Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Helmet Fire...
On another website...back when that accident occurred...there was a fair bit of discussion and posting of news articles. The thrust of the information seemed to confirm it was a very snowy, dark night. The flight took place along an unlit...desolate mountain highway. The impact forces were relatively minor in that the pilot was only slightly injured and walked to the nearby highway where he was picked up by a State Police Office who was out searching for the aircraft. A look at the map shows the flight to be about 35-40 NM....with not a lot to look at.
All this being said....we will have to wait for the accident report to know what happened. That does not stop us from considering what we do know. I can assure you, there was no visible horizon out there that night and there were very few surface lights and then only in clusters along the highway. If you throw in the strong possibility it started snowing on the guy while he was making that transit....things could have gotten bad quickly.
On another website...back when that accident occurred...there was a fair bit of discussion and posting of news articles. The thrust of the information seemed to confirm it was a very snowy, dark night. The flight took place along an unlit...desolate mountain highway. The impact forces were relatively minor in that the pilot was only slightly injured and walked to the nearby highway where he was picked up by a State Police Office who was out searching for the aircraft. A look at the map shows the flight to be about 35-40 NM....with not a lot to look at.
All this being said....we will have to wait for the accident report to know what happened. That does not stop us from considering what we do know. I can assure you, there was no visible horizon out there that night and there were very few surface lights and then only in clusters along the highway. If you throw in the strong possibility it started snowing on the guy while he was making that transit....things could have gotten bad quickly.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire:
The accident report was posted as it was considered to be germane to the thread initiated by Heliport and then commented by b.borg (in relation to the last paragraph of the story).
I for one do not understand why are you reluctant to consider the 2025 METAR from SKX - don't you consider it to be relevant? As SASLess has said, there is some information out there - why disregard it?
Few of us have a down on the equipment for NVIS - it is required when NVFR operations are being conducted under circumstances where there is adequate ambient lighting (for NVG operations) but without ground (lighting) cues; it is the human in the loop that we have to worry about - particularly if he/she is the only one in the helicopter.
The accident report was posted as it was considered to be germane to the thread initiated by Heliport and then commented by b.borg (in relation to the last paragraph of the story).
I for one do not understand why are you reluctant to consider the 2025 METAR from SKX - don't you consider it to be relevant? As SASLess has said, there is some information out there - why disregard it?
Few of us have a down on the equipment for NVIS - it is required when NVFR operations are being conducted under circumstances where there is adequate ambient lighting (for NVG operations) but without ground (lighting) cues; it is the human in the loop that we have to worry about - particularly if he/she is the only one in the helicopter.
Mars,
I am not down on the METAR and I think it is highly relevant, indeed I think I included weather in my initial list of factors that need more investigation. See previous page.
I do need help trying to consider what the FAA rules are re NVFR, so please forgive lapses in the logic chain below if I have missunderstood the rules.
Let me use the weather that is being suggested to illustrate the point I am making. Dark, snowy, low viz. My question is, does this constitute NVFR in the USA? Isn't that answer a yes IF and ONLY IF I have a visible horizon (not considering NVG here) and sufficient ground or celestial light to enable nav by reference to the ground?
So if the pilot thought he had a visible horizon (no NVG) and in his opinion, sufficient ground or celestial lighting, he was good to go, yes?
If he flies NVG and he is non Instrument Rated, isnt the NVFR what his minimums are?
So technically, IF he FELT he had a visible horizon, and he had sufficient viz with ground and celestial lighting, then he was legal. Right so far?
It appears that if this was the case, then the NVG are irrelevant to the accident. Why would the outcome be any different unaided? He needed NVFR to go and he must have judged that he had that, therefore he could have gone without the NVG. As the flight progressed, the viz drops off and we get into trouble, so wouldn't that have happened regardless of NVG?
If you are suggesting that the NVG gave him confidence to launch into less than NVFR conditions when he otherwise would not have (considering he was not instrument rated) then is that the "fault" of the NVG or does the issue really lie in risk management, rule adherence, supervision, training, go/no go protocols, and most especially, in instrument scan profficiency, etc?
With all that in mind, I am merely suggesting that the ENORMOUS safety benefits of NVG should NOT be tarnished by some attempt to attribute blame to NVG for this particular accident.
WTBF: I think you are right!
SASless: Agreed.
I am not down on the METAR and I think it is highly relevant, indeed I think I included weather in my initial list of factors that need more investigation. See previous page.
I do need help trying to consider what the FAA rules are re NVFR, so please forgive lapses in the logic chain below if I have missunderstood the rules.
Let me use the weather that is being suggested to illustrate the point I am making. Dark, snowy, low viz. My question is, does this constitute NVFR in the USA? Isn't that answer a yes IF and ONLY IF I have a visible horizon (not considering NVG here) and sufficient ground or celestial light to enable nav by reference to the ground?
So if the pilot thought he had a visible horizon (no NVG) and in his opinion, sufficient ground or celestial lighting, he was good to go, yes?
If he flies NVG and he is non Instrument Rated, isnt the NVFR what his minimums are?
So technically, IF he FELT he had a visible horizon, and he had sufficient viz with ground and celestial lighting, then he was legal. Right so far?
