Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Helmet fire: excellent post.
Thud: concur. Is that (was that) the Pete Rainey from the RN who emigrated. Bit of a wild child, exceptional helo pilot? If so what happened to him??
Kalif: what r we going to do with you, perhaps you are one of the dinosaurs Semi was talking about.
Do I have to remind you that you shouldn't have been in the position you refer to where you 'lose' sufficient visual references so as to descend below minimums at night (day even).
POM I lays out visual reference minimums which you must keep to even in one of your 'black hole' areas of operation. If there aren't sufficient lights out there - you can't go there!!!
The introduction of NVG will NOT affect these minimums. The POM I will still be the bible, so if you start having spatial disorientational problems on NVG, you can come off them and revert to good old fashioned night visual POM I references again
Please don' t go down the road of IFR Vs NVIS again, it's been thrashed to death in this thread, in User Gps, with the CAA, with the HO with my mother inlaws next door neighbours! It won't happen for common sense reasons - THE JOB DOESN'T NEED IT.
What the job needs is NVIS now no more delays, no more pussy footing around by the CAA.
I had a meeting with the HO on friday - guess what, ALL future police helos will be fitted for but not with NVIS, you won't have any option. For those who then want to operate NVIS in anger they simply purchase the goggles and get on with it.
Hooray for common sense - atleast this time from the HO
PS: Kalif, are you a police pilot at the mo'?
Thud: concur. Is that (was that) the Pete Rainey from the RN who emigrated. Bit of a wild child, exceptional helo pilot? If so what happened to him??
Kalif: what r we going to do with you, perhaps you are one of the dinosaurs Semi was talking about.
Do I have to remind you that you shouldn't have been in the position you refer to where you 'lose' sufficient visual references so as to descend below minimums at night (day even).
POM I lays out visual reference minimums which you must keep to even in one of your 'black hole' areas of operation. If there aren't sufficient lights out there - you can't go there!!!
The introduction of NVG will NOT affect these minimums. The POM I will still be the bible, so if you start having spatial disorientational problems on NVG, you can come off them and revert to good old fashioned night visual POM I references again
Please don' t go down the road of IFR Vs NVIS again, it's been thrashed to death in this thread, in User Gps, with the CAA, with the HO with my mother inlaws next door neighbours! It won't happen for common sense reasons - THE JOB DOESN'T NEED IT.
What the job needs is NVIS now no more delays, no more pussy footing around by the CAA.
I had a meeting with the HO on friday - guess what, ALL future police helos will be fitted for but not with NVIS, you won't have any option. For those who then want to operate NVIS in anger they simply purchase the goggles and get on with it.
Hooray for common sense - atleast this time from the HO
PS: Kalif, are you a police pilot at the mo'?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I apologise for missing your post on page 2, my fingers must be a bit quick on the mouse wheel!
Thud & Blunder,
OK, I missed Nicks post, but he didn't mention anything about IF. If you read my post on page 4, I said that Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for their area, with an IR to back it up. I'm not against NVG per se, (this discussion has become a sort of one or the other arguement), after chatting to some of my military friends Iam more convinced than ever that NVG should not be used as a primary means of weather avoidance. Great for flying in very dark areas.
I still find it difficult to reconcile while the rest of the aviation world, inc. a large part of the rotary world, feel that flying IF is a normal part of aviation practice, (I will qualify that statement by saying in a stabilised helicopter IF equipped), there is still a hard core of pilots who feel very different, and make wild assumptions about IF not based on fact.
I apologise for missing your post on page 2, my fingers must be a bit quick on the mouse wheel!
Thud & Blunder,
OK, I missed Nicks post, but he didn't mention anything about IF. If you read my post on page 4, I said that Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for their area, with an IR to back it up. I'm not against NVG per se, (this discussion has become a sort of one or the other arguement), after chatting to some of my military friends Iam more convinced than ever that NVG should not be used as a primary means of weather avoidance. Great for flying in very dark areas.
I still find it difficult to reconcile while the rest of the aviation world, inc. a large part of the rotary world, feel that flying IF is a normal part of aviation practice, (I will qualify that statement by saying in a stabilised helicopter IF equipped), there is still a hard core of pilots who feel very different, and make wild assumptions about IF not based on fact.
