Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
NVG civilian training
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVG training
Bigmike:
The ground and flight instruction from ASU is first class. When PHI took over the contract here in New Mexico, ASU came out and did the training. It was 8 hours of ground school and 5 flight hours.
At the same time, ASU was getting their cockpit lighting STC for the Astar, so the feds were here looking at everything, including the classroom instruction.
The four of us pilots had limited NVG flight experience, me being the high timer with about 170 hours, mostly ANVIS-6. One guy had no NVG time. The other two had old PVS-5 and some ANVIS time. Our medical crews did the ground school and then one hour of flight familiarization.
There still seems to be leftover attitudes about their use in that they are hard to adjust to while flying. The training gives you the limitations and you work within those restrictions. The ITT certified NVGs themselves are far and away better than even my earlier experience with ANVIS-6 sets. Around Albuquerque I use them even in the brightly lit city because these new intensifier tubes don’t react to bright lights like older versions. You can see down through the smaller “halos” that surround lights and see the ground, so if you have a problem, instead of having to dodge wires on some lighted road, you can put down in the small field next to the road – all because you can see in the dark now.
We fly with two sets of NVGs, with the crew member usually sitting on the left side. We DID NOT reduce our program weather minimums due to NVG use. We all thought that was just a stupid idea suggested by people without any NVG experience or basic knowledge, let alone common sense.
There is quite the impetus here in the U.S. to get more EMS programs equipped but the physical problem is most of the ITT production seems to be toward the military. To my knowledge, a flight program would be hard pressed to get their aircraft lighting certified and crews trained in 12 months, even if the wrote the big checks today. The NVGs are just hard to get. I think the FAA should look at certifying other intensifier tubes, such as those made by DEP in the Netherlands. That would get more NVGs on the market faster.
One other point about the “big checks”. The NVGs are running less than 10K USD a set. The SX-5 Nitesun we still drag around costs about 27K USD. This is the proverbial no brainer.
Sorry to ramble on and go off topic, but I can’t say enough about having NVGs. In my mind they are the most effective and cheapest safety addition anyone can add to their flight program.
If you have any more questions. Let me know.
Ron Powell
The ground and flight instruction from ASU is first class. When PHI took over the contract here in New Mexico, ASU came out and did the training. It was 8 hours of ground school and 5 flight hours.
At the same time, ASU was getting their cockpit lighting STC for the Astar, so the feds were here looking at everything, including the classroom instruction.
The four of us pilots had limited NVG flight experience, me being the high timer with about 170 hours, mostly ANVIS-6. One guy had no NVG time. The other two had old PVS-5 and some ANVIS time. Our medical crews did the ground school and then one hour of flight familiarization.
There still seems to be leftover attitudes about their use in that they are hard to adjust to while flying. The training gives you the limitations and you work within those restrictions. The ITT certified NVGs themselves are far and away better than even my earlier experience with ANVIS-6 sets. Around Albuquerque I use them even in the brightly lit city because these new intensifier tubes don’t react to bright lights like older versions. You can see down through the smaller “halos” that surround lights and see the ground, so if you have a problem, instead of having to dodge wires on some lighted road, you can put down in the small field next to the road – all because you can see in the dark now.
We fly with two sets of NVGs, with the crew member usually sitting on the left side. We DID NOT reduce our program weather minimums due to NVG use. We all thought that was just a stupid idea suggested by people without any NVG experience or basic knowledge, let alone common sense.
There is quite the impetus here in the U.S. to get more EMS programs equipped but the physical problem is most of the ITT production seems to be toward the military. To my knowledge, a flight program would be hard pressed to get their aircraft lighting certified and crews trained in 12 months, even if the wrote the big checks today. The NVGs are just hard to get. I think the FAA should look at certifying other intensifier tubes, such as those made by DEP in the Netherlands. That would get more NVGs on the market faster.
One other point about the “big checks”. The NVGs are running less than 10K USD a set. The SX-5 Nitesun we still drag around costs about 27K USD. This is the proverbial no brainer.