It appears that if this was the case, then the NVG are irrelevant to the accident. Why would the outcome be any different unaided? He needed NVFR to go and he must have judged that he had that, therefore he could have gone without the NVG. As the flight progressed, the viz drops off and we get into trouble, so wouldn't that have happened regardless of NVG?
If you are suggesting that the NVG gave him confidence to launch into less than NVFR conditions when he otherwise would not have (considering he was not instrument rated) then is that the "fault" of the NVG or does the issue really lie in risk management, rule adherence, supervision, training, go/no go protocols, and most especially, in instrument scan profficiency, etc?
With all that in mind, I am merely suggesting that the ENORMOUS safety benefits of NVG should NOT be tarnished by some attempt to attribute blame to NVG for this particular accident.
WTBF: I think you are right!
SASless: Agreed.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said already, NVG ops should just make current 'go' ops safer. It shouldnt give the user the impression that they can launch in lesser conditions. Long and short is if the wx conitions are not to the extent to what you would launch 'mortal' or 'reversionary' ie without gogs then you shouldnt fly just because you have a set of gogs strapped to your head. Education and training will go a long way to ensure that NVG is used correctly and not used as a 'get out clause' if its bad wx or darker than a witches tit. Remember, if the gogs fail, would you have launched in the first place? If the answer is No then you arent using the gogs as they were intended. They are not there to allow you to fly below usual VFR limits but to assist you in the conditions that would have allowed you to fly in the first place.
Any user who attempts to fly in more marginal conditions is asking for a short career.
Any user who attempts to fly in more marginal conditions is asking for a short career.
Last edited by wg13_dummy; 25th Mar 2005 at 12:00.
My view of this accident is straightforward....
Weather...200 overcast, 3/4 SM visibility (some reports said it was snowing that night)
Moon...83% illumination, but it did not rise until 2139,1+ 59 minutes after the takeoff, and 1+14 after the crash.
Route of flight.....remote area with very sparse small groups of lights.
NVG's are wonderful devices. They are probably the best things since the Sexual Revolution of the late 60's-70's.
They have their limits as all things do. I suggest that the weather and darkness combined at some point in this flight to the point that the NVG's could not cope with the reduced visiblilty and at that point, the pilot found himself in a very difficult situation.
That is not the kind of weather I wish to fly VFR for any distance offshore in the daytime , much less cross country in the snow covered mountains of New Mexico at night. The accident investigation will have to determine the circumstance surrounding this accident and make a report. We will have to wait for that before we can hold forth on what really caused the aircraft to impact the ground.
We can sit here at our keyboards and what-if this to pieces and that is as it should be. Our industry does a poor job of communicating "Lessons Learned" so we can all be the better for things like this that happen. I think it is healthy to use such events as catalysts to question what we do in our daily work. If we see similarities between what happend to this guy....maybe we can alter what we do to make our flying a bit safer. Afterall, something like this could happen to anyone of us at any time. Maybe not a snowy night in Trindidad or Belize....but maybe a police pilot in the north end.
Personally, I would like to meet this guy, and have a long talk with him and hear his account first hand. It would be educational to see how the chain of events all came together to make this event occur. We know every accident is a set of occurrences that link together to cause accidents and to know how this one happened would be useful to others doing the same kind of work.
The FAR's play a role in it I am sure. Part 91 unlike Part 135 and most OpSpecs does not have a requirement to have sufficient external lighting to control the aircraft. Since this flight was with just the pilot on board, did he use Part 91 or Part 135 to conduct the flight? That would determine what visibility and weather requirements he had to comply with. I wonder what the weather report was at the time he checked weather? Did a snow squall cross his route of flight at a critical time?
Personally, I would like to see FAR Part 91 be changed to parrot the wording of Part 135 when it comes to night VFR weather miniumums. And...I would like to see EMS pilots start adhering to that regulation better than they do now. That one change would improve the safety of EMS flying greatly. If you do not have the external light reference required by the Regs....turnaround and go home or do it IFR with all the bells and whistles, training, and currency required.
Weather...200 overcast, 3/4 SM visibility (some reports said it was snowing that night)
Moon...83% illumination, but it did not rise until 2139,1+ 59 minutes after the takeoff, and 1+14 after the crash.
Route of flight.....remote area with very sparse small groups of lights.
NVG's are wonderful devices. They are probably the best things since the Sexual Revolution of the late 60's-70's.
They have their limits as all things do. I suggest that the weather and darkness combined at some point in this flight to the point that the NVG's could not cope with the reduced visiblilty and at that point, the pilot found himself in a very difficult situation.
That is not the kind of weather I wish to fly VFR for any distance offshore in the daytime , much less cross country in the snow covered mountains of New Mexico at night. The accident investigation will have to determine the circumstance surrounding this accident and make a report. We will have to wait for that before we can hold forth on what really caused the aircraft to impact the ground.
We can sit here at our keyboards and what-if this to pieces and that is as it should be. Our industry does a poor job of communicating "Lessons Learned" so we can all be the better for things like this that happen. I think it is healthy to use such events as catalysts to question what we do in our daily work. If we see similarities between what happend to this guy....maybe we can alter what we do to make our flying a bit safer. Afterall, something like this could happen to anyone of us at any time. Maybe not a snowy night in Trindidad or Belize....but maybe a police pilot in the north end.
