]]

HelmetFire - a couple of questions:

Do the operators flying single pilot NVG carry out landings to unrecced LS or do they fly HLS to HLS and just use the goggles for terrain clearance and lookout?

If they are carrying out landings to unrecced sites do they use white light (nightsun or equivalent) to recce for wires and is the crewman on NVG as well?

For a visibility estimate do you work on the observed Met vis or do you try and judge 5000m (or 3000m) visually on goggles?

If you encounter a large shower (CB for example) and the vis comes below 5000m, is a climb to LSALT the best option? I only ask this because according to your rules I wouldn't have been able to complete a hospital transfer the other night - although we were at 500' agl, the vis came down regularly to 1000 - 1500m and with large showers and forecast CB activity, an instrument abort to safety alt wasn't an option.

If the met vis is below 5000m is it automatically a nogo?

The light levels graph may not take into account cultural lighting but it still gives you a good idea of what the real light levels are going to be when you get away from the built up areas - for us working over the sea and in fairly rural areas of the UK it is a much better guide than visibility.

[helisteve]

Thks Crab for the info. Is the light graph you describe used as a cut off for go/no go or does it place resrtrictions on what activity you can do on NVIS. What level of NVISlux changes the way you operate. I'm trying to develop an SOP that uses more than just horizontal viz and cloud base minima for NVIS ops.

[[email protected]]

Steve, in some places in the Mil (mainly training establishments) they use the graph as a go/nogo but I can't remember what limit they use. I seem to remember 2 mlux used to be a cutoff but then the Met Office changed their algorithms for calculating it and it became 0.7 which I think was the changeover to NVISlux.

In the SAR world we just use them as a guide since we don't, effectively, have any weather limits for SAROPs and for training have a cloud and vis limit rather than a light level limit.

As mentioned earlier, the problem with trying to forecast likely light levels is complicated by cultural lighting - it's really a case of suck it and see because even on the darkest of nights (in UK anyway) having NVG is still better than not, we just go lower and slower:ok:

Lower light levels just mean being more careful but generally they don't limit what we do.

[helmet fire]

Do the operators flying single pilot NVG carry out landings to unrecced LS or do they fly HLS to HLS and just use the goggles for terrain clearance and lookout?

They do both. Some countries and organisations apply differing limitations, but most adhere to the international standard in some form: For operations below 500 ft, or to/from unpreparred HLS then two crew are required to be using, current, and qualified on NVG (one of them the PIC). At our operation we use a pilot and crewman mix. The crewman does the same ground school and has a three hour flight training course. All crew are limited to landing in an area no smaller than 40m X 40m until they gain sufficient experience (at least 50 hours).

If they are carrying out landings to unrecced sites do they use white light (nightsun or equivalent) to recce for wires and is the crewman on NVG as well?

White light use is mandatory at our organisation and a pilot steerable white light is minimum equipment for Australian NVG ops. We absolutely use white light - regardless of illumination or cultural lighting. It is a fundamentally different proposition than our old military ops.

For a visibility estimate do you work on the observed Met vis or do you try and judge 5000m (or 3000m) visually on goggles?

This is done so differently in different countries. In Australia, you have to be able to comply with NVFR - that means observed met has to be 5000m plus. When conducting NVG flight, you have to be able to see the unlit terrain 5000m ahead (i.e. judged by pilot using NVG). This is because viz doesnt equal ground illum and why we captured both aspects (wx and illum) with one limit. It is not uncommon in the Northern Territory for example to have unlimited viz but be so dark as to not meet the 5000m on NVG. In that instance we simply fly at 1000 - 1500 ft and descend only upon arrival at the scene or HLS.

If you encounter a large shower (CB for example) and the vis comes below 5000m, is a climb to LSALT the best option? I only ask this because according to your rules I wouldn't have been able to complete a hospital transfer the other night - although we were at 500' agl, the vis came down regularly to 1000 - 1500m and with large showers and forecast CB activity, an instrument abort to safety alt wasn't an option.

In Australia we have three options for encountering low viz: turn back to regain, climb to LSALT or land and wait. I cannot comment on your operation as I believe that you know your area best. In the scenario you painted, NVG flight would not be permitted in Australia. You may use wx reduced to no less than scattered cloud below 1000 ft 2nm either side of the acft path if you are fully IFR capable.

The only way we could have considered your situation is to declare a mercy flight. This is a good system as it requires a detailed risk analysis of the situation prior to conducting it, and it seeks to reduce the emotional responses that traditionally leads to many such flights (and pprune arguements later!!).

The light levels graph may not take into account cultural lighting but it still gives you a good idea of what the real light levels are going to be when you get away from the built up areas - for us working over the sea and in fairly rural areas of the UK it is a much better guide than visibility.

As above, NVG ground viz is not met viz. NVG ground viz is determined by so many variables that it is not possible to predict the actual illumination based on the chart - hence discarding it as a go/no go. Variables include (but are not limited to) relative humidity, prescence and thickness and hieght of cloud, smoke areas, dust and other obscurants, haze layers and polution, rain, moon angle moon size, moon orbit phase, waxing or waning moon, presence of cultural lighting, etc, etc, etc.

By requiring that the pilot can see 5000m into unlit terrain, we capture all those variables in one hit.

[[email protected]]

Helmetfire - thanks for the info, you seem to have the situation very well sorted in Oz - I seem to remember from other threads on this subject that you were heavily involved persuading CASA to accept NVG ops for non mil organistaions:ok:

It seems that what you are describing isn't quite what people would regard as single pilot NVG though - yes you only have one pilot but you have a second crewmember on NVG as well. Out of interest does this crewman operate from the cabin on NVG or is he in the left hand seat for recces and landings? Are the crewmen classed as aircrew or are they paramedics with extra training so they can perfrom two roles?

[helmet fire]

You raise a much discussed point. My personal belief is we should call it Single Pilot for ops with only a single pilot on board as crew, we should call it "Multi crew" for ops with a single pilot plus additional non pilot crew, and call it Dual Pilot for ops with more than one pilot. Ah...semantics. It does save emotive responses though!

I think the crew thing is a cultural issue that needs to be considered within the context of the particular organisation and country. We conducted a study tour through the US and Europe looking at various HEMS organisations (and I mean EMS and SAR when I say HEMS). We concluded that the most appropriate mix for HEMS was a Multicrew solution (1 pilot plus at least 1 crewmember). Further, our view of "world's best practice" is based on the newer EASA system which states that there should be two pilots up front for all HEMS missions (day or night or NVG), however a non pilot crewmember can fulfil the second pilot role if appropriately trained.

Norweigan Air Ambulance (NOLAS) have put into place what we considered to be the best method of meeting that: their crewmen are trained at least to PPL helicopter theory and most often higher. They are given the flight training to land the helicopter, they are given an extensive left seat course including IFR and NVG modules that extends to almost 40 hours by the time they are fully qualified.

We use the crewman upfront for transit and enroute work, and down the back for hoist or tight confined area ops. Our CAO states that the second crewman be positioned by the PIC, on intercom and proivide assistance as required by the PIC and Ops Manual. Each organisation in Oz trains the crewies to different requirements, some do not have a front seat element to the training at all, others do a full IFR course.

Over in the US they are having a big debate because the NVG advisory tells them that the second crewmember (required for ops below 500ft and to unprep HLS) needs to do the full NVG ground school. It does not specify any flight competencies, nor even the equipment they need to be using in the helo. Accordingly, many organisations use the paramedics and give them the ground school and equip them with a NVG monocle and meet the specs that way. They are yet to have an accident in 15 years of NVG ops. not wrong - just different to our way.

The Swiss have 25 years and they require the second crewmember to be unaided!!! The viz limit is when the unaided crewie cannot determine if the acft is moving or not. They traditionally dont do many NVG landings. Again, not wrong - just different to our way. Again: accident free for more than 25 years of NVG rescues and SAR.

So it will fall to each country to decide what fits within their risk profile and operation and culture. You Poms can get a really good priced airfare over to Oslo and check out NOLAS for yourself: I highly recommend it. Happy to show you around both our rapid response system and our SAR operation, but Oz is a loooong way.

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the reply helmetfire - it just amplifies that there is no cheap and quick way into NVG ops - it requires properly trained and equipped crews.

It is certainly horses for courses - in our environment we often end up mixing IFR with NVG either for IMC to visual descents or IMC aborts from low level and in those situations where disorientation can be a real issue it is better to have 2 pilots up the front. We can have all 4 crew on NVG if required but that would generally be for searching at night or nav assist in crap weather.

What is absolutely vital when grovelling around in poor wx at night is accurate mapping which is regularly updated with wires/masts etc so you don't get caught out.

We also use our FLIR turret to help identify wires and other obstacles - it can be very effective and is a better use of the Radar Operator/winch op in that environment.

[helmet fire]

That's right...horses for courses.

During the development of the Oz regs, the industry body studied all the NVG ops they could. The comment that most stood out from the Poms was
"5000m viz?, we would never be able to get airborne!"

At the end, the International standard recommended no variation to existing NVMC for NVG, thus we ended up with 5000m. As I said previously, I think there is a case to reduce that to 3000m with system maturity. That is 3000m of terrain viz, not meterological viz.

