Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
TC,
Be careful what you wish for....adopting FAA concepts can be a walk on thin ice sometimes.
What a novel concept however....the UK and Europe adopting FAA practices carte blanche! Sacre Bleu!
Here's to single engine IFR...single engine at night....VFR at night...no type ratings...until you get into really big machines.....no landing fees....free renewal of licenses....one exam for a license....no...be careful here.
Be careful what you wish for....adopting FAA concepts can be a walk on thin ice sometimes.
What a novel concept however....the UK and Europe adopting FAA practices carte blanche! Sacre Bleu!
Here's to single engine IFR...single engine at night....VFR at night...no type ratings...until you get into really big machines.....no landing fees....free renewal of licenses....one exam for a license....no...be careful here.
As I think I have said before, the FAA/JAA development of regulations for NVG was a cooperative process - both for certification and operations.
The current JAA guidance resides in JAR-OPS TGL 34 and has been in existence for several years. Reading this TGL will indicate where any (necessary - due to variations in regulatory approaches) differences exist. Credit is given to existing FAA, RTCA or EUROCAE documents where they have been used - or amended and used.
Jim
The current JAA guidance resides in JAR-OPS TGL 34 and has been in existence for several years. Reading this TGL will indicate where any (necessary - due to variations in regulatory approaches) differences exist. Credit is given to existing FAA, RTCA or EUROCAE documents where they have been used - or amended and used.
Jim
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Denver Post
When helicopter pilots with the Flight for Life Colorado team fly into the black of night, they have a new flight command: "Goggle up."
The emergency medical service flight program recently bought nine pairs of night-vision goggles - at about $10,000 a pair - to aid pilots during night flights.
Lead helicopter pilot Rod Balak said there's an old line among pilots that "mountains grow in the darkness." The new goggles, which weigh about 1 pound each and run on two AA batteries, take some of the angst out of that adage.
"It makes the pilots and crews feel a lot safer," Balak said. "It's just like daytime, only it has a type of green tint to it."
Balak, a former U.S. Army helicopter pilot, said night-vision goggles have improved radically since being introduced decades ago during the Vietnam War as "behemoth" rifle scopes.
Over the years, as goggles became smaller and vision quality improved, interest in using them beyond military applications took root.
Without goggles, flying at night in isolated areas can sometimes be like looking "inside a 50-gallon drum," Balak said.
Mountain contours, trees and rock outcroppings can sometimes be difficult to pick up during the night, depending on cloud cover and the light of the moon, Balak said.
Simply put, goggles make night flights less risky, said Dutch Fridd, an NVG instructor based in North Carolina with Air Methods Corp.
"If a pilot can see the terrain, he wouldn't run into it," Fridd said. "That's kind of a no-brainer; we use it for safety reasons. It just makes our jobs safer."
But the safety measure comes at a cost. Instrument boards on the helicopters have to be retrofitted or else pilots wouldn't be able to read them while wearing the goggles.
And pilots must go through training, in the classroom and in flight, before wearing the goggles during an EMS flight.
All told, training, goggles and retrofitting instrument panels runs about $90,000 for each of the four helicopters.
"The technology to keep us safer and to improve our operations is rarely inexpensive," said Kathy Mayer, program director of Flight for Life Colorado.
A foundation that supports the EMS flight program is funding the costs of the goggles, training and makeover of the helicopters.
Flight for Life has 15 pilots. Training for the goggle conversion is ongoing, Mayer said.
"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down," such as flights in extremely bad weather, Mayer said. "What they will do is allow us to fly more safely during our night operations, especially in the mountains during those dark, moonless nights."
Goggles ease risk for EMS flights
When helicopter pilots with the Flight for Life Colorado team fly into the black of night, they have a new flight command: "Goggle up."
The emergency medical service flight program recently bought nine pairs of night-vision goggles - at about $10,000 a pair - to aid pilots during night flights.
Lead helicopter pilot Rod Balak said there's an old line among pilots that "mountains grow in the darkness." The new goggles, which weigh about 1 pound each and run on two AA batteries, take some of the angst out of that adage.
"It makes the pilots and crews feel a lot safer," Balak said. "It's just like daytime, only it has a type of green tint to it."