Personally, I would like to meet this guy, and have a long talk with him and hear his account first hand. It would be educational to see how the chain of events all came together to make this event occur. We know every accident is a set of occurrences that link together to cause accidents and to know how this one happened would be useful to others doing the same kind of work.
The FAR's play a role in it I am sure. Part 91 unlike Part 135 and most OpSpecs does not have a requirement to have sufficient external lighting to control the aircraft. Since this flight was with just the pilot on board, did he use Part 91 or Part 135 to conduct the flight? That would determine what visibility and weather requirements he had to comply with. I wonder what the weather report was at the time he checked weather? Did a snow squall cross his route of flight at a critical time?
Personally, I would like to see FAR Part 91 be changed to parrot the wording of Part 135 when it comes to night VFR weather miniumums. And...I would like to see EMS pilots start adhering to that regulation better than they do now. That one change would improve the safety of EMS flying greatly. If you do not have the external light reference required by the Regs....turnaround and go home or do it IFR with all the bells and whistles, training, and currency required.
Last edited by SASless; 25th Mar 2005 at 03:32.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the accident.
I would be cautious driving home let alone flying. OVC 002 is the big clue. Did this chap either not have a clue to the use and limitations of the kit he was using or if he thought he did, think it may allow him to launch outside the kits performace but allow him to go beyond his own? Training, experience and knowledge. A bit like the triangle of fire, you need all three to ensure it works.
Weather...200 overcast, 3/4 SM visibility (some reports said it was snowing that night)
Flungdung - I think your language may be inappropriate; it was not de jure criminal (for the reason that are about to be explored below) although it could have been de facto foolish (if the report is accurate).
Picking up on the last paragraph of SASless’ post and the thrust of Helmet Fire’s; although I am not intimately familiar with FARs it would appear to me that as this was classed as a Part 91 positioning flight and, in the absence of instructions on the conduct of this type of flight in the Operations Manual or a specific requirement in the OpSpec, compliance with Part 91.155 applies.
My reading of this rule is that, in the basic table, the requirement for Class G airspace when below 1200ft is:
and, as is the norm with FARs, alleviated for helicopters to be:
The interesting thing about this series of rules is that they are - as with FAR 91.119(a) and (b) - in compliance with the ICAO Standard (which permits alleviation from the visibility of 5km down to 1500m for airplanes and below 1500m for helicopters) but, in view of the alleviation for helicopters of the 500ft rule (FAR 91.119(d)), results in a void of regulation for NVFR (see also the recent thread on the amendment of the ANO). (As with the UK (and other States), the dome interpretation of the ICAO 500ft rule leads inevitably to the same conclusion.)
As was also stated by SASless, Part 91 does does specify the additional requirement of visual surface lights required by Part 135:
Picking up on the last paragraph of SASless’ post and the thrust of Helmet Fire’s; although I am not intimately familiar with FARs it would appear to me that as this was classed as a Part 91 positioning flight and, in the absence of instructions on the conduct of this type of flight in the Operations Manual or a specific requirement in the OpSpec, compliance with Part 91.155 applies.
My reading of this rule is that, in the basic table, the requirement for Class G airspace when below 1200ft is:
Night, except as provided in 91.155(b).....(visibility of) 3 statute miles……500ft below, 1000ft above, 2000ft horizontal (from clouds).
(b)(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds if operated at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a collision.
As was also stated by SASless, Part 91 does does specify the additional requirement of visual surface lights required by Part 135:
FAR 135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requriements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface references or, at night, visual surface light references, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface references or, at night, visual surface light references, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
"Just a pilot"
SASless, you posted this on March 24th:
“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.”
That post is out of line. I am at a “VFR” program that is trying to move to aided night vision. The effort is not “To fly VMC with no horizon.” We don’t do that, ever.
Further, it is my experience that my fellow professional pilots- generally- are as devoted to safety as we are at my program. If there are “cowboys,” and cowboy operators out there, they are the exception. I, myself, know of one pilot in my AO who exhibits the attitude you claim- one- Despite the fact there area a dozen or so bases in my area, and most of the major players and many independents are active in my A.O.- one cowboy pilot. If you have facts and information otherwise, cite it. Your statement is unfounded. I am specifically calling you on this “.....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.”
The night issue is there in all aspects of aviation: Fixed and rotary; Single and multiengine; One and two-pilot crews; IFR and VFR. In flight, operating with compromised vision- in this discussion, night flights- increases risk. This hazard is magnified in helicopter operations, and EMS in particular. EMS operates off airport, away from formal aviation facilities. That’s the whole value of the helicopter in the equation. It doesn’t matter what kind of equipment you’re sitting in, or how you arrived at the off-airport landing site proposed. You have to see the obstacles, the weather, the landing zone to control risk. You’re condemning the only effort to solve this issue- universally- and you are wrong. IFR and two engines don’t make you invulnerable. What you don’t see, you can’t know about, in this case. What you don’t know can kill you in my profession, "Clear, blue and twenty-two" with a full moon...
“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.”
That post is out of line. I am at a “VFR” program that is trying to move to aided night vision. The effort is not “To fly VMC with no horizon.” We don’t do that, ever.
Further, it is my experience that my fellow professional pilots- generally- are as devoted to safety as we are at my program. If there are “cowboys,” and cowboy operators out there, they are the exception. I, myself, know of one pilot in my AO who exhibits the attitude you claim- one- Despite the fact there area a dozen or so bases in my area, and most of the major players and many independents are active in my A.O.- one cowboy pilot. If you have facts and information otherwise, cite it. Your statement is unfounded. I am specifically calling you on this “.....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.”