We also mix NVG with IFR as some of our outbound or return legs are conducted IFR. With the NVG properly set up, it is no issue to transition fully onto the clocks. Having conducted instrument approaches with NVG I can attest to the reduced heart rate when breaking visual and circling at night.

We also believe in the mapping point you make crab. Again, in the Norweigian system post a 2002ish Dauphin accident (wires in fjiord at night) they convened an industry meeting with players, regulators and human factors types. Outcomes were three elements:
HEMS must:
1. have two pilots or pilot and appropriately trained crewie for all HEMS missions
2. have a moving map system, and
3. use NVD for all night missions.

The result of our study tour was that the organisation I work for would embrace these principles, and obviously I think they would be sound principles world wide for HEMS, including the US.

Our rapid response system does not function with out the mapping system - it is MEL. We use it for primary Nav and we also use it to "google earth" (with survey quality photos) the intended HLS before we get there so that we can have a good daytime view of the HLS and surrounds before arrival.

PS: wish we had a FLIR turret, but I am very intrested in fitting and using EVS if ever we can afford to do so.

[[email protected]]

I wish we had moving map displays - the only moving our maps do is when you fold them!!:)

Looking under the goggles at the instruments is not the problem it is when you are trying to mix an instrument and visual (NVG) scan just as you are making the decision to abort that can disorientate - it's that inadvertant IMC moment that gets the heart rate up and going in and out of low cloud can give all sorts of visual illusions.

I think the only problem with using 5000m or 3000m of terrain vis is the ability of the crew to judge it accurately unless there are clear geographical features to use as range markers - I would have thought that there must be many areas of Australia where the terrain is almost featureless. I was given a map by an exchange Aussie pilot of somewhere up the West coast which might as well have been a sheet of sandpaper for all the detail it had on it!!

What is MEL?

[Senior Pilot]

What is MEL?

Minimum Equipment List.

[helmet fire]

MEL: wot he on high said!
If it is a part of the minimum equipment list for the operation, then it must be serviceable before embarking on that operation.
Moving map is a minimum serviceability item for us to do our rapid response HEMS. And as per the outcomes of the Norweigian analysis, it should become a minimum requirement for HEMS into the future.

We actually teach a mix of NVG and instrument scans, indeed most of the work during NVG flight is substantiated on the clocks. We teach that the primary closure rate aid is the airspeed/groundspeed indications and the primary descent rate info is the VSI until you get to around 400ft (or lower dependant upon illum), then you can gain primary info through the goggles and secondary back up using the instruments and crewman con.

Popping down off the instrument approach on NVG is not confusing. If at the minima you are not visual, go around. We dont permit the "scud running" you are alluding to when on NVG as discussed before in your example of the inter hospital.

There is no way that a chart or forecast can determine the scene illumination due to the enormous variables previously discussed. Accordingly, unlike almost any other form of flight, NVG can be a "go and have a look" operation sometimes. It also means that the only possible way to achieve a minimum illum condition is to trust pilot judgement of that distance.

Scarry concept - trusting pilot judgement!

That said, on our organisation we have the crewmen who are repeatedly trained in assertive controls when faced with a deteriorating viz situation. They are trained to estimate the 5000m and play a critical role in enforcing it - that way there is two of them making the call and reducing (not eliminating) the chances of temptations to ignore the situation.

The Oz regs actually borrowed a procedure from the EASA proposals that the US do not use - the "turn back" procedure in response to deteriorating viz/illum/ground definition; either crewmember can call it, the acft should them conduct a level decellerating turn slowing to about 60 to 70 kias until regaining required viz.

[JimL]

Interesting discussion.

It is necessary to make a distinction between dispatch criteria and operational decisions - the concept is, generally, not well understood. Curiously enough, the principle is used in two elements of the discussion so far.

The MEL deals with dispatch criteria - once airborne, it has no relevance (incidentally, it is the opposite of your statement; if it is not in the MEL, it is needed for dispatch; if it is in the MEL, dispatch might be possible - depending upon the circumstances). Complete operational concepts (such as NVIS) might have a separate set of entries in the MEL.

Most regulations have a visibility 'criteria' for dispatch; once airborne alternative operational (and protective) strategies come into play. As has already been said, estimating visibility in flight is difficult and attempting to relate it to visual flight cueing (using external references) is problematical.

By night there is little correlation between absolute visibility and adequate references for visual flight. The provision of flight control augmentation permits more concentration on the visual aspects of the operation and less on the actual flying task. NVIS does introduce contradictions; available light sources are enhanced but visual accuity and field of view are seriously diminished (although on balance, there is a substantial improvement – particularly in the cruise).

That is why existing guidance addresses: equipment, procedures, training & experience, and recency. It is good to see that other practical elements are being added to SOPs. It might be advantageous, at some stage, to revisit the debate and adjust the ‘universal guidance’ in light of lessons learnt so far.

Jim

[hum]

I wish we had moving map displays - the only moving our maps do is when you fold them!!

Try a Garmin 296 - I was recently amazed to find it was as good as any of the displays I used in a previous life in a Harrier GR7...

I also believe that all night SAR crews should have NVGs available... even if used by rear crew as 'opera glasses' for finding survivors... esp at sea...

good example here:

EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Ditching 11/99 300 miles from Hawaii (http://www.equipped.org/1199ditch.htm)

[[email protected]]

Helmet fire, out of interest do those crews relying on moving may displays carry a paper map (correctly amended) as a back-up?

We rely heavily on our CALF and CHAD system for keeping our maps as up to date as possible because we can fly unrecced routes (most night SAROPs) at 250' agl if the weather requires it and all obstacles above 250' should be marked on our maps with most below that height as well.

I don't know if the databases available for moving map displays match or exceed those criteria, especially for UK.

You are right, coming down from instruments to NVG at the bottom of approach is not a problem (as long as you are really visual) -I have, once, only seen the runway approach lights at night (and hence achieved the required visual references) at DH because I looked through the goggles - I didn't get properly visual with the lights for another 50' or so on the ILS but we had nowhere else to go and a very poorly person on board.

Good CRM is, as you highlight, essential to safe NVG ops - another advantage of having 2 pilots in poor weather is that one might have decent references even if the other doesn't so control can be handed over although this is only really relevant during very low level grovelling/hovertaxying.

Hum - I would love to be able to try a Garmin but you know how difficult it would be to get the IPT to agree to using it! However, all military SAR crews do have NVG and post 2012 (SARH) the civvy ones will as well.

The SAR Force started using NVG in the manner you describe with the crewman using hand held 'opera glasses' but it is f*ing scary flying mortal night techniques in the mountains when it is all black and trusting the Nav/winchop to talk you round the terrain!

[sunnywa]

Helmetfire,

What type of moving map do you have fitted, and as CASA are pretty narky on such things, is it approved for IFR Nav. We have a moving map system (an extremely accurate Avalex one that can even tell us who owns the plots of land, their daughters age, how may beers in the fridge etc - well not the last one) but stamped in large letters NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION it is not of the right level (B I think). For crab, yes we have maps of the paper kind as well but would have to dust them off to use them. All amended and legal but they are 1:1 000 000 so not real good to navigate at low level on.

As I operate in WA, the comparison with sandpaper is very apt - we have the worlds best beaches here - about 1000km wide all the way around. That said, normally pretty easy to guesstimate 5000m vis as there is always something around.

With regards to the FLIR being fitted, we have a FLIR Star Sapphire III and find it works very well on its own or in conjunction with our NVG.

Cheers.:ok:

[helmet fire]

Jim L:
you are right about the MEL statement as a contradiction, it is a turn of phrase that has developed (incorrectly) to convey meaning quickly.

I share your thoughts on dispatch V operational decision. I believe we are way over prescribing the dispatch criteria and missing the outcome based decision making. The more we do this, the more we send ill-equipped pilots into difficult decisions without the experience and tools to choose correctly. The NVFR viz Vs visual references is a great example.

As the SC-196 convened over 10 years ago, I agree that it would be well worth while revisiting the standards established there. I seem to recall that you were on the pannel were you not?

To pick up on your field of view and diminished visual acuity comments, I am always suprised that others interpret these as significant disadvantages of NVG. The visual acuity of NVG (American Omnibus iv and better) is 20/30 and better. Omnibus vii is thought to be 20/20. Unaided viewing is 20/200 - somehwat less than the NVG!!!
FOV of NVG is around 40degrees. What is it from 500 ft with a nightsun? 2degrees??

FOV and Acuity only become an issue when you employ daytime flight techniques using NVG, like the military have to do to exploit the night time warfighting space. We actually do not vary much of our exisiting night techniques whilst using NVG so they represent an enormous increase in both FOV and acuity. For those who insist on comparing NVG to day time flight acuity and FOV as an example of how limited they are, then I agree: dont wear them during the day!

crab:
We carry paper maps, properly marked as a back up. We actually highlight the dangerous towers and wires directly onto our moving map system and therefore they standout much better than the paper versions. As sunnywa said, we would have to dust them off!

We do not transit below 500 ft on NVG and our weather has to be better than 5000m viz, and 1000ft cloud ceiling 2nm either side of track even to to go below LSALT. Accordingly, we do not face many of your issues, especially your map ones - which makes me even more suprised you dont have such a system as a mandatory item.
We only get into the wire environment during the take off and landing phases, thus we have very limited exposure. During the take off and landing, we employ mandatory use of white light and we approach from 500ft in a measured and controlled fashion clearing the path of wires using white light (and FLIR for those lucky enough).

