Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)

[RichiePAO]

I have read this thread with great interest. I am a Police Air Observer and on a few occaisions the pilot has been flying quite happily in IMC using radar vectors and an an ILS approach back to our base.
I would much rather do this than attempt a landing in the dark in poor weather is some random field in the middle of nowhere.
I am also perfectly happy if the incident merits it to deploy the aircraft in legally flyable conditions knowing full well that there is a possiblity that the weather local to our Base will close in behind us. We all know police work is not black and white and we all should use the combined experience of the pilot and the crew to make a decision to deploy the aircraft in marginal conditions.
One of the main reasons for declining police tasking is the weather, and Units around the Country take flak from ground based colleagues on a regular basis. In my opinion Air Support Units make themselves as available as possible as in the current finacial climate, otherwise observers and pilots alike could be looking look for work elsewhere.
Bring on full Instrument ratings and we get on with the job that we are paid to do.

[ShyTorque]

"shy -
If they don't like my driving, they should stay off the sidewalks!"



My grandmother often used to say whilst driving her old Ford "Look at that bl**dy idiot driving on the pavement (sidewalk)!"

We used to scream: "Grandma, it's because you are driving on HIS side of the road!"

She never had an accident, but saw lots......

[handysnaks]

RichiePAO, a provacative little post and I'm more than happy to take the bait. If your pilot has an I/R and your 135 is certified for IFR then no probs. However, I assume that you would have mentioned that. So...if your pilot does not have an I/R (and your aircraft is not certified), then ( aside from you stitching him up ), if he is making a decision to go IMC (when there is a possibility that he could land), then he is (as I understand it)
a. not flying in accordance with his licence
b. not flying in accordance with the PAOM /ANO/I Spy book of Civil Flying
c. not flying in accordance with the Flight Manual
d. not flying in accordance with the aircrafts C of A
e. probably flying outside the units insurance cover (although they are very flexible and understanding, those insurance companies)

I hope the next time you are after someone who may not be driving in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, you show as much understanding.

Now, it doesn't matter whether the pilot is capable of flying IMC or whether he had bags of IMC time in the military if he is not Instrument Rated (and current on type), he is not allowed to fly in IMC.
Of course, if he went inadvertant IMC, a radar recovery would be in order, maybe he should at least declare a PAN (that should get some responses! ) and I would expect to see at least a chirp report!!

[JimL]

This subject was introduced by Kalif who poured scorn on the need for NVG for the front of the helicopter and gently inferred that instrument ratings were preferable.

The fact is that the basis for the operational requirement for NVIS and Instrument Ratings are totally different. The intersection of the two issues occurs only when considering the possibility of inadvertent IMC. The main raison d’etre for NVIS is to enhance visual contact flying at night and, as far as possible, to reduce the probability of inadvertent entry into cloud (the fact that cloud ceiling is used in forecasting always introduces the possibility of cloud below the indicated level). Equally, the use of NVIS does not reduce the existing requirements for landing away from base at night - also regulated in JAR-OPS 3 (and the PAOM).

When the JAA was considering the introduction of regulations for NVIS it formed a working group of interested parties from: operators with existing knowledge of NVG (REGA of Switzerland, BGS from Germany etc.); and European NAAs. This group worked on the subject for a couple of years and produced a text that was acceptable to all parties.

REGA were particularly welcome because of several decades of experience and because, in Switzerland, punching up into IFR when encountering cloud is never an option. The whole basis for the work was the reduction in workload for flying at night in VMC - i.e. it did not permit the reduction of existing weather limits but increased the safety of night operations. As explained by many on this thread, the use of NVIS is constrained to enhancement of night flying - particularly in those areas where there is a distinct lack of ground references (light sources). (As a side issue, JARs do not have a minimum light requirement or, as in FARs, the requirement for visual contact with light sources on the surface.) As a matter of interest, the whole working group decamped to Switzerland at one stage to experience night operations using NVG with REGA.