The night issue is there in all aspects of aviation: Fixed and rotary; Single and multiengine; One and two-pilot crews; IFR and VFR. In flight, operating with compromised vision- in this discussion, night flights- increases risk. This hazard is magnified in helicopter operations, and EMS in particular. EMS operates off airport, away from formal aviation facilities. That’s the whole value of the helicopter in the equation. It doesn’t matter what kind of equipment you’re sitting in, or how you arrived at the off-airport landing site proposed. You have to see the obstacles, the weather, the landing zone to control risk. You’re condemning the only effort to solve this issue- universally- and you are wrong. IFR and two engines don’t make you invulnerable. What you don’t see, you can’t know about, in this case. What you don’t know can kill you in my profession, "Clear, blue and twenty-two" with a full moon...
Last edited by Devil 49; 25th Mar 2005 at 15:05.
49,
You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.
We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.
Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?
A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.
"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really. "
A second post....
"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.
As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "
My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.
Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.
The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.
I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.
You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.
I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"
You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying.
You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.
We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.
Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?
A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.
"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really. "
A second post....
"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.
As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "
My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.
Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.
The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.
I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.
You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.
I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"
You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying.
Last edited by SASless; 25th Mar 2005 at 16:31.
"Just a pilot"
Sasless said-
>"You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.
We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.
Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?"<
My answer-
NO! Doesn't happen, period.
At the risk of being misunderstood, I will suggest that you may want to think about that question carefully. It suggests a wink and nudge attitude regarding some important rules.
I will repeat: We never- ever- fly without lights in sight. Further, I will suggest that the reason the posts you cite are significant is that the posters are exceptional. I could theoretically see the situation happening, if- and only if- the ground was clearly in sight, for surface reference. It hasn't happened yet. The only times, as a civilian, I haven't had lights in sight it was because I was IIMC.
SASless, again-
>"A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.
"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really."
A second post....
"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.
As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "<
My answer-
Our program operates from the Georgia-South Carolina coast well into the Smokey Mountains. If the vis is marginal, usually it's possible to plan one's route to follow cultural lighting. Yes, it can take longer. Failing to do so can take an eternity... If we can't do that, we abort the flight, or decline and offer the flight to a program that may be in a more favorable situation. The patient can go by ground, and it's better to make that decision early. I- no- we've spent many nights at hospitals or nearby airports.
The "box of rocks" paradigm rules.
SASless-
>"My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.
"Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.
The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.
I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.
You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.
I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"
You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying."
Final arguments from me-
First and most important point of issue, your statement "...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather." If you abort WITH goggles on, you still have the benefit of the goggles for the remainder of the flight. If you abort without, you do not- The advantage is clear.
A "Cowboy" pilot is a dead man walking, and it doesn't matter how he's equipped- pilot error kills. A program with the attitude cited is Darwinian, too, in spite of equipment, not because of it. If your program policies lead you to believe and behave otherwise, it's time to go elsewhere. You can get another job.
Every day, I pull a NOTAM brief. Unlit towers in my AO are commonly a page and a half, two pages of 9-point type. Power transmission lines and towers are always there. The mountains and national forests are always dark and challenging. Add the fact I operate in an area of almost constant haze and humidity, and low clouds are common. I've been IIMC more often on departure than in cruise- and it's much more exciting then, too.
Those issues would be resolved with NVGs. IFR approval, twins, 2 pilots, do not address do not address most of those dangers- related issues are factors in many 121 accidents...
>"You operate in the part of the country that is renown for hazy visibility and lots of wooded areas with some very dark places.
We are both big boys here....and have enough experience to know the truth even if we do not always admit it publically.
Have you ever...do you ever....will you in the future.....fly over dark places under part 135 without having ground lights in view all of the time....one hundred percent of the time....while you do your good work at night?"<
My answer-
NO! Doesn't happen, period.
At the risk of being misunderstood, I will suggest that you may want to think about that question carefully. It suggests a wink and nudge attitude regarding some important rules.
I will repeat: We never- ever- fly without lights in sight. Further, I will suggest that the reason the posts you cite are significant is that the posters are exceptional. I could theoretically see the situation happening, if- and only if- the ground was clearly in sight, for surface reference. It hasn't happened yet. The only times, as a civilian, I haven't had lights in sight it was because I was IIMC.
SASless, again-
>"A post made at another web site...EMS related....kinda sums it up...comes from a discussion similar to ours here.
"Do you fly in the mountains at night? If you did you would understand the comment. We have no reporting stations for miles around us and there are mountain obscurations and rain showers around the area. The routes are over mountains and dark.The weather is VFR in some directions and IFR in others but without the goggles I won't be able to see it(zero ground lights in most directions). If I don't have goggles I don't go. I know the precip and clouds are out there but I don't know where. With the goggles I can see them as plain as day and avoid them as easily as day. It's quite simple really."
A second post....
"Now that our program has NVG's I can't believe the FAA has any hesitations about them. They are an absolute must for every operation, even in the city. They are absolutely unbelievable. Even the guys who flew the Gen 6 models are very impressed. I was able to shoot an autorotation to the spot the first night I flew with them. I am at work tonight and the weather is unflyable in most directions tonight without the googles. I come to work so much more relaxed on nights like tonight because I know that we will acually be able to see the weather if we launch. It's all mountains around us and without the goggles you simple just can't see.
