NVGs & HEMS in Australia [Archive]

topendtorque

24th Apr 2006, 04:05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

solidity

26th Apr 2006, 00:00

"nil bastido carborundum" Maxee!
:cool:

maxeemum

26th Apr 2006, 00:58

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

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

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

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

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

Max

:rolleyes:

solidity

26th Apr 2006, 01:47

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

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

Sol

:cool:

helmet fire

26th Apr 2006, 02:03

So many issues, so little time!

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

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

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

But remember: the number one reason is safety.

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

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

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

Cyclic Hotline

26th Apr 2006, 05:42

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

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

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

NASUS

27th Apr 2006, 00:41

Helmet fire,

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

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

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

helmet fire

27th Apr 2006, 02:51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have the HAA got it that wrong?

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

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

maxeemum

27th Apr 2006, 04:52

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

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

CASA-Get on with it!

:cool:

helmet fire

27th Apr 2006, 05:13

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

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

NASUS

27th Apr 2006, 11:23

Helmet fire,

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

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

maxeemum

27th Apr 2006, 12:00

Helmut,

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

Mike De Winton-Good bloke, Allo to Mike

Max

:)

helmet fire

28th Apr 2006, 01:06

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

NASUS, you asked: Am I missing something here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any of that make you feel a little more comfortable?

Delta Torque

28th Apr 2006, 12:13

I agree with NASUS wholeheartedly...

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

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

Goggle Up!

helmet fire

28th Apr 2006, 21:49

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goggle up? absolutely.:ok:

w_ocker

28th Apr 2006, 23:14

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

Delta Torque

29th Apr 2006, 01:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy landings, old friend!

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

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 02:54

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

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

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

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

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

Delta Torque

29th Apr 2006, 04:26

Helmet/Hellfire,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers...

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 11:25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYHeli

29th Apr 2006, 15:02

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

robsrich

29th Apr 2006, 21:49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you are volunteers too!

helmet fire

29th Apr 2006, 21:59

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

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

Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.

Delta Torque

30th Apr 2006, 00:44

Thanks for the reply..

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

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

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

Cheers....

helmet fire

30th Apr 2006, 04:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta Torque

30th Apr 2006, 05:21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep up the good work!

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

Cheers...

robsrich

30th Apr 2006, 21:53

Keep your eye on the ball!

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

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

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

Delta Torque

1st May 2006, 01:15

I hear what you are saying Rob...

The next few months will be interesting...

Cheers...

topendtorque

1st May 2006, 04:47

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

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

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

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

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

Surely- not all of CASA are wowsers?

Remedy - take them out all night googling,

At daylight - buy them a round or two,

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

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 03:33

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

MPT

2nd May 2006, 05:06

G'day hf,

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

Cheers,

MPT

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 05:33

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

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

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

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

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

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

w_ocker

2nd May 2006, 22:48

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

helmet fire

2nd May 2006, 23:42

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

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

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

Less than 100 hours NVG Flight Time as a Pilot

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

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

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

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

helmet fire

10th May 2006, 05:29

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta Torque

10th May 2006, 08:25

Yes, m8...

Certainly moving in the right direction...

What are your current cockpit and goggle specs?

Cheers...

Capt Under Pants

11th May 2006, 09:36

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

helmet fire

11th May 2006, 10:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B]Aircraft NVG Compatible Lighting Standard [/B]

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

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

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

Minimum NVG Aircraft Equipment

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

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

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

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 00:14

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

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

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

Anyone have experience with this?

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 04:37

Yep...good..

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

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

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 04:44

?

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

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

996

12th May 2006, 09:30

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

Broadcast Control

12th May 2006, 19:11

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

Delta Torque

12th May 2006, 22:46

Hi Whatlimit!

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

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

Food for thought.....

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 23:12

Sorry DT, what is "IIRC"?

helmet fire

12th May 2006, 23:15

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

How about the reflective stripes on typical EMS uniforms?

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

Delta Torque

13th May 2006, 02:28

If I recall correctly...

Delta Torque

13th May 2006, 02:31

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

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

Capt Under Pants

13th May 2006, 23:17

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

helmet fire

14th May 2006, 11:06

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

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

Delta Torque

14th May 2006, 12:33

That's not sound logic, Helmut...

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

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

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

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

helmet fire

14th May 2006, 15:07

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

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

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

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

robsrich

14th May 2006, 20:56

Helmetfire - I'm on your side.

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 02:46

Fair enough, Rob :)

Helmut,

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

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

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

Must fly..

Cheers...

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

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

Come on m8!