We debated the requirement for Instrument Ratings but, as with the parallel discussions in the CAA after the unfortunate Harding accident, we concluded that that to obtain and, more importantly, maintain recency and currency on operations that were essentially conducted visually would be too expensive and would not be appropriate (mainly in Europe we were considering NVIS for HEMS - although we thought that Police work would also benefit).

The work culminated in the acceptance of the RTCA MOPS and the production of a TGL giving guidance on Operational Approval; this has been available as Leaflet No. 34. Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS) Operations since June 1st 2003. The document consists of six parts:

1. The text that will eventually become the NVIS requirements and associated guidance;
   
2. Training Guidelines & Considerations;
   
3. Ground Training Instruction;
   
4. Flight Training Instruction;
   
5. Pre-Flight Briefing and Checking; and
   
6. Concept of Operations

Inside the final document is an edited version of the US CONOPS which as an introduction states the following:

This document, prepared by a Sub-Group of EUROCAE Working Group 57 “Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Standardisation” is an abbreviated and modified version of the RTCA Report DO-268 “Concept Of Operations – Night Vision Imaging Systems For Civil Operators” which was prepared in America by RTCA Special Committee 196 (SC-196) and approved by the RTCA Technical Management Committee in March 2001.

The EUROCAE Working Group 57 (WG-57) Terms of Reference included a task to prepare a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) document describing the use of NVIS in Europe. To complete this task, a Sub-Group of WG-57 reviewed the RTCA SC-196 CONOPS (DO-268) to assess its applicability for use in Europe. Whilst the RTCA document was considered generally applicable, some of its content, such as crew eligibility and qualifications and the detail of the training requirements, was considered to be material more appropriately addressed in Europe by other Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) documents such as JAR-OPS and JAR-FCL. Consequently, WG-57 has condensed the RTCA CONOPS document by removing this material which is either already addressed by other JAR documents or will be in the future.

In addition, many of the technical standards already covered in the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) For Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment (DO-275) have been deleted in this European CONOPS.

The JAA is grateful to RTCA, Incorporated, for permission to reproduce text from RTCA DO-268 in this CONOPS applicable for NVIS operations in Europe.

[MightyGem]

Semirigid wrote:

" 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!!"

TC actually wrote:

" While on task you go inadvertent IMC...

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."


Note "inadvertant IMC".

[SiClick]

JimL
I don't want to get to deep, because I essentially agree with what your saying and its late, and I am several beers worse for wear, however,
Your comment/suggestion that JAR's should stipulate a minimum light level, is like what a lot of what many people are pushing, impractical!
For a long time the military pushed 2 millilux as the number, but on a cloudy night with no moon, when 2 millilux was not achievable? Then we just use ambient/artificial light! Such a get out, while fine for the military would never work in civy street. However, the idea that the pilot assess the light levels, as he does the weather in a helicopter away from an airfield, is essentially sound.
We need to keep the argument sensible and achievable.
All helicopter pilots with NVG experience will agree that flying in the dark without goggles is like driving a car on an unlite road without lights, ******* stupid!
NVG need to be, and will soon be accepted in civil flying, and the sooner they are available to police units, the better.
SiClick

[EESDL]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original post raised the topic that pilots should not be trained on NVGs but the 'cheaper' solution of an IR would/should suffice?

Following the originator's thread, the ideal progression would be to follow the Obs instructions to the scene of the chase then use the radalt and cheaply-installed hovermeter to lower onto the scroat's roof. To what end?

We've all received banter for not doing a shout if the wx's dog (and probably flown when we shouldn't have) but some brave person mention the go/no-go decision.

If the wx is that bad that you need goggs, then you are probable having to fly too low in the first place, at a speed that mocks your 'safe single engine' parameters and frankly, pushing the limits - and for what, some scroat that will be cautioned at best!!

Yep, been there and done it and fully aware that once the user uses goggles and accepts certain jobs then it opens the gates for abuse by the people who account for it.

Those in the know, know how much lip service is paid to millilux limits, nvg currency and crew competency.