As I used to say, we can't go take a look because we won't be able to see the weather. Now at least we can take a look and probably complete the mission without concern and with a huge safety margin compared to before. I don't like flying at night. Now I am a lot more comfortable with it. Now that the crew is flying with them they are starting to realize how bad it is to fly without them. "<
My answer-
Our program operates from the Georgia-South Carolina coast well into the Smokey Mountains. If the vis is marginal, usually it's possible to plan one's route to follow cultural lighting. Yes, it can take longer. Failing to do so can take an eternity... If we can't do that, we abort the flight, or decline and offer the flight to a program that may be in a more favorable situation. The patient can go by ground, and it's better to make that decision early. I- no- we've spent many nights at hospitals or nearby airports.
The "box of rocks" paradigm rules.
SASless-
>"My point is and shall remain that for all the wrong reasons but for the best of intentions....that is what we are doing out there when so many of these things happen.
"Say what you want to....we know that to be the truth. We each have been there....and probably we will be there again.
The use of NVG's in and of itself will greatly enhance the safety of our operations....those faint lights and that horizion will get much easier to see. But...also I shall keep saying...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather.
I have no doubt that the majority of pilots think as you do...this use of NVG's is yet another tool to enhance the safety of night operations. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I know the nature of the business....and the pressures of the job.
You make note of the "outlaw" pilot....evidently he is well known and must be known to the operator. Simple direct questions....why is he still employed...why is he allowed to be an "outlaw"? Must he kill himself and some others in order for him to cease what he is doing? That is why I suggest NVG's have every possiblity of extending the problem they are designed to cure.
I can hear the muttered grumble when a guy turns down a flight because of visibility one night...."Well darn, we bought you these NVG's....and you still don't want to fly in the dark out to Podunk!"
You and your program might be pure at heart here....but the industry as a whole is just looking at another way to keep flying."
Final arguments from me-
First and most important point of issue, your statement "...is at some point even the NVG's will fail to show up those lights and horizion. Then what? You are right back where we started but in much worse weather." If you abort WITH goggles on, you still have the benefit of the goggles for the remainder of the flight. If you abort without, you do not- The advantage is clear.
A "Cowboy" pilot is a dead man walking, and it doesn't matter how he's equipped- pilot error kills. A program with the attitude cited is Darwinian, too, in spite of equipment, not because of it. If your program policies lead you to believe and behave otherwise, it's time to go elsewhere. You can get another job.
Every day, I pull a NOTAM brief. Unlit towers in my AO are commonly a page and a half, two pages of 9-point type. Power transmission lines and towers are always there. The mountains and national forests are always dark and challenging. Add the fact I operate in an area of almost constant haze and humidity, and low clouds are common. I've been IIMC more often on departure than in cruise- and it's much more exciting then, too.
Those issues would be resolved with NVGs. IFR approval, twins, 2 pilots, do not address do not address most of those dangers- related issues are factors in many 121 accidents...
Last edited by Devil 49; 26th Mar 2005 at 15:28.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town RSA
Age: 51
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Pilot Night VFR NVG EMS Ops
I'm looking for comments, inputs, advice wrt single pilot, night VFR , emergency medical services with the aid of Night Visual Goggles.
We operate AS 350 B2 helicopters in the EMS field in South Africa, and are looking at the possibilities/probability as well as the pro's and cons involved. These are single engine aircraft, night rated (not IFR capable) and have no three axis autopilot or augmentation systems.
I personally have approx. 100 NVG hours as a co-pilot in the military on a Super Puma. This was in a multi engine/multi crew environment, where in most cases the area of operation had been previously inspected by day. The goggles we used then were third generation, and training, competency and the necessary arsenal was not an issue wrt costs involved for training, and competencies. A whole new ball game when compared to a civilian operation.
I have a number of reservations: single engine aircraft (not ideal but manageable); single crew without the redundancy of a check pilot to guard against NVG fixation/dependance ; CFIT as the primary cause of most night heli accidents ; VFR yes but we all now how quickly that can change at night and how unpredictably ; rural areas as opposed to built up areas; non IFR rated aircraft with non IFR rated pilots should adverse Wx present itself ; lack of integrated cockpit lighting for NVG and lack of controllable infra red landing light.
The consideration was originally registered LZ (with lighting), to registered LZ (with lighting). Safety altitude with NVG as a navaid - No Problem. Now the suggestion has been made to respond to road accidents at unprepared LZ's. Different ball game once again.
Existing Part 138 law prohibits non IFR rated aircraft from night EMS operations. However this entire Part is currently under review.
I know that a number of military institutions are operating with NVG in the single crew environment. Are there any operators in the civilian field doing this ? Comments from both military and civilian would be greatly appreciated !
Regards
mp
We operate AS 350 B2 helicopters in the EMS field in South Africa, and are looking at the possibilities/probability as well as the pro's and cons involved. These are single engine aircraft, night rated (not IFR capable) and have no three axis autopilot or augmentation systems.