For justification of moving maps and the garmin look no further than the lessons from the Norway crash as a substantiated safety case for their acquisition. Sadly for our industry however, we very rarely learn from the mistakes of others - it is almost as if we have to make them ourselves. Even then it is a long road.

How long ago did the UK CAA / AAIB publish the Strathclyde outcomes and recommendations???

sunnywa:
We have a CAR35 (Oz version of a "local" STC for you international ppruners)system that is not for primary nav. We use the twin Garmin 430W for primary nav.
We have two different mission profiles: rapid response and multi role. Our rapid response system will not go without a moving map as it is rarely safe to do so. We use the system not only to get to the exact accident site, but also to have a detailed look at the intended HLS before we arrive and get pressured into having to land, as well as having a system that does almost what yours does (though we are yet to recieve the "how many beers in the fridge" upgrade). We are working at putting a remote screen into the rear so they can see the pad as well rather than have to lean forward and look over the crewies shoulder.
The multirole missions can cope with the delays required of using the garmins coupled with a paper system, and we would (and do) go on that basis regardless of the moving map status.
We also use the systems to download wx trends and forecasts, radar pictures and cell trends along the intended track (though use the wx radar as primary nav) and even to submit flight plan ammendments or updates.
FLIR would be great, but we are also conscious of not having to have a 412 to do the job of a 117.

[[email protected]]

Helmetfire - we fly with Omni4 goggles and the visual acuity is usually 20/40 -we check them on a Hoffman box so the assessment is accurate - with a really good set you might get 20/35 - I don't know who might fly with better than Omni4 (probably SF) but it's not us - however the prospect of 20/20 is interesting - that would probably allow us to winch on NVG as precisely as we can on white light.

As I'm sure you know, the limited FOV is mainly an problem at low level and on approach because it requires constant head movements to scan for obstacles and assess rates of closure - not as much of an issue at 500' and above where you are primarily using goggles as an aid to lookout

We will have to wait for a new aircraft (SARH) to get moving map displays but that is only a couple of years away:ok:

What is your required rapid response time from phone call to airborne?

[helmet fire]

Omnibus VII "Pinacles" are reputedly 20/20 or near enough. They are available to civilian operators in the USA, but not outside. The best you can get outside the US is the IVs, and that is what we use in Oz. The NVG are "detuned" according to limitations set by the US State Department in terms of signal to noise (which affects accuity) and minimum halo sizes. Regardless, the exported IV is an outstanding goggle that produces a civilian safe standard of image for the first time in NVG evolution.

Either way, 20/40 is far superior to 20/200.

It is hard to explain in this brief format, but the use of white light has so fundamentally changed the way we fly on NVG that some of the old military mantras are less applicable than the absolutes they used to be. The head scan on late finals and in the hover is one of those. Designed to overcome the reduced FOV, the head scan acted like a weather radar sweep, it enabled the mind to build an accurate picture of obstacles, closure rates and drift in the hover. With white light however you can simply use a "look around" view moving your eyes and not your head. The white light also provides you a great deal of peripheral vision which is critical in the maintenance of an accurate hover - and the lack of it in the military (white light would get you shot) is why NVG hovering was so hard.

I should also say that the white light has not alleviated the rear seat crewman head movement requirements, and as our crewman instructor is want to say: if you come back from a winching sortie without a sore neck then you have not been scanning properly.

That has translated into NVG winching being just as you imagined: we can winch as precisely on NVG as we can on white light. We have changed the emphasis on the reference points for the hover, but the winching is even easier than white light only because you have a horizon through the NVG and when the winch is completed you are not departing a black hole. We often practice NVG failure in the winch for the pilot and crewie (not together) and have yet to see any adverse reaction. There is no way we would have practiced this in the military as goggle failure would mean a total loss of references, but that is not the case with white light civvy winching in which your primary references are actually the unaided ones!

Response times are a whole bag of worms. The phrase "required response times" evokes echos of a bygone era in which we simply failed to understand the enormous safety implications of such a "requirement". Organisations resorting to "required" response times do so because it is the quickest and easiest "thing" to measure and compare dicks over. The safety outcomes and patient outcomes are almost never measured. And the complexity of such measurements fails to justify "contracted" or "required" response times in any way. IMHO.

Rant over. On both our multirole and rapid response mission profiles the actual take off time is dictated by completion of the required planning tasks, not by any time limit. Our principal is that the time taken to respond does not dictate the the safety of the response - the planning tasks do. For example, if you pause for a chat on the way out to the helo and have a slower response than the other helo, are you necessarily safer?

The complexity of the multirole mission (SAR in particular) can result in response delays of over an hour, though typically not more than 15 minutes. The rapid response model on the other hand enables take off in 2 minutes (day or NVG) from the decision to go, but that is because it is a single role system: limited range, limited patient group, crew, configuration and equipment are not altered.
I note your part in the previous debates on response times so let me finish by saying that like crew mixes, response times are not comparable across roles, certainly not across differing environmental and teraain conditions, and rarely even across operating cultures. One is not wrong or unsafe, it is just different.

[[email protected]]

Helmetfire - we have been mixing NVG and white light for many years in SAR, since we don't have the military imperative of covert ops we adopt what is best practise and it does work extremely well in many situations.

However, although the use of white light on the approach gives you more information, if you are looking through NVG you still need to scan for that information unless by 'moving your eyes' you mean looking under the goggles at the outside world.

This can have its benefits but usually only as a help to decide when to transfer from NVG to white light - trying to use both at the same time begs the question of what you are trying to achieve. If the picture on white light is not good enough then stay on goggles using white light to improve the illumination - if the picture on white light is good enough then transfer completely to white light. The head scan is still required to check for wires and obstacles.

Trying to assimilate the information from both under and through the goggles isn't impossible but at critical stages like landing or manoeuvering in the low hover, I would suggest that using either one or the other is best, especially for less experienced pilots.

As to winching on NVG, I have done some ad-hoc trials to the same situations (cliffs, over water, decks) both on white light and NVG and come to the conclusion that where absolute precision is required and references are available (cliffs and decks) white light gives (due to the better visual acuity) the best hover but where references are limited anyway (over water) usually NVG with the assistance of white light is the best option.

We have the luxury of 2 pilots so one can always stay on goggles for the flyaway if required - personally, after a few years of doing this job I have my goggles set so I can see my white light references on the cliff but can still 'look up' into the NVG for horizon and obstacle awareness so that I could react quicker to an engine failure instead of handing over control.

I wasn't having a pop over response times, merely asking a question - although we have specified response times the Captain would always be justified in exceeding those if more planning was required.

[ARRAKIS]

I would put a big question mark regarding a 20/20 VA with a NVD. Maybe using some "creative" measurement method?
The export limitations for any NVD from US for quite some time are based on the FOM parameter (Figure of Merit). FOM=SNR*Resolution of the tube.
The limit for UK/OZ/ etc... is, if I remember, FOM=1600, which would be the equivalent to the old specs of the OMNI IV tubes. The tubes with gated power supplies are not exported outisde US. If you want some, you have to look for a non-US manufacturer.
I don't think anyone is "detuning" the tubes. It's just a question of choosing the ones having parameters below a given limit.

Arrakis

[helmet fire]

Thanks crab, you have confirmed some of the outcomes that we have experienced. I am intrested, if you have time, in you detailing your over water NVG winching experiences, and acft equipment in terms of autopilot/auto hover etc.
We do not do such operations so we would be keen to hear it.

I note that you guys have come to the same conclusion in terms of sometimes it is better to be goggled up, and some times it is not. Indeed the Swiss when we visited, stated that they goggle up and degoggle as required by the situation. For cliff winches for example, they would approach to the hover on NVG, then degoggle in the hover for the winch, depart and goggle up in the fly away.

Unfortunately, that option is not available in Oz as the NVG Order prescriptively requires us to be on the ground or above LSALT to change status of the crew (between aided and unaided). Oz was the only country we came across with this requirement. Others advised a control (NZ system for example) but most did not regulate this aspect at all. How do you guys control it, and with your experience, what do you think of the Swiss approach?

How do any others do this?

Aarakis: I agree. My use of the phrase "detuned" was incorrect.

[rivnut]

We operate on NVGs for HEMS/Pol....ITT F4949 goggles with F9800P tubes at 64 line pairs resolution.

We do not advocate goggling or de-goggling other than at a safe height, certainly not at low levels or at hover....definitely from experience not a habit we are comfortable with.

Secondly we have a rule of thumb to deal with reduced vis or very poor contrast conditions....if you are down to 400' and 60kts then abort and turn back seek alternative method (such as IFR).

We use landing light for obstacle detection and augmentation, especially in poor ambient light conditions. IR landing light for covert ops.

If pilot /acft IFR than wx minima can be 3000m and clear of cloud. If night VFR only then wx must be NVMC.

We have found that there is little point over-controlling NVGs, good initial training with follow-up period of supervision and simple set of rules is more than adequate to conduct a safe NVG op.