Sorry to ramble on and go off topic, but I can’t say enough about having NVGs. In my mind they are the most effective and cheapest safety addition anyone can add to their flight program.
If you have any more questions. Let me know.
Ron Powell
Thanks a lot Ron. We are looking at introducing Primary missions (Scene calls) at night here, and we will only be conducting them if NVG's are used. At the moment we fly Secondary missions, ie hospital transfers, only at night, and that is only into known airfields or Hospital pads.
You are right about the weather minimums. They will not change at all for us, we will just be able to see a little better!
Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the standard at the moment, is that correct?
What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.
Cheers BM
You are right about the weather minimums. They will not change at all for us, we will just be able to see a little better!
Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the standard at the moment, is that correct?
What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.
Cheers BM
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BM:
>We are looking at introducing Primary missions (Scene calls) at night here, and we >will only be conducting them if NVG's are used. At the moment we fly Secondary >missions, ie hospital transfers, only at night, and that is only into known airfields or >Hospital pads.
That’s a great start and don’t let anyone back you off that point. Also, if your program has some outreach and training money/time, try to get out and work with the local EMS providers and setup ”canned” LZs, pre-surveyed for hazards. With enough of those, you can further limit your risk.
This is just speculation of course, but if we have a few more night accidents here in the U.S. attributed to CFIT, I could see and understand the feds stepping in and saying no more night flights without NVGs.
>Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the >standard at the moment, is that correct?
I don’t have an answer to that question. The ANVIS-9 designation might be a military term, so you might also see something like F4949, which I think is the ITT model number for aviator NVGs. Off hand, I don’t know of a European manufacturer. Do you have any European military pals to quiz on this?
The thing is, I think the important technical aspects of the NVGs are the image intensifier tube specs and power supply. So is essence, anyone who could meet the specs should be able to supply tubes to the industry. This is of course assuming the basic setup of the housing – adjustable and removable binocular, breakaway helmet mount and battery pack- remain the same.
One thing to consider is the FAA is pretty new to the aided night flight concept, so you can see they would want to certify things very conservatively and limit the equipment until things are proven.
An example of this is the PVS-7. The housing looks the same but you can get various quality tubes made by different companies as the guts with huge swings in price.
>What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.
Can’t answer that either. Google says ANVIS-7 is some sort of heads up display thing though which I assume is mounted to NVGs. There also seems to be quite the variation in the same tubes. You can buy a high resolution tube, say with 64lp/mm of resolution, with a “normal” power supply(whatever that means) or a “gated power supply” and get different performance from the NVGs, I think in terms of the NVGs ability to work in high light conditions. Naturally, you will pay for this difference.
DEP makes tubes and looks like they got bought out:
http://www.photonis-dep.com/night-vision
One interesting thing I’ve found is the ITT tubes have a slight amber tint and a DEP XD-4 tube, for instance, has a slightly bluish tint.
>We are looking at introducing Primary missions (Scene calls) at night here, and we >will only be conducting them if NVG's are used. At the moment we fly Secondary >missions, ie hospital transfers, only at night, and that is only into known airfields or >Hospital pads.
That’s a great start and don’t let anyone back you off that point. Also, if your program has some outreach and training money/time, try to get out and work with the local EMS providers and setup ”canned” LZs, pre-surveyed for hazards. With enough of those, you can further limit your risk.
This is just speculation of course, but if we have a few more night accidents here in the U.S. attributed to CFIT, I could see and understand the feds stepping in and saying no more night flights without NVGs.
>Other than ITT, who else produces NVG's to the current standard? ANVIS-9 is the >standard at the moment, is that correct?
I don’t have an answer to that question. The ANVIS-9 designation might be a military term, so you might also see something like F4949, which I think is the ITT model number for aviator NVGs. Off hand, I don’t know of a European manufacturer. Do you have any European military pals to quiz on this?
The thing is, I think the important technical aspects of the NVGs are the image intensifier tube specs and power supply. So is essence, anyone who could meet the specs should be able to supply tubes to the industry. This is of course assuming the basic setup of the housing – adjustable and removable binocular, breakaway helmet mount and battery pack- remain the same.
