Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)

[helmet fire]

G'day CYHeli,
The original document was directed by the CEO's office of CASA to be a CAAP (or possibly a revised CMI) for NVG. Therefore, the document evolved through less formal public input than the NPRM process. It was widely circulated through the HAA to everyone that attended either of the HAA conferences, and then on to all industry people that had an email contact available, including through to NZ. Comment was recieved and collated, a final draft compiled, and this was distributed, discussed, ammended, and finally ratified by 60 odd people at the May 2005 night conference. A published complete paper was sent to CASA in a outcomes based CMI format by July 2005 as promised, with publication of the CAAP comitted to by CASA of 1st September 2005.

We are still going through the process to publication now. That is not to say comment has finished, but it is late in the picture and thus my call for a demonstrated or evidentiary safety case rather than just a "feeling" at this stage in the process. The NPRM was assesed by CASA as unecessary for a CAAP given the wide distribution and comment already recieved. That may change as CASA are now trying to change the format to a prescriptive CAO.

Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.

[Delta Torque]

Thanks for the reply..

'Hellfire' was firmly tongue in cheek...don't be so touchy...

I hear what you say, but I still think you are expecting too much of an outcome for the training you propose.... but these are only personal opinions, and time will tell.

Good to see Rob and others lending their support to this very important issue.

Cheers....

[helmet fire]

Delta, your humour is almost as well hidden as your evidence backing your contentions. In fact, if I have you pegged correctly, it was you that once told me opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one. Especially those who are as articulate as you. And I am no diifferent - I too have an arsehole and an opinion.

If you really don't mean offence, I suggest you review the tone of your responses. Posting the correct and intended emotion into the written word is difficult, and you can rectiify miss-understandings with clarity when you see it as not had the desired effect. If you want to. You know where to reach me and talk it through.

But I must say, I really take offence at your last remark:

and time will tell

The last resort. Sounds like something we have heard at the working group meetings.
So, you have not constructively put forward a safety case or in fact any evidence that the proposal is flawed, but all is not lost: simply pop in a little parting shot just to show you know best, and just so you can say to the rest of the international industry who created this "I told you so, I knew best and you have it all wrong".

And you are right! Because if anyone has not yet made the leap, there IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE A NVG ACCIDENT. Same as there are day accidents (hold on, maybe we should not fly during the day), NVFR (lets stop doing this as well), and IFR (insert smart-arse comment here too.)

And when it does happen, we can forget all those lives saved because of the technology, and focus on the fact that "we were warned". Delta told us. There was no evidence for his position, but he just, ..well, he just knew the rest of the world was wrong. And see...he was right.

Just wait for the people to stand around the first smoking hole pointing with self justification. Where were they when Paddy smacked in at Malborough, or Andy off Mackay? When....etc, etc, etc.

I will try not to rise to any more of these baits.

I do stress again to anyone intrested, PLEASE put forward any safety case you have to alter the standards NOW before they become published. Any evidentary arguement. Any substantive, reasoned, factual issues at all. w-ocker, (f I have him pegged) actually took the time to do this over icing levels and his contention was adopted.

BTW, I am happy to post the other areas of the proposal if anyone is intrested, including crewman training, equipment levels, or whatever you are concerned or intrested in.

Thank you Rob for the tireless efforts you have put into the NVG issue. The industry owes you many beers.

[Delta Torque]

No, I don't think I was the fellow who made the remark about opinions and arseholes....but I would agree with that observation...I have a similar saying regarding 'advice'....that's my favourite, but nothing to do with this exchange!

But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....

The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...

Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!

And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...



If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim?

It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....

Does that make me narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...

Does that make me wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..

Does that make me an...an..an.....ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!

Keep up the good work!


And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....

Cheers...

[robsrich]

United we stand - divided we fall!

Keep your eye on the ball!

A lot of young pilots today need our leadership, vision and guidance to see this project through.

Helmet Fire is right, we have talked enough. Unless a safety case exists to change things, then let us run with the ball - there is no perfectly round ball. (Even the earth is a bit suspect, with the odd out of shape bits.)

You can only do so many circuits during a confined area landing site recce ... otherwise you run out of gas?

[Delta Torque]

I hear what you are saying Rob...

The next few months will be interesting...

Cheers...

[topendtorque]

Goggles

You guys are taking a god-awful long time to work out something very fundamental.

