Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
I too have heard that an NVG Compliance Instruction has been signed and delivered.
Without industry consultation.
Good that someone (Victorian Police Airwing) is now able to conduct a sanctioned civil NVG operation in Oz. About time. Mike Tavcar (a contrinuter to these pages) deserves significant accolades for achieing this result. It has taken him over 8 years to get this far - well done Mike.
But there are some small issues:
Some of the provisions will place significant obstacles in the way of other operators possibly stopping their aspirations for NVG. Thus the flight safety benefits of NVG cannot be realised by the majority of operators whom need the kit. These factors were not of particular concern to VicPol operations, but they will be of significance to most others (QES aside), which unfortunately takes the gloss off the exemption.
Secondly, industry was not allowed input into what has become a standard for the industry. How is that allowed to happen?
Without industry consultation.
Good that someone (Victorian Police Airwing) is now able to conduct a sanctioned civil NVG operation in Oz. About time. Mike Tavcar (a contrinuter to these pages) deserves significant accolades for achieing this result. It has taken him over 8 years to get this far - well done Mike.
But there are some small issues:
Some of the provisions will place significant obstacles in the way of other operators possibly stopping their aspirations for NVG. Thus the flight safety benefits of NVG cannot be realised by the majority of operators whom need the kit. These factors were not of particular concern to VicPol operations, but they will be of significance to most others (QES aside), which unfortunately takes the gloss off the exemption.
Secondly, industry was not allowed input into what has become a standard for the industry. How is that allowed to happen?
Last edited by helmet fire; 26th Nov 2004 at 21:30.
Good to see some action, at least...sounds like you have a bit of info about the details, Helmet Fire; has some draft legislation been released?
Big job for CASA to get sorted out to bring goggles into general use for authorised organisations and rated crews, but surely the expertise is there around the world (and here) to do this with acceptable safety and expediency.
Big job for CASA to get sorted out to bring goggles into general use for authorised organisations and rated crews, but surely the expertise is there around the world (and here) to do this with acceptable safety and expediency.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oz nvg's
katfish has also heard the rumour that CASA (Mick Haxell etc), have been told to make this a high priority, and we may very soon see a set of operating and training instructions. Like most of us, I believe it will raise the safety level of our night ops enormously. Possibly the best thing since electric gyros!
Don't know if many of the CASA guys have done much goggling; that will probably be an issue in the implementation.
Also they are a double-edged sword, to use a well-worn cliche, in that people will expect them to be a magical cure-all without perhaps realising how limited they can be on nights with low ambient illumination.
Also they are a double-edged sword, to use a well-worn cliche, in that people will expect them to be a magical cure-all without perhaps realising how limited they can be on nights with low ambient illumination.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI
I don't know how old this is but read this for info.... (apologie for the large post, can't get it ti link)
Of note are the following.......
“When properly used, NVG’s can increase safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are typically associated with night operations.”
The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.
The use of NVG will not enable any mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s.
It will certainly be an expensive exercise for whoever takes it on when you take into account the issues as discussed in the FAA document. Aircraft modifications and approvals, flight tests, flight manual supplements, MEL's, Instructor training and approval, 100 hours NVG experience for instructors etc etc..................
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 1
Handout #3
NIGHT VISION GOGGLES
Topic:
The hours of darkness add to a pilot’s workload by decreasing those visual cues
commonly used during daylight operations. Night Vision Goggles (NVG) has provided
the industry with the ability to see at night and enhance operations. NVG’s have been
cited in several FAA/Industry studies as a means to prevent Controlled Flight Into
Terrain (CFIT) accidents. Continuing technological improvements have advanced the
capability and reliability of NVGs that FAR Part 135 on-demand operators have
requested use of the NVIS in commercial operations as a tool for night.
Night Vision Goggles (NVG) is the common term use for NVIS operations. The
complete description and performance standards of the NVG and cockpit lighting
modifications appropriate to civil aviation are contained in the Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment
(RTCA/DO-275).
Currently, these systems consist of:
• Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
• Interior and exterior aircraft lighting modifications
• Cockpit windows (e.g., windshield, windows, chin bubbles, etc.)
• Crew station design and components
• Radar altimeter
Since NVG do have performance limitations, it is important that proper training methods
and detailed operational procedures to minimize NVG limitations.
Industry request.
Discussion of Issues:
Initially developed for the military, Night Vision Goggles are devices that collect light
energy, amplify and present the light providing the operator with an enhanced view of
the scene outside the aircraft, thus improving situational awareness during night VFR
operations.
Part 135 operators initially petitioned the FAA to allow NVG operations use in the late
1980’s. It was determined at that time that NVGs were not advanced enough to be
utilized in civil operations. A later 1994 FAA study (DOT/FAA/RD-94/21, 1994)
summarized the need for NVG by stating: “When properly used, NVG’s can increase
safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are
typically associated with night operations.”
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 2
Handout #3
The military use of NVGs was to enable tactical Nap-of-the-Earth or low-level terrain
flight at night. This is not intent of civil use of NVG. The intent of the FAA is to
authorize the use of NVG to improve the safety of night-flight. This means that all FAR
requirements must be complied with during a flight. The use of NVG will not enable any
mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s. The
civil use of NVG will be approved for the purpose of enhancing the operational safety.
FAA determined that that NVGs are an appliance and require FAA certification and
specific approval according to specific procedures outlined in 14 CFR part 21 and that
the use of NVGs in Part 91 and 135 operations may only be authorized with specific
FAA approval.
