Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Sunnywa - I reckon the reason you have found the transition to NVG so easy is because you have done it all properly (lighting, training etc)
You're right - it isn't black magic or for SF ops only but you must have the right equipment and be properly prepared - I hope all the other civilian operators around the world follow your lead.
You're right - it isn't black magic or for SF ops only but you must have the right equipment and be properly prepared - I hope all the other civilian operators around the world follow your lead.
Hi folks,
read the thread with interest.
5 hrs training seems to littlte for me.
Having done more than 600 hrs on NVG in the last few years I experienced, that all scary moments in the last years were with NVG on.....
(and we operate with a two pilot plus FLIR-operator crew- NVG certified helos)
Doing real missions with live on stack you´re surely go closer to the limits - and at night with NVG they are not always that clear to determine.
As long as the wheather is good, there are only a few trapdoors which can get you.
(i.e. a car with coming up a hill and blinding you with the frontlights)
Wheater bad or getting bad i.e. due to cooling and upcoming mist or just low cloud and rain in the valleys, can make you whish to be on the ground instead of the air....
Mistwetter - fotocommunity.de
Photo was taken before take off after an outsidelanding such a night. You might see, where the clouds were on take off - at the time of the landing, they were lower.
And winter is about to come - snow and NVG a very special adventure itself....
Single Pilot NVG operations is only an accident to be waited for cause your eyes need time to focus between looking inside for instruments - and outside again through NVG.
In case of any emergency you´ll get problems finding switches and fuses with the NVG on, handling the emergency while still have to fly the helo.
Imagine i.e. a birdstrike - yes, there are also birds around flying at night!
In all these cases, a second guy with NVG in the front and with very good aircraft knowledge - best a pilot - could save your butt.
I wouldn´t like to fly tactical single pilot cause I have experienced the value of a second pilot!
Greetings Flying Bull
read the thread with interest.
5 hrs training seems to littlte for me.
Having done more than 600 hrs on NVG in the last few years I experienced, that all scary moments in the last years were with NVG on.....
(and we operate with a two pilot plus FLIR-operator crew- NVG certified helos)
Doing real missions with live on stack you´re surely go closer to the limits - and at night with NVG they are not always that clear to determine.
As long as the wheather is good, there are only a few trapdoors which can get you.
(i.e. a car with coming up a hill and blinding you with the frontlights)
Wheater bad or getting bad i.e. due to cooling and upcoming mist or just low cloud and rain in the valleys, can make you whish to be on the ground instead of the air....
Mistwetter - fotocommunity.de
Photo was taken before take off after an outsidelanding such a night. You might see, where the clouds were on take off - at the time of the landing, they were lower.
And winter is about to come - snow and NVG a very special adventure itself....
Single Pilot NVG operations is only an accident to be waited for cause your eyes need time to focus between looking inside for instruments - and outside again through NVG.
In case of any emergency you´ll get problems finding switches and fuses with the NVG on, handling the emergency while still have to fly the helo.
Imagine i.e. a birdstrike - yes, there are also birds around flying at night!
In all these cases, a second guy with NVG in the front and with very good aircraft knowledge - best a pilot - could save your butt.
I wouldn´t like to fly tactical single pilot cause I have experienced the value of a second pilot!
Greetings Flying Bull
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 38 South
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luminosity
Anyone out there using a luminosity calculation to decide go/no go on NVG, or restriction of NVG ops with low luminosity (Translation:black as the inside of a cow calculation) Thks in advance
Steve, the UK Met Office produces light level tables for the Brit Mil but I don't know how widely available it is to others. The figures give compensation for varying degrees of cloud cover but don't take into consideration cultural lighting.
The figures used to be in millilux but are now in NVISlux because sensors (NVG, NVIS etc) have a different response to the human eye.
The figures used to be in millilux but are now in NVISlux because sensors (NVG, NVIS etc) have a different response to the human eye.
sunnywa is right: why would you fly without them??
Civvy NVG ops is NOT A NEW THING guys. There are well established methodologies, training courses, and cockpit mods. One company in the US (ASU o Boise ID) has done more than 280 cockpits!!! And contrary to Shy Torque above: modern glass cockpits are amongst the easiest to modify. There is an international standard that formed the basis for many of the countries already using them - SC-196 created the DO268 and DO275.