I personally have approx. 100 NVG hours as a co-pilot in the military on a Super Puma. This was in a multi engine/multi crew environment, where in most cases the area of operation had been previously inspected by day. The goggles we used then were third generation, and training, competency and the necessary arsenal was not an issue wrt costs involved for training, and competencies. A whole new ball game when compared to a civilian operation.
I have a number of reservations: single engine aircraft (not ideal but manageable); single crew without the redundancy of a check pilot to guard against NVG fixation/dependance ; CFIT as the primary cause of most night heli accidents ; VFR yes but we all now how quickly that can change at night and how unpredictably ; rural areas as opposed to built up areas; non IFR rated aircraft with non IFR rated pilots should adverse Wx present itself ; lack of integrated cockpit lighting for NVG and lack of controllable infra red landing light.
The consideration was originally registered LZ (with lighting), to registered LZ (with lighting). Safety altitude with NVG as a navaid - No Problem. Now the suggestion has been made to respond to road accidents at unprepared LZ's. Different ball game once again.
Existing Part 138 law prohibits non IFR rated aircraft from night EMS operations. However this entire Part is currently under review.
I know that a number of military institutions are operating with NVG in the single crew environment. Are there any operators in the civilian field doing this ? Comments from both military and civilian would be greatly appreciated !
Regards
mp
Marc - I think your concerns are justified, it's all very well saying they will fly at safety altitude using NVG as a navaid but they still have to get down at the other end. That is where you need your 2 crew, 3 axis autopilot, NVG compatible lighting(internal and external) and most of all a rad-alt with an audio warning. Single pilot NVG ops are not impossible but do require well trained and equipped crews in regular practice.
Frankly the extra nav assist benefit of NVG at 1000' plus is only to see other aircraft - a map and a GPS will sort the nav out.
As for IFR - the single pilot must be instrument rated and the aircraft IFR capable. As you know, you can get yourself into bad weather without realising it much easier on goggles than without so being able to IFR abort is a must.
Eventually governments must understand that to provide a night capability safely costs money and if they try to skimp on equipment and training the resulting bad press from the inevitable accidents will come back and bite them in the a**e.
Frankly the extra nav assist benefit of NVG at 1000' plus is only to see other aircraft - a map and a GPS will sort the nav out.
As for IFR - the single pilot must be instrument rated and the aircraft IFR capable. As you know, you can get yourself into bad weather without realising it much easier on goggles than without so being able to IFR abort is a must.
Eventually governments must understand that to provide a night capability safely costs money and if they try to skimp on equipment and training the resulting bad press from the inevitable accidents will come back and bite them in the a**e.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We currently operate single-pilot ops with (normally 2) police observers. We are day/night VMC only, but with a twin (non-IFR) a/c. Our observers are equipped with goggles, but our cockpit is non-NVG compatible at the moment, so the pilots rely on normal night-flying techniques with the helpful additional input from the fellas who can see.
Part of our remit is to perform casevac at night in life-threatening circumstances, which will normally be in the more remote areas to justify use of a helo rather than a road ambulance.
The transit, weather etc do not tend to give us any serious safety concerns, because our operations manual gives us very clearly defined weather minima (1500' cloud base & 5 km visibility with passengers/casualties on board). If the weather conditions get to these minima, we can easily sack the job & RTB before it gets uncomfortable. The key is making the rules and sticking rigidly to them, no matter what the external pressures are of serious casualties etc etc.
The BIG safety concern is the approach & landing at the scene, because obviously we dont get a good look for wires, FOD, fences, sloping ground etc etc at an ad-hoc site. The key is to take the time to speak to the people on the ground to help select you a suitable HLS, scan it for as long as it takes with a searchlight if you have one, or landing lamps on a dummy approach, and get everyone in the crew to look out for wires (having done a good map recce beforehand).
For us, fortunately, this is a rare occurrence. Potentially, you may be able to reduce the requirements to land at ad-hoc sites by surveying potential suitable landing sites across your area, and holding them in a HLS directory, recording the potential hazards as well as the size, shape, surround etc. , and make this available to your ground colleagues to RV with you at the nearest suitable location.
Hope you find this helpful - Our rules are dictated by the CAA, which makes it easy for us to implement. If there are no laid-down rules in your neck of the woods, perhaps your regulatory authorities should think about it
Part of our remit is to perform casevac at night in life-threatening circumstances, which will normally be in the more remote areas to justify use of a helo rather than a road ambulance.
The transit, weather etc do not tend to give us any serious safety concerns, because our operations manual gives us very clearly defined weather minima (1500' cloud base & 5 km visibility with passengers/casualties on board). If the weather conditions get to these minima, we can easily sack the job & RTB before it gets uncomfortable. The key is making the rules and sticking rigidly to them, no matter what the external pressures are of serious casualties etc etc.
The BIG safety concern is the approach & landing at the scene, because obviously we dont get a good look for wires, FOD, fences, sloping ground etc etc at an ad-hoc site. The key is to take the time to speak to the people on the ground to help select you a suitable HLS, scan it for as long as it takes with a searchlight if you have one, or landing lamps on a dummy approach, and get everyone in the crew to look out for wires (having done a good map recce beforehand).
For us, fortunately, this is a rare occurrence. Potentially, you may be able to reduce the requirements to land at ad-hoc sites by surveying potential suitable landing sites across your area, and holding them in a HLS directory, recording the potential hazards as well as the size, shape, surround etc. , and make this available to your ground colleagues to RV with you at the nearest suitable location.