[[email protected]]

Helmet Fire - sorry for the delay in replying but I have been away camping in a rather damp Cornish field:)

Our SOP for night wet winching (person in the water or small vessel, raft etc) would be to establish the hover with the casualty in the 2:30 position and hand control to the radop/winchop using the Hover Trim system since he is the one who can see what is happening under the aircraft.

The Sea King has an auto hover (4 axis with rad-alt hold) and the height can be wound up and down as required (Mk3 to 70', Mk3A to 199') if the downwash is affecting the survivor/vessel. The hover trim controller is by the cabin door and gives 10% pitch and roll control authority to the radop/winchop to manoeuvre the aircraft and operate the winch.

The rearcrew would be on white light throughout and the white light hover flood lights would be on to illuminate the casualty - the pilots might be on NVG or white light depending on conditions.

With more than 10 -15 kts of wind, the downwash is behind the cockpit so a combination of NVG and white light is usually appropriate (the steerable landing lamps allow you to see more of the surface information) and when we are practicing manual recoveries (pilot flying with the cyclic autopilot modes released) this is usually the configuration that allows you to provide the best service but not everyone (often depending on experience levels) is always comfortable with this, preferring to use the radop/winchops patter and the Low Velocity Indicator (LVI or hovermeter) to assess rates of movement. The LVI is, bizzarely, better in the analogue Mk 3 than it is in the digital Mk3A!

With lower wind strengths, the downwash tends to envelop the aircraft in a recirculating ball of spray rendering the NVG useless and white light not much better (all the light is reflected back from the fast moving spray, like when you put your landing lamp on in the cruise and realise it is raining but much worse) so it is back to the LVI and patter again.

The instrument hover is a relatively slow process since great care must be taken not to develop rapid rates of movement, especially backwards, and it is quite possible to become disorientated on a gloopy night - hence our SOP to utilise the hover trim as the radop/winchop has generally good visual references throughout.

We pretty much operate to the Swiss concept of ops, again the luxury of 2 pilots means one can always stay on NVG and there can be a safe handover of control whilst the other degoggles/goggles up. I do encourage pilots to get to a stable, close hover on NVG before transferring to white light but that is often just lack of confidence by junior pilots in their NVG hovering, especially close to cliffs, and is soon sorted with some practice.

We also do a lot of high hovering on NVG (1000 to 1500') for FLIR searches which again makes for an interesting scan and the value of the LVI cannot be overstated - it is very easy to end up going backwards at 20 -30 knots when your hover references are such a long way away if you don't scan the LVI regularly, especially during a protracted search when fatigue and boredom set in.

[helmet fire]

Thanks for the info guys.

Rivnut: you mention that you have had experiences that make you guys limit goggle up/degoggle hieghts. What are the expereinces and what are the limitations? It was interesting to me that during the 20 plus years of Swiss ops they have not had the same issues.

crab: thanks for the insights. You made a point that I was very interested in examining and have been doing so over here:
personally, after a few years of doing this job I have my goggles set so I can see my white light references on the cliff but can still 'look up' into the NVG for horizon and obstacle awareness so that I could react quicker to an engine failure instead of handing over control.


Do you mean setting your eye relief? I am very interested in discussing the eye relief from a civ white light perspective Vs a military non white light use. It seems you have also discovered what we are finding - an increased eye relief may suit civ ops where it did not suit mil ops.

[[email protected]]

Helmet Fire - a lot of pilots tend to have the goggles too close to their eyes in the mistaken belief that it will give them a better field of view - when you are looking down a pair of toilet roll tubes you can see very little more by jamming them against your eyeballs than you can with them a comfortable distance (say 2 cm) away.

Personally I have them as far forward as they will go on the adjusters simply because I get a much better view inside the cockpit without having to crane my neck into odd angles. Any small loss (and I mean small) in FoV is made up for by scanning which I would have to do anyway. The advantage is definitely clear when you come onto mixed-light ops where glancing under the goggles is easier and the decision to de-goggle (if neccessary) can be made whilst comparing the two pictures. The added bonus is that you are not limited to your pool of white light when cliff/mountain winching and you retain the awareness of obstacles and terrain, especially important if you have to deal with an emergency whilst winching.

As I mentioned in the previous post, operating on white light whilst still wearing the goggles is only really feasible if you have the eye-relief set well forward and it is something worth trying on a training flight before doing it operationally.

Not everyone finds it comfortable to start with and it is not always a perfect solution - I was winching at the bottom of a narrow valley a few weeks ago with hover references on white light but an escape route (down the valley) that had to be flown on NVG (and quickly if a flyaway from an engine fail was to be feasible) and I was working hard against disorientation since I also needed to use my NVG references to help stop me drifting since the terrain was sloping and the white light references were moving (trees and grass blowing in the wind/downwash). I had an instrument style abort option if required but it was one of those situations where neither pure white light nor NVG hover would give me the hover accuracy and the flyaway option.

[helmet fire]

Exactly our conclusions.
Close eye relief (18mm or so) gives a larger retinal image size of the NVG picture than does an extended eye relief of greater than say 30mm, but it gives no appreciable increase in FOV of the image.

For Mil Ops with only the NVG image to rely on, the image size was of great importance as it was the only source of external references. For Civ Ops, you are more likely to be hovering off unaided references, thus the retinal image size (of the NVG image) is not as critical - the unaided references are. Accordingly, what becomes of more importance is getting the NVG eye relief sufficient that you can hover off the white light references without being too distracted. Unfortunately, all the books that come with the NVG say that eye relief should be 18 to 25mm.

After a lot of recent NVG white light hovering I have found that the brain is capable of giving a clear unaided image even with the goggles still in the operational position - but I am talking about 40 odd hours of hovering in a month! I am curious as to the cause of this, and am wondering how it connects to the vision phenomena Apache pilots have to master to run different eyes on different tasks.

[[email protected]]

I think the brain training required is very similar but probably not quite as demanding as the Apache 'bag' training and I know that adapting to it is a very individual issue. I will check the actual eye relief on our NVG when I get back to work.

It is not unlike using a camcorder with both eyes open but one looking down the viewfinder - I had to use this technique whilst skiing and videoing my kids so that I didn't crash or fall over!

It's like so many things in the aviation world, it can be done but to do it safely requires training and practise.

It might be that I favour larger eye-relief because my eyes are getting older and I'm more used to dealing with a smaller retinal image as I have to hold books further away to focus!!

[High Nr]

Which Operators in Oz have gone down the NVG pathway (legally using them that is) and what type of Goggles are they using?

I understand that CASA have a very short list of approved units: ITT and the soon to be modified NL93's, think they are going to be designated the NL94au's.

Proven resolution specifications reflect: 20 / 25 via Green Auto Gating Tubes.

How does these European Goggles compare with the ITT system?

[spag]

This is one of the best threads I have seen in a long time. Too often both here and elsewhere on the web these discussions dissolve into acrimony because people are not willing to accept that there is more than one way to do a job or use a particular piece of kit.

Coming from a military background it is very interesting to see how you guys are using white light to help you achieve your objectives and also the differing arrangements in place to transfer between aided and unaided flight.

Keep the posts coming!:ok:

[helmet fire]

I agree, there is no way the brain training thing is as demanding as the Apache system. They have to do it from day 1 just to control the aircraft effectively, but what I am talking about is a consequential thing that is not critical for aircraft control.

I like the analogy with the camcorder, and I have been trying to find some more. The most common one uncovered in our discussions was sunglasses. The first time you put sunnies on with small frames and closed peripheral blocks, you can find it a little claustrophobic and daunting, but after a while you do not notice at all, and your head movement begins to automatically compensate for the peripheral degradation. Similarly when you go from a big lens set of glasses to small ones you will notice heaps of frame in your vision, but that dissipates as time goes on and you dont notice it at all.

I have also noticed that on NVG. The Americans tend to teach people to tie the neck cords off to their helmet, whereas we leave them dangling down around the necks. The cord is then in the peripheral view, but it is only two or three flights before the pilot does not even notice the cords at all.

In Oz, as I understand it, all current approved operators use ITT F4949 (one previously used another brand but has changed).

Operators I know of include (there are others):
Hunter Rescue, VicPol, EMQ, WAPol, RotorLift (an approved Training Provider), Australian Helicopters, and CareFlight (also an approved Training Provider).
On the cusp of completing training and approvals are:
PolAir NSW, and CHC Sydney.

[Phrogman]

Crab and Helmet: Great discussion, thanks. Perhaps I missed it in one of your posts but when using white light in concert with NVG's, is the white light source you are using a fixed position landing light or a movable search light?

I have a lot of experience with open ocean NVG and unaided hoisting and concur with Crab's learned technique of setting the NVG's high up for the horizon and being able to scan underneath them for both the instruments and peripheral vision. However, I personally don't like the tubes to be far away, perhaps just a difference in helmet configuration or maybe just how I learned, not important I guess, to each his own right?