Semi: you won't shake this IF thing off will you.
You do your fellow colleagues an injustice. All us ex mil guys have a very very solid background in IF. Just because the mil didn't give us a blue peter IR badge at the end of it all doesn't mean to say we don't know what it's like to fly IMC in anger - OK?
There isn't a 135 / 355 / 902 out there that can fly with minimum IFR fuel on board and still offer its force area sufficient airborne time to make it worthwhile.
You can't (and wouldn't) use your IR in anger to take off from your police base can you?(to a task). Unless you live on a procedural airfield - which would also take even longer to get you airborne. So it will never be used here.
How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger to get you down the other end (where the job is), because you certainly won't be descending on top the job, IMC
So it can never be used here.
So that leaves two scenarios where an IR might come in handy:
1. Task complete - can't get back to base because of weather:
So you go IMC with your shiney new IR ticket and divert to the nearest (to your base) airport. Land on and take the number 14 bus home back to the Unit, I presume. Then the next shift picks the cab up in the morning if the weather clears??
This is assuming you had enough fuel to divert in the first place.
The alternative would have been to land while still VMC, its cheaper and you're no better/worse off than above.
2. While on task you go inadvertent IMC - tut tut naughty boy, never mind, just IFR to that lovely warm diversion 15 miles away. Park it up and come back tomorrow. A/c unavailable to force for the next 12+ hrs....
For the non IR pilot: (a) he trains for this eventuality either for a self let down (like us), or diverts for a radar vector to an ILS (same scenario as yours). Without an IR.
Lets get this straight for the record:
No police pilot has been killed (or killed his crew) because he didn't have an IR ticket.
The E Mids crash was not caused by the pilot's inability to adopt IFR procedures successfully. It was more complex than that and this is not the place to dissect it (I would suggest).
The Strathclyde crash - the pilot was freshly IR current! he was one of yours!!!
Give me ONE example where an IR would therefore be beneficial to the industry when you take into account:
number of incidents / accidents involving NON IR pilots.
Diverse operating areas of each Unit.
Financial outlay.
The aim of an aerial police platform.
For once - the CAA have risk assessed this well.
They have looked at the frequency x consequences (definition of risk).
And what they have laid down in the latest POM I amendment is just about bang on!
Now - all that money can be spent on worthwhile equipment, like...........................................
You do your fellow colleagues an injustice. All us ex mil guys have a very very solid background in IF. Just because the mil didn't give us a blue peter IR badge at the end of it all doesn't mean to say we don't know what it's like to fly IMC in anger - OK?
There isn't a 135 / 355 / 902 out there that can fly with minimum IFR fuel on board and still offer its force area sufficient airborne time to make it worthwhile.
You can't (and wouldn't) use your IR in anger to take off from your police base can you?(to a task). Unless you live on a procedural airfield - which would also take even longer to get you airborne. So it will never be used here.
How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger to get you down the other end (where the job is), because you certainly won't be descending on top the job, IMC
So it can never be used here.So that leaves two scenarios where an IR might come in handy:
1. Task complete - can't get back to base because of weather:
So you go IMC with your shiney new IR ticket and divert to the nearest (to your base) airport. Land on and take the number 14 bus home back to the Unit, I presume. Then the next shift picks the cab up in the morning if the weather clears??
This is assuming you had enough fuel to divert in the first place.
The alternative would have been to land while still VMC, its cheaper and you're no better/worse off than above.
2. While on task you go inadvertent IMC - tut tut naughty boy, never mind, just IFR to that lovely warm diversion 15 miles away. Park it up and come back tomorrow. A/c unavailable to force for the next 12+ hrs....
For the non IR pilot: (a) he trains for this eventuality either for a self let down (like us), or diverts for a radar vector to an ILS (same scenario as yours). Without an IR.
Lets get this straight for the record:
No police pilot has been killed (or killed his crew) because he didn't have an IR ticket.
The E Mids crash was not caused by the pilot's inability to adopt IFR procedures successfully. It was more complex than that and this is not the place to dissect it (I would suggest).