Swiss: 25 plus years, US: 15 plus years, Sweden/Norway: 7 plus years and now mandatory, NZ: five plus years and used by every single govt contracted night helo, Aus 2 years and used in every state. No need to re-invent the wheel, though I am sure it will be tried.
White external lighting does not need to be "compatible". Dont get conned by the salesmen. It needs to be considered in direction (that it does not shine into the cockpit or stop the rear seaters viewing outside) but compatible? No.
As I had said earlier - the use of white external lighting when landing so fundamentally alters the landing environment that alot of the fears of the military guys are just not realistic. White light provides ample peripheral vision, enables the NVG image to be very clear near the ground (and on finals when the recce is important) even on very dark nights.
For you UK gents, I suggest a quick trip to a scandinavian operator as a study tour will bring you up to speed with how different it is to our old military days. Banning NVG single pilot plus crewman and rapid response is very supportable when doing tac low level no white light ops, but this proposition is unsupportable for non tac white light situations. 128 subject matter experts have already gone through the issues on the international level and produced the standards. They have all gone slowly and now proven them over many many years.
All you have to do is open your eyes to other operations. It is all done for you.
When we tackled illumination levels as a limiter we realised that it is an outdated military concept, not at all applicable in areas of cultural lighting, and less and less an issue with Omnibus IV and above. We chose visibility. Australian and Kiwi rules state that the terrain (not light sources) must be visible 5000m ahead, or climb to LSALT. Note that there is no cruise flight below 500ft allowed on NVG. This vis tool enables us to consider atmospheric obscurants as well as illumination and cultural areas in one go. Norway has recently reduced the vis to 3000m and I would support that once a system is mature (say more than 5 or so years of widespread use).
To finish where we started: why fly without them?
Civvy NVG ops is NOT A NEW THING guys. There are well established methodologies, training courses, and cockpit mods. One company in the US (ASU o Boise ID) has done more than 280 cockpits!!! And contrary to Shy Torque above: modern glass cockpits are amongst the easiest to modify. There is an international standard that formed the basis for many of the countries already using them - SC-196 created the DO268 and DO275.
Swiss: 25 plus years, US: 15 plus years, Sweden/Norway: 7 plus years and now mandatory, NZ: five plus years and used by every single govt contracted night helo, Aus 2 years and used in every state. No need to re-invent the wheel, though I am sure it will be tried.
White external lighting does not need to be "compatible". Dont get conned by the salesmen. It needs to be considered in direction (that it does not shine into the cockpit or stop the rear seaters viewing outside) but compatible? No.
As I had said earlier - the use of white external lighting when landing so fundamentally alters the landing environment that alot of the fears of the military guys are just not realistic. White light provides ample peripheral vision, enables the NVG image to be very clear near the ground (and on finals when the recce is important) even on very dark nights.
For you UK gents, I suggest a quick trip to a scandinavian operator as a study tour will bring you up to speed with how different it is to our old military days. Banning NVG single pilot plus crewman and rapid response is very supportable when doing tac low level no white light ops, but this proposition is unsupportable for non tac white light situations. 128 subject matter experts have already gone through the issues on the international level and produced the standards. They have all gone slowly and now proven them over many many years.
All you have to do is open your eyes to other operations. It is all done for you.
When we tackled illumination levels as a limiter we realised that it is an outdated military concept, not at all applicable in areas of cultural lighting, and less and less an issue with Omnibus IV and above. We chose visibility. Australian and Kiwi rules state that the terrain (not light sources) must be visible 5000m ahead, or climb to LSALT. Note that there is no cruise flight below 500ft allowed on NVG. This vis tool enables us to consider atmospheric obscurants as well as illumination and cultural areas in one go. Norway has recently reduced the vis to 3000m and I would support that once a system is mature (say more than 5 or so years of widespread use).
To finish where we started: why fly without them?
HelmetFire - a couple of questions:
Do the operators flying single pilot NVG carry out landings to unrecced LS or do they fly HLS to HLS and just use the goggles for terrain clearance and lookout?