Balak, a former U.S. Army helicopter pilot, said night-vision goggles have improved radically since being introduced decades ago during the Vietnam War as "behemoth" rifle scopes.
Over the years, as goggles became smaller and vision quality improved, interest in using them beyond military applications took root.
Without goggles, flying at night in isolated areas can sometimes be like looking "inside a 50-gallon drum," Balak said.
Mountain contours, trees and rock outcroppings can sometimes be difficult to pick up during the night, depending on cloud cover and the light of the moon, Balak said.
Simply put, goggles make night flights less risky, said Dutch Fridd, an NVG instructor based in North Carolina with Air Methods Corp.
"If a pilot can see the terrain, he wouldn't run into it," Fridd said. "That's kind of a no-brainer; we use it for safety reasons. It just makes our jobs safer."
But the safety measure comes at a cost. Instrument boards on the helicopters have to be retrofitted or else pilots wouldn't be able to read them while wearing the goggles.
And pilots must go through training, in the classroom and in flight, before wearing the goggles during an EMS flight.
All told, training, goggles and retrofitting instrument panels runs about $90,000 for each of the four helicopters.
"The technology to keep us safer and to improve our operations is rarely inexpensive," said Kathy Mayer, program director of Flight for Life Colorado.
A foundation that supports the EMS flight program is funding the costs of the goggles, training and makeover of the helicopters.
Flight for Life has 15 pilots. Training for the goggle conversion is ongoing, Mayer said.
"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down," such as flights in extremely bad weather, Mayer said. "What they will do is allow us to fly more safely during our night operations, especially in the mountains during those dark, moonless nights."
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down," such as flights in extremely bad weather, Mayer said. "What they will do is allow us to fly more safely during our night operations, especially in the mountains during those dark, moonless nights."
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this illustrates:
NTSB Identification: DEN05LA053
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, January 29, 2005 in Pilar, NM
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350 B3, registration: N351LG
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 29, 2005, approximately 2005 mountain standard time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B3, N351LG, operated by Petroleum Helicopters Inc., was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Pilar, New Mexico. A postimpact fire ensued. Unknown meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The positioning flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91 on a company VFR flight plan. The pilot reported no injuries. The cross-country flight originated from Espinola, New Mexico, approximately 1940, and was en route to Taos (SKX), New Mexico.
According to the FAA inspector who traveled to the scene, the pilot was flying the helicopter to SKX. The pilot was wearing night vision goggles while flying and became disoriented. Upon removing the goggles, the helicopter impacted a mesa.
The 2025 aviation routine weather report (METAR) from SKX, 15 nautical miles northwest of the accident location, reported the weather as follows: winds, 220 degrees at 6 knots; visibility, 3/4 statute mile; sky condition, overcast 200 feet; temperature, 0 degrees C.; dewpoint 0 degrees C.; altimeter, 30.00 inches.
NTSB Identification: DEN05LA053
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, January 29, 2005 in Pilar, NM
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350 B3, registration: N351LG
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 29, 2005, approximately 2005 mountain standard time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B3, N351LG, operated by Petroleum Helicopters Inc., was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Pilar, New Mexico. A postimpact fire ensued. Unknown meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The positioning flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91 on a company VFR flight plan. The pilot reported no injuries. The cross-country flight originated from Espinola, New Mexico, approximately 1940, and was en route to Taos (SKX), New Mexico.
According to the FAA inspector who traveled to the scene, the pilot was flying the helicopter to SKX. The pilot was wearing night vision goggles while flying and became disoriented. Upon removing the goggles, the helicopter impacted a mesa.
The 2025 aviation routine weather report (METAR) from SKX, 15 nautical miles northwest of the accident location, reported the weather as follows: winds, 220 degrees at 6 knots; visibility, 3/4 statute mile; sky condition, overcast 200 feet; temperature, 0 degrees C.; dewpoint 0 degrees C.; altimeter, 30.00 inches.
The goggles will allow you see in the dark...however when you get to the point you cannot see with the goggles I can assure you there is no visiblility without the goggles.