Yes, as a pilot, i would like a set of NVGs in a box by my seat, or even attached to my head, but, as someone who does not wish to rely on 2 retina-burning scopes strapped on my face, pray they stay switched OFF.

If money was no object, then we should all have an IR, to use as and when.

Are you telling me that without an IR we cannot fly a 180 or stay upright? Heavens, your training needs help.
Safe flying folks!

[ShyTorque]

[If the wx is that bad that you need goggs, then you are probable having to fly too low in the first place, at a speed that mocks your 'safe single engine' parameters and frankly, pushing the limits]

The wrong idea about night vision aids here. They AREN'T a way of flying in worse weather, not what they were invented for. Who on earth taught you that NVG technique?

[FloaterNorthWest]

handysnaks

RichiePAO's 135 is a SPIFR T2 and some of the pilots who fly it do have IRs, mainly relief pilots who also do IFR charter work or ferry flights.

FNW

[zorab64]

Sorry - very late to the discussion, but it can't be left without comment.

Concur, in many respects, with TC & others who see NVG as the step to take BEFORE IR, if the latter can possibly be justified, operationally or financially.

The one thing hardly mentioned to date (XMT Manch/L'pool) is the operating area. For those operating around Cumulo-lumps, one can only be supportive of the NVG argument. However, for those whose closest proximity to Cumulo-alluvialsand is 500' (at 1000' QNH) over the whole operating area, and further beyond, the argument is less clear - and there is even less excuse for inadvertent IMC and, by inference, IRs. For flat-landers, especially with 80+% ops in areas of significant cultural lighting, NVG or IR can only be regarded as an expensive luxury.

There are those who may frequently land ad-hoc at night (normally in more remote (& probably lumpy) regions) & those who do so less than once a year. For the former, NVG make sense (if the CAA allow below 500'), for the latter, save your cash. Some reckon you could land more often with NVG - but why? The helo invariably exerts a more effective circle of influence from 1000' than grubbing about in the mud when there are troops on the ground anyway.

Re the IR discussion: - whose Force can justify the initial training expense (TC, 14 Nov 10:30), as well as the currency requirements, when it's so infrequently used in anger. None of the Police kit works through cloud and we remain better orientated VCF below, en-route to a job, than hopping up above & letting down through the goo into goodness knows what. In the flat-lands the goo's the same all over, so no benefit there whatsoever. Massive cost to maintain currency though, as well as extra downtime/training hours on the Police budget, when you're trying to remain available to get the job done each day. At least NVG operators can keep current AND do the job.

And finally - for those "lucky" enough to live on a real airfield, where IR procedures can be practiced regularly, don't forget those who aren't close to such luxuries. Flying to/from the equivalent of a well-lit frigate flight deck in the middle of the blank stuff might be an argument for NVG, but if it's lit i.a.w. CAA / PAOM guidance anyway, just devoid of electronic aids, it's not a problem.

All in all - horses for courses. NVG won't significantly benefit everyone but it makes absolute sense for some units/areas, especially if allowed down to the deck. But IRs? An unjustified operational (and financial) burden, unrelated to the job we do.



And before you ask - I've been doing the job for enough years, don't have an IR, have not flown NVG in anger, and have an equal number of landings & take-offs in my log book. I do pay taxes, however, and would be pleased to see some of the dosh going to those who can benefit realistically.

[helmet fire]

And that is a direct reflection of what I said before: our background and experiences determine our outlook and until we get some experienced late generation NVG pilots into positins of influence, zorabs view will continue to prevail. Sadly, despite EVERY NVG pilot/crewman spouting the benefits (and some the necessity) of NVG, we continue to wallow in this doubting phase whilst more of our brethren fly into the ground.

Like the longline parallel I drew earlier, we aircrew are often slow at running with new ideas, prefering to think that what we do now is the best. Same reason we keep having the same accidents: we are reluctant to learn from other peoples mistakes and have to experience it ourselves to become believers.