In my current airframe, each pilot has a movable search light on the nose. The use of a pilot controlled search light (typically the search light on opposite side of the hoist manipulated by the safety pilot) varies depending on the scene, just as someone previously mentioned. But in our case, the hoist operator becomes unaided once we begin the process of actually getting ready to hoist, and only after we have successfully arrived to the scene (which is routinely a combo of instrument procedures and visual cues). Once we have established the need to actually hoist someone, the safety pilot will move the searchlight to a position where it helps the hoist operator and to where it has minimal impact on the NVG pilot at controls. In those no wind conditions, the milkbowl effect is definitely a factor to contend with, and the white light doesn't help, but if the power is available, we can mitigate that with altitude. If in the milkbowl, I personally find myself scanning more around the goggles, jumping between instruments and what I can see in the water, however as safety pilot I am more instruments and horizon (if we even one) on NVGs.

I think that when you have NVG's and you commence with an open ocean SAR op, if you treat getting to the scene as a process more oriented towards the use of instruments (regardless if you have a full moon & CAVU) and use standardized procedures to allow you to systematically get established in a good position to assess your next move, then you will most likely minimize your fear factor when you actually commence the hoist, whether you are on NVG, unaided, or using a combo depending on your crew configuration. I have seen to many guys rely to heavily on NVG's to arrive near a sinking boat or person in the water, only then to rely very heavily on the safety pilot to keep them from flying into the water.
Cheers!

[helmet fire]

Thanks for joining the discussion Phrogman. I just dont have the cahoonies to water hoist at night anymore, and I have never done it with NVG. I do not fly an auto hover equipped frame either!

As for the onshore winching, we leave the crewman goggled up. We have also fitted white external lights to the exterior of the airframe near the tailboom, as well as a downlight (white). These lights really provide great illumination for the surrounding trees and obstacles and make the crewman's job just so much easier. These white lights are specifically set up as to not impeded the crewman's scan.

In Oz, you must have a pilot steerable searchlight (in both pitch and roll) from the flight controls in order to operate to unprepared HLS (night outlandings).
We have removed the SX16 from our 109 due too much illum for NVG and rely on a single 450W white seachlight and landing light. The BKs we operate in the SAR role have a SX5 fitted but are almost never used due to excessive illum and disruption of the NVG image below 100ft. We again rely on the 450W white searchlights instead, and we keep the SX5 on for a backup or for high level search requirements.

I measured my eye relief last night and even I was surprised: 39mm!!

[[email protected]]

Phrogman - our SOPs are as you suggest, overwater letdowns are conducted the same way ie as if you were IMC even if you are VMC at night on NVG. That way none of the safety calls, rad alt bug setting or NHP monitoring of descents is missed and the NVG are just used to assist in lookout. I have also seen many guys need the assistance of the NHP at the end of an NVG biased approach over the water.

Each pilot has a steerable spot light and there are 4 further flood lights (2 on the underside of the nose and one in each sponson) and the winchop has a steerable spot as well which he can use to assess tip and tail clearances as well as illuminate the winching.

Almost without exception, the winchop will be on white light for winching but if he can see better with NVG (winching through trees is one situation I know it has been done) then he will use them.

Having concentrated greatly on the use of NVG and lights, it is worth highlighting, from my experience, that the most dangerous time, especially over the water, is dusk; there is enough light to fool pilots into thinking they can use day techniques but not enough light to actually do so and it is often the inability to assess accurate rates of closure that catches them out. Mountain flying at dusk is equally fraught with danger, especially if you are trying to make an approach to a feature looking into the setting sun - unaided it is too high contrast and the terrain is in deep shadow and on NVG the picture is just burnt out!

[Phrogman]

I suspected you both had movable lights, however due to both of your responses, I now feel quite inadequate with the ones we have:ooh: We just use the two pilot controlled lights, and one of those now is at half strength due to the desire for IR (not for the SAR mission). We have the SX-5, but as mentioned, it tends to be a little much down low.
Crab, I am going to have to use your point about dusk and the pitfalls that exist at an upcoming presentation. You flashed me back to a couple of cases and I know exactly what you mean, it is not a common discussion in our community and it needs to be. It is nice to see how others hold the same healthy respect to approaches to the water at night, it is often a variable taken for granted in fledgling operations located near water and who have just acquired NVG's and a hoist. I know of one fairly large public safety operation on the east coast that is tinkering with going goggles soon, and their leadership suggested that they can then expect to go offshore and be able to hoist from a boat, NVG...single pilot. Thoughts?:yuk:

[helmet fire]

Just finished having a dusk discussion today! I agree that it is a dangerous time and the quandry between NVG or day is very difficult.

The dusk period and resultant skyglow issues are so variable as to defy any attempt at ANOTHER prescriptive restriction or rule. One outcome based rule of thumb that we are going to trial as an SOP is as follows:
"IF the NVG image is washed out AND you feel you have to go in unaided AND you want to turn on the searchlight to help - then you should postphone the landing until dark enough for NVG"

What we are saying is that if the goggle image is too washed out due too much skyglow illum, then you would want to go in unaided. If you make that determination and then subsequently realise you want/need the searchlight on to help pick up detail: postphone landing until it is dark enough for the NVG image.

Obviously, if faced with this situation, an approach away from skyglow was not a viable option (due wind/terrain/etc).

Whaddayareckon?

[[email protected]]

Yes I think it is one of those hard decisions you might have to take and delay the approach until the conditions are safe enough - it was taken seriously enough on the SH force that in some theatres there was no tasking 30 mins either side of ECT. If you really, really have to go in then take it very slow and steady.

Phrogman - I think that the East coast operation you mention will frighten themselves if they are not very careful - of course it depends on the size of the boat, the sea and weather conditions and the light levels but night decks are hard work whichever way you cut it and single-pilot ops over the water at night doing letdowns and winching really doesn't sound that clever to me.

[Phrogman]

No arguments there Crab, I think the whole notion is absolutely absurd to do letdowns and hoisting to civilians (small boats, untrained folks on board, etc..). Luckily there are many voices of reason in the operation, however the push comes from above and I imagine they will ultimately get some nugget willing to reinvent the wheel...once. I understand how some operations require SPIFR, however, I don't think any of them should expect those pilots to descend in IMC to try to hover in IMC and then extend a wire with something that is far from snag proof to something with snags. Let's hope they don't go there.

[sunnywa]

Crab, Helmet Fire and Phrog,

Thanks for the informed discussion about NVG ops. It was especially interesting to hear about the eye relief, so as I was on exercise in the boonies for a week in mountain terrain last week, I wound my goggles fully forward and tried them there.

Found out (as Crab suggested) that the field of view shrinks a little bit (a smaller toilet toll) but the view around the goggles is great for winching, and for general peripheral vision as well (especially over the city in my primary role as a Police chopper). I was, I admit, a bit sceptical about Crab's claim of more accurate hovering on white light but I found that to be the case when the adjustable searchlight (450W) was able to get enough light on the ground/terrain to be viewable. The other benefit was that by having the NVG there as well (just look out the front), it made any runaway scenario seem much easier as I didn't have to move my head, just my eyes.

With regards to lighting on our BK, we do not use the nite sun SX16 in the hover as it is too bright below 1000ft. We have a pilot steerable light in pitch and roll (450W), a pitch controlled light (450W), a taxi light (fixed out the front), a winch vertical down light, a rear facing light and a light on the tail boom angled down and fwd (for unloading the rear doors on the ground). The crewies winch with their NVG down and use either them or don't depending on the moment. They still have them down in case of power/light failure and can transition immediately to NVG. Wrt the lighting, the crewies find that the tail light (fwd and down) is best as it throws a nice light on the winch and gives the position of the hook/survivor much better.

Haven't done winching on NVG over the water yet, but done a bit of unaided in a Sea King. Definitely having two crew over the water and SOP's to approach the target would be the safe way to go.

Again, thanks for the comments and we all continue to learn.:)

[helmet fire]

Rivnut: earlier I asked you if you could detail the experiences that stopped you from degoggling or goggling up below LSALT, and what your rules were in regards to this. Any chance of filling us in?
We are intrested because we are increasingly finding circumstances where a change of status would be desireable, but it is not permitted in Australian rules. This contrasts with the Swiss who change status as required and have been doing so successfully for 25 years, including changing whilst in the hover.

Crab: have you measured your eye relief yet?

sunnywa: when increased your eye relief you mention that you noticed a smaller FOV. Do you mean smaller retinal image size of the NVG as opposed to changing eye relief also reducing the FOV of the NVG?
As I mentioned earlier, we do all our winching on white light, but goggled up. We use the white light references as our primary hover references because it is far more accurate than when using the aided references. Indeed, the closer you are to the references, the better.

[[email protected]]

Helmet fire - funnily enough almost identical to yours, 38mm - hopefully it's a case of 'great minds think alike' and not 'fools seldom differ':)

Sunnywa - I get the impression that you are talking about using the searchlight for high hovering references which is not something we do (partly because we don't have a powerful enough landing lamp or a nitesun). Normally our white light references for winching would need to be within 100' or so and the closer the better.

[If all else fails]

Helmet Fire. I noted from your post - "We have removed the SX16 from our 109 due too much illum for NVG and rely on a single 450W white seachlight and landing light." Am I right in assuming you did not have an IR filter on the SX16? In my experience the NVG (IR filter) is workable to low level and with the additional stand-off capability is the deluxe solution for night searching. However I have not yet flown the A109 with NVG/SX16.

[sunnywa]

Helmet Fire,

What I mean is that the circle of green light is reduced in diameter (by a couple of mills), but this is easily overcome by the head scan. In the hover on white light, I have found it is much easier to keep the goggles looking out the front and just move my eyes to look down to the right at the reference.