The FAA worked with RTCA to define the training and certification of pilots and other
crewmembers, aircraft, and for the development of a night vision goggle TSO to allow
their usage in the NAS. The RTCA is a not-for-profit corporation formed to advance the
art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems for the benefit of the public.
The organization functions as a Federal Advisory Committee that develops consensus
based recommendations on contemporary aviation issues.
Flight Standards has completed the development of operation specifications, to allow
Part 135 Helicopter Emergency Medical Service operators to perform night vision
operations.
Initial Approval Process.
When the military first started using NVGs, they initially suffered a high accident rate
due to non-standardized training and equipment. When the decision was made to allow
civil NVG operations, we were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to
learn from it. Three major areas of emphasis were identified: 1) the goggles, 2) aircraft
interior and exterior lighting, and 3) training.
The FAA worked with RTCA and the industry for the development of a Technical
Standard Order (TSO) for the goggles NVGs. RTCA also addressed the aircraft interior
and exterior lighting and training issues. The FAA has also coordinated its efforts with
the UK CAA, European JAA, EUROCAE, the Australian CAA and the US Department of
Defense. The FAA also coordinated its activities with operators of NVGs, including
other federal agencies and Rega, a Swiss air ambulance organization.
CRITERIA
The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that
no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.
Initial Operational Approval was limited to Limited to Part 135 Air Ambulance operators.
This process required the use of the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) process for
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 3
Handout #3
certifying 14 CFR Part 135 operators to conduct operations and training in the use of
NVGs. Once approved, the operator was issued 2 STC’s, one for the aircraft lighting
modification, and a second for the training program. Operators were also issued Part
135 NVG Operations Specifications.
Current approval process.
We now have 5 years of Part 135 NVG operational history. The industry has been
conducting training and operations with standardized NVG training programs.
The Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for NVG’s has been
developed and published by RTCA, Inc in RTCA/DO-275. The NVG Technical
Standards Orders (TSO) will be issued shortly. The FAA has published new handbook
guidance to be used by principal operations inspectors (POI) when evaluating request
for use of night vision goggles (NVG), evaluating a NVG training program, and Minimum
Equipment List (MEL) and prior to the issuance of OpSpecs.
The FAA Aircraft Certification Office is responsible for:
• Approving the STC modifications of the aircraft.
• The aircraft lighting and NVG installation.
• The flight-tests for NVIS compatibility.
• Rotorcraft Flight Manual supplement.
Now only one STC approval will be issued for the installation of NVG compatible
equipment (lighting).
NVG INSTRUCTORS
In order to maintain a high quality of instruction the operators approved training program
requires all instructors to have a minimum of 100 HNVGO in equivalent NVG
equipment.
Potential for Future Work:
Flight Standards has completed a rulemaking project, “Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules” which includes the establishment of pilot and flight instructor
training, recency of experience, and qualification requirements to perform night vision
operations.
The FAA proposes to issue a NVG SFAR dealing with the following:
• Defining night vision goggles and night vision goggles operations.
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 4
Handout #3
• Logging of NVG time.
• Criteria and standards for logging night vision goggle time.
• NVG recency operating experience requirement in order to remain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Training for operating with night vision goggles.
• Night vision goggle proficiency check requirement in order to regain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Flight instructor qualifications for giving the PIC night vision goggle qualification
and recency training requirements.
• Certification requirement of aircraft and pilot in order to conduct NVG operations.
Handout #3
NIGHT VISION GOGGLES
Topic:
The hours of darkness add to a pilot’s workload by decreasing those visual cues
commonly used during daylight operations. Night Vision Goggles (NVG) has provided
the industry with the ability to see at night and enhance operations. NVG’s have been
cited in several FAA/Industry studies as a means to prevent Controlled Flight Into
Terrain (CFIT) accidents. Continuing technological improvements have advanced the
capability and reliability of NVGs that FAR Part 135 on-demand operators have
requested use of the NVIS in commercial operations as a tool for night.
Night Vision Goggles (NVG) is the common term use for NVIS operations. The
complete description and performance standards of the NVG and cockpit lighting
modifications appropriate to civil aviation are contained in the Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment
(RTCA/DO-275).
Currently, these systems consist of:
• Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
• Interior and exterior aircraft lighting modifications
• Cockpit windows (e.g., windshield, windows, chin bubbles, etc.)
• Crew station design and components
• Radar altimeter
Since NVG do have performance limitations, it is important that proper training methods
and detailed operational procedures to minimize NVG limitations.
Industry request.
Discussion of Issues:
Initially developed for the military, Night Vision Goggles are devices that collect light
energy, amplify and present the light providing the operator with an enhanced view of
the scene outside the aircraft, thus improving situational awareness during night VFR
operations.
Part 135 operators initially petitioned the FAA to allow NVG operations use in the late
1980’s. It was determined at that time that NVGs were not advanced enough to be
utilized in civil operations. A later 1994 FAA study (DOT/FAA/RD-94/21, 1994)
summarized the need for NVG by stating: “When properly used, NVG’s can increase
safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are
typically associated with night operations.”
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 2
Handout #3
The military use of NVGs was to enable tactical Nap-of-the-Earth or low-level terrain
flight at night. This is not intent of civil use of NVG. The intent of the FAA is to
authorize the use of NVG to improve the safety of night-flight. This means that all FAR
requirements must be complied with during a flight. The use of NVG will not enable any
mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s. The
civil use of NVG will be approved for the purpose of enhancing the operational safety.