It has aready been talked about ad-lib and ad-nauseum in this thread. It is the mental bloc in CASA, the one that believes you only drink night time.

I - drink at night because I fly day time, my instructor, my God, his rules.

You - turn night into day with one of these u-beaut goggles.

Then- guess what? No rules to stop daytime drinking.

Surely- not all of CASA are wowsers?

Remedy - take them out all night googling,

At daylight - buy them a round or two,

They will then sleep – and look to do it all again - finish!

[helmet fire]

I remain able to post other proposed areas of the NVG stuff if anyone is interested.

[MPT]

G'day hf,

I noticed that RB was present at the HAA night conference. Has any consideration been given to the use of NVG's in the area where most night hours are flown in Australia, i.e. marine pilot transfers. I had a long conversation with a couple of ex army guys a while back and they couldn't believe that these operations were carried out unaided. I suppose the cost of the gear would be a mitigating factor to its introduction.

Cheers,

MPT

[helmet fire]

G'day MPT. Yep, Ross has been one of those that has contributed by input and suggestions during the process, and is still making contributions.

The current HAA position ratified at the last meeting by 60 odd attendees was that since NVG are a safety device, all categories of night operations should have access to them. A safety case for restricting NVG to say just Police, or EMS, has yet to surface, the US allow all categories, and having 15 years of civ ops is considered enough of a trial period, hence the industry position.

CASA, understandably, would like the introduction of NVG to go slowly, and their current position is to restrict NVG to police/EMS/SAR/Marine Pilot Transfer (or MPT as if you didn't know ). This difference should be resolved in the next month or so, and I would see a compromise as being an initial restriction that is lifted over time as NVG use matures.

The cost of a cockpit is now between $20,000 and $110,000 AUS (or more) depending upon what sort of solution you want. Simple floodlighting on a single is $20K and up, through to an existing STC on a medium twin right up to a fully military covert style cockpit mod (no floodlighting, individual instruments modified, external lighting as well, etc) of well over the $100,000 mark. A factory option is the most expensive, with NVG compatiblility factory fitted on the AW-139 being rumoured to be as much as $300,000 US!

Current proposals covering the use of NVG in MPT and other over water ops reads (remember this is NOT the final draft: just the current proposal and a ratified industry position modified by CASA requirements):

Over water and Shipboard Operations.
Due to the difficulty of accurate height assessment when using NVG over water, Operators intending to allow such operations (including for operations to/from ships, vessels, small islands, platforms, etc) are to establish relevant procedures in the Operations Manual, including a risk management plan. Some of the risk factors that might be considered are (but should not be limited to):
• Illumination levels and hover references,
• Surface disturbance and/or floating objects,
• Hover Vs forward speed,
• Autopilot, auto hover functions and stability systems,
• Training and recency requirements,
• Landing site Lighting compatibility, movement and size, and/or
• Sea state and wind.

[w_ocker]

A question for you HF. What is the skinny on NVG recency/currency requirements/ suggestions?

[helmet fire]

For currency/recency, we had to bridge a gap, or at least try to. The SC-196 came up with an "events" based currency/recency, an event being a take off or landing whilst being the sole manipulator of the controls. As this terminology and implementation was such a new concept, the industry rejected it in favour of a more traditional system based on hours. The last modification done was to recognise that NVG experience is valuable, like the point that Delta TQ was making, and we split currency/recency based on experience. This also aligns with the Oz Army who have tighter requirements on the more junior guys. It was then mapped around the IFR and NVFR 90 day cycle as a start point.

Note that you also have to be current/recent for the operation for NVFR (and IFR if that's what you are). Again the disclaimer: this is NOT the final draft: just the current proposal and a ratified industry position modified by CASA requirements.

NVG Pilots must meet the minimum following recency, or a NVG proficiency check flight will be required:

Less than 100 hours NVG Flight Time as a Pilot

NVG Flight time: 3 hours for command pilots, 1 hour for co-pilots in last 3 months OR proficiency check in last 3 months. 3 hours in 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.
NVG Proficiency Check: 6 monthly. Annually if over 100 hours NVG.
For Ops below 500ft AGL: 3 takeoffs, circuits and landings in last 3 months. In 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.
For ops to HLS other than a Standard HLS for NVG: 3 takeoffs, circuits and landings to an unlit HLS devoid of surrounding cultural lighting in 3 months – can be done unaided. An area is considered devoid of cultural lighting if, at 500 ft AGL, there is insufficient ground lights to maintain an unaided visible horizon. In 6 months if over 100 hours NVG.