I have sat in the aircraft as a three foot hover within a small clearing in the forest on a officially "dark" night. Minimum natural light due to no moon and overcast sky. We operated without any lights and the circuits and landing/hovering/departure were all good fun. But..at a hover...flip the goggles up and peer outside with the MK I eyes....and one could not even see the ground all of three feet away. That is dark.
Goggles will let you fly into situations that ultimately will end as that accident report suggest or you will have to be able to continue the flight as an IIMC/IFR flight. Thus the goggles can contribute to more accidents if VMC flight is continued into IMC conditions.
The other thought to keep, is what do you do if you have goggle failure (rare...but a consideration) and you are deep into the mountains and have no visible horizion or cannot see the terrain?
Personally, I love goggle flying.....the thought of flying nights without them scares me to tears! It is true they only give you the rough equivalent of 20/40 vision with a mere 40 degree field of view......but what is your vision like on a really dark night without them?
I have sat in the aircraft as a three foot hover within a small clearing in the forest on a officially "dark" night. Minimum natural light due to no moon and overcast sky. We operated without any lights and the circuits and landing/hovering/departure were all good fun. But..at a hover...flip the goggles up and peer outside with the MK I eyes....and one could not even see the ground all of three feet away. That is dark.
Goggles will let you fly into situations that ultimately will end as that accident report suggest or you will have to be able to continue the flight as an IIMC/IFR flight. Thus the goggles can contribute to more accidents if VMC flight is continued into IMC conditions.
The other thought to keep, is what do you do if you have goggle failure (rare...but a consideration) and you are deep into the mountains and have no visible horizion or cannot see the terrain?
Personally, I love goggle flying.....the thought of flying nights without them scares me to tears! It is true they only give you the rough equivalent of 20/40 vision with a mere 40 degree field of view......but what is your vision like on a really dark night without them?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, a very useful Thread for ongoing discussions I have with other parties. There appear to be many positives for the use of NVGs but there are also some enormous negatives if their application is not managed sersiously: Type of NVG employed, correct implementation of instrumentation feed-through and, last but not least, initial training and continued competency.
The UK police are going NVIS as we speak (I know we are 15 years late!).
The important fact that will remain with NVIS operators is that :"...in the evnt there is a reversion to visual flight (unaided), the pilot must still be in a position to comply with the night VFR weather and visual requirements..."
Basically, NVG does not allow for departure from the exisiting visual requriements. You should not therefore be in a flight regime where your visual requirements for VFR are diminished.
NVIS will help us because of the topography of our force area Black and more black with some grey in between. We turn down some flights at night because we cannot see where the cumulo granite and the cloud base...meet. With NVIS, this should prove much easier to discern and thus the decision to go/no go is easier to make.
Long live NVIS
The important fact that will remain with NVIS operators is that :"...in the evnt there is a reversion to visual flight (unaided), the pilot must still be in a position to comply with the night VFR weather and visual requirements..."
Basically, NVG does not allow for departure from the exisiting visual requriements. You should not therefore be in a flight regime where your visual requirements for VFR are diminished.
NVIS will help us because of the topography of our force area Black and more black with some grey in between. We turn down some flights at night because we cannot see where the cumulo granite and the cloud base...meet. With NVIS, this should prove much easier to discern and thus the decision to go/no go is easier to make.
Long live NVIS
"These aren't going to extend our capabilities and allow us to do things that we are turning down,"
Whereas without them it's somewhat easier to decline - "if I can't see the aircraft, I ain't going up in it!"
"Just a pilot"
Robbo Jock-
If your program has a real safety program, the fact that you've spent good money for goggles won't be a factor. If your company's culture is such that you're routinely under those pressures (second guessing pilot decisions), you're an accident waiting to happen anyhow- with goggles, two engines, two pilots, full IFR and autohover, anti-ice, whatever- pilot error kills. Anything that interferes with discretion enables pilot error.
Yes, equipment can take you down the lane, fail, and stick you. It can also enable you to operate more efficently. Think IFR, for example- yes, the gauges can fail and put you in difficulty, but is that an excuse to scud-run? Unaided night EMS is even more hazardous than scud-running. We will be low level at some point, where the obstacles lurk. Good technique helps, but the risk of not seeing an ostacle that'll kill you is always there.
