Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The colour does matter! Non NVG compatible colours/reflective tape etc will cause reflections in the windshield that can be seen through the goggles. The importance depends on how you operate. The worst case being if you are operating under very difficult conditions, e.g. over the sea with a total cloud cover (IMC, but with some visibility). Under such conditons you will be able to see reflections from white paper on your kneepad, of your hand (if you remove your gloves), etc.
However, for operations under most VFR night conditions it will not be a major factor.
However, for operations under most VFR night conditions it will not be a major factor.
Last edited by Broadcast Control; 12th May 2006 at 21:47.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Whatlimit!
I must confess that I haven't recently operated over the sea, NVG with total cloud cover, IMC but with some vis
, and I defer to your experience in this area.
In a more benign environment, I have flown with a shiny helmet and reflective tape without any problem....
Food for thought.....
I must confess that I haven't recently operated over the sea, NVG with total cloud cover, IMC but with some vis
, and I defer to your experience in this area.In a more benign environment, I have flown with a shiny helmet and reflective tape without any problem....
Food for thought.....
Thanks for the responses.
So, it seems that colours are important in the lower viz, less illum nights, but no so important on high illum high viz nights?
How about the reflective stripes on typical EMS uniforms?
Have any of the respondants actually flown NVG with different colored helmets and/or reflective tape in the civ environment?
So, it seems that colours are important in the lower viz, less illum nights, but no so important on high illum high viz nights?
How about the reflective stripes on typical EMS uniforms?
Have any of the respondants actually flown NVG with different colored helmets and/or reflective tape in the civ environment?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the guys at the VicPol Airwing conducted their 'industry' trial in a 365 N3, with white glossy helmets, (Alpha) and reflective tape...police chequer style.
You would probably need to confirm this with MT down there....
You would probably need to confirm this with MT down there....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My arse crack
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a list stating which pair is the better for the PIC to wear when the crew have dissimilar NVGs?
I personnally feel they should all wear the same then they are all on the same playing field. Once you start having members of the crew using different bits of equipment its a reciepe for disaster.
I personnally feel they should all wear the same then they are all on the same playing field. Once you start having members of the crew using different bits of equipment its a reciepe for disaster.
Capt Undies,
I am sure you are not suprised to learn that the dissimilar goggles piece was quite contentious at the working group meetings. The example Delta Tq uses, and feelings that were similar to yours were expressed and defended, however to date, there has not been a safety case mounted against using dissimilar goggles. On the flip side, there were several cases put forward in support of the current wording.
It was not felt practical at the working group level to create a hierarchical list rating the different models, but to refer to the gain, resolution and acuity specs as the primary driver for what would be considered "higher level" NVG. In addition, the operator is compelled to rank the NVG in the Ops Manual, and must therefore present a case for this ranking to be reviewed by CASA. The operator must also do a specific risk management appraisal, and develop procedures when using dissimilar NVG.
I am sure you are not suprised to learn that the dissimilar goggles piece was quite contentious at the working group meetings. The example Delta Tq uses, and feelings that were similar to yours were expressed and defended, however to date, there has not been a safety case mounted against using dissimilar goggles. On the flip side, there were several cases put forward in support of the current wording.
It was not felt practical at the working group level to create a hierarchical list rating the different models, but to refer to the gain, resolution and acuity specs as the primary driver for what would be considered "higher level" NVG. In addition, the operator is compelled to rank the NVG in the Ops Manual, and must therefore present a case for this ranking to be reviewed by CASA. The operator must also do a specific risk management appraisal, and develop procedures when using dissimilar NVG.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not sound logic, Helmut...
Just because no one has mounted a safety case against a preferred course of action does not make that course of action a sound one.
Using dissimilar goggles in the cockpit is just wrong! (IN MY OPINION..)
It flies in the face of contemporary protocols of cockpit scanning responsibilities...and also undermines the foundation of CRM. Surely you must agree with this?
These issues were put to bed by the US Army in the 80's, and also the Australian Defence Force...when only ANPVS5 and ANVIS 6 were available...mixing tubes up front is not the answer.....
Just because no one has mounted a safety case against a preferred course of action does not make that course of action a sound one.
Using dissimilar goggles in the cockpit is just wrong! (IN MY OPINION..)
It flies in the face of contemporary protocols of cockpit scanning responsibilities...and also undermines the foundation of CRM. Surely you must agree with this?
These issues were put to bed by the US Army in the 80's, and also the Australian Defence Force...when only ANPVS5 and ANVIS 6 were available...mixing tubes up front is not the answer.....