If they are carrying out landings to unrecced sites do they use white light (nightsun or equivalent) to recce for wires and is the crewman on NVG as well?
For a visibility estimate do you work on the observed Met vis or do you try and judge 5000m (or 3000m) visually on goggles?
If you encounter a large shower (CB for example) and the vis comes below 5000m, is a climb to LSALT the best option? I only ask this because according to your rules I wouldn't have been able to complete a hospital transfer the other night - although we were at 500' agl, the vis came down regularly to 1000 - 1500m and with large showers and forecast CB activity, an instrument abort to safety alt wasn't an option.
If the met vis is below 5000m is it automatically a nogo?
The light levels graph may not take into account cultural lighting but it still gives you a good idea of what the real light levels are going to be when you get away from the built up areas - for us working over the sea and in fairly rural areas of the UK it is a much better guide than visibility.
Do the operators flying single pilot NVG carry out landings to unrecced LS or do they fly HLS to HLS and just use the goggles for terrain clearance and lookout?
If they are carrying out landings to unrecced sites do they use white light (nightsun or equivalent) to recce for wires and is the crewman on NVG as well?
For a visibility estimate do you work on the observed Met vis or do you try and judge 5000m (or 3000m) visually on goggles?
If you encounter a large shower (CB for example) and the vis comes below 5000m, is a climb to LSALT the best option? I only ask this because according to your rules I wouldn't have been able to complete a hospital transfer the other night - although we were at 500' agl, the vis came down regularly to 1000 - 1500m and with large showers and forecast CB activity, an instrument abort to safety alt wasn't an option.
If the met vis is below 5000m is it automatically a nogo?
The light levels graph may not take into account cultural lighting but it still gives you a good idea of what the real light levels are going to be when you get away from the built up areas - for us working over the sea and in fairly rural areas of the UK it is a much better guide than visibility.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 38 South
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thks Crab for the info. Is the light graph you describe used as a cut off for go/no go or does it place resrtrictions on what activity you can do on NVIS. What level of NVISlux changes the way you operate. I'm trying to develop an SOP that uses more than just horizontal viz and cloud base minima for NVIS ops.
Steve, in some places in the Mil (mainly training establishments) they use the graph as a go/nogo but I can't remember what limit they use. I seem to remember 2 mlux used to be a cutoff but then the Met Office changed their algorithms for calculating it and it became 0.7 which I think was the changeover to NVISlux.
In the SAR world we just use them as a guide since we don't, effectively, have any weather limits for SAROPs and for training have a cloud and vis limit rather than a light level limit.
As mentioned earlier, the problem with trying to forecast likely light levels is complicated by cultural lighting - it's really a case of suck it and see because even on the darkest of nights (in UK anyway) having NVG is still better than not, we just go lower and slower
Lower light levels just mean being more careful but generally they don't limit what we do.
In the SAR world we just use them as a guide since we don't, effectively, have any weather limits for SAROPs and for training have a cloud and vis limit rather than a light level limit.
As mentioned earlier, the problem with trying to forecast likely light levels is complicated by cultural lighting - it's really a case of suck it and see because even on the darkest of nights (in UK anyway) having NVG is still better than not, we just go lower and slower
Lower light levels just mean being more careful but generally they don't limit what we do.
Do the operators flying single pilot NVG carry out landings to unrecced LS or do they fly HLS to HLS and just use the goggles for terrain clearance and lookout?
If they are carrying out landings to unrecced sites do they use white light (nightsun or equivalent) to recce for wires and is the crewman on NVG as well?
For a visibility estimate do you work on the observed Met vis or do you try and judge 5000m (or 3000m) visually on goggles?
If you encounter a large shower (CB for example) and the vis comes below 5000m, is a climb to LSALT the best option? I only ask this because according to your rules I wouldn't have been able to complete a hospital transfer the other night - although we were at 500' agl, the vis came down regularly to 1000 - 1500m and with large showers and forecast CB activity, an instrument abort to safety alt wasn't an option.