NVG Aircrew Members must also meet the minimum following recency, or an NVG proficiency check flight will be required:

Less than 50 hours NVG Flight Time:
NVG Flight time: 2 hours in last 3 months OR proficiency check in last 3 months. @ hours in last 6 months if over 50 hours NVG.
NVG Proficiency Check: 6 monthly. Annually if over 50 hours NVG.
For ops (including winch or sling) to a HLS other than a Standard HLS for NVG: 2 NVG takeoffs, circuits and landings, to an unlit HLS devoid of surrounding cultural lighting in 3 months. An area is considered devoid of cultural lighting if, at 500 ft AGL, there is insufficient ground lights to maintain an unaided visible horizon. In 6 months for over 50 hours NVG.

These proposals come with the call to tailor the minimums to the operation, such that a non instrument rated operation may add IF currency, or you may choose to use the 100 hour reductions only with 100 hours PIC. This will be operator dependant.

[helmet fire]

I have recieved a few calls requesting the proposed crewman standards for NVG in Aus, and here they are. All comments welcome, but substantiated safety-case based ones especially welcome!

Delta TQ: did you have any specific comments on the pilot standards proposed above, other than insufficient hours? Do they make you feel any more comfortable with all the controls detailed?


Of considerable debate was the percieved need for Aircrew Members to have some sort of medical, and I would like some feedback on that issue from crewmen. As CASA has not yet licenced or controlled crewmen training, qualifications, duty times, etc the ratified industry position is as below: only those standards required by the operator need be met.

The PROPOSED Aircrewman Standards:
NVG Aircrew Member Instructor. It is recognised that there are currently no formal qualifications or licensing requirements in other legislation detailing the Aircrew Member. Until such formal recognition is achieved, operators who intend using a NVG Qualified Aircrew Member to fulfil the NVG minimum crew requirements shall ensure that the position and duties of an NVG Aircrew Member Instructor are formally recognised in their Operations Manual. The NVG Aircrew Member Instructor may be a pilot or Aircrew Member, but must meet the following minimum qualifications/experience:
i. Meet the minimum qualification requirements of an NVG Qualified Aircrew Member or NVG Qualified Pilot.
ii. Meet instructional experience, standards, and qualification requirements as stipulated in the Operations Manual for day and night (unaided) operations for the relevant crew position, and type of operation (i.e. observation, SAR, winch, or sling, etc).
iii. Have logged at least 20 hours of NVG Flight Time post a CASA recognised NVG qualification.

NVG Aircrew Member. Operators who intend using an Aircrew Member to fulfil the NVG minimum crew requirements shall ensure that the duties and position must be formally recognised in their Operations Manual. NVG Qualified Aircrew Members must meet the following minimum qualifications/experience:
i. Meet experience, standards, and qualification requirements as stipulated in the relevant Operations Manual for day and night (unaided) operations for the relevant crew position.
ii. Meets existing physical and medical standards prescribed by the operator’s Operations Manual.
iii. Have logged at least 50 hours flight time as an Aircrew Member post qualification.
iv. Have logged at least 10 hours night (unaided) flight time as an Aircrew Member, 5 hours of which must have been conducted in the 3 months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating.

NVG Aircrew Member (Helicopter) Flight Training – 2.0 hours minimum NVG flight time.
The intent is to achieve competency in an NVG Aircrew Member to safely and effectively assist an NVG Pilot during take off, flight and navigation en-route across country, and descent, reconnoitre and landing or hovering to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG. Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 2 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon away from significant cultural lighting.
A trainee NVG Aircrew Member must be NVFR current and recent prior to commencement of NVG training flights, and is to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences. Training may be conducted concurrent to NVG pilot training, however, due consideration should be given to time lost to individual trainees on the same flight.
It is recognised that many operators will have a requirement for the Aircrew Member to fulfil other duties outside the basic provision of scan sector observation such as aided winching, or cockpit duties, etc whilst under NVG. Those operators should build instructional sequences and time to these basic minimums to achieve those competencies.

[Delta Torque]

Yes, m8...

Certainly moving in the right direction...

What are your current cockpit and goggle specs?

Cheers...

[Capt Under Pants]

Have you all seen the latest Rotor & Wing on NVG and EVS (Enhanced Vision Systems)?