DT, You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I think it is always appropriate for the development of new standards/regulations to be continually questioned. I am not being condescending. Your opinion has been repeated by several members at the working group level many times, but eventually when determining standards there must be some tangible reason for doing things or imposing restrictions. Just because we used to do it that way in our military is not a reason to impose a restriction. It is a reason to very carefully examine why you would elect to remove such restrictions - and that is what happened. The result was a safety case in support of dissimilar goggles, and no case against. We are all ears to any case against, it's just that no one has presented a tangible reason - yet.
None of these rules, the pilot training, dissimilar goggles, weather mins, etc, etc have to be imposed on your particular organisation. The current CAAP proposal actually spells out that operators should build their own levels on top of the minimums published in the CAAP, and you are quite able to (indeed encouraged too) impose your opinions for training increases and dissimilar goggles onto your own organisation. It is just that we felt the industry needed a more substantive reason for the creation and imposition of a MINIMUM standard.
What I am really curious about is why you pooh pooh the idea because it
without even considering why Greg, Mike, Daff, Bails, Tony, and Dan may have come to a different conclusion - and I am not saying they all did. Then lastly, how did that position get ratified by the industry if it is so obviously wrong?
I will rise to your emotive bait of CRM and what is required up the front only if you make it juicier by explaining what you are on about. Slowly please.....I obviously dont understand the basics of CRM.
None of these rules, the pilot training, dissimilar goggles, weather mins, etc, etc have to be imposed on your particular organisation. The current CAAP proposal actually spells out that operators should build their own levels on top of the minimums published in the CAAP, and you are quite able to (indeed encouraged too) impose your opinions for training increases and dissimilar goggles onto your own organisation. It is just that we felt the industry needed a more substantive reason for the creation and imposition of a MINIMUM standard.
What I am really curious about is why you pooh pooh the idea because it
is just wrong
I will rise to your emotive bait of CRM and what is required up the front only if you make it juicier by explaining what you are on about. Slowly please.....I obviously dont understand the basics of CRM.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, Rob 
Helmut,
Sorry, I forgot you were a CRM peddler....I would have thought the adverse gradient caused by the right seat pilot (ANVIS 9) descending into the confined area with confidence, with the left seat pilot (reject I*T tubes on Chinese 'Night Eagle' mounts) looking at video noise would constitute a valid CRM issue. Thats not emotive......
But..yeah....no one has submitted a safety case against....so by your logic...all is OK...
And producing a laundry list of people who support your case does not, in itself constitute a valid argument.
Must fly..
Cheers...
P.S. On your point regarding 'the military'....'the military' have used NVGs pretty much from day one (Gen2) , and they have had many years of operations, during which they have identified the pitfalls and benefits of this equipment...often at great cost...not just economic cost...
I say again...why re invent the wheel? Do you think the military operate NVG as they do for financial considerations or flight safety? Are you just going to discard years of military development as 'anecdotal', because it does not fit your criteria for a safety case?
Come on m8!
Helmut,
Sorry, I forgot you were a CRM peddler....I would have thought the adverse gradient caused by the right seat pilot (ANVIS 9) descending into the confined area with confidence, with the left seat pilot (reject I*T tubes on Chinese 'Night Eagle' mounts) looking at video noise would constitute a valid CRM issue. Thats not emotive......
But..yeah....no one has submitted a safety case against....so by your logic...all is OK...
And producing a laundry list of people who support your case does not, in itself constitute a valid argument.
Must fly..
Cheers...
P.S. On your point regarding 'the military'....'the military' have used NVGs pretty much from day one (Gen2) , and they have had many years of operations, during which they have identified the pitfalls and benefits of this equipment...often at great cost...not just economic cost...
I say again...why re invent the wheel? Do you think the military operate NVG as they do for financial considerations or flight safety? Are you just going to discard years of military development as 'anecdotal', because it does not fit your criteria for a safety case?
Come on m8!
Last edited by Delta Torque; 15th May 2006 at 02:58.
Come on mate??? Ok then....
Dulta Torquu: still you fail to even seek an understanding of what the case for dissimilar NVG is, you just repeat the fact that 'the military' dont! The argument you pose is in fact a "Straw Man Argument" (google will help if you dont know what I am on about).
Why are you not even interested in the counter argument? Or the reasons why the "laundry list" of people have accepted there is a case for dissimilar NVG?
Even though I accept that I am unlikely to convince you, I will attempt to explain to others reading this thread what might really constitute a reason for the adoption of dissimilar goggles - not just unfounded hysteria about some military cultures. If you think that your statement is, in any form, a "safety case" then we need to sit down and have a few beers. Again I extend that invitation to you mate, its well over due.
Lets first look at Dulta's argument:
I would have thought the adverse gradient caused by the right seat pilot (ANVIS 9) descending into the confined area with confidence, with the left seat pilot (reject I*T tubes on Chinese 'Night Eagle' mounts) looking at video noise would constitute a valid CRM issue. Thats not emotive......