The only way we could have considered your situation is to declare a mercy flight. This is a good system as it requires a detailed risk analysis of the situation prior to conducting it, and it seeks to reduce the emotional responses that traditionally leads to many such flights (and pprune arguements later!!).
The light levels graph may not take into account cultural lighting but it still gives you a good idea of what the real light levels are going to be when you get away from the built up areas - for us working over the sea and in fairly rural areas of the UK it is a much better guide than visibility.
By requiring that the pilot can see 5000m into unlit terrain, we capture all those variables in one hit.
Helmetfire - thanks for the info, you seem to have the situation very well sorted in Oz - I seem to remember from other threads on this subject that you were heavily involved persuading CASA to accept NVG ops for non mil organistaions
It seems that what you are describing isn't quite what people would regard as single pilot NVG though - yes you only have one pilot but you have a second crewmember on NVG as well. Out of interest does this crewman operate from the cabin on NVG or is he in the left hand seat for recces and landings? Are the crewmen classed as aircrew or are they paramedics with extra training so they can perfrom two roles?
It seems that what you are describing isn't quite what people would regard as single pilot NVG though - yes you only have one pilot but you have a second crewmember on NVG as well. Out of interest does this crewman operate from the cabin on NVG or is he in the left hand seat for recces and landings? Are the crewmen classed as aircrew or are they paramedics with extra training so they can perfrom two roles?
You raise a much discussed point. My personal belief is we should call it Single Pilot for ops with only a single pilot on board as crew, we should call it "Multi crew" for ops with a single pilot plus additional non pilot crew, and call it Dual Pilot for ops with more than one pilot. Ah...semantics. It does save emotive responses though!
I think the crew thing is a cultural issue that needs to be considered within the context of the particular organisation and country. We conducted a study tour through the US and Europe looking at various HEMS organisations (and I mean EMS and SAR when I say HEMS). We concluded that the most appropriate mix for HEMS was a Multicrew solution (1 pilot plus at least 1 crewmember). Further, our view of "world's best practice" is based on the newer EASA system which states that there should be two pilots up front for all HEMS missions (day or night or NVG), however a non pilot crewmember can fulfil the second pilot role if appropriately trained.
Norweigan Air Ambulance (NOLAS) have put into place what we considered to be the best method of meeting that: their crewmen are trained at least to PPL helicopter theory and most often higher. They are given the flight training to land the helicopter, they are given an extensive left seat course including IFR and NVG modules that extends to almost 40 hours by the time they are fully qualified.
We use the crewman upfront for transit and enroute work, and down the back for hoist or tight confined area ops. Our CAO states that the second crewman be positioned by the PIC, on intercom and proivide assistance as required by the PIC and Ops Manual. Each organisation in Oz trains the crewies to different requirements, some do not have a front seat element to the training at all, others do a full IFR course.
Over in the US they are having a big debate because the NVG advisory tells them that the second crewmember (required for ops below 500ft and to unprep HLS) needs to do the full NVG ground school. It does not specify any flight competencies, nor even the equipment they need to be using in the helo. Accordingly, many organisations use the paramedics and give them the ground school and equip them with a NVG monocle and meet the specs that way. They are yet to have an accident in 15 years of NVG ops. not wrong - just different to our way.
The Swiss have 25 years and they require the second crewmember to be unaided!!! The viz limit is when the unaided crewie cannot determine if the acft is moving or not. They traditionally dont do many NVG landings. Again, not wrong - just different to our way. Again: accident free for more than 25 years of NVG rescues and SAR.
So it will fall to each country to decide what fits within their risk profile and operation and culture. You Poms can get a really good priced airfare over to Oslo and check out NOLAS for yourself: I highly recommend it. Happy to show you around both our rapid response system and our SAR operation, but Oz is a loooong way.
I think the crew thing is a cultural issue that needs to be considered within the context of the particular organisation and country. We conducted a study tour through the US and Europe looking at various HEMS organisations (and I mean EMS and SAR when I say HEMS). We concluded that the most appropriate mix for HEMS was a Multicrew solution (1 pilot plus at least 1 crewmember). Further, our view of "world's best practice" is based on the newer EASA system which states that there should be two pilots up front for all HEMS missions (day or night or NVG), however a non pilot crewmember can fulfil the second pilot role if appropriately trained.