One thing to consider is the FAA is pretty new to the aided night flight concept, so you can see they would want to certify things very conservatively and limit the equipment until things are proven.
An example of this is the PVS-7. The housing looks the same but you can get various quality tubes made by different companies as the guts with huge swings in price.
>What are the differences between ANVIS-7 and -9? I will check out DEP.
Can’t answer that either. Google says ANVIS-7 is some sort of heads up display thing though which I assume is mounted to NVGs. There also seems to be quite the variation in the same tubes. You can buy a high resolution tube, say with 64lp/mm of resolution, with a “normal” power supply(whatever that means) or a “gated power supply” and get different performance from the NVGs, I think in terms of the NVGs ability to work in high light conditions. Naturally, you will pay for this difference.
DEP makes tubes and looks like they got bought out:
http://www.photonis-dep.com/night-vision
One interesting thing I’ve found is the ITT tubes have a slight amber tint and a DEP XD-4 tube, for instance, has a slightly bluish tint.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: S. UK - near the sea...
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANVIS in Europe
Just to let you know the ANVIS system is made by ITT and Northrop Grumman, both are the same, identical except the sticker. ANVIS 9 and ANVIS 6 differ slightly but 9 is the latest, which most people use if they do not want to use a HUD on the end.
As for what tubes are in them, in Europe there is one company already assembling DEP tubes into the ANVIS shells under licence, this is where it gets technical but in essence you still need a licence to buy them but they are in fact better than the US models on offer because of the export rules imposed by uncle sam.
ANVIS 7 are for people driving 4x4s, beware of offers that are cheap, usually there is a non-aviation tube in there (commercial grade) which is cheap but full of blemishes etc.
Expect to pay around €14k for a set of European tubed ANVIS 6 or 9, but they are much better than the restricted performance US ones at around €11K.
Send me an email and I’ll bore the t*ts off you on NVG in general! I will ask my supplier (of NVG not weed) to get on this forum and maybe he will shed some more light on the subject.
This is me: [email protected] hope it helps
SF
As for what tubes are in them, in Europe there is one company already assembling DEP tubes into the ANVIS shells under licence, this is where it gets technical but in essence you still need a licence to buy them but they are in fact better than the US models on offer because of the export rules imposed by uncle sam.
ANVIS 7 are for people driving 4x4s, beware of offers that are cheap, usually there is a non-aviation tube in there (commercial grade) which is cheap but full of blemishes etc.
Expect to pay around €14k for a set of European tubed ANVIS 6 or 9, but they are much better than the restricted performance US ones at around €11K.
Send me an email and I’ll bore the t*ts off you on NVG in general! I will ask my supplier (of NVG not weed) to get on this forum and maybe he will shed some more light on the subject.
This is me: [email protected] hope it helps
SF
Ron - good call abouth not reducing the weather minima - in UK mil SAR the only time we reduce our weather minima is if we have an IFR option available.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police Air Operations Manual Amendment: Use of NVGs
CAP 612 Police Air Operations Manual Pt 1 Amendment 1/2005
(16 November 2005)
A new Chapter 11 has been incorporated into Section 5 (Police Operating Procedures) to introduce Night Vision Imaging Systems.
Chapter 11 Night Vision Imaging Systems
General
Terminology
Essential Requirements
Operating Considerations
Training and Checking
Operations Manual
Link here
9It's a PDF file so you'll need Adobe Reader installed - readily available free on the net~).
A step in the right direction. I wonder how many ASUs will be applying for approval, and how soon?
FL
(16 November 2005)
A new Chapter 11 has been incorporated into Section 5 (Police Operating Procedures) to introduce Night Vision Imaging Systems.
Chapter 11 Night Vision Imaging Systems
General
Terminology
Essential Requirements
Operating Considerations
Training and Checking
Operations Manual
Link here
9It's a PDF file so you'll need Adobe Reader installed - readily available free on the net~).
A step in the right direction. I wonder how many ASUs will be applying for approval, and how soon?