One set of numbers posted claimed 77% of the accidents in US EMS in the last five years were in the dark. In my 4 years as an EMS'r, I've logged 31% of my time at night. I think that's about average. I'm not a statistician, but those numbers would seem to clearly indicate an issue.
Goggles aren't a silver bullet, but they will help with the things that could go bump in my nights.
If your program has a real safety program, the fact that you've spent good money for goggles won't be a factor. If your company's culture is such that you're routinely under those pressures (second guessing pilot decisions), you're an accident waiting to happen anyhow- with goggles, two engines, two pilots, full IFR and autohover, anti-ice, whatever- pilot error kills. Anything that interferes with discretion enables pilot error.
Yes, equipment can take you down the lane, fail, and stick you. It can also enable you to operate more efficently. Think IFR, for example- yes, the gauges can fail and put you in difficulty, but is that an excuse to scud-run? Unaided night EMS is even more hazardous than scud-running. We will be low level at some point, where the obstacles lurk. Good technique helps, but the risk of not seeing an ostacle that'll kill you is always there.
One set of numbers posted claimed 77% of the accidents in US EMS in the last five years were in the dark. In my 4 years as an EMS'r, I've logged 31% of my time at night. I think that's about average. I'm not a statistician, but those numbers would seem to clearly indicate an issue.
Goggles aren't a silver bullet, but they will help with the things that could go bump in my nights.
Come on all you nay sayers: grasp as hard as you can on to one accident PRELIMINARY report of a pilot trying to find a reason why he hit terrain, and lets ignore the HUNDREDS of night unaided disorientation accidents shall we?
What was his training levels on NVG? Which NVG was he using, how good was the cockpit mod? What risk management was applied to the flight? What is the formal risk management requirements of the operator? What level of supervision was involved? What was the forecast weather and moon state? Were these formally considered in the operator's risk management process? What was the pilot's circadian cycles up to? What was the visibility? Why did terrain impact occur after de-goggling? Why did he not affect an instrument recovery? Did his training, recency, currency, etc require this? What was the physiological aspects of the pilot? Stress at home? Cold? Flu? Job stress? Blah blah blah.....
or instead of considering all these (and more) we could simply just throw away NVG and blame them! must be their faultmusn't it?
You know, there is even disorientation accidents during the day: but we haven't stopped flying during the day have we?
What was his training levels on NVG? Which NVG was he using, how good was the cockpit mod? What risk management was applied to the flight? What is the formal risk management requirements of the operator? What level of supervision was involved? What was the forecast weather and moon state? Were these formally considered in the operator's risk management process? What was the pilot's circadian cycles up to? What was the visibility? Why did terrain impact occur after de-goggling? Why did he not affect an instrument recovery? Did his training, recency, currency, etc require this? What was the physiological aspects of the pilot? Stress at home? Cold? Flu? Job stress? Blah blah blah.....
or instead of considering all these (and more) we could simply just throw away NVG and blame them! must be their faultmusn't it?
You know, there is even disorientation accidents during the day: but we haven't stopped flying during the day have we?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wanting to cause disharmony, but isn't TC's illustration of how NVIS will extend their operating envelope exactly what some others of us were saying should not happen. What happens in the super-black areas, heavily dense with cumulo-granite if the NVIS fails ..........
Just interested to know what folks think.
Just interested to know what folks think.
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the lesson for people wanting to adopt NVG's is ... make sure you have well-established and practised procedures for transitioning to instruments from goggles when you find yourself in 3/4 mile visibility as per that report?
Ah, WTBF...theres the rub .....most of the operations that are going to NVG's in the States are not IFR programs. They are VFR programs looking for some way to fly VMC with no horizon.
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a nightmare for non-instrument rated pilots ... finding yourself flying illegally in IMC, seeing nothing but fuzzy green, and totally unable to cope. 
WTBF, the nightmare you describe in the fuzzy green is different in what way to the scenario he would have faced without the NVG?
Emotive comments using this prelim report are IGNORING the HUNDREDS of NVFR accidents. And even the HUNDREDS of accidents of flight into deteriorating viz during the day. Having NVG is not going to change the stats on people who get caught in deteriorating conditions. The NVG doesnt suddenly change descion making and risk management procedure.