FAA determined that that NVGs are an appliance and require FAA certification and
specific approval according to specific procedures outlined in 14 CFR part 21 and that
the use of NVGs in Part 91 and 135 operations may only be authorized with specific
FAA approval.
The FAA worked with RTCA to define the training and certification of pilots and other
crewmembers, aircraft, and for the development of a night vision goggle TSO to allow
their usage in the NAS. The RTCA is a not-for-profit corporation formed to advance the
art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems for the benefit of the public.
The organization functions as a Federal Advisory Committee that develops consensus
based recommendations on contemporary aviation issues.
Flight Standards has completed the development of operation specifications, to allow
Part 135 Helicopter Emergency Medical Service operators to perform night vision
operations.
Initial Approval Process.
When the military first started using NVGs, they initially suffered a high accident rate
due to non-standardized training and equipment. When the decision was made to allow
civil NVG operations, we were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to
learn from it. Three major areas of emphasis were identified: 1) the goggles, 2) aircraft
interior and exterior lighting, and 3) training.
The FAA worked with RTCA and the industry for the development of a Technical
Standard Order (TSO) for the goggles NVGs. RTCA also addressed the aircraft interior
and exterior lighting and training issues. The FAA has also coordinated its efforts with
the UK CAA, European JAA, EUROCAE, the Australian CAA and the US Department of
Defense. The FAA also coordinated its activities with operators of NVGs, including
other federal agencies and Rega, a Swiss air ambulance organization.
CRITERIA
The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that
no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.
Initial Operational Approval was limited to Limited to Part 135 Air Ambulance operators.
This process required the use of the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) process for
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 3
Handout #3
certifying 14 CFR Part 135 operators to conduct operations and training in the use of
NVGs. Once approved, the operator was issued 2 STC’s, one for the aircraft lighting
modification, and a second for the training program. Operators were also issued Part
135 NVG Operations Specifications.
Current approval process.
We now have 5 years of Part 135 NVG operational history. The industry has been
conducting training and operations with standardized NVG training programs.
The Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for NVG’s has been
developed and published by RTCA, Inc in RTCA/DO-275. The NVG Technical
Standards Orders (TSO) will be issued shortly. The FAA has published new handbook
guidance to be used by principal operations inspectors (POI) when evaluating request
for use of night vision goggles (NVG), evaluating a NVG training program, and Minimum
Equipment List (MEL) and prior to the issuance of OpSpecs.
The FAA Aircraft Certification Office is responsible for:
• Approving the STC modifications of the aircraft.
• The aircraft lighting and NVG installation.
• The flight-tests for NVIS compatibility.
• Rotorcraft Flight Manual supplement.
Now only one STC approval will be issued for the installation of NVG compatible
equipment (lighting).
NVG INSTRUCTORS
In order to maintain a high quality of instruction the operators approved training program
requires all instructors to have a minimum of 100 HNVGO in equivalent NVG
equipment.
Potential for Future Work:
Flight Standards has completed a rulemaking project, “Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules” which includes the establishment of pilot and flight instructor
training, recency of experience, and qualification requirements to perform night vision
operations.
The FAA proposes to issue a NVG SFAR dealing with the following:
• Defining night vision goggles and night vision goggles operations.
Challenges for Global Aviation Operations Page 4
Handout #3
• Logging of NVG time.
• Criteria and standards for logging night vision goggle time.
• NVG recency operating experience requirement in order to remain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Training for operating with night vision goggles.
• Night vision goggle proficiency check requirement in order to regain PIC qualified
for night vision goggle operations.
• Flight instructor qualifications for giving the PIC night vision goggle qualification
and recency training requirements.
• Certification requirement of aircraft and pilot in order to conduct NVG operations.
Of note are the following.......
“When properly used, NVG’s can increase safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload and stress that are typically associated with night operations.”
The FAA determined that NVG’s would be used ONLY as an aid to VFR flight and that no reduction in VFR minimums would be permitted.
The use of NVG will not enable any mode of flight which cannot be flown within the framework of the existing FAR’s.
It will certainly be an expensive exercise for whoever takes it on when you take into account the issues as discussed in the FAA document. Aircraft modifications and approvals, flight tests, flight manual supplements, MEL's, Instructor training and approval, 100 hours NVG experience for instructors etc etc..................
Last edited by Giovanni Cento Nove; 1st Dec 2004 at 23:50.
This is an excellent, well overdue step for Aus. industry.
The jist of FAA guidance and control seems quite appropriate (although I can't open the link to read the detail). If the crux of it is that the operations will be conducted IAW with all of the existing rules for night VFR ops then the goggles will enhance safety. When combined with white light , the NVGs are an excellent aid for getting into and out of unprepared pads, in addition to many other chores.
NVGs are a FLYING aid however; they are next to useless for searching.
Gibbo
The jist of FAA guidance and control seems quite appropriate (although I can't open the link to read the detail). If the crux of it is that the operations will be conducted IAW with all of the existing rules for night VFR ops then the goggles will enhance safety. When combined with white light , the NVGs are an excellent aid for getting into and out of unprepared pads, in addition to many other chores.
NVGs are a FLYING aid however; they are next to useless for searching.
Gibbo
Gio, I cant do the link thing either, but I am assuming it refers to the FAA NVG release in Feb 2004. As you point out, NVG will not reduce the wx minima for NVFR in the States, nor allow any mode of flight not currently permitted by the FARs, however, this is where we in Oz, and those in the UK have sufficient difficulty translating the FAA bits, and where NVG WILL permit increased flight profiles for us.