FL
Also interesting for the Police Observers who will be expected to operate on goggles - how far do they have to go before they are officially classed as crew and require licencing?
Just wait for all the compensation claims for eyestrain and bad necks once NVGs are widely used.
Just wait for all the compensation claims for eyestrain and bad necks once NVGs are widely used.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVG – Don’t you just love it?
Ac transits for 20 minutes to the scene, pilot flicks the switch and the cockpit lighting switches to NVG compatible blue/green, the pilot and rear crewmember lower the goggles whilst the front observer uses the TI, spot the baddie, talk the ground units in – Job done. Up with the goggles, back to normal lighting and RTB
20-minute transit to a casevac. Same drill as before as we go onto NVG. This time the front observer has a sweep with the TI then onto goggles, high and low recce then in we go for a perfect touchdown.
Who couldn’t be impressed with the benefits of NVG? Couple of questions though. What happens when, as in most modern civilian helicopters, there isn’t enough headroom for the pilot to stow the goggles? How does he revert to and fro? What happens when the side windows are to close to the pilot’s head and he can’t look sideways or indeed up? What does he do with them in an emergency?
Is it really safer to transit all the time above 500ft on goggles? Has anyone tried hovering at 1000ft on goggles?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for them but I think the only time a pilot needs them is probably the only time the CAA don’t want you to use them!
Crab’s point with regards to neck strain is one to watch and I also wonder how many observers will fail the proposed eye tests?
Let the fun and games begin!
Ac transits for 20 minutes to the scene, pilot flicks the switch and the cockpit lighting switches to NVG compatible blue/green, the pilot and rear crewmember lower the goggles whilst the front observer uses the TI, spot the baddie, talk the ground units in – Job done. Up with the goggles, back to normal lighting and RTB
20-minute transit to a casevac. Same drill as before as we go onto NVG. This time the front observer has a sweep with the TI then onto goggles, high and low recce then in we go for a perfect touchdown.
Who couldn’t be impressed with the benefits of NVG? Couple of questions though. What happens when, as in most modern civilian helicopters, there isn’t enough headroom for the pilot to stow the goggles? How does he revert to and fro? What happens when the side windows are to close to the pilot’s head and he can’t look sideways or indeed up? What does he do with them in an emergency?
Is it really safer to transit all the time above 500ft on goggles? Has anyone tried hovering at 1000ft on goggles?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for them but I think the only time a pilot needs them is probably the only time the CAA don’t want you to use them!
Crab’s point with regards to neck strain is one to watch and I also wonder how many observers will fail the proposed eye tests?
Let the fun and games begin!
That's Life!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out of the sand pit, carving a path through our jungle.
Age: 72
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a buddy who flies a BO 105 on EMS in the US and he is on a program that has been using ANVIS 9 for the last year or so.
He said that they are unreal. He flips them down on start up and back up on shutdown. They now do the high recon to the left due to the proximity of the roof and it seems to work ok. Most of their flights are less than one hour and he said you get used to the weight on your neck.
The FAA have certified their use and I believe they can also be used as a corrective lens. The impression I got from him was that basing your view of NVG on anything other than the absolute latest technology may be misleading.
Imagine if we were only starting to fly IFR now....I'm sure that there would be much resistance. I have no doubt that within ten years goggles will be the norm for all night ops.
He said that they are unreal. He flips them down on start up and back up on shutdown. They now do the high recon to the left due to the proximity of the roof and it seems to work ok. Most of their flights are less than one hour and he said you get used to the weight on your neck.
The FAA have certified their use and I believe they can also be used as a corrective lens. The impression I got from him was that basing your view of NVG on anything other than the absolute latest technology may be misleading.
Imagine if we were only starting to fly IFR now....I'm sure that there would be much resistance. I have no doubt that within ten years goggles will be the norm for all night ops.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Has anyone tried hovering at 1000ft on goggles?
As long as you can see references, pretty much the same as hovering at 1000' without.
I would suggest it would come down to practise and familiarisation, however if you find yourself in a location where you need to be on goggs in the first place, why hover when an orbit would suffice?