No, lets put our heads in the sand and blame the goggles......
Emotive comments using this prelim report are IGNORING the HUNDREDS of NVFR accidents. And even the HUNDREDS of accidents of flight into deteriorating viz during the day. Having NVG is not going to change the stats on people who get caught in deteriorating conditions. The NVG doesnt suddenly change descion making and risk management procedure.
No, lets put our heads in the sand and blame the goggles......
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough ... I agree with you in fact, it's not different at all except that I was imagining a pilot having the goggles on in those conditions who may have been lulled into a false sense of security that he could "see in the dark".
What I was imagining was a pilot, under pressure to complete a mission in marginal conditions, trying to rely on the goggles to see, then finding the visibility reducing around him and realising that not only could he not rely on the goggles, he wasn't prepared for the truly IMC conditions he now finds himself in. Too late, he's ripping off the goggles and doing his best to transition to instruments, panic rising ...
Just thinking about it makes me shudder ... and the difference is that maybe he would have turned back sooner if he didn't have the goggles. And that's what I was getting at two posts back ... having the goggles means there should be even better established mission limits for non-IFR pilots/machines and procedures for transitioning to full instruments under NVG's.
I apologise if my comments came across as particularly emotive related to that particular report.
What I was imagining was a pilot, under pressure to complete a mission in marginal conditions, trying to rely on the goggles to see, then finding the visibility reducing around him and realising that not only could he not rely on the goggles, he wasn't prepared for the truly IMC conditions he now finds himself in. Too late, he's ripping off the goggles and doing his best to transition to instruments, panic rising ...
Just thinking about it makes me shudder ... and the difference is that maybe he would have turned back sooner if he didn't have the goggles. And that's what I was getting at two posts back ... having the goggles means there should be even better established mission limits for non-IFR pilots/machines and procedures for transitioning to full instruments under NVG's.
I apologise if my comments came across as particularly emotive related to that particular report.
WTBF,
The imagining of what may have happened based on that report is exactly what I was getting at. There is no where near enough info to ascertain any of what you are speculating about. None the less, I get your point that you are concerned that NVG will encourage people to go further than they otherwise might have. I think that is a real concern, but should the actions of the over confident be used to penalise the controlled? As I said before, we have people pushing into reduced viz during the day, yet we dont all scream about restricting day flight.
And as I stressed before, it is not clear from the report that anything even like that happened in this accident: thus the stretch to NVG evils is way too far.
The "ripping off the goggles" and other emotive comments do little to rationalise the debate here. During correctly taught NVG flight, the NVG is the primary attitude reference, but all turns, power changes, attitude changes should ALL be backed up on the AI. The NVG are worn so that an instrument scan can easily be performed by moving your eyes down to the pannel, and never should it be reuired to "rip the goggles" off. Flip them up if you are super stressed, but never rip them off. If you have it set up right then the scan can be done with no action required on the NVG. These are some of the reasons that we need to get a lot more de6tail on this accident before condemning such an advance in technology.
Don't you think?
The imagining of what may have happened based on that report is exactly what I was getting at. There is no where near enough info to ascertain any of what you are speculating about. None the less, I get your point that you are concerned that NVG will encourage people to go further than they otherwise might have. I think that is a real concern, but should the actions of the over confident be used to penalise the controlled? As I said before, we have people pushing into reduced viz during the day, yet we dont all scream about restricting day flight.
And as I stressed before, it is not clear from the report that anything even like that happened in this accident: thus the stretch to NVG evils is way too far.
The "ripping off the goggles" and other emotive comments do little to rationalise the debate here. During correctly taught NVG flight, the NVG is the primary attitude reference, but all turns, power changes, attitude changes should ALL be backed up on the AI. The NVG are worn so that an instrument scan can easily be performed by moving your eyes down to the pannel, and never should it be reuired to "rip the goggles" off. Flip them up if you are super stressed, but never rip them off. If you have it set up right then the scan can be done with no action required on the NVG. These are some of the reasons that we need to get a lot more de6tail on this accident before condemning such an advance in technology.
Don't you think?