Hope you find this helpful - Our rules are dictated by the CAA, which makes it easy for us to implement. If there are no laid-down rules in your neck of the woods, perhaps your regulatory authorities should think about it
marc,
run a search, this has been disussed many times.
In short, the US have had more than 10 years of NVG civvie ops and what they came out with (in relation to your question) is simple:
Cockpit must be modified to DCO 275.
Single pilot ops are OK if you only operate to established and lit helipads.
if you operate to non lit, or non permanent helipads you must carry a second crewmember, trained on NVG and positioned on the other side of the aircraft in a position to scan the area the pilot cannot see. Ie back or front is fine, as long as it is on opposite side.
In all countries starting up NVG, weather is always contentious. NVG in a VFR aircraft or crew should be limited to NVFR minima. If that requires twin or IFR in your country, then so be it.
If you have an IFR aircraft and crew, then IFR weater is your min, but when on NVG you must have in flight VFR at your selected altitude.
I would suggest that the limitation should revolve around in-flight Viz, which is determined by both atmospherics AND illumination levels, ie say house sized obstacles must be clearly visible (including detail) at not less than 5000m to continue on NVG.
Contrary to Crab's statement above, and as you have flown them yourself, I would suggest that wx is easier to see on NVG than unaided (on ANVIS 6 or 9 omnibus IV), thus easier to avoid.
It is crucial to remember in all this, that the flight profiles are not military. In Oz, we are puishing to fly at 500, do a recce and land or winch. We are not trying to fly below 500, NOE, do tac approaches, evasive manouevring, nor formation. Any of these elements requires much more training and caution, and limitation setting.
Try Mike Atwood of Aviation Services Unlimited in the USA who is one of only two fully FAA certified NVG schools in the US. Mike will have all the info you require, is a very competent instructor, and has all the knowledge of civvy NVG ops you could hope for. Incidently, he is speaking at HeliPacific at Coolum on the Queensland coast 13th of july 2005 on everyting you have asked. Should coincide with tri nations time too!!
Also try Graham Gale, Chief Pilot of Otago Helicopters NZ who has just introduced the first civvy NVG ops into EMS in New Zealand using the FAA template.
run a search, this has been disussed many times.
In short, the US have had more than 10 years of NVG civvie ops and what they came out with (in relation to your question) is simple:
Cockpit must be modified to DCO 275.
Single pilot ops are OK if you only operate to established and lit helipads.
if you operate to non lit, or non permanent helipads you must carry a second crewmember, trained on NVG and positioned on the other side of the aircraft in a position to scan the area the pilot cannot see. Ie back or front is fine, as long as it is on opposite side.
In all countries starting up NVG, weather is always contentious. NVG in a VFR aircraft or crew should be limited to NVFR minima. If that requires twin or IFR in your country, then so be it.
If you have an IFR aircraft and crew, then IFR weater is your min, but when on NVG you must have in flight VFR at your selected altitude.
I would suggest that the limitation should revolve around in-flight Viz, which is determined by both atmospherics AND illumination levels, ie say house sized obstacles must be clearly visible (including detail) at not less than 5000m to continue on NVG.
Contrary to Crab's statement above, and as you have flown them yourself, I would suggest that wx is easier to see on NVG than unaided (on ANVIS 6 or 9 omnibus IV), thus easier to avoid.
It is crucial to remember in all this, that the flight profiles are not military. In Oz, we are puishing to fly at 500, do a recce and land or winch. We are not trying to fly below 500, NOE, do tac approaches, evasive manouevring, nor formation. Any of these elements requires much more training and caution, and limitation setting.
Try Mike Atwood of Aviation Services Unlimited in the USA who is one of only two fully FAA certified NVG schools in the US. Mike will have all the info you require, is a very competent instructor, and has all the knowledge of civvy NVG ops you could hope for. Incidently, he is speaking at HeliPacific at Coolum on the Queensland coast 13th of july 2005 on everyting you have asked. Should coincide with tri nations time too!!
Also try Graham Gale, Chief Pilot of Otago Helicopters NZ who has just introduced the first civvy NVG ops into EMS in New Zealand using the FAA template.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town RSA
Age: 51
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Replies and inputs Gentlemen,
I really appreciate the comments. I will conduct a search and see what I can come up with. Please will you be so kind as to forward me the web-sites and the e-mail addresses of the names mentioned above. PM me if you don't want to display it here.
As I mentioned to havoc in a PM we have a LifePort system, with the patient down the left hand side, so our crew members are stuck in the back, with the pilot alone up front. Best views/lookout with two up front obviously. Our crew is normally two paramedics/paramedic and doctor. Most of these guys are new to the Heli program, and those that are regulars do not have much exposure to night flying, let alone NVG use. Obviously training, and lots of it is critical.
Please keep the comments, possible risks and other relevant inputs coming.
Cheers
mp
I really appreciate the comments. I will conduct a search and see what I can come up with. Please will you be so kind as to forward me the web-sites and the e-mail addresses of the names mentioned above. PM me if you don't want to display it here.
As I mentioned to havoc in a PM we have a LifePort system, with the patient down the left hand side, so our crew members are stuck in the back, with the pilot alone up front. Best views/lookout with two up front obviously. Our crew is normally two paramedics/paramedic and doctor. Most of these guys are new to the Heli program, and those that are regulars do not have much exposure to night flying, let alone NVG use. Obviously training, and lots of it is critical.