Noise, fuel burn, etc.
As for eyestrain and bad necks! What is the military rate of occurence of these injuries directly related to NVG use?
How can we reduce any associated injuries?
Eyestrain, proper focussing by operator.
Bad neck, more time in the gym!!
(I'll get some stick for that one!)
Interesting to note crabs point on the fine line between pax and crew!!
From 612
Flight Crew - Definition
....All other persons on board the aircraft, including the
police observer, are regarded as passengers.
....All other persons on board the aircraft, including the
police observer, are regarded as passengers.
CAA-Agreed Passenger - Definition
a) Police Officer;
a) Police Officer;
A qualified crewmember assigned to a NVIS flight (e.g. a police air observer).
The minimum crew is to be stated in the PAOM Part 2, but must not be less than one pilot and one crewmember both NVIS qualified.
If a unit only had Stage1 yet needed to operate to Stage2 levels, could they, in certain circumstances, do so?
SS
Hovering at 1000' on goggles - we have had to do a lot of this since the introduction of our FLIR/MSS turret and there was some resistance from some pilots who were won over once they tried it and became familiar with it. As Sid says, with the appropriate references (preferably a decent visual horizon) it is a very straightforward task.
Eyestrain - no you shouldn't get it because you should focus your goggles properly and they have a dioptre adjustment on the eyepiece lens.
Neck ache - the military tend to just get on with it and leave any moaning to the crewroom - I suspect that the compensation culture prevalent in civvystrasse might prompt 'scientific' and 'expert' investigation - to some extent it will depend on which goggles get used as some are worse than others for weight balance.
NVG stowage - we've been waiting for a proper stowage for goggles on the Sea King for years but since you tend to put them on at the beginning of the flight (flipping them up or down as you need them) and then take them off at the end, it is not such a big problem.
The stage 1 clearance will aid lookout and to some extent navigation but NVGs really come into their own for landing in unrecced sites and fields. Can you operate Cat A into a site where you dont know if the surface is suitable for a single engine landing?
Sid, I mentioned the crew issue after reading the thread about an observer failing training and then being reinstated - operating on NVG is another skill they will have to aquire and show some ability on before they are let loose on Stage 2 ops.
Eyestrain - no you shouldn't get it because you should focus your goggles properly and they have a dioptre adjustment on the eyepiece lens.
Neck ache - the military tend to just get on with it and leave any moaning to the crewroom - I suspect that the compensation culture prevalent in civvystrasse might prompt 'scientific' and 'expert' investigation - to some extent it will depend on which goggles get used as some are worse than others for weight balance.
NVG stowage - we've been waiting for a proper stowage for goggles on the Sea King for years but since you tend to put them on at the beginning of the flight (flipping them up or down as you need them) and then take them off at the end, it is not such a big problem.
The stage 1 clearance will aid lookout and to some extent navigation but NVGs really come into their own for landing in unrecced sites and fields. Can you operate Cat A into a site where you dont know if the surface is suitable for a single engine landing?
Sid, I mentioned the crew issue after reading the thread about an observer failing training and then being reinstated - operating on NVG is another skill they will have to aquire and show some ability on before they are let loose on Stage 2 ops.
So many Q's so little time
Long overdue - and this is categorically down to only ONE agency and yes you've guessed it. Make no mistake here the whole process has been dragged throught the doldrums painfully for at least the last 7 years that I have been involved in trying to get NVIS into police ops and the answer is: THE UK CAA flt test dept.
I believe we have now reached and surpassed the "tipping point" and there is NO going back
There will be 5 police forces operating full NVIS by the end of 2006. This will open the flood gates for those who WANT it. There is the choice and several urban forces have stated that it's not for them...........(if only they really knew).
This entry into our PAOM is confirmation and acceptance that NVIS has arrived - hooray.
Our observers have been flying NVG's since 1992. Initially on a monocular device until 1994 and then on FENNS 700+ to date which are perfectly adequate for the job of an observer. It has transformed their M.O.