1. Two people in the front is not a requirement. Nor is two pilots.
2. Reject tubes are illegal.
But lets, play along anyway......
What Dulta is saying is that one crewmember on goggle set A may not be able to see anything, whilst the pilot on better set B, can see. What could they do? ....um how about:
Crewmember on left says simply "Lost visual reference left, not clear in, go around"
Would that work? Just a thought.
You want "adverse gradient" created by someone who is visual and someone who isnt? Try a nitesun approach right now, under current rules and regs. The pilot flys in looking down nitesun beam,...and left seat sees what???? How on earth has everyone coped with this situation to date? Maybe they all need to stop. Maybe they are all CRM disasters.
But the other important aspect that is implied in Dulta's argument is when we examine the really bad NVG sets Dulta is freaking out about. NVG MUST meet the following spec (maybe he missed that bit):
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.
Also, each model number proposed will have to be included on the STC, procedures developed for dissimilar use, and a risk management plan created.
Thus the "poor set" can be no poorer than the minimum acceptable set. In other words, all crewmembers must be using NVG that meets or exceeds the standards. But now we get to the really radical bit about "outcomes" vs "prescription" and how this aspect is affected by Dulta's argument.
The outcome of banning dissimilar NVG would be that everyone gets stuck on the bottom level of the capability, because as new technology becomes available, it gets more expensive. Only now, in Dulta's world because we have banned dissimilar NVG, we cannot afford to replace all company sets at once with this new technology - therefore the "outcome" is that we will have to stay with the older technology.
But, if dissimilar NVG were permitted, the "outcome" will be that we would be able to replace individual sets with newer technology as funding and attrition allow - the "outcome" being that new technology is adopted and operations gain safety.
Rewind to Dulta's argument and apply its outcome to his scenario: both have to wear the same level of NVG. Therefore both (instead of one non-flying crewmember) see just "video noise". No-one gets to see clearly.
Um,....how is that safer?
DT's final quote was equally devoid of a safety case (nearly everybody's concept of one any way). . He has repeated over and over again how the military dont do dissimilar NVG. We hear you mate. Repeating mantras without evidence is not a safety case to be used for the imposition of restrictions...oh, there I go again as well!
DT said:
Do you think the military operate NVG as they do for financial considerations or flight safety? Are you just going to discard years of military development as 'anecdotal', because it does not fit your criteria for a safety case?
Yes, the military had years of development - but that does not add credence to your assertion that dissimilar NVG are dangerous until you can substantiate WHY they dont do it. On the working group were 6 pilots and two Aircrewmen who are NVG military qualified NVG instrcutors. All but the two CASA pilots instruct in the civil industry. Not ONE of those present could identify why the military did not fly dissimilar NVG. Indeed, TWO of them have for MORE THAN 10 YEARS flown in the "the military" WITH DISSIMILAR NVG.
Is it possible that some military forces with years and years of NVG development think it is quite acceptable to fly with dissimilar NVG? Havent they heard it isn't safe? Is it possible that the military you grew up in is not the only professional military in the world?
I say again...why re invent the wheel?
In the same way, why are we in Australia re-inventing an international set of standards at all? BTW I thought you were a military man DT. The military operate NVG for mission capability, not flight safety nor for financial reasons. Another "Straw Man". The flight safety benefits only came to light when they tried to take them off again
Thank you for the opportunity of explaining some of the more contraversial outcomes of the working group proposals. Tomorrow we can start on Single pilot V dual pilot if you like.
Cease fire. But I wont safe up just yet!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the Love of God!
Helmut is right. His arguements are well reasoned and more to the point bolstered by fact. It is obvious that this has been his "lifes work" for the past few years.
It is clear that we are no closer to achieving NVG & EMS for the present. This is a real shame because it aint that hard.
Keep at it.
Max
It is clear that we are no closer to achieving NVG & EMS for the present. This is a real shame because it aint that hard.
Keep at it.
Max
Well said - lets get on with it...
Maxeemum,
I agree.
Also, I have about three year's experience and was an instructor on these and later used radar/flir SAR systems to compare. NVG win in most cases.
There is no magic solution - just hard work and study.
Much the same as learning to do an ILS approach, ya just gotta accept state of the art and be good at it - with care!
Helmetfire and his helpers have put a great amount of effort, thought and research into this project, with little success from above. I trust their judgement totally.
I have just come home from NZ, and chatted with some HEMS people. They say maybe night HEMS flights should not be launched unless you have NVG! This may become a rule?
Lets put pressure on the regulator to give their people the will and resources to get this importnat project finished.
I wonder how many years it took to get steam engines into Australia in the nineteenth century?
I agree.