Please keep the comments, possible risks and other relevant inputs coming.
Cheers
mp
HelmetFire, my point about bad weather is that whilst showers and the like are easier to spot on goggles, a gradual reduction in visibility due to mist or precipitation that takes you below your VFR minima is not. I have used goggles to help see the runway lights through cloud on an ILS when I really had to and avoided a diversion which would have been bad for the casualty.
Understood crab, you are the more accurate and I agree. Again, I think we concentrate on limiting NVG to weather minimums but really, they are limited by in-flight viz which is also affected by moisture, dust, obscurants, illumination, cultural lighting and upper level cloud. For example, some nights you can have nil cloud below 10,000 ft agl and viz reported at 10km plus, yet still have insufficient illumination to fly NVG.
marc,
There is sufficient detail there for you to contact the people mentioned, but I dont have their email.
Two points in response to your reply:
night unaided experience is very valuable for NVG, and a good instrument scan is essential. In the months between now and aquisition of NVG, I suggest you encourage night training and experience, and increase instrument scan practice and profficiency. Get a good PC based sim for the instrument stuff too.
Secondly, your comment on the crew positions. Two up the front is essential for military flight profiles for the lookout, and low level workload. For civilian operations, we need to move out of the military profiles, and I suggest that if you currently fly NVFR unaided in that crew config, then continue to do so NVG. When you are flying at NB 500ft AGL with sufficient in-flight viz on NVG, there is no requirement to have two crew members on NVG, however, should you conduct an approach to land/winch to an unlit area or non permanent helipad, then there should always be two crew on opposite sides. The reason that I dont believe we should stipulate that they be in the front or back is due to horses for courses. Some operators (law enforcement in particular) have two front seat crew, and that is a good combo. Others operate with a rear crewman, who after opening the door, has a superior view of the side of the aircraft over the front seater. Therefore both solutions are acceptable.
If you have an aircraft in which there is no way for the other crewmember to take up the scan on the non pilot side, then I suggest that it is innapropriate for you to be conducting night confined area operations anyway, unaided or with NVG (as per your current restriction for NVFR). NVG does not resolve this limitation IMHO.
marc,
There is sufficient detail there for you to contact the people mentioned, but I dont have their email.
Two points in response to your reply:
night unaided experience is very valuable for NVG, and a good instrument scan is essential. In the months between now and aquisition of NVG, I suggest you encourage night training and experience, and increase instrument scan practice and profficiency. Get a good PC based sim for the instrument stuff too.
Secondly, your comment on the crew positions. Two up the front is essential for military flight profiles for the lookout, and low level workload. For civilian operations, we need to move out of the military profiles, and I suggest that if you currently fly NVFR unaided in that crew config, then continue to do so NVG. When you are flying at NB 500ft AGL with sufficient in-flight viz on NVG, there is no requirement to have two crew members on NVG, however, should you conduct an approach to land/winch to an unlit area or non permanent helipad, then there should always be two crew on opposite sides. The reason that I dont believe we should stipulate that they be in the front or back is due to horses for courses. Some operators (law enforcement in particular) have two front seat crew, and that is a good combo. Others operate with a rear crewman, who after opening the door, has a superior view of the side of the aircraft over the front seater. Therefore both solutions are acceptable.
If you have an aircraft in which there is no way for the other crewmember to take up the scan on the non pilot side, then I suggest that it is innapropriate for you to be conducting night confined area operations anyway, unaided or with NVG (as per your current restriction for NVFR). NVG does not resolve this limitation IMHO.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single pilot NVG EMS is fine...depending on the training, the machine, and the operational limitations.
Training has been mentioned already. Get a proper NVG conversion, then learn from someone doing the same role in the same machine (similiar if same not possible).
The machine needs more than cockpit compatibility (which is usually restricted to cockpit lighting compatibility). The switches must be identifiable with NVGs on. The immediate actions cannot be delayed due to the NVGs. The handling of the helicopter must remain acceptable with the reduced visual cues. These issues cannot be taken lightly. Employ a test pilot to evaluate your helicopter in that expanded role.
The operational limitations have been mentioned already. The weather is definitely a concern. I support lower weather minima for unaided night flight over aided. When on scene many operators are hesitant to use white light. Don't be. EMS is not a covert operation. Light up the area and see the wires.
While the safety concerns are valid, the increased service to the customer is invaluable. Lives will be saved.
Training has been mentioned already. Get a proper NVG conversion, then learn from someone doing the same role in the same machine (similiar if same not possible).
The machine needs more than cockpit compatibility (which is usually restricted to cockpit lighting compatibility). The switches must be identifiable with NVGs on. The immediate actions cannot be delayed due to the NVGs. The handling of the helicopter must remain acceptable with the reduced visual cues. These issues cannot be taken lightly. Employ a test pilot to evaluate your helicopter in that expanded role.
The operational limitations have been mentioned already. The weather is definitely a concern. I support lower weather minima for unaided night flight over aided. When on scene many operators are hesitant to use white light. Don't be. EMS is not a covert operation. Light up the area and see the wires.
While the safety concerns are valid, the increased service to the customer is invaluable. Lives will be saved.