There have been no repeat NO complaints of neck strain because we balance the kit perfectly and this includes female operators too. It should also be borne in mind that the Obs put them on in the crewroom and dont remove them again until they climb out after upwards of 40-60 mins flying
There is no problem wearing this kit whatsoever for the operative so lets quash that rumour.
There MAY be an issue with freedom of movement around the cabin and contact with objects in the proximity of said wearer.
It is not a major issue with our EC135 but I could understand with other tighter older types (355 etc). The back seat dont have this problem.
The sticking point has been certifying the cockpit and pilot for NVIS (as observers are passengers and can do whatever they like without restrictions).
It is this which has taken 7+ yrs and counting.
With the exception of Devon and Cornwall who are fully NVIS compatible since 1995 I think (old certification process), no-one in the UK can fly civvy crew NVIS yet. But next week could see the first operator doing just that under the new regs.
Stage 1 allows for NVIS above 500' only and stage II for t/o and l/o (i.e. full flight NVIS).
Operators will have to demonstrate their experience with stage 1 first before being approved to go to stage II (by the CAA).
Common sense has arrived at platform number 1 at last.....
Long overdue - and this is categorically down to only ONE agency and yes you've guessed it. Make no mistake here the whole process has been dragged throught the doldrums painfully for at least the last 7 years that I have been involved in trying to get NVIS into police ops and the answer is: THE UK CAA flt test dept.
I believe we have now reached and surpassed the "tipping point" and there is NO going back
There will be 5 police forces operating full NVIS by the end of 2006. This will open the flood gates for those who WANT it. There is the choice and several urban forces have stated that it's not for them...........(if only they really knew).
This entry into our PAOM is confirmation and acceptance that NVIS has arrived - hooray.
Our observers have been flying NVG's since 1992. Initially on a monocular device until 1994 and then on FENNS 700+ to date which are perfectly adequate for the job of an observer. It has transformed their M.O.
There have been no repeat NO complaints of neck strain because we balance the kit perfectly and this includes female operators too. It should also be borne in mind that the Obs put them on in the crewroom and dont remove them again until they climb out after upwards of 40-60 mins flying
There is no problem wearing this kit whatsoever for the operative so lets quash that rumour.
There MAY be an issue with freedom of movement around the cabin and contact with objects in the proximity of said wearer.
It is not a major issue with our EC135 but I could understand with other tighter older types (355 etc). The back seat dont have this problem.
The sticking point has been certifying the cockpit and pilot for NVIS (as observers are passengers and can do whatever they like without restrictions).
It is this which has taken 7+ yrs and counting.
With the exception of Devon and Cornwall who are fully NVIS compatible since 1995 I think (old certification process), no-one in the UK can fly civvy crew NVIS yet. But next week could see the first operator doing just that under the new regs.
Stage 1 allows for NVIS above 500' only and stage II for t/o and l/o (i.e. full flight NVIS).
Operators will have to demonstrate their experience with stage 1 first before being approved to go to stage II (by the CAA).
Common sense has arrived at platform number 1 at last.....
TC - 40-60 mins won't make your neck ache so if that is the normal sortie length then there should be no problem. When you have them on for several hours at a time there is a real issue, having a 500g weight and a set of goggles on your head as you are vibrated through the bumpy sky certainly does get tiring - it's not a rumour.
Hopefully the PAOM is the first step in towards getting Civvy SAR on goggles and HEMs as well.
Hopefully the PAOM is the first step in towards getting Civvy SAR on goggles and HEMs as well.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep - Can't believe you said that TC. Wearing goggles most definitely puts strain on the neck, it doesn't matter how much you 'balance' them - If the operator doesn't have his head and neck in the vertical plane i.e.; spends time peering out of the window its going to get sore.... Not sure about how the CAAs limits of seven hours flying in ten is going to stack up either when every minute is apparently going to be flown on NVG? Five sounds better but it probably more of a H&S issue.
Ariston also has a point - How does the pilot stow the goggles?
Ariston also has a point - How does the pilot stow the goggles?