Crab,

Yep, the nitesun ref was for heights above 100ft. Our 450W light does not seem to be able to give a strong enough beam for heights above that. We then found the nitesun on wide focus pointed to the 3 o'clock (and up a bit) provided both enough white light to hover unaided and not enough to wash out the NVG if we needed them. That said, this was us doing a trial and have not had to winch that high in real life yet.

If all else fails,

The IR filter on the SX16 does indeed wash out the light to be a bit more usable but we have found that the winchman then gets no benefit of white light for winching without NVG. The other problem with the nitesun is that it takes about 2 mins to cool down if you call dust (or snow I suppose in your case), so not good for that circumstance. It will be interesting to see how the Trakka light works with its LED. I wonder if you can dim the light by turning off (say) half the LED's to make it more NVG friendly at low level.

Cheers:ok:

[helmet fire]

If all else fails: you are right, we did not have the IR filter. The 22kg and reduction in VNE to 140 outweighed any benefit the IR filter would give us, and the backscatter from the white light (it is mounted side of the nose in front of the pilot as opposed to underneath) was enough to disrupt the NVG image - so off it comes!

We use side mounted white lights to light up the confined area nd a downlight. These really assist the crewman for his winching. We attempt to get very close to references for night winching and use a lot of look-around view, but for high winching like sunny is talking about, we would be using more NVG image. Like him, we are yet to have to do an NVG winch where we cannot find good close references.

[Phrogman]

Gentleman, as luck would have it I just got off the phone with an aviation physiologist who does work with NVG's. I asked him about the distance between the mechanical lense (goggle tube) and that of the human lense. He said the closer the better as your eye will strain to monitor the image produced by the tubes, something about the cornea swelling...lots of medical speak...headaches etc. Still not committing to one way is better or worse, and
I understand there is a comprise between optimal performance and what you need to reference outside with white light hovering. I still need to measure how the tubes sit with respect to my eyes based on my helmet, will try and get that to you.
But it would interesting to determine what the difference in fatigue levels would be if you wired up two different crews that spend 5 hours searching on NVG's (put aside that it would be in the middle of the night and they will be crapped out anyways, but I wonder).

[helmet fire]

Phrogman:
I am not a medically qualified person...but.....
I wonder if your friend might point to the study that indicated swelling corneas?

I thought that eyes do not strain dependant upon the image size, they strain dependant upon the focus issues (and even then do not produce swelling of the cornea).

The reason we are talking about increased eye relief is beacause of the enormous amount of information a civvy cockpit and white light provides to the NVG pilot. The increase in info means less reliance on the NVG image as the "only" source However, military operations do not have such luxuries as white light, and thus the NVG image IS sometimes the only info. Accordingly, the eye relief for mil ops is close.

I recently logged 50 hours of NVG in a month with an eye relief of 39mm. I have not noticed any vision defficiencies yet. What are the symptoms of a swollen cornea?

[Phrogman]

Too funny, I wasn't suggesting there was some medical issue that would arise, just that the focal aspects of the tubes being closer or farther did something I could barely regurgitate after speaking with a doctor who works for NASA. Concur on the military aspect and why one might keep it closer than in the civvy SAR aspect. I thought it interesting there was any thought from the aviation physiology side. I will be happy to send you to the man I spoke with via email, hit me with a PM if you like. So glad your eyes aren't bleeding after 50 goog hours last month.:E

[[email protected]]

Our goggles have a focussing ring at the front and a dioptre adjustment at the rear (eyepiece end) and as long as they are set up properly - ie do the focussing with the front ring as best as you can get it and then fine tune it with the dioptre adjustment - there should be no eyestrain at all. I know that my right eye is about -0.5 and my left eye -1.5 from my prescription for reading glasses and a quick glance at the dioptre adjusters after focussing tells me I have got them set up right.

If you have access to a Hoffman box it is worth while spending time experimenting with different settings and it is also a very good way of monitoring the performance of your goggles.

[If all else fails]

Thanks Helmet fire and sunnywa. Good gen. Agree totally with the crewman requirement for some level of lighting (direct or flood) and that the SX16 will not be ideal for winching - but as a search tool to get to the 'survivor' - unbeatable. I guess the dichotomy is that if sustained hover heights with limited references above 100' are an issue on the A109 45OW search light, that task becomes more complex. Currently acquiring fleet of A109's and have not been able to spec SX16 (as not primary SAR asset). Will just have to be happy with the 4th axis and auto hover functions. :)

Have any of you chaps used or thought about using, helmet mounted eye protection (visor or specs) for NVG ops. Recall doing trials back in the 90's with clip-on arrangements but they tended to fog up and imposed a longer than perferred eye relief distance......they didn't pass the trial. To date I understand only one major helmet manufacturer offers a visor able to be used with NVG.

Clearly a tension between the balance of occupational safety and health and operator preference exists. I've always wondered at what point the longer eye relief distance would contribute to the sub-optimal outcome that required the protection in the first place?

[helmet fire]

Sorry Phrog, what were you saying? Perhaps email the guy with this link to our discussion and he can contribute directly?

IAEF: Have you got a 109 with autohover? Can you give me the details, autopilot type, stc holder, and 109 model number?

Secondly, I am not sure of the application of hoisting 100ft above references over land. We have yet to experience such a requirement, though some winches into dust environments (as opposed to landing in the dust) have come closer to what you are describing.

Thirdly, In relation to eye relief, increasing it will not then cause you to have to have eye protection. The eye protection is independant of eye relief. You would only want eye protection for very specialised operations such as crewman in rear during dust operations or when carrying armed tear gas for law enforcement. There are several models of eye protection in service, and the Australian Army regularly uses it under NVG. These eye protection devices do much more than a visor, and one wonders what a extra good a visor would be other than possibly face protection in a crash.

Only the Gentex allows practical use of the visors with NVG fitted (but de-goggled). In the goggled-up (goggles in operational position and being used) I dont know of any helmet that enables visor down as well.
The Alpha Eagle also enables visor use with NVG, but this often results in scratched visors unless very careful with fitment and maintenance.

[If all else fails]

hf - It's the A109LUH. The autopilot is a Thales 4 axis dual channel digital. Allows full range of AP functionality (incl auto app to hover) and usual Flt Director functions.

- yes - hoisting in dust is the sort of scenario envisaged, and potentially over water (higher sea states) or in steep mountainous terrain.

- only concerned with the facial protection in a crash issue (not the extreme end of 'law enforcemnet' or Mil NBC ops). I may be mistaken, but I understood that someone was manufacturing helmets with visors that allowed use of NVG (in down position)....could be wrong?

Cheers Iaef

[sunnywa]

IAEF,

We use Gallet LH250 helmets and the crewies operate with the clear (inner) visor down when winching so it protects their eyes a bit from wind. The NVG sits comfortably outside the visor. As a pilot, I normally don't have a visor down but spasmodically do when I think about something coming through the front and hitting me. That said, personally don't like it.

:)

[If all else fails]

sunnywa << Gallet LH250 >> Thanks muchly.

[JimEli]

To the best of my ability, I extracted these changes from the Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 161 (effective 10/20/2009):

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
* * * * *
(12) Night vision goggles means an appliance worn by a pilot that enhances the pilot’s ability to maintain visual surface reference at night.
(13) Night vision goggle operation means the portion of a flight that occurs during the time period from 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise where the pilot maintains visual surface reference using night vision goggles in an aircraft that is approved for such an operation.
* * * * *

§ 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.
* * * * *
(k) Additional training required for night vision goggle operations.
(1) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night vision goggles only if that person receives and logs ground training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies the person completed the ground training. The ground training must include the following subjects:
(i) Applicable portions of this chapter that relate to night vision goggle limitations and flight operations;
(ii) Aeromedical factors related to the use of night vision goggles, including how to protect night vision, how the eyes adapt to night, self-imposed stresses that affect night vision, effects of lighting on night vision, cues used to estimate distance and depth perception at night, and visual illusions;
(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operations of night vision goggle equipment;
(iv) Night vision goggle performance and scene interpretation; and
(v) Night vision goggle operation flight planning, including night terrain interpretation and factors affecting terrain interpretation.
(2) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night vision goggles only if that person receives and logs flight training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the use of night vision goggles. The flight training must include the following tasks:
(i) Preflight and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for night vision goggle operations;
(ii) Preflight preparation of night vision goggles for night vision goggle operations;
(iii) Proper piloting techniques when using night vision goggles during the takeoff, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight; and
(iv) Normal, abnormal, and emergency flight operations using night vision goggles.
(3) The requirements under paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply if a person can document satisfactory completion of any of the following pilot proficiency checks using night vision goggles in an aircraft:
(i) A pilot proficiency check on night vision goggle operations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces.
(ii) A pilot proficiency check on night vision goggle operations under part 135 of this chapter conducted by an Examiner or Check Airman.
(iii) A pilot proficiency check on night vision goggle operations conducted by a night vision goggle manufacturer or authorized instructor, when the pilot—
(A) Is employed by a Federal, State, county, or municipal law enforcement agency; and
(B) Has logged at least 20 hours as pilot in command in night vision goggle operations.
* * * * *