Also, I have about three year's experience and was an instructor on these and later used radar/flir SAR systems to compare. NVG win in most cases.
There is no magic solution - just hard work and study.
Much the same as learning to do an ILS approach, ya just gotta accept state of the art and be good at it - with care!
Helmetfire and his helpers have put a great amount of effort, thought and research into this project, with little success from above. I trust their judgement totally.
I have just come home from NZ, and chatted with some HEMS people. They say maybe night HEMS flights should not be launched unless you have NVG! This may become a rule?
Lets put pressure on the regulator to give their people the will and resources to get this importnat project finished.
I wonder how many years it took to get steam engines into Australia in the nineteenth century?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that was a bit of a barrage...thanks Always brings a smile to my face! But have you really said anything here? I get exhausted just reading your responses!
1. I didn't THINK I was being hysterical.....but hey...if that's how it came across.
2. With the exception of Mike, and maybe Dan (who I don't know) I don't think you guys have had any experience in a dissimilar goggles environment. Correct me if I'm wrong here...maybe ANVIS 5 1/2 + 6 at worst?
3. I would have to agree with you on the nitesun argument, but then again, that was not my argument....
4. Did I really have to explain the (Western) military's safety case for similar goggles?...did I really?
5. And my name is not Dulta...
Cheers.......
P.S. Thanks for your input Maxeemum...but there are sections of the industry, who are on the verge of getting airborne, NVG style....it will happen sooner than you think...
Always brings a smile to my face! But have you really said anything here? I get exhausted just reading your responses!1. I didn't THINK I was being hysterical.....but hey...if that's how it came across.
2. With the exception of Mike, and maybe Dan (who I don't know) I don't think you guys have had any experience in a dissimilar goggles environment. Correct me if I'm wrong here...maybe ANVIS 5 1/2 + 6 at worst?
3. I would have to agree with you on the nitesun argument, but then again, that was not my argument....
4. Did I really have to explain the (Western) military's safety case for similar goggles?...did I really?
5. And my name is not Dulta...
Cheers.......
P.S. Thanks for your input Maxeemum...but there are sections of the industry, who are on the verge of getting airborne, NVG style....it will happen sooner than you think...
Last edited by Delta Torque; 15th May 2006 at 11:05.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by helmet fire
BTW I thought you were a military man DT. The military operate NVG for mission capability, not flight safety nor for financial reasons.
Cease fire. But I wont safe up just yet!
It was a genuine invitatoin to come and have a beer.
The idea of engaging in this discussion is to examine the arguments in the cold light of day, make sure everyone can find out what is proposed, and to get the info out. All this so we can pick out the weaknesses in the industry proposal and help make it safer.
So, did I say anything in my last post? Not, it seems, for you.
1. Hysterical. That's sort of how it came across in those more emotive bits you used.
2. You did ask me to correct you: dissimilar also aplies to Omnibus II and Omnibus IV, and now Omnibus VII and in the future..who knows? 2 people of the group have more than 10 years doing it in a WESTERN military- whatever you may "think" about that. "Dan" is Dan Tyler. Not one of the two.
3. The nitesun is exactly your argument. 1 pilot can see, the other cannot.
4. Did you "have" to explain it??? I must of missed where you even attempted to explain it. You didn't look up Straw Man did you?
5. I was using your name-spell-checker
Seems a few "e"s get "u"ed.
Cheers,
The idea of engaging in this discussion is to examine the arguments in the cold light of day, make sure everyone can find out what is proposed, and to get the info out. All this so we can pick out the weaknesses in the industry proposal and help make it safer.
So, did I say anything in my last post? Not, it seems, for you.
1. Hysterical. That's sort of how it came across in those more emotive bits you used.
2. You did ask me to correct you: dissimilar also aplies to Omnibus II and Omnibus IV, and now Omnibus VII and in the future..who knows? 2 people of the group have more than 10 years doing it in a WESTERN military- whatever you may "think" about that. "Dan" is Dan Tyler. Not one of the two.
3. The nitesun is exactly your argument. 1 pilot can see, the other cannot.
4. Did you "have" to explain it??? I must of missed where you even attempted to explain it. You didn't look up Straw Man did you?
5. I was using your name-spell-checker
Seems a few "e"s get "u"ed.Cheers,
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by helmet fire
4. Did you "have" to explain it??? I must of missed where you even attempted to explain it. You didn't look up Straw Man did you?
5. I was using your name-spell-checker
Seems a few "e"s get "u"ed.Cheers,
5. Wot?
P.S. I don't think you can really claim victim status in the 'Straw Man' context here hombre!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maxeemum
Helmut is right. His arguements are well reasoned and more to the point bolstered by fact. It is obvious that this has been his "lifes work" for the past few years.
Max
Max
Good day to you sir!