Given that CFIT is our second biggest killer (wires is number 1) why dont we spend money to address that? Zorab, perhaps instead of doing autos, tailrotor failure practices, etc, etc, that money could be put toward adressing the real killer: CFIT. When you deride NVG or IR as a "luxury" I would love to hear your take on all the money spent on training flights to protect us from a far smaller danger.

[emergov]

Enhanced Operational Effectiveness

It seems to me the only people with reservations about flying NVG are those with no or minimal experience flying NVG. The thread so far has focussed on IF quals vs NVG qual / refit etc.

I think there are compelling operational reasons to use NVG, and focus training on IIMC recovery.

If companies and the pilots working for them are conducting police or EMS or other tasks at night VFR, then they must have a set of checks and balances in their ops manuals / SOP / CAR.

Not knowing those regulations, my gut feel is that a lot of those operating restrictions could be relaxed or removed if the crew use NVG. That is, either the same job could be done more safely, or more of a service could be provided. NVG ops are more analogous to day ops than to night (await storms of protest), so long as suitable legislation regarding weather and recovery plans are in place.

It is a furphy to say that NVG 'suckers' you into cloud. The fact is that you can actually see through thin layers of cloud on NVG, so it IS possible to go into cloud on dark nights with min ground references. The reality is that use of your searchlight, or any ambient illum enables you to see the cloud before you lose visual reference, and NVGs allow you to descend or turn away WITH visual reference. In the same situation NVFR you would go IIMC, or you wouldn't be there in the first place because of the wx.

As I said before, you can provide more of a service, more of the time on NVG.

[zorab64]

Helmet fire, you miss my point, or I didn't put it clearly enough.

My main drift was that NVG should be the first port of call in all cases; but that an IR comes a very poor second in the overall operational and financial equation. I am quite in agreement that NVG are an excellent aid for many operators, but they shouldn't be forced on all.

We may be flying the same battle but we're not doing it in the same terrain. For those who have undulating T to FC'dI, I can only concur that there is real merit. For those whose T is flat and who operate (XMT T/O & Landing in pre-designated sites) above 500', the risk has to be balanced.

I'm not a Luddite but I can't see merit in buying kit that the CAA won't let us use properly anyway - or certainly that's how it appears to date!

[semirigid rotor]

Zorab 64,

I agree with the point about houses for courses. A blanket Home Office edit will be very expensive and will not be of benefit to all units. But I must remark on a couple of your statements:

Quote: In the flat-lands the goo's the same all over.

Those who fly around the Cotswolds, South Downs, Chilterns etc. (not mountains, just hills) will know the effects of orographic lifting. Those by the coast will know that coastal effects can come a long way onshore. Weather can be very localised for a variety of reasons, that is why there is a 30 minute (soon to be 60) requirement for instrument practice.

Quote: Massive cost to maintain currency, Sorry but this is were I throw my teddy out of the pram Currency is maintaned by your normal flying. You DO NOT have to fly a seperate flight to go and fly an ILS or whatever. With agreement with NATS Nav charges etc can be reduced even waived. Next year an hour will be flown every three months (give or take a bit), what about the cost and the disruption cased by that?

I will concede that I did not make it clear that if your aircraft is not already IFR approved the cost of the upgrade is prohibitive. But if your aircraft is certified it is only common sense to certify the driver as well.

Helmet Fire, agree entirely, we spend to much time on a remote possibility and far to less on what is proven to be the biggest killers of helicopters. And before many of you jump down my throat, yes practice engine failures etc, should continue to be part of OPC etc but wire CFIT avoidence should be a greater part of say line check?

[Thomas coupling]

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

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

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

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

[handysnaks]

FNW, Ritchie PAO thanks for that (That is a relief!). In which case the first part of my answer stands

If your pilot has an I/R and your 135 is certified for IFR then no probs.

( What's it like to have a section 4?)

[zorab64]

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

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

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

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

[NVG_CAT3_retd]

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

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

Can I have all of the above please?

RichiePAO

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

Poor decision making abilities I would say.

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

[ShyTorque]

I thoroughly agree with the above poster.

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

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

[catseye]

nvg in oz civil ops

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

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


The eye.