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Simulated instrument conditions in flight, a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.
(iv) Use of night vision goggles in an aircraft in flight, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training device.
* * * * *
(j) Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time, the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft under § 61.5(b), and is—
(1) An aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate;
(2) An aircraft of foreign registry with an airworthiness certificate that is approved by the aviation authority of a foreign country that is a Member State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organization;
(3) A military aircraft under the direct operational control of the U.S. Armed Forces; or
(4) A public aircraft under the direct operational control of a Federal, State, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, if the flight time was acquired by the pilot while engaged on an official law enforcement flight for a Federal,
State, County, or Municipal law enforcement agency.
(k) Logging night vision goggle time.
(1) A person may log night vision goggle time only for the time the person uses night vision goggles as the primary visual reference of the surface and operates:
(i) An aircraft during a night vision goggle operation; or
(ii) A flight simulator or flight training device with the lighting system adjusted to represent the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise.
(2) An authorized instructor may log night vision goggle time when that person conducts training using night vision goggles as the primary visual reference of the surface and operates:
(i) An aircraft during a night goggle operation; or
(ii) A flight simulator or flight training device with the lighting system adjusted to represent the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise.
(3) To log night vision goggle time to meet the recent night vision goggle experience requirements under
§ 61.57(f), a person must log the information required under § 61.51(b).
* * * * *

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
* * * * *
(f) Night vision goggle operating experience.
(1) A person may act as pilot in command in a night vision goggle operation with passengers on board only if, within 2 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performs and logs the following tasks as the sole manipulator of the controls on a flight during a night vision goggle operation—
(i) Three takeoffs and three landings, with each takeoff and landing including a climbout, cruise, descent, and approach phase of flight (only required if the pilot wants to use night vision goggles during the takeoff and landing phases of the flight).
(ii) Three hovering tasks (only required if the pilot wants to use night vision goggles when operating helicopters or powered-lifts during the hovering phase of flight).
(iii) Three area departure and area arrival tasks.
(iv) Three tasks of transitioning from aided night flight (aided night flight means that the pilot uses night vision goggles to maintain visual surface reference) to unaided night flight (unaided night flight means that the pilot does not use night vision goggles) and back to aided night flight.
(v) Three night vision goggle operations, or when operating helicopters or powered-lifts, six night vision goggle operations.
(2) A person may act as pilot in command using night vision goggles only if, within the 4 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performs and logs the tasks listed in paragraph (f)(1)(i) through (v) of this section as the sole manipulator of the controls during a night vision goggle operation.
(g) Night vision goggle proficiency check. A person must either meet the night vision goggle experience requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this section or pass a night vision goggle proficiency check to act as pilot in command using night vision goggles. The proficiency check must be performed in the category of aircraft that is appropriate to the night vision goggle operation for which the person is seeking the night vision goggle privilege or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of that category of aircraft. The check must consist of the tasks listed in § 61.31(k), and the check must be performed by:
(1) An Examiner who is qualified to perform night vision goggle operations in that same aircraft category and class;
(2) A person who is authorized by the U.S. Armed Forces to perform night vision goggle proficiency checks, provided the person being administered the check is also a member of the U.S. Armed Forces;
(3) A company check pilot who is authorized to perform night vision goggle proficiency checks under parts 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter, provided that both the check pilot and the pilot being tested are employees of that operator;
(4) An authorized flight instructor who is qualified to perform night vision goggle operations in that same aircraft category and class;
(5) A person who is qualified as pilot in command for night vision goggle operations in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section; or
(6) A person approved by the FAA to perform night vision goggle proficiency checks.
* * * * *

§ 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
* * * * *
(k) Training for night vision goggle operations. A flight instructor may not conduct training for night vision goggle operations unless the flight instructor:
(1) Has a pilot and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating for the training;
(2) If appropriate, has a type rating on his or her pilot certificate for the aircraft;
(3) Is pilot in command qualified for night vision goggle operations, in accordance with § 61.31(k);
(4) Has logged 100 night vision goggle operations as the sole manipulator of the controls;
(5) Has logged 20 night vision goggle operations as the sole manipulator of the controls in the category and class, and type of aircraft, if aircraft class and type is appropriate, that the training will be given in;
(6) Is qualified to act as pilot in command in night vision goggle operations under § 61.57(f) or (g); and
(7) Has a logbook endorsement from an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector or a person who is authorized by the FAA to provide that logbook endorsement that states the flight instructor is authorized to perform the night vision goggle pilot in command qualification and recent flight experience requirements under § 61.31(k) and § 61.57(f) and (g).
* * * * *

§ 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates; Instrument and equipment requirements.
* * * * *
(h) Night vision goggle operations. For night vision goggle operations, the following instruments and equipment must be installed in the aircraft, functioning in a normal manner, and approved for use by the FAA:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Night vision goggles;
(3) Interior and exterior aircraft lighting system required for night vision goggle operations;
(4) Two-way radio communications system;
(5) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon);
(6) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity for the required instruments and equipment; and
(7) Radar altimeter.
* * * * *

[that chinese fella]

Hi all,

I couldn't find anything thru the search function, so can anyone point me in the direction of the easiest way to purchase the filter material that can be attached to radio displays etc as part of the cockpit requirements for NVG approval.

The major NVG specialists seem only interested in doing the complete mod themselves and are not really interested in supplying the material only.

Any leads appreciated..

TCF

[ARRAKIS]

The major NVG specialists seem only interested in doing the complete mod themselves and are not really interested in supplying the material only.

Maybe, because this is not a DIY job :E

I couldn't find anything thru the search function, so can anyone point me in the direction of the easiest way to purchase the filter material that can be attached to radio displays etc as part of the cockpit requirements for NVG approval.
Interesting to know, how you would choose the correct filters, as there are 100s of them:eek:

Arrakis

[lupin861]

Hello all,

I'm an NVIS compatible instrument conceptor and I while I was giving a NVIS training I received a question from a military test pilot to which I didn't have a good answer. So I will submit it to this forum.

This is what the pilot does:
1) When flying with NVGs his instruments are dimmed to a bare minimum to be completly NVIS compatible.
2) Since the NVGs where set to focus at infinity (to see clearly outside) he reads the instruments by looking under the goggles (instruments are out of focus with the goggles) but because his eyes are not dark adapted (gen IV are bright!) he needs to increase the light levels of the instrument.
3) When going back to looking through the googles he needs to dim the instrument lights again

His question:
Why do I have to go throught all these steps? Is there a more efficient way?

Thank you

[Flying Bull]

Hi lupin861,
Two sollutions possible.
First, get the aircraft propperly fitted with nvg compatible instruments and lightning, so that he can turn the instrument lights up - but the lights may be seen by enemy forces.
Second, get nvgoogles, in which you can display information from the instruments, like in a HUD
Greetings Flying Bull

[Thomas coupling]

I suspect your inquisitor was from an early "NVIS" period.
Modern NVD compatible cockpits don't have this problem.

PS: What is an: "NVIS compatible instrument conceptor"? Sounds sexy! :O

[lupin861]

It's a nice job :ok:
I design cockpit instruments, chosing material/ circuit card/ fitlering material etc. When they go into military aircraft/ rotorwing I make them NVIS compliant. (the amounth of light in the IR is limited)

We can assume the mission is covert so the lights need to be dimmed.

When I look at my instruments with a type I gen III, I need to readjust the focus to read the legends. I had always though that was how pilot did it also.

A holographic NVG would do the trick. I'm not aware of any...

[MightyGem]

We can assume the mission is covert so the lights need to be dimmed.
Hmm...I'm sure the mission is covert, but I suggest that the noise of the aircraft is more likely to give the game away rather than some slightly brighter instrument lights.

[ralphmalph]

MightyGem,

You are right when the element of surprise is needed. However with NVS equipped toerags kicking around, all they want is to pinpoint your position a little more accurately to fire some headache pills your way.

Those lovely wander lights at the back of the cockpit make great illumination for the glasshouse esk cockpit, even at surprising heights!

I for one dimmed lights down to the absolute minimum for any trooping/landings, the wander lights in my aircraft were luckily made obsolete by an upgrade allowing direct and more subdued light to be shone on the instruments. I was equally concerned about excessive lighting above the threat band after being shot at fairly close a couple of times while working.

As for using goggles in a non equipped NVG equipped aircraft = highly sub optimal for anything other than basic transit flying. I know of one incident recently where the crew became disorientated on goggles, did not have a full NVD cockpit.......and the situation was made unduly stressful (and potentially dangerous) by the need to revert back and forth (this is a two crew cockpit as well!)

[[email protected]]

Lupin - since you are not talking about a combat environment then the ideal is NVG compatible lighting which should still be dimmable to reduce reflections in the cockpit transparencies.

We regularly fly on mixtures of instruments/NVD/white light and looking under the goggles is often a technique needed to identify the colours of lights (blue flashing ones for example), as well as conducting your instrument scan.

However, it is still important to reduce the light levels in the cockpit as your eyes acclimatise to the dark - wearing NVD does not ruin your normal night vision since your rods adapt but your cones are affected such that normal lights look brownish after a while.

One important issue is not to wear your goggles too close to your eyes because a. you can cause eyestrain trying to focus on something too close and b. you can't look underneath the goggles easily.