The Strathclyde crash - the pilot was freshly IR current! he was one of yours!!!
Give me ONE example where an IR would therefore be beneficial to the industry when you take into account:
number of incidents / accidents involving NON IR pilots.
Diverse operating areas of each Unit.
Financial outlay.
The aim of an aerial police platform.
For once - the CAA have risk assessed this well.
They have looked at the frequency x consequences (definition of risk).
And what they have laid down in the latest POM I amendment is just about bang on!
Now - all that money can be spent on worthwhile equipment, like...........................................
Kalif: you raise excellent points, and it will enable us to discuss some of the other benefits of NVG that are generally not thought about.
The disorientation scenario you describe is not unheard of at night unaided, though the mechanism of entering it is more specific to your scenario. It is precisely this kind of disorientation that NVG would seek to minimise (if not mitigate). What I find fascinating is that you believe that NVG would excacerbate the disorientation scenario, whilst I believe that NVG would have almost entirely prevented it firstly, and secondly, if entered, NVG would significantly aid recovery.
As TC says: NVG would have almost certainly prevented fixation on a nitesun becasue ALL the countryside is visible, not just the circle of light. Even if he kept his head still, the NVG visible circle (Field of View) on the ground would also be much larger than a nitesun beam width allowing far more oreintation cues. Once disorientation starts, the unaided pilot must hop onto the instruments he neglected and effect an instrument UA recovery. The NVG pilot simply moves his head and is able to find the horizon and effect an instant visual recovery using the AI and RADALT to cross reference his visual cues. Should he fail to find the horizon in that glance, it is simply a matter of conducting the instrument recovery in the same manner as the unaided pilot by glancing under the tubes (they are set so he can easily see the full instrument pannel without looking through the goggles) and using the AI as his primary horizon.
Thus it can be seen that the NVG pilot holds all the trumps: not only is disoreintation SIGNIFICANTLY less likely, but he has the option of conducting a visual recovery AND then reverting to the instrument recovery if still unsure. The poor old unaided pilot, whose chances of disorientation are much higher, can only rely on an instrument recovery. The choice is simple.
To put this safety margin in more perspective, whilst we are concentrating on Police/military/HEMS ops here - the yanks have already allowed the benefits to flow onto passenger charter. That should be our aim: ALL NVFR ops would be routinely conducted by NVG because it is SAFER than NVFR. Semirigid: As TC says there is no need to lower NVFR minima or even change the way we operate (including for weather avoidance), just add NVG to help what we already do.
The disorientation scenario you describe is not unheard of at night unaided, though the mechanism of entering it is more specific to your scenario. It is precisely this kind of disorientation that NVG would seek to minimise (if not mitigate). What I find fascinating is that you believe that NVG would excacerbate the disorientation scenario, whilst I believe that NVG would have almost entirely prevented it firstly, and secondly, if entered, NVG would significantly aid recovery.
As TC says: NVG would have almost certainly prevented fixation on a nitesun becasue ALL the countryside is visible, not just the circle of light. Even if he kept his head still, the NVG visible circle (Field of View) on the ground would also be much larger than a nitesun beam width allowing far more oreintation cues. Once disorientation starts, the unaided pilot must hop onto the instruments he neglected and effect an instrument UA recovery. The NVG pilot simply moves his head and is able to find the horizon and effect an instant visual recovery using the AI and RADALT to cross reference his visual cues. Should he fail to find the horizon in that glance, it is simply a matter of conducting the instrument recovery in the same manner as the unaided pilot by glancing under the tubes (they are set so he can easily see the full instrument pannel without looking through the goggles) and using the AI as his primary horizon.
Thus it can be seen that the NVG pilot holds all the trumps: not only is disoreintation SIGNIFICANTLY less likely, but he has the option of conducting a visual recovery AND then reverting to the instrument recovery if still unsure. The poor old unaided pilot, whose chances of disorientation are much higher, can only rely on an instrument recovery. The choice is simple.
To put this safety margin in more perspective, whilst we are concentrating on Police/military/HEMS ops here - the yanks have already allowed the benefits to flow onto passenger charter. That should be our aim: ALL NVFR ops would be routinely conducted by NVG because it is SAFER than NVFR. Semirigid: As TC says there is no need to lower NVFR minima or even change the way we operate (including for weather avoidance), just add NVG to help what we already do.