Norweigan Air Ambulance (NOLAS) have put into place what we considered to be the best method of meeting that: their crewmen are trained at least to PPL helicopter theory and most often higher. They are given the flight training to land the helicopter, they are given an extensive left seat course including IFR and NVG modules that extends to almost 40 hours by the time they are fully qualified.
We use the crewman upfront for transit and enroute work, and down the back for hoist or tight confined area ops. Our CAO states that the second crewman be positioned by the PIC, on intercom and proivide assistance as required by the PIC and Ops Manual. Each organisation in Oz trains the crewies to different requirements, some do not have a front seat element to the training at all, others do a full IFR course.
Over in the US they are having a big debate because the NVG advisory tells them that the second crewmember (required for ops below 500ft and to unprep HLS) needs to do the full NVG ground school. It does not specify any flight competencies, nor even the equipment they need to be using in the helo. Accordingly, many organisations use the paramedics and give them the ground school and equip them with a NVG monocle and meet the specs that way. They are yet to have an accident in 15 years of NVG ops. not wrong - just different to our way.
The Swiss have 25 years and they require the second crewmember to be unaided!!! The viz limit is when the unaided crewie cannot determine if the acft is moving or not. They traditionally dont do many NVG landings. Again, not wrong - just different to our way. Again: accident free for more than 25 years of NVG rescues and SAR.
So it will fall to each country to decide what fits within their risk profile and operation and culture. You Poms can get a really good priced airfare over to Oslo and check out NOLAS for yourself: I highly recommend it. Happy to show you around both our rapid response system and our SAR operation, but Oz is a loooong way.
Thanks for the reply helmetfire - it just amplifies that there is no cheap and quick way into NVG ops - it requires properly trained and equipped crews.
It is certainly horses for courses - in our environment we often end up mixing IFR with NVG either for IMC to visual descents or IMC aborts from low level and in those situations where disorientation can be a real issue it is better to have 2 pilots up the front. We can have all 4 crew on NVG if required but that would generally be for searching at night or nav assist in crap weather.
What is absolutely vital when grovelling around in poor wx at night is accurate mapping which is regularly updated with wires/masts etc so you don't get caught out.
We also use our FLIR turret to help identify wires and other obstacles - it can be very effective and is a better use of the Radar Operator/winch op in that environment.
It is certainly horses for courses - in our environment we often end up mixing IFR with NVG either for IMC to visual descents or IMC aborts from low level and in those situations where disorientation can be a real issue it is better to have 2 pilots up the front. We can have all 4 crew on NVG if required but that would generally be for searching at night or nav assist in crap weather.
What is absolutely vital when grovelling around in poor wx at night is accurate mapping which is regularly updated with wires/masts etc so you don't get caught out.
We also use our FLIR turret to help identify wires and other obstacles - it can be very effective and is a better use of the Radar Operator/winch op in that environment.
That's right...horses for courses.
During the development of the Oz regs, the industry body studied all the NVG ops they could. The comment that most stood out from the Poms was
"5000m viz?, we would never be able to get airborne!"
At the end, the International standard recommended no variation to existing NVMC for NVG, thus we ended up with 5000m. As I said previously, I think there is a case to reduce that to 3000m with system maturity. That is 3000m of terrain viz, not meterological viz.
We also mix NVG with IFR as some of our outbound or return legs are conducted IFR. With the NVG properly set up, it is no issue to transition fully onto the clocks. Having conducted instrument approaches with NVG I can attest to the reduced heart rate when breaking visual and circling at night.
We also believe in the mapping point you make crab. Again, in the Norweigian system post a 2002ish Dauphin accident (wires in fjiord at night) they convened an industry meeting with players, regulators and human factors types. Outcomes were three elements:
HEMS must:
1. have two pilots or pilot and appropriately trained crewie for all HEMS missions
2. have a moving map system, and
3. use NVD for all night missions.
The result of our study tour was that the organisation I work for would embrace these principles, and obviously I think they would be sound principles world wide for HEMS, including the US.