What are the wx minima for NVFR in the US? I have previously been told that they are not very prescriptive , and may be the same as for day. I do know that the NVFR requires a visible horizon which we dont in Oz.
As I understand it, the fundamental difference in Oz is that we have a prescriptive Lower Safe Alt requirement, where as neither the USA nor NZ have. Instead, they have a visible horizon requirement that we do not. (No idea about the UK, how do you guys do it?). Thus, NVG will have a significant impact on our allowable flight profiles in that they will allow cruise flight at 500 ft, and do away with all the visual approach criteria, therefore saving time/fuel and money.
As I understand what has happened in Oz is that a Compliance Instruction has been signed for the Victorian Police Airwing (VPAW). Unfortunately, that document will also be used as a standard exemption to apply industry wide, but the industry has been unable to be involved in its evolution. In other words, CASA have formulated a standard industry exemption with no consultation by claiming "client privledge" with VPAW. All quite legal and in accordance with the rules, but when seen in the bigger picture, it is hardly conducive to the consultative image they are trying to portray.
So what we have now is a tremendous leap forward by officially condoning NVG flight, and we have an organisation (VPAW) that will be able to take up NVG when they can complete all the mods and training. As I said above, this is a significant achievement for VPAW and Mike Tavcar in particular - and he should be congratulated.
On the downside, we now have a set of rules that are "Oz only", and do not conform to the logical FAA rules which is almost an absurdity given the push by CASA for us to adopt FAA style rules in all other areas. The document well suits VPAW and their resource rich environment, but it runs contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the industry who supported adoption of the FAA regulations. Indeed, if some changes are not made, the exemption currently creates an unjustifiable cost barrier to the adoption of a far safer mode of flight. A slight disclaimer: I have still not seen the completed document, but I doubt those changes would have been incorporated.
Lastly, some comments on the previous posts:
Gio, despite your concern of outlay V benefits, 18 US HEMS organisations were approved for NVG and flew them regularly in preference to NVFR by Jun 2004. A further 30 have completed the necessary mods, completed training and documentation and were awaiting final FAA sign off (but there are so few inspectors capable of conducting this sign off). REGA in Switzerland have been operating NVG for more than 10 years. I would put it to you that NVG DO represent a significant cost/benefit ratio, or there are a lot of very wrong people. Does anyone know of an organisation that has been NVG for several years, then stopped due lack of benefit?
AOTW, you have raised an excellent point, and I am still trying to find out if illumination has been mentioned in the compliance instruction. I think it is a failing of the FAA document that they do not have a millilux limitation. But also remember that we are now talking Omnibus IV technology as the stated minimum acceptable equipment, and I believe your experience was Omnibus III and lower, as was the vast majority of mine. I did not believe the improvement that the IV offered, and you would literally need to see it to believe it. But, it doesnt matter which omnibus: neither can amplify complete darkness, thus an illumination minimum may be something to institute as a risk management tool.
Gibbo: "Useless for searching" is a big call. Certainly trying to find a covert enemy is next to impossible, or someone bobbing along in the ocean, or someone running through lit urban areas, but ANY light source on a lost/missing/crashed survivor will stand out like dogs balls. A torch can be seen for 10nm or more some nights. A strobe on a liferaft will be seen for 30 plus miles. A small fire from a crashed aircraft, invisible to the naked eye, will be seen for 5 plus miles. And, NVG will allow you to SAFELY fly through mountain valleys looking. I personally think they are right up there with IR, (I suspect probably even more useful but I have not used advanced IR) in civil applications for searches.
What are the wx minima for NVFR in the US? I have previously been told that they are not very prescriptive , and may be the same as for day. I do know that the NVFR requires a visible horizon which we dont in Oz.
As I understand it, the fundamental difference in Oz is that we have a prescriptive Lower Safe Alt requirement, where as neither the USA nor NZ have. Instead, they have a visible horizon requirement that we do not. (No idea about the UK, how do you guys do it?). Thus, NVG will have a significant impact on our allowable flight profiles in that they will allow cruise flight at 500 ft, and do away with all the visual approach criteria, therefore saving time/fuel and money.
As I understand what has happened in Oz is that a Compliance Instruction has been signed for the Victorian Police Airwing (VPAW). Unfortunately, that document will also be used as a standard exemption to apply industry wide, but the industry has been unable to be involved in its evolution. In other words, CASA have formulated a standard industry exemption with no consultation by claiming "client privledge" with VPAW. All quite legal and in accordance with the rules, but when seen in the bigger picture, it is hardly conducive to the consultative image they are trying to portray.
So what we have now is a tremendous leap forward by officially condoning NVG flight, and we have an organisation (VPAW) that will be able to take up NVG when they can complete all the mods and training. As I said above, this is a significant achievement for VPAW and Mike Tavcar in particular - and he should be congratulated.
On the downside, we now have a set of rules that are "Oz only", and do not conform to the logical FAA rules which is almost an absurdity given the push by CASA for us to adopt FAA style rules in all other areas. The document well suits VPAW and their resource rich environment, but it runs contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the industry who supported adoption of the FAA regulations. Indeed, if some changes are not made, the exemption currently creates an unjustifiable cost barrier to the adoption of a far safer mode of flight. A slight disclaimer: I have still not seen the completed document, but I doubt those changes would have been incorporated.