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe the pilot in the strathclyde accident was Instrument rated, he had basic IF training for an OPC(N). And inadvertant IMC was certainly a significant factor in the accident.
I am a great believer in NVG but I also think a full IR can be obtained and maintained for a lot less cost than is being mentioned here. Further quite a lot of police units are located very close to or on airfields that offer IFR recovery. How often do the met liers get it wrong and weather is either worse than forecast or closes in behind you and terrain makes an IFR pull up a safe option.
To use the example of strathclyde, an area with lots of hilly terrain, the ability to do an ILS into Glasgow to land or break cloud for a return down the river to base is a worthwhile option and I am sure this is not the only unit where this option is useful.
I feel this arguement should not be either or, it should be have both NVG and IR, they are compatible. There have been enough tragic night accidents with people operating night VFR, who I am sure felt that given their training they could cope with inadvertant IMC but didn't. Also, not everyone has masses of previous military IF to fall back on and instrument flying is a perishable skill, doing it 5 years ago doesn't ensure you are still an ace now.
I am a great believer in NVG but I also think a full IR can be obtained and maintained for a lot less cost than is being mentioned here. Further quite a lot of police units are located very close to or on airfields that offer IFR recovery. How often do the met liers get it wrong and weather is either worse than forecast or closes in behind you and terrain makes an IFR pull up a safe option.
To use the example of strathclyde, an area with lots of hilly terrain, the ability to do an ILS into Glasgow to land or break cloud for a return down the river to base is a worthwhile option and I am sure this is not the only unit where this option is useful.
I feel this arguement should not be either or, it should be have both NVG and IR, they are compatible. There have been enough tragic night accidents with people operating night VFR, who I am sure felt that given their training they could cope with inadvertant IMC but didn't. Also, not everyone has masses of previous military IF to fall back on and instrument flying is a perishable skill, doing it 5 years ago doesn't ensure you are still an ace now.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helmet fire,
Thanks for that. If current NVG do what you say, then that's excellent. Recovery from UA's isn't so simple when it really happens and coupled with inadvetant imc, sorry for going back to this one.
I'm not pro I/R against NVG; both would be the solution but bean counters will dictate otherwise.
Cheers
Thanks for that. If current NVG do what you say, then that's excellent. Recovery from UA's isn't so simple when it really happens and coupled with inadvetant imc, sorry for going back to this one.
I'm not pro I/R against NVG; both would be the solution but bean counters will dictate otherwise.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semi Rigid Rotor asked:
Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not? And to balance the argument, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?
Do I have an Opinion!! Does Santa Clause have cold toes??
1) All professional helicopter pilots should be instrument rated, and all commercial helicopters operated at night should have baseline IFR capability. Police, Offshore, Corporate, all of them, PERIOD
To place professional helicopter pilots (especially emergency responders!) in situations where they must personally decide whether they do their job, earn their pay, please their boss and save that life is wrong, unless that person has an IFR escape route. There are few operational helicopter situations at night that can’t be cured by climbing into the cloud and shooting an ILS to an airport. The US EMS industry learned their lesson years ago, when they started upgrading their equipment and people to stop the CFIT epidemic.
2) All patrol and emergency responders who operate at night should have NVG available. The darkness is the problem, goggles lift that darkness. Those who think the goggles require extensive training and add to safety concerns are wrong, they are extrapolating Military experience. Military pilots fly Nap of the Earth (NOE) profiles, which require extensive night training and expose the arcraft to many hazards. Goggle contour profiles (500 ft AGL, as a swag) need just a few hours and are far safer than those same profiles without goggles.
3) Do Goggles and compatible cockpits cost money? Does Instrument training and equipment cost money?
No, accidents cost money.
Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not? And to balance the argument, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?
Do I have an Opinion!! Does Santa Clause have cold toes??