As Flying Bull says, NVD with a flight instrument display superimposed on the goggle picture is one way forward but these installations are usually high-end military only - at the moment anyway.

One problem that is difficult to solve wearing NVD is selecting switches/circuit breakers etc that are in the roof panel since it requires such an extreme tilt of the head to look under the goggles that it is nigh on impossible - you are left with using muscle memory and your knowledge of the roof panel layout - or taking your goggles off.

Another problem is for glasses wearers, especially those who need to read maps or documents on NVD - the answer for me is to wear the goggles but focus them with my glasses on (only about 1.5 dioptre prescription) since I am just bringing the phosphor screen into focus it is a small adjustment. Then looking at the instruments under the goggles (but through my glasses) I have nearly perfect focus but looking down at the map I have excellent focus. As most of those of a certain age will know, it is low light that makes focussing on the printed page difficult.

[Capt.Gonzo]

Hi,
which Airframe does the MilitaryTest Pilot fly who asked?

The best and nowadays comon way is to use NVG compatible cockpit lights.
In my case I have the luck to fly an Airframe where I can change the lights from OFF/ON to NVG mode.
In the NVG mode you can see everything by looking under the goggle on your instruments and at the same time it doesn´t blind you by looking through the goggle.

Back in the BO-105 days there was no NVG mode available. Tapes where put on unnecessary lights/instruments.
For important instruments there where coloured plexiglas mounts to put over the instruments.

[ARRAKIS]

gen IV are bright!
Minor detail Lupin,
if you are referring to NVGs, no such thing as gen. IV. since 2001, when that designation was withdrawn by NVESD. "Thinfilmed", "filmless", but still gen III.
Gen. IV is marketing department hype.


Arrakis

[Thomas coupling]

Gen 4:

4th Generation Night Vision Devices ON SALE - Gen 4 Night Vision from ATN, Fourth Generation Night Vision Scopes & More! (http://www.opticsplanet.com/nightvision4th.html)

ATN: How Night Vision Works - Night Vision Goggles, Night Vision Scopes, Binoculars, Riflescopes, Laser Devices (http://www.atncorp.com/hownightvisionworks)

[ARRAKIS]

Marketing hype.

2) Since the NVGs where set to focus at infinity (to see clearly outside) he reads the instruments by looking under the goggles (instruments are out of focus with the goggles) but because his eyes are not dark adapted (gen IV are bright!) he needs to increase the light levels of the instrument.
Without going into the details, I would say the cockpit NVD adaptation and the goggles were not matched.


Arrakis

[MightyGem]

Those lovely wander lights at the back of the cockpit make great illumination for the glasshouse esk cockpit
True. The ones in the Lynx in the 1990's were rather bright and easy to see from dead ahead.

However, I now fly NVG without having to use wander lights, all instrument lighting being internal, and NVG compatible, so not visible from outside the cockpit.

[[email protected]]

ARRAKIS - we have recently acquired Gen IV tubes and they are significantly better both in low light and in dealing with bright external lights (less haloing) - it's not just marketing hype.

[detgnome]

Less Haloing is usually down to using a gated power supply - a mod to gen 3 tubes that the SF types have been using for years. Much better than the bog standard gen 3 tubes

[ARRAKIS]

ARRAKIS - we have recently acquired Gen IV tubes and they are significantly better both in low light and in dealing with bright external lights (less haloing) - it's not just marketing hype.

Crab, after the Gulf War there was a requirement for tubes that would work better at higher lighting levels, because of evident problems. The parameters you get in the datasheets are measured at a very precise level. Your 64 lp/mm resolution could drop for example to 12 lp/mm. ITT went one way (thinfilmed) whereas NGEOS went filmless. The technology to come was at the begining called gen. IV, but in 2001 the head of US Army NVESD (Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate) declared that the improvement was not enough to call it a new generation, and "gen. IV" was banned. Gen. III "filmless" and "thinfilmed" was accepted. So, it's been 11 years since there is no such thing as gen. IV.
Of course, any company can use any naming, even claim selling gen. V (that's for XR-5 IITs), but it will be just marketing.

There is also question of IITs with a gated power supply, that will work even in dayligh, but that's another story.

You have - probably - what ITT is calling Pinnacle. Those are gen. III thinfilmed IITs.

There is now something new. Tubes based on 2 micron pore MCPs, giving around 70 degrees FOV, but the price that USMC had to pay for the first test samples was, well, quite high.

Arrakis

[[email protected]]

Interesting info ARRAAKIS, I don't really care what they are called but they do give a significantly better performance - we were told they were Gen IV but if they turn out to be Gen III filmless, thinfilm or whatever the US Army cares to classify them as, it matters little to the user.

[Letsby Avenue]

Blimey....! 12 years later and this thread is still going... with the original contributors! Well done TC, Crab, MG, PP (yours truly) and others. Merry Christmas all.

[ARRAKIS]

it matters little to the user. Agree, but when it comes to buying process, it's good to know what the salesman is talking about.

By the way [historical mode on], probably the best (in my humble opinion) night vision equipment during WW II was British made, called at the beginning R. G. Equipment, from the lighting red glass filters that were used, later changed to Tabby. It included, for example, infrared IFFs for aircrafts.
If anyone knows where to look for information about Tabby's operational use during WWII, please let me know.
[Historical mode off];)

Back to the XXI century, and lupin's question no 2.
It looks like the lighting in the cockpit is affecting the goggles.
If I recall correctly the research results I have read years ago about NVG cockpit lighting adaptation, if the brightness difference between the goggles phosphor screen and the instruments lighting was too big (2 orders of magnitude), it was affecting the instruments reading. -> The instruments lighting was dimmed to avoid problems with the goggles.
The test were made on the artificial horizon, and the pilots over 35 y.o. needed a few (5-7) seconds to read the tested instrument. For younger pilots the problem was less visible, but still present. It's from memory, so the numbers given above may not be correct, but the effect was as described.
Imho, the situation, as described by lupin, should require a closer attention.
Merry Christmas all.

Arrakis

[ralphmalph]

ARRAKIS,

I have used the pinnacle tubes, very impressive. We knew them as pinnacle plus? Have you heard of those?

Low light, "red illume" level dust landings were significantly more comfortable!

Add DNVG, and you are laughing!

[USMC53]

Looking for data or photos related to the Fenn NG700D NVG, specifically the mount.

[500e]

Arrikas
Question Infra-red night Vision - Page 2 (http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?22723-Infra-red-night-Vision/page2)

From page 1

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby01.pdf

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby02.pdf

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby03.pdf

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby04.pdf

[MightyGem]

Looking for data or photos related to the Fenn NG700D NVG, specifically the mount.
I take it you've looked here?
Product » Fenn Night Vision (http://www.fenn-night-vision.co.uk/product/nvg/ng700d)

[USMC53]

yes, and we've been in contact with Fenn, we were prepared to buy the actual mount from Fenn in support of a development project we are working on; but the lead time was longer than we could accept; we can reverse engineer it, but with limited data the NRE time and cost is impacting our project schedule. I'm looking for metrics, photos, or even a used/broken pair to purchase, again, I only need the mount, not the optics

[Letsby Avenue]

MG - You and I were the first poster in this thread some sixteen years ago... How time flies :)

[MightyGem]

So we were. A lot of hours flown since then. :ok:

[efish]

Does anybody out there wear contact lenses with NVG? Thinking of ditching my reading glasses which are generally perched on the end of my nose whilst on NVG.

[TeeS]

Hi efish
My solution for reading glasses was to put them fully over my eyes and focus the tubes for them rather than the 'tip of my nose' solution which I tried first (couldn't focus in the ground cushion because I was looking down through the glasses).

With the glasses fully over my eyes, I could see through the goggles, up through the top of the glasses to see overhead switches and down through the bottom of the glasses to see instruments and radios. Only downside is when you de-goggle, you are looking through the reading glasses which isn't great for seeing the outside world.
Basically, goggles are for youngsters :-(

Cheers

TeeS

[efish]

Thanks Tees,


Just read the CAA rules on Contacts and it looks like a non starter as I would need a month off flying getting used to the contacts.
I think I shall have to put up with glasses until I retire in 4 yrs. And then I think I might splash out on some laser eye surgery.
When I googled contacts and NVGs, apparently some time in the future we'll be flying around with Night vision contact lenses with built in HUD! Wonder if they'll be daily disposables!!

[MightyGem]

Thinking of ditching my reading glasses
Get some bi/varifocals. That way you look through the goggles using the top/distant half, and can view the instruments with reading part. Then there's no problem when you come off the goggs.

I flew on goggles for years like this.

[Letsby Avenue]

I never cracked NVG and reading glasses, used to wear the glasses round my neck on a cord like an old duffer... Best solution was to fly with the goggs in the door pocket and stick em on when I needed them. Required a degree of anticipation somewhat. :hmm:

[TeeS]

Hi MG
I think the ideal solution for me would be tri-focals with reading top and bottom and neutral in the middle. Sadly, I'm too much of a cheapskate and buy mine from ASDA for £2; I don't get upset when I lose them that way.
TeeS

[efish]

Tees.


If we work for the same organisation it looks they will now pay for eye tests and lenses, Result!