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 10:01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cease fire. But I wont safe up just yet!

maxeemum

15th May 2006, 10:16

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

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

Keep at it.

Max

:ugh:

robsrich

15th May 2006, 10:46

Maxeemum,

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 10:51

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

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

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

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

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

5. And my name is not Dulta...

Cheers.......

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

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 11:22

:D

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

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

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 11:23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 11:33

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

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

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

5. Wot?

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

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 12:23

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

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

Good day to you sir!

helmet fire

15th May 2006, 12:23

Delta Torque

15th May 2006, 12:44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

[email protected]

15th May 2006, 16:21

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

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

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

rivnut

15th May 2006, 21:39

Helmetfire - I'm on your side.

Of course you would be!

rivnut

15th May 2006, 21:46

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

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

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

vpaw pilot

15th May 2006, 22:09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maxeemum

16th May 2006, 00:39

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

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

All that have contributed-Thanks

CASA get on with it.

Max

:ugh:

Capt Under Pants

16th May 2006, 01:56

Here Here!

Delta Torque

16th May 2006, 08:04

Concur......

gadgetguru

16th May 2006, 10:10

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

helmet fire

17th May 2006, 00:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gadgetguru

17th May 2006, 04:09

all good

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

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

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

rivnut

17th May 2006, 06:39

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

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

robsrich

17th May 2006, 21:57

Agree with helmetfire.

There have been so many people pushing this project.

From many angles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta Torque

17th May 2006, 22:49

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

Oh come on Rob, you scalliwag!:)

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

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

Cheers...

Capt Under Pants

18th May 2006, 00:40

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

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

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

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

helmet fire

18th May 2006, 06:45

Vice like: dont tease me like that!!!

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

:}

Bell427

24th May 2006, 15:52

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

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

Matthew Parsons

24th May 2006, 16:24

Are you doing the work or are we? :)

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

widgeon

24th May 2006, 18:43

http://www.aerodynamix.com/

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

He has really cool tea shirts.

Neil

Bell427

28th May 2006, 08:21

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

helmet fire

4th Nov 2006, 04:34

I am moving my reply to someplace from the other eurocentric thread to here and into the NVG thread relating to Oz issues.
Heliport has very kindly ressurected this thread so that we can continue to discuss the Oz specific issues of NVG introduction as they occur.

Someplace said:
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.
This brings up a couple of issues:
There is unlikely to be a need for a school to teach NVG qualifications as NVG is unlikely to be a rating - rather the concept will be as an endorsement on your night rating. Consequently, I would expect most operators to conduct a form of in-house training, but there is no question that an NVG school would be a good thing in Oz - same concept as factory endorsements, etc. It would be good for someone to benchmark the NVG training, and it would probably fit in with that operator's respected IFR training program.

At the moment, there is no legal impediment to conducting NVG flight in Oz other than Section 20A of the Aviation Act that pertains to "reckless acts", and the ability under the CARs to make directions to the holders of an AOC. VPAW (Mike Tavcar) and CASA (John Beasey) created CMI 04/074 which provides an excellent initial framework for NVG operations, and the HAA have now created a long term framework during NVG working Group evolutions.

Essentially then, if you conduct NVG operations without regard to one of the sets of guidelines, fail to firmly establish that you are using best practice, or cannot justify the divergence of your standards from those of the CMI or HAA, then you would be considered in breach of Section 20A. CASA could also use their power to make directions to holders of an AOC in the case of an operation that began NVG ops without CASA oversight. Methinks that could be a very expensive mistake for any operator to make.

A NVG CAO and CAAP are imminent from CASA (though we have thought that before) thanks to some hard work by CASA and industry members which will encapsualte acceptable minimum standards. Any program on the verge of going NVG thus is likely to have two options available: compliance with the CMI and a grandfather clause to align to the CAO at some later date, or compliance with the CAO system. They are not that different, but the CAO has some additional comprehensive requirements such as competency based training systems, a risk management plan, and a detailed operations manual supplement - whereas the CMI is more straight forward and user friendly but wont suit all organisations.

In the previous pages, I have detailed some of the latest draft standards that are being moulded for the CAO, and I will include the training organisation requirements in a couple of days for your info.