Lastly, some comments on the previous posts:
Gio, despite your concern of outlay V benefits, 18 US HEMS organisations were approved for NVG and flew them regularly in preference to NVFR by Jun 2004. A further 30 have completed the necessary mods, completed training and documentation and were awaiting final FAA sign off (but there are so few inspectors capable of conducting this sign off). REGA in Switzerland have been operating NVG for more than 10 years. I would put it to you that NVG DO represent a significant cost/benefit ratio, or there are a lot of very wrong people. Does anyone know of an organisation that has been NVG for several years, then stopped due lack of benefit?
AOTW, you have raised an excellent point, and I am still trying to find out if illumination has been mentioned in the compliance instruction. I think it is a failing of the FAA document that they do not have a millilux limitation. But also remember that we are now talking Omnibus IV technology as the stated minimum acceptable equipment, and I believe your experience was Omnibus III and lower, as was the vast majority of mine. I did not believe the improvement that the IV offered, and you would literally need to see it to believe it. But, it doesnt matter which omnibus: neither can amplify complete darkness, thus an illumination minimum may be something to institute as a risk management tool.
Gibbo: "Useless for searching" is a big call. Certainly trying to find a covert enemy is next to impossible, or someone bobbing along in the ocean, or someone running through lit urban areas, but ANY light source on a lost/missing/crashed survivor will stand out like dogs balls. A torch can be seen for 10nm or more some nights. A strobe on a liferaft will be seen for 30 plus miles. A small fire from a crashed aircraft, invisible to the naked eye, will be seen for 5 plus miles. And, NVG will allow you to SAFELY fly through mountain valleys looking. I personally think they are right up there with IR, (I suspect probably even more useful but I have not used advanced IR) in civil applications for searches.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet fire is quite correct in his asumption about NVG vs FLIR. Having used both I have found FLIR to be effected greatly by enviromental/atmospheric conditions eg dust, humidity, sea spray and temperature meaning when an object becomes cold soaked particularly in water the limitations of FLIR become very apparent equally in hot conditions the same applys. Give me NVG any day but remember 6000 x black is still black.
G'day Helmet et al,
'useless for searching' isn't intended as a wind-up and I agree with your points; a successful search can be perfromed under the conditions you described. The point I didn't expand is that IMHO the NVG should be used to get the A/C, crew and other assets to the scene, on job without contacting the ground or other obstacles.
If it is a search job, by a dedicated SAR A/C then it should be suitably equipped with day/night camera, FLIR, RF locator or similar devices to complete the search. All of the tools should come together. If the NVG are assumed to be good enough to search, and they are the primary search tool, then a lot of hours will be wasted and a lot of missions will fail when nothing is found. Having recently used the latest gen FLIR (technology, not brand) I am sold on the kit! I haven't used current gen NVG, and would like to see the improvement over the Omnibus III.
As I said, my observation is that the tool is great, but not a panacea. A step forward for the industry! A good topic for beers I think.
Gibbo
'useless for searching' isn't intended as a wind-up and I agree with your points; a successful search can be perfromed under the conditions you described. The point I didn't expand is that IMHO the NVG should be used to get the A/C, crew and other assets to the scene, on job without contacting the ground or other obstacles.
If it is a search job, by a dedicated SAR A/C then it should be suitably equipped with day/night camera, FLIR, RF locator or similar devices to complete the search. All of the tools should come together. If the NVG are assumed to be good enough to search, and they are the primary search tool, then a lot of hours will be wasted and a lot of missions will fail when nothing is found. Having recently used the latest gen FLIR (technology, not brand) I am sold on the kit! I haven't used current gen NVG, and would like to see the improvement over the Omnibus III.
As I said, my observation is that the tool is great, but not a panacea. A step forward for the industry! A good topic for beers I think.
Gibbo
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I better put every one in the picture seeing that I have been intimately involved in the CASA approval of NVGs in Aust. and working towards this for the past 8 years!
1. The Compliance Management Instruction (CMI) 04/74 Version 1 for Night Vision Goggles for Helicopter Operations was indeed signed by Head of Compliance, CASA in November of this year.
2. A copy is available in all CASA regional offices (or so it should be)
3. IT IS NOT AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. It is a compliance matter only not a Standards regulation. It was drafted over the past 2 years in response to Victoria Police Air Wing's formal application to conduct NVG operations as a result of it's successful NVG trial conducted November 2002 (Post Trial Report available if you email me).
4. The CMI is to guide CASA Compliance to issue a concession to CAR174B to allow operations at night before LSALT (in Australia there is a rule prohibiting flight by anyone at night below a LSALT).
5. Until such time as CASA Standards can regulate NVGs through the normal industry process into Part 133 the CMI is an interim measure to start operating on NVGs now with some measure of control to allow maturity and experience to be gained by the civil sector.
6. Although this CMI was written in response to our application obviously it cannot be denied to anyone else, therefore anyone can apply for the use of NVGs in Australia if complying with the requirements of the CMI.
7. VPAW had a personal meeting with Mr. Bruce Byron, CEO of CASA last week to lobby for the regulatory process on NVGs to be given a higher priority so that it can be incorporated into the new CASR Part 133. This will require industry input through the DP and NPRM process and therefore will become the industry standard. Mr. Byron gave an undertaking to examine prioritising the regulation of NVGs.