1) All professional helicopter pilots should be instrument rated, and all commercial helicopters operated at night should have baseline IFR capability. Police, Offshore, Corporate, all of them, PERIOD
To place professional helicopter pilots (especially emergency responders!) in situations where they must personally decide whether they do their job, earn their pay, please their boss and save that life is wrong, unless that person has an IFR escape route. There are few operational helicopter situations at night that can’t be cured by climbing into the cloud and shooting an ILS to an airport. The US EMS industry learned their lesson years ago, when they started upgrading their equipment and people to stop the CFIT epidemic.
2) All patrol and emergency responders who operate at night should have NVG available. The darkness is the problem, goggles lift that darkness. Those who think the goggles require extensive training and add to safety concerns are wrong, they are extrapolating Military experience. Military pilots fly Nap of the Earth (NOE) profiles, which require extensive night training and expose the arcraft to many hazards. Goggle contour profiles (500 ft AGL, as a swag) need just a few hours and are far safer than those same profiles without goggles.
3) Do Goggles and compatible cockpits cost money? Does Instrument training and equipment cost money?
No, accidents cost money.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
One of those great aviation sayings:
"If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident..."
"If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident..."
TC,
Peter Rainey was tragically killed in a drowning accident in Cyprus last year, whilst trying to save his wife and son. Left his two children orphaned. There was a thread on the subject at the time.
Peter Rainey was tragically killed in a drowning accident in Cyprus last year, whilst trying to save his wife and son. Left his two children orphaned. There was a thread on the subject at the time.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC.
No, I won't shake off this IF thing because I believe passionately that it will enhance flight safety.
I have not said anything about ex mil pilots and flying IF. I have flown with many ex mil pilots and they have all been excellent IF drivers.
Not use an IR to depart an airfield? Maybe not at your base, but please try to think outside your area. We have an agreement with ATC and we get out of our International airport very quickly indeed.
Quote: How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger. Answer: Look and keep up to date with the weather.
I can't believe you put the next phrase in writing.
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING EVEN REMOTELY LETTING DOWN IMC WITHOUT AN APPROVED AID.
A couple of scenario's:
1) missing small child, it's foggy. Depart IF - the fog is not that deep - maybe patchy so a search can be carried out. Spend as long as you can on the task then back to base if it has cleared or divert and fly an authorised approach. After the approach, land suck of gas and maybe back to the task again. Remember if you have good visual contact with the ground in the area of your search you can cancel IFR.
2) do I need to carry on? Not every job is a rush out the door job.
Why after a divert park up and walk away? The weather may change / there maybe a change of circumstances ie your base becomes clear so you can depart IF and return home and keep the aircraft online as long as possible.
I will not comment on your interpretation of those accidents. This is a public forum and friends and family read this regularly. The AAIB reports are for all to see.
And finally, are you suggesting that non-rated pilots fly IMC in controlled airspace for an approved approach? That is about as daft as saying that when your cockpit is NVIS you just strap on some NVG's and go!!
Glad your not my Flight safety Officer!
No, I won't shake off this IF thing because I believe passionately that it will enhance flight safety.
I have not said anything about ex mil pilots and flying IF. I have flown with many ex mil pilots and they have all been excellent IF drivers.
Not use an IR to depart an airfield? Maybe not at your base, but please try to think outside your area. We have an agreement with ATC and we get out of our International airport very quickly indeed.
Quote: How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger. Answer: Look and keep up to date with the weather.
I can't believe you put the next phrase in writing.
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING EVEN REMOTELY LETTING DOWN IMC WITHOUT AN APPROVED AID.
A couple of scenario's:
1) missing small child, it's foggy. Depart IF - the fog is not that deep - maybe patchy so a search can be carried out. Spend as long as you can on the task then back to base if it has cleared or divert and fly an authorised approach. After the approach, land suck of gas and maybe back to the task again. Remember if you have good visual contact with the ground in the area of your search you can cancel IFR.
2) do I need to carry on? Not every job is a rush out the door job.
Why after a divert park up and walk away? The weather may change / there maybe a change of circumstances ie your base becomes clear so you can depart IF and return home and keep the aircraft online as long as possible.
I will not comment on your interpretation of those accidents. This is a public forum and friends and family read this regularly. The AAIB reports are for all to see.