Our rapid response system does not function with out the mapping system - it is MEL. We use it for primary Nav and we also use it to "google earth" (with survey quality photos) the intended HLS before we get there so that we can have a good daytime view of the HLS and surrounds before arrival.
PS: wish we had a FLIR turret, but I am very intrested in fitting and using EVS if ever we can afford to do so.
During the development of the Oz regs, the industry body studied all the NVG ops they could. The comment that most stood out from the Poms was
"5000m viz?, we would never be able to get airborne!"
At the end, the International standard recommended no variation to existing NVMC for NVG, thus we ended up with 5000m. As I said previously, I think there is a case to reduce that to 3000m with system maturity. That is 3000m of terrain viz, not meterological viz.
We also mix NVG with IFR as some of our outbound or return legs are conducted IFR. With the NVG properly set up, it is no issue to transition fully onto the clocks. Having conducted instrument approaches with NVG I can attest to the reduced heart rate when breaking visual and circling at night.
We also believe in the mapping point you make crab. Again, in the Norweigian system post a 2002ish Dauphin accident (wires in fjiord at night) they convened an industry meeting with players, regulators and human factors types. Outcomes were three elements:
HEMS must:
1. have two pilots or pilot and appropriately trained crewie for all HEMS missions
2. have a moving map system, and
3. use NVD for all night missions.
The result of our study tour was that the organisation I work for would embrace these principles, and obviously I think they would be sound principles world wide for HEMS, including the US.
Our rapid response system does not function with out the mapping system - it is MEL. We use it for primary Nav and we also use it to "google earth" (with survey quality photos) the intended HLS before we get there so that we can have a good daytime view of the HLS and surrounds before arrival.
PS: wish we had a FLIR turret, but I am very intrested in fitting and using EVS if ever we can afford to do so.
I wish we had moving map displays - the only moving our maps do is when you fold them!!
Looking under the goggles at the instruments is not the problem it is when you are trying to mix an instrument and visual (NVG) scan just as you are making the decision to abort that can disorientate - it's that inadvertant IMC moment that gets the heart rate up and going in and out of low cloud can give all sorts of visual illusions.
I think the only problem with using 5000m or 3000m of terrain vis is the ability of the crew to judge it accurately unless there are clear geographical features to use as range markers - I would have thought that there must be many areas of Australia where the terrain is almost featureless. I was given a map by an exchange Aussie pilot of somewhere up the West coast which might as well have been a sheet of sandpaper for all the detail it had on it!!
What is MEL?
Looking under the goggles at the instruments is not the problem it is when you are trying to mix an instrument and visual (NVG) scan just as you are making the decision to abort that can disorientate - it's that inadvertant IMC moment that gets the heart rate up and going in and out of low cloud can give all sorts of visual illusions.
I think the only problem with using 5000m or 3000m of terrain vis is the ability of the crew to judge it accurately unless there are clear geographical features to use as range markers - I would have thought that there must be many areas of Australia where the terrain is almost featureless. I was given a map by an exchange Aussie pilot of somewhere up the West coast which might as well have been a sheet of sandpaper for all the detail it had on it!!
What is MEL?
Chief Bottle Washer
What is MEL?
MEL: wot he on high said!
If it is a part of the minimum equipment list for the operation, then it must be serviceable before embarking on that operation.
Moving map is a minimum serviceability item for us to do our rapid response HEMS. And as per the outcomes of the Norweigian analysis, it should become a minimum requirement for HEMS into the future.
We actually teach a mix of NVG and instrument scans, indeed most of the work during NVG flight is substantiated on the clocks. We teach that the primary closure rate aid is the airspeed/groundspeed indications and the primary descent rate info is the VSI until you get to around 400ft (or lower dependant upon illum), then you can gain primary info through the goggles and secondary back up using the instruments and crewman con.
Popping down off the instrument approach on NVG is not confusing. If at the minima you are not visual, go around. We dont permit the "scud running" you are alluding to when on NVG as discussed before in your example of the inter hospital.