8. The CMI has gone one step further than most regulatory operators overseas...there are two parts to NVG ops under the CMI, (a) Wx below Night VFR minimums and (b) Wx that is night VMC. In the former if wx is not VFR NVG ops will still be able to be done as long as the pilot is IFR rated and current and the aircraft IFR capable. In the later if the wx is VMC then only require a night VFR rating in a NVR capable aircraft. Also NVG flight can be conducted in all phases of flight from T/O to landing.
9. Two crew will be required during NVG flight in the front of the cockpit. This was a hard fought battle as CASA wanted two pilots but VPAW convinced them that this was unacceptable in the civil sector and a compramise was reached whereby the use of a NVG qualified pilot and NVG qualified crewmember can be used in lieu of two pilots.
10. Another battle was NVG training hours but CASA would not budge from a 10 hour endorsement for pilots and 6 hour endorsement for flightcrewmemember (an overkill for NVG civil ops but something that can be adjusted later once some experience is gained to argue otherwise).
11. The CMI as whole is a very workable document and goes further than other overseas regulatory bodies in some aspects of NVG use, especially in poor wx conditions (read IMC conditions).
12. During the NVG trial we looked at 6 objectives, one was SAR and AUSSAR was onboard. NVGs do allow effective searching at night and allows a more effective use of the FLIR especially in mountainous terrain. Instead of waiting for first light before launching (and hence more often than not looking for a body) the helo can be activated immediately to start a search therefore ensuring a better and more successful outcome for the survivor(s).
The effective regulation and safe use of NVGs will not only enhance an operators capability, it will increase levels of safety in SAR, EMS and Law enforcement roles.
1. The Compliance Management Instruction (CMI) 04/74 Version 1 for Night Vision Goggles for Helicopter Operations was indeed signed by Head of Compliance, CASA in November of this year.
2. A copy is available in all CASA regional offices (or so it should be)
3. IT IS NOT AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. It is a compliance matter only not a Standards regulation. It was drafted over the past 2 years in response to Victoria Police Air Wing's formal application to conduct NVG operations as a result of it's successful NVG trial conducted November 2002 (Post Trial Report available if you email me).
4. The CMI is to guide CASA Compliance to issue a concession to CAR174B to allow operations at night before LSALT (in Australia there is a rule prohibiting flight by anyone at night below a LSALT).
5. Until such time as CASA Standards can regulate NVGs through the normal industry process into Part 133 the CMI is an interim measure to start operating on NVGs now with some measure of control to allow maturity and experience to be gained by the civil sector.
6. Although this CMI was written in response to our application obviously it cannot be denied to anyone else, therefore anyone can apply for the use of NVGs in Australia if complying with the requirements of the CMI.
7. VPAW had a personal meeting with Mr. Bruce Byron, CEO of CASA last week to lobby for the regulatory process on NVGs to be given a higher priority so that it can be incorporated into the new CASR Part 133. This will require industry input through the DP and NPRM process and therefore will become the industry standard. Mr. Byron gave an undertaking to examine prioritising the regulation of NVGs.
8. The CMI has gone one step further than most regulatory operators overseas...there are two parts to NVG ops under the CMI, (a) Wx below Night VFR minimums and (b) Wx that is night VMC. In the former if wx is not VFR NVG ops will still be able to be done as long as the pilot is IFR rated and current and the aircraft IFR capable. In the later if the wx is VMC then only require a night VFR rating in a NVR capable aircraft. Also NVG flight can be conducted in all phases of flight from T/O to landing.
9. Two crew will be required during NVG flight in the front of the cockpit. This was a hard fought battle as CASA wanted two pilots but VPAW convinced them that this was unacceptable in the civil sector and a compramise was reached whereby the use of a NVG qualified pilot and NVG qualified crewmember can be used in lieu of two pilots.
10. Another battle was NVG training hours but CASA would not budge from a 10 hour endorsement for pilots and 6 hour endorsement for flightcrewmemember (an overkill for NVG civil ops but something that can be adjusted later once some experience is gained to argue otherwise).
11. The CMI as whole is a very workable document and goes further than other overseas regulatory bodies in some aspects of NVG use, especially in poor wx conditions (read IMC conditions).
12. During the NVG trial we looked at 6 objectives, one was SAR and AUSSAR was onboard. NVGs do allow effective searching at night and allows a more effective use of the FLIR especially in mountainous terrain. Instead of waiting for first light before launching (and hence more often than not looking for a body) the helo can be activated immediately to start a search therefore ensuring a better and more successful outcome for the survivor(s).
The effective regulation and safe use of NVGs will not only enhance an operators capability, it will increase levels of safety in SAR, EMS and Law enforcement roles.
Mike, thanks very much for filling us in.
I take it from your post that NVG ops below LSALT are allowed given appropriate pilot qualifications for VFR or IFR conditions as the case may be. What have you worked out in regards to being at low level on goggles with weather around and having to possibly get up to IFR LSALT for inadvertant IMC? This can be a bit of a bugbear in that you can be tooling around at low level in hilly terrain, for example, and find that the vis becomes unacceptable, then be faced with having to get up safely. I'm sure you have considered it, but would be interested in the policy re reduced vis, low light levels etc.
Also, is it just the 6 hrs crewman NVG time you were fighting or the pilot time as well? I'd say 10 hrs isn't unreasonable for a pilot by the time you get general handling, emergencies and a bit of nav out of the way.
Good on you for doing the hard yards to get it rolling.