If you want any specific info about the areas being considered, then yell and I can try and post the various drafts under consideration.

helmet fire

5th Nov 2006, 03:44

Here are the latest PROPOSED standards out of the NVG CAAP and CAO in relation to NVG training. It is proposed that the CAO will be called CAO 82.6 and the CAAP will be CAAP 174B

Latest proposal for training:

1.7.4 If intending to conduct NVG training outside an authorised flying school or approved CAR 217 Check and Training organisation, the applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the following additional requirements:
a. Where initial NVG Pilot qualifications are required, the proposed NVG Flight Instructors, and the proposed NVG ATO responsible for achieving stated training competencies and overseeing the training, are to be nominated to include written substantiation of their qualifications,
b. a suitable means of instructing students in the theory subjects appropriate to the licence (training of theory subjects may be conducted by a separate organisation),
c. maps of a suitable scale clearly depicting the following:
i. aerodromes and HLS used in training;
ii. the general flying training area; and
iii. low flying areas with major obstructions clearly marked.
d. briefing and teaching facilities appropriate to the number of staff and students at each place of instruction, separate from administrative and recreational areas,
e. satisfactory means of simulating instrument flight conditions either in an aircraft or with a ground based training aid, and
f. aircraft
i. of a type satisfactory to CASA for the flying training; and
ii. equipped with an efficient means of electronic intercommunication.

Part 6 – Minimum Training requirements for NVG Operations.

6.1 In accordance with outcome-based philosophies and current international practice, the Authority recognise the inherent value of NVG training conducted in the Operator’s own aircraft and environment. Therefore, and in concurrence with precedents of endorsement training, CASA may approve initial qualification training under the authority of an Operator’s AOC. Part 1 of this CAAP details the specific extra requirements for an organisation seeking this approval.

6.2 Of particular note for non-school operators seeking approval to conduct NVG endorsement training is the need for the operator to nominate an NVG ATO as responsible for over seeing the training and ensuring that training competencies are met. This requirement is to ensure that the Authority exploits the unique opportunity of setting a strong and standardised NVG culture from the outset of NVG operations in Australia.

6.3 CAO 82.6 establishes a basic set of training constraints for the design of any NVG course seeking CASA approval. Those basics are established so that NVG endorsements have a uniform minimum competency level for pilots across the industry that would therefore gain recognition and transportability between companies, and externally as a qualification recognised by other member states. Although aircrew members will only hold a company recognised qualification (pending aircrew member licensing), standardisation of the course through CASA approval of the minimum competencies of any training should allow for transportability between operators if so detailed in their operations manuals.

6.4 The basic competencies established by CAO 82.6 provide the minimum requirements for NVG crew, and the order stresses that any requirement by the operator for the crew to perform additional competencies will attract a training liability. As it is impossible for a one rule fits all solution across the diversity of probable NVG operations, CAO 82.6 establishes the minimum, and then holds the operator responsible for additional competency training.

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

6.6 Annex 1 to this CAAP provides an example of a course that covers the minimum competencies of CAO 82.6 for a basic NVG endorsement or company qualification on which to build operational competencies if desired. Annex 1 is an example of a CASA approved NVG course that would require inclusion in the operations manual of an operator intending to conduct initial NVG qualification training.

Hope that helps, yell if more required.

someplace

6th Nov 2006, 02:41

H.F

It all looks good on paper but the problem is there are a lot of operators who can satisfy all the requirements set out on the surface but when you dig a bit deeper they do not have the experience, knowledge or discipline to conduct a safe operation. By the time this is obvious it is to late because CASA do not have the courage either as individuals or as an organisation to hold operators accountable for fear of ending up in court.

helmet fire

6th Nov 2006, 03:13

I agree with the sentiments, and as a direct result of those very same sentiments surfacing many times during the working group process there were some subtle cahnges to the NVG endorsement system that are not requirements of the endorsement system in general. The safety case put forward in relation to these extra requirements were (in brief):
a. The perpetual nature of the NVFR rating has led to a significant breakdown in the discipline surrounding NVFR ops.
b. The lack of control over training competencies and qualification standards of the NVFR system.
c. The generally very poor quality of type endorsement training under our existing endorsement system, and
d. The frequency with wich CASA allow non instructors to conduct type endorsement training as permitted by the current system.

Accordingly, there are some strict requirements about the NVG endorsement system that preclude (or are meant to inhibit) the setting up of an NVG school by inexperienced people. Endorsements will only be able to be awarded by an NVG ATO, and they are not perpetual.

The ATO system will be set up a little unlike the current system, in that it is envisaged that the ATOs will be required to attend a standardisation meeting regularly with CASA so CASA can excersize a standardised control over the system. Thi system is set up in order to make sure NVG starts with a disciplined and standardised sytem and culture, recognising that it would be almost impossible to retrospectively impose a culture an an established system.

At least that is the proposed system - not yet finalised!