There is no way that a chart or forecast can determine the scene illumination due to the enormous variables previously discussed. Accordingly, unlike almost any other form of flight, NVG can be a "go and have a look" operation sometimes. It also means that the only possible way to achieve a minimum illum condition is to trust pilot judgement of that distance.
Scarry concept - trusting pilot judgement!
That said, on our organisation we have the crewmen who are repeatedly trained in assertive controls when faced with a deteriorating viz situation. They are trained to estimate the 5000m and play a critical role in enforcing it - that way there is two of them making the call and reducing (not eliminating) the chances of temptations to ignore the situation.
The Oz regs actually borrowed a procedure from the EASA proposals that the US do not use - the "turn back" procedure in response to deteriorating viz/illum/ground definition; either crewmember can call it, the acft should them conduct a level decellerating turn slowing to about 60 to 70 kias until regaining required viz.
If it is a part of the minimum equipment list for the operation, then it must be serviceable before embarking on that operation.
Moving map is a minimum serviceability item for us to do our rapid response HEMS. And as per the outcomes of the Norweigian analysis, it should become a minimum requirement for HEMS into the future.
We actually teach a mix of NVG and instrument scans, indeed most of the work during NVG flight is substantiated on the clocks. We teach that the primary closure rate aid is the airspeed/groundspeed indications and the primary descent rate info is the VSI until you get to around 400ft (or lower dependant upon illum), then you can gain primary info through the goggles and secondary back up using the instruments and crewman con.
Popping down off the instrument approach on NVG is not confusing. If at the minima you are not visual, go around. We dont permit the "scud running" you are alluding to when on NVG as discussed before in your example of the inter hospital.
There is no way that a chart or forecast can determine the scene illumination due to the enormous variables previously discussed. Accordingly, unlike almost any other form of flight, NVG can be a "go and have a look" operation sometimes. It also means that the only possible way to achieve a minimum illum condition is to trust pilot judgement of that distance.
Scarry concept - trusting pilot judgement!
That said, on our organisation we have the crewmen who are repeatedly trained in assertive controls when faced with a deteriorating viz situation. They are trained to estimate the 5000m and play a critical role in enforcing it - that way there is two of them making the call and reducing (not eliminating) the chances of temptations to ignore the situation.
The Oz regs actually borrowed a procedure from the EASA proposals that the US do not use - the "turn back" procedure in response to deteriorating viz/illum/ground definition; either crewmember can call it, the acft should them conduct a level decellerating turn slowing to about 60 to 70 kias until regaining required viz.
Interesting discussion.
It is necessary to make a distinction between dispatch criteria and operational decisions - the concept is, generally, not well understood. Curiously enough, the principle is used in two elements of the discussion so far.
The MEL deals with dispatch criteria - once airborne, it has no relevance (incidentally, it is the opposite of your statement; if it is not in the MEL, it is needed for dispatch; if it is in the MEL, dispatch might be possible - depending upon the circumstances). Complete operational concepts (such as NVIS) might have a separate set of entries in the MEL.
Most regulations have a visibility 'criteria' for dispatch; once airborne alternative operational (and protective) strategies come into play. As has already been said, estimating visibility in flight is difficult and attempting to relate it to visual flight cueing (using external references) is problematical.
By night there is little correlation between absolute visibility and adequate references for visual flight. The provision of flight control augmentation permits more concentration on the visual aspects of the operation and less on the actual flying task. NVIS does introduce contradictions; available light sources are enhanced but visual accuity and field of view are seriously diminished (although on balance, there is a substantial improvement – particularly in the cruise).
That is why existing guidance addresses: equipment, procedures, training & experience, and recency. It is good to see that other practical elements are being added to SOPs. It might be advantageous, at some stage, to revisit the debate and adjust the ‘universal guidance’ in light of lessons learnt so far.
Jim
It is necessary to make a distinction between dispatch criteria and operational decisions - the concept is, generally, not well understood. Curiously enough, the principle is used in two elements of the discussion so far.
The MEL deals with dispatch criteria - once airborne, it has no relevance (incidentally, it is the opposite of your statement; if it is not in the MEL, it is needed for dispatch; if it is in the MEL, dispatch might be possible - depending upon the circumstances). Complete operational concepts (such as NVIS) might have a separate set of entries in the MEL.