I take it from your post that NVG ops below LSALT are allowed given appropriate pilot qualifications for VFR or IFR conditions as the case may be. What have you worked out in regards to being at low level on goggles with weather around and having to possibly get up to IFR LSALT for inadvertant IMC? This can be a bit of a bugbear in that you can be tooling around at low level in hilly terrain, for example, and find that the vis becomes unacceptable, then be faced with having to get up safely. I'm sure you have considered it, but would be interested in the policy re reduced vis, low light levels etc.
Also, is it just the 6 hrs crewman NVG time you were fighting or the pilot time as well? I'd say 10 hrs isn't unreasonable for a pilot by the time you get general handling, emergencies and a bit of nav out of the way.
Good on you for doing the hard yards to get it rolling.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
I would just like to second Arm's congratulations. Well done to you for getting this through. I am certain this will open up avenues for Rescue, EMS and Police ops to enjoy the kind of safety NVGs afford.
Well Done.
I would just like to second Arm's congratulations. Well done to you for getting this through. I am certain this will open up avenues for Rescue, EMS and Police ops to enjoy the kind of safety NVGs afford.
Well Done.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys a couple of quick responses to your queries....
1. Although flight in wx less than IMC is now allowable with NVGs in Australia it comes at a price....not only are the crew to be IFR current and capable but you need an IFR helo. There is also an inadvertent IMC plan required before launching under these circumstances, which are mandated in the CMI. When you read the CMI you will find further restrictions, such as, flight into visible moisture is prohibited and storm cells are required to be avoided by 5 nm...requiring a wx radar. Anyhow things don't really change that much in your normal day practice....don't push it to the point of becoming IIMC. We found during the trial that cloud avoindance with goggles was very good and was not hard to avoid cloud. The danger is if there is heavy rain about one could easily suck themselves into embedded cloud. You have to learn to recognise increased scintillation on the tubes as possibly going into such conditions and decide to turn around. Personally I believe the chance of IIMC would be very rare but we have a policy at VPAW of a high level of IFR recency and awareness to overcome such events.
We will also have an illumination policy in that when the ambient illumination levels fall apprecially due to cloud, etc that there will be an ASI restriction and use of landing/nightsun to improve illumination...we found that the landing light itself provides good illumination forward of the aircraft and at slower speeds it is easier to navigate on goggles on those very dark nights. I recall using around 80 kts on a really black heavy overcast night up in the bush, which was fine. It all comes down to common sense...if the conditions are deterioting and not looking good, its time to turn back and either find an alternative route or go home to fight another day (night). Pilots get unstuck because they push beyond their limits and qualifications/recency.
2. I lobbyed that the 10 hours for pilots should be around 7 hours as more reasonable for civil ops and 4 hours for flightcrewmember. Note that the CMI has further requirements...once you get your endorsement as a pilot that is not it...you can't go PIC on goggles until you have accummalated an additional 15 hours of ICUS NVG time.
1. Although flight in wx less than IMC is now allowable with NVGs in Australia it comes at a price....not only are the crew to be IFR current and capable but you need an IFR helo. There is also an inadvertent IMC plan required before launching under these circumstances, which are mandated in the CMI. When you read the CMI you will find further restrictions, such as, flight into visible moisture is prohibited and storm cells are required to be avoided by 5 nm...requiring a wx radar. Anyhow things don't really change that much in your normal day practice....don't push it to the point of becoming IIMC. We found during the trial that cloud avoindance with goggles was very good and was not hard to avoid cloud. The danger is if there is heavy rain about one could easily suck themselves into embedded cloud. You have to learn to recognise increased scintillation on the tubes as possibly going into such conditions and decide to turn around. Personally I believe the chance of IIMC would be very rare but we have a policy at VPAW of a high level of IFR recency and awareness to overcome such events.
We will also have an illumination policy in that when the ambient illumination levels fall apprecially due to cloud, etc that there will be an ASI restriction and use of landing/nightsun to improve illumination...we found that the landing light itself provides good illumination forward of the aircraft and at slower speeds it is easier to navigate on goggles on those very dark nights. I recall using around 80 kts on a really black heavy overcast night up in the bush, which was fine. It all comes down to common sense...if the conditions are deterioting and not looking good, its time to turn back and either find an alternative route or go home to fight another day (night). Pilots get unstuck because they push beyond their limits and qualifications/recency.
2. I lobbyed that the 10 hours for pilots should be around 7 hours as more reasonable for civil ops and 4 hours for flightcrewmember. Note that the CMI has further requirements...once you get your endorsement as a pilot that is not it...you can't go PIC on goggles until you have accummalated an additional 15 hours of ICUS NVG time.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorque,
For the Trial we developed with Oxley Avionics, England (a NVG cockpit company) a trial fit requiring no CAR 35 for trial purposes only. The fit was temporary and not suitable as a permanent fit. it worked very well and sanctioned by CASA prior to the trial. Actually it worked so well that it was a pity to pull it off.
For the Trial we developed with Oxley Avionics, England (a NVG cockpit company) a trial fit requiring no CAR 35 for trial purposes only. The fit was temporary and not suitable as a permanent fit. it worked very well and sanctioned by CASA prior to the trial. Actually it worked so well that it was a pity to pull it off.
The UK CAA are not far behind you aussies.
They're looking at single pilot ops above 500' no need for a crew man to be next to him, but another option to fly <500' takeoff and land might need revisiting - hope not.
5hrs trng for pilots might be the entry level for NVG.
Good news globally then
They're looking at single pilot ops above 500' no need for a crew man to be next to him, but another option to fly <500' takeoff and land might need revisiting - hope not.
5hrs trng for pilots might be the entry level for NVG.