And finally, are you suggesting that non-rated pilots fly IMC in controlled airspace for an approved approach? That is about as daft as saying that when your cockpit is NVIS you just strap on some NVG's and go!!
Glad your not my Flight safety Officer!
Kalif - your thread has certainly provoked discussion but I do think you should have tried NVG yourself before commenting on their shortcomings.
We in the UK SAR (mil) world have probably the best handle on mixed IFR/NVG ops as we have the ability to depart on instruments, transit to the job, either let down using ILS etc over land or internal aids (radar) letdown over the sea and then continue using NVG to do the rescue/search, often transitioning to white light for the actual winching before departing IF or NVG for the hospital. I have flown ordinary (mortal, reversionary, NVFR) whatever you want to call it, in sh8t conditions and have come much closer to getting disorientated/inadvertant than when using NVG.
There is NO doubt in my mind that anyone flying at night in Police/HEMS role should be using NVG as a matter of course.
We in the UK SAR (mil) world have probably the best handle on mixed IFR/NVG ops as we have the ability to depart on instruments, transit to the job, either let down using ILS etc over land or internal aids (radar) letdown over the sea and then continue using NVG to do the rescue/search, often transitioning to white light for the actual winching before departing IF or NVG for the hospital. I have flown ordinary (mortal, reversionary, NVFR) whatever you want to call it, in sh8t conditions and have come much closer to getting disorientated/inadvertant than when using NVG.
There is NO doubt in my mind that anyone flying at night in Police/HEMS role should be using NVG as a matter of course.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[email protected],
Yep, the idea was to promote discussion, and it cetainly did that.
I'd love to try NVGs but the local B&Q aint got any in; must be the christmas rush...
Seriously though, I've no NVG experience but there again a fair number of others who have had a rant and rave haven't either.
Cheers.....
Yep, the idea was to promote discussion, and it cetainly did that.
I'd love to try NVGs but the local B&Q aint got any in; must be the christmas rush...
Seriously though, I've no NVG experience but there again a fair number of others who have had a rant and rave haven't either.
Cheers.....
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kalif, no problem. I don't believe TC really believes what he says, he's just trying to wind us up!
Crab@SAA,
You have kind of hit the nail on the head. You have a number of skills plus the equipment at your disposal, also you are trained / current. You mix and match as the task / situation demands.
We don't have that onshore in the Police / Air Ambulance world. But we are expected by our masters and the public to operate at times, in conditions that could leave us embarassed.
Hopefully someone at the Home Office will read this, and realise the strength of feeling. No one piece of equipment or one piece of training will do, we need both. When we have both we can start to make CFIT a thing of the past.
Crab@SAA,
You have kind of hit the nail on the head. You have a number of skills plus the equipment at your disposal, also you are trained / current. You mix and match as the task / situation demands.
We don't have that onshore in the Police / Air Ambulance world. But we are expected by our masters and the public to operate at times, in conditions that could leave us embarassed.
Hopefully someone at the Home Office will read this, and realise the strength of feeling. No one piece of equipment or one piece of training will do, we need both. When we have both we can start to make CFIT a thing of the past.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My frst NVG experience was a checkout at the factory with one of our TP's who was a USAF instructor. I then took the goggles home, and drove in the back routes, lights off for a few dozen miles. I could see opposing traffic miles away because they made the sky glow minutes before they came in sight. I had to tape over the car internal indicators, of course. Stunning experience. It is as if I was a different species (no cracks, SASless!)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Hey Nick. I hope you remembered that oncoming traffic can't see YOU if you're lights out, sounds silly now but.......
I know a certain eccentric RAF pilot who decided to cycle home no lights wearing his helmet and NVGs. First car he met round the corner came close to wiping him out.....
I know a certain eccentric RAF pilot who decided to cycle home no lights wearing his helmet and NVGs. First car he met round the corner came close to wiping him out.....
Nick,
That's one that shows the difference between US English and our version. When I was a wayward 3-year old pedestrian in Canada, my Mum (note the 'u') told me to "stay on the pavement" - to the horror of passers-by.
That's one that shows the difference between US English and our version. When I was a wayward 3-year old pedestrian in Canada, my Mum (note the 'u') told me to "stay on the pavement" - to the horror of passers-by.