Most regulations have a visibility 'criteria' for dispatch; once airborne alternative operational (and protective) strategies come into play. As has already been said, estimating visibility in flight is difficult and attempting to relate it to visual flight cueing (using external references) is problematical.
By night there is little correlation between absolute visibility and adequate references for visual flight. The provision of flight control augmentation permits more concentration on the visual aspects of the operation and less on the actual flying task. NVIS does introduce contradictions; available light sources are enhanced but visual accuity and field of view are seriously diminished (although on balance, there is a substantial improvement – particularly in the cruise).
That is why existing guidance addresses: equipment, procedures, training & experience, and recency. It is good to see that other practical elements are being added to SOPs. It might be advantageous, at some stage, to revisit the debate and adjust the ‘universal guidance’ in light of lessons learnt so far.
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 13th Jul 2009 at 18:11.
NVG compatible moving map
I wish we had moving map displays - the only moving our maps do is when you fold them!!
Try a Garmin 296 - I was recently amazed to find it was as good as any of the displays I used in a previous life in a Harrier GR7...
I also believe that all night SAR crews should have NVGs available... even if used by rear crew as 'opera glasses' for finding survivors... esp at sea...
good example here:
EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Ditching 11/99 300 miles from Hawaii
Try a Garmin 296 - I was recently amazed to find it was as good as any of the displays I used in a previous life in a Harrier GR7...
I also believe that all night SAR crews should have NVGs available... even if used by rear crew as 'opera glasses' for finding survivors... esp at sea...
good example here:
EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Ditching 11/99 300 miles from Hawaii
Last edited by hum; 13th Jul 2009 at 10:58. Reason: tooping error
Helmet fire, out of interest do those crews relying on moving may displays carry a paper map (correctly amended) as a back-up?
We rely heavily on our CALF and CHAD system for keeping our maps as up to date as possible because we can fly unrecced routes (most night SAROPs) at 250' agl if the weather requires it and all obstacles above 250' should be marked on our maps with most below that height as well.
I don't know if the databases available for moving map displays match or exceed those criteria, especially for UK.
You are right, coming down from instruments to NVG at the bottom of approach is not a problem (as long as you are really visual) -I have, once, only seen the runway approach lights at night (and hence achieved the required visual references) at DH because I looked through the goggles - I didn't get properly visual with the lights for another 50' or so on the ILS but we had nowhere else to go and a very poorly person on board.
Good CRM is, as you highlight, essential to safe NVG ops - another advantage of having 2 pilots in poor weather is that one might have decent references even if the other doesn't so control can be handed over although this is only really relevant during very low level grovelling/hovertaxying.
Hum - I would love to be able to try a Garmin but you know how difficult it would be to get the IPT to agree to using it! However, all military SAR crews do have NVG and post 2012 (SARH) the civvy ones will as well.
The SAR Force started using NVG in the manner you describe with the crewman using hand held 'opera glasses' but it is f*ing scary flying mortal night techniques in the mountains when it is all black and trusting the Nav/winchop to talk you round the terrain!
We rely heavily on our CALF and CHAD system for keeping our maps as up to date as possible because we can fly unrecced routes (most night SAROPs) at 250' agl if the weather requires it and all obstacles above 250' should be marked on our maps with most below that height as well.
I don't know if the databases available for moving map displays match or exceed those criteria, especially for UK.
You are right, coming down from instruments to NVG at the bottom of approach is not a problem (as long as you are really visual) -I have, once, only seen the runway approach lights at night (and hence achieved the required visual references) at DH because I looked through the goggles - I didn't get properly visual with the lights for another 50' or so on the ILS but we had nowhere else to go and a very poorly person on board.
Good CRM is, as you highlight, essential to safe NVG ops - another advantage of having 2 pilots in poor weather is that one might have decent references even if the other doesn't so control can be handed over although this is only really relevant during very low level grovelling/hovertaxying.
Hum - I would love to be able to try a Garmin but you know how difficult it would be to get the IPT to agree to using it! However, all military SAR crews do