Good news globally then
tc, you are actually ahead of us Aussies if you are considering single pilot NVG at all! The FAA have allowed single pilot NVG passenger charter. They have been running single pilot (to the ground) for 10 years without accident. We Aussies seem to feel the need to change that.
What I don't get is why we replace a more risky operation without redundancies (nitesun approaches) with a fully redundant, far easier, and much less risky operation (NVG) and then make a requirement for another crewmember in the front. It just doesn't compute. And in Australia this requirement rules out NVG operations for all but the richest and most highly resourced organisations. The poorer, less resourced non IFR, single engine mobs who need it the most will be excluded (resource wise) from NVG use by these requirements, for other than transit at and landing to prepared LZs. Now add that to the excessive training requirements and ICUS, and hope fades fast. Without considering the extra crewmember required by the CMI in Oz, I calculate that the training bill for a single aircraft 24/7 EMS operation will be about 40 hours more training than the US regs require (with their 10 years of operational experience) and 95 hours more ICUS. Thats a big cost for a small organisation.
tc, the FAA standard is 5 hours per pilot.
There are some other issues, such as the prohibition of flight into visible moisture, that can be debated, but dont let these issues, or even my arguements above, detract too much from the step forward that Mike Tavcar (and a CASA bloke called John Beasey)has achieved as there is a lot right with this CMI, but discussion inevitably centres around what is wrong with it. The previous discussion centred around whether it would be easier to argue the case prior to setting a standard, or getting one and trying to change it. Now we have got one, we can see how difficult it will be to modify: you Brits should watch closely in order to choose your path.
Mike, I have a different perception of your belief that the CMI is not an industry standard. I quote the following from a letter to the HAA from Bruce Gemmell, CASA Deputy Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Operating Officer, dated 10th January 2005.
What I don't get is why we replace a more risky operation without redundancies (nitesun approaches) with a fully redundant, far easier, and much less risky operation (NVG) and then make a requirement for another crewmember in the front. It just doesn't compute. And in Australia this requirement rules out NVG operations for all but the richest and most highly resourced organisations. The poorer, less resourced non IFR, single engine mobs who need it the most will be excluded (resource wise) from NVG use by these requirements, for other than transit at and landing to prepared LZs. Now add that to the excessive training requirements and ICUS, and hope fades fast. Without considering the extra crewmember required by the CMI in Oz, I calculate that the training bill for a single aircraft 24/7 EMS operation will be about 40 hours more training than the US regs require (with their 10 years of operational experience) and 95 hours more ICUS. Thats a big cost for a small organisation.
tc, the FAA standard is 5 hours per pilot.
There are some other issues, such as the prohibition of flight into visible moisture, that can be debated, but dont let these issues, or even my arguements above, detract too much from the step forward that Mike Tavcar (and a CASA bloke called John Beasey)has achieved as there is a lot right with this CMI, but discussion inevitably centres around what is wrong with it. The previous discussion centred around whether it would be easier to argue the case prior to setting a standard, or getting one and trying to change it. Now we have got one, we can see how difficult it will be to modify: you Brits should watch closely in order to choose your path.
Mike, I have a different perception of your belief that the CMI is not an industry standard. I quote the following from a letter to the HAA from Bruce Gemmell, CASA Deputy Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Operating Officer, dated 10th January 2005.
The Compliance Management Instruction (CMI) on the use of NVG technology was developed to allow for standardisation on the use of NVG prior to the development of formal legislation surrounding the issue. The development of such legislation will follow the finalisation of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 133.
The CMI provides CASA staff with guidance on how to assess applications for exemption from Civil Aviation Regulation 174B, ensuring that that operators are aware of the safe introduction, standardisation and regulation of limited helicopter NVG aerial work operations. As a part of this guidance, the CMI also contains appendices for applicants as to what CASA will expect in their application. The CMI is used to support a standard approach by CASA.
The CMI provides CASA staff with guidance on how to assess applications for exemption from Civil Aviation Regulation 174B, ensuring that that operators are aware of the safe introduction, standardisation and regulation of limited helicopter NVG aerial work operations. As a part of this guidance, the CMI also contains appendices for applicants as to what CASA will expect in their application. The CMI is used to support a standard approach by CASA.
Helmet fire:
Thanks for that. What surprises me most about issues like this, is the fact that 'authorities' dont take a leaf from other books. Why didnt the aussie CAA visit the JAA, or better still the FAA. Sit down with their equivalents and share ideas. Think of the time and effort saved. Simply cut and paste.
If the yank model is so sturdy, then for christ's sake pinch it!!
Too many ego's too much national pride. The big picture is being missed methinks.
congrats for joining the real world, but with a little more homework, the grades would have been better?
Our (UK) CAA seem to have finally switched onto this and are fully embracing european and american experiences... is it a coincidence that there is a fresh team in the CAA (H)???? Thank ther lord.
Thanks for that. What surprises me most about issues like this, is the fact that 'authorities' dont take a leaf from other books. Why didnt the aussie CAA visit the JAA, or better still the FAA. Sit down with their equivalents and share ideas. Think of the time and effort saved. Simply cut and paste.
If the yank model is so sturdy, then for christ's sake pinch it!!
Too many ego's too much national pride. The big picture is being missed methinks.
congrats for joining the real world, but with a little more homework, the grades would have been better?
Our (UK) CAA seem to have finally switched onto this and are fully embracing european and american experiences... is it a coincidence that there is a fresh team in the CAA (H)???? Thank ther lord.