[helmet fire]

have not seen the R&W articles yet, thanks for the heads up.

Delta TQ: The tech specs currently prooposed are quite different from the industry ratified proposal, and this new position was adopted by the HAA members of the working group in response to the safety case put forward by the CASA members - the only safety case they have so far made.

note that no NVG are yet qualified under the TSO, but the standard basically requires Omnibus II or higher.

Here is the current proposal, and unlike other areas is essentially agreed to by both CASA and Industry members (well done Charles Lenarcic from CASA Airworthiness):

NVG Equipment Standard
The minimum NVG standard is that stipulated by FAA TSO C164 dated 30 September 2004, or a CASA approved equivalent in terms of resolution, acuity, gain and reliability.

Front seat crewmembers with flight control access using NVG must utilize an approved head mounting device for the NVG to enable “hands free” aided flight.

NVG Maintenance. All NVG used during NVG Flights shall be maintained, stored, and checked for serviceability prior to NVG flight in accordance with the manufacturers requirements and procedures.

Use of Dissimilar NVG. The pilot in command is to wear the highest level (in terms of resolution, gain, and acuity) of goggle where dissimilar types are used in the aircraft.

B]Aircraft NVG Compatible Lighting Standard [/B]

Before an aircraft can be used in NVG operations the Aircraft lighting systems are to be modified to be NVG Compatible. Unless a more suitable design can be demonstrated to the Authority, the design of the NVG lighting modification is to be based on the requirements of RTCA Document DO-275, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Integrated Night Vision Imaging System Equipment. The requirements of MIL-STD-3009 Aircraft, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Compatible Lighting may also be used where appropriate. A CAR 35 Authorised Person is to submit a design advice to the Authority in accordance with existing procedures.

An Operator intending to conduct NVG Flights or Operations must establish approved procedures for the ongoing maintenance, inspection, and serviceability criteria for the incorporated NVG system (including the NVG itself) to appear in their relevant system of maintenance. This must include a method for assessing NVG compatibility for subsequent aircraft modifications or equipment introduction/repair.

Pursuant to CAR 196, the pilot in command may turn off non NVG compatible exterior lights if they adversely affect the operation of the NVG and the PIC is satisfied that there is no collision risk with other aircraft.

Minimum NVG Aircraft Equipment

In addition to legislated NVFR or IFR equipment as applicable, the following additional equipment must be carried for NVG Operations;

A serviceable radar altimeter with a display providing both an instantaneous impression of absolute height and rate of change of height which requires minimal interpretation and incorporating an audio and visual warning system to each control seat position that indicates the aircraft has descended below an in-flight adjustable height, and

For NVG operations to/from a Standard HLS for NVG or above 500ft AGL, a serviceable pilot steerable searchlight adjustable in both pitch and azimuth from the flight controls. For other NVG operations, in order to counter the risk of NVG failure at low altitude, operators fitting NVG compatible IR Filtered searchlights are to either:
a. be capable of reverting immediately to a non filtered search/landing light, OR
b. carry two pilots with access to the flight controls.
Note: NVG Operations do not absolve any operator of the obligation to carry additional equipment required to meet class of night operation, i.e. charter, airwork, etc.

[helmet fire]

NVG Helmet colours

I have been asked several times about the preferred helmet colour for NVG operations, but I really dont have a clue...can anyone help?

Having a military NVG background, colour was not a choice. But in the civ world, there are those who say only matt colours like grey and olive are acceptable, and others who say it really doesn't matter. Some say you need to get rid of all the reflective tape, and others say it makes no difference.

On the face of it, if you have compatible lighting, does it really matter if the helmet is refective because it is reflecting compatible light? Or, does it hinder NVG ops when you are using non compatible external lights like landing, winch, and position lights?

Anyone have experience with this?

[Delta Torque]

Yep...good..

Though I am surprised that CL signed off on the use of dissimilar goggles...

IIRC, the US Army decided that this was not a good idea in the '80s

[Delta Torque]

?

It doesn't matter...none of that helmet stuff is hot...and won't affect a decent tube

Your peripheral vision should be able to cope with any stray reflectivity.

[996]

As DT said - however if you are thinking about ambient cockpit light reflecting from the helmet surface to the cockpit perspex's - I would'nt worry it is unlikely to be visible through the tubes. I'd go for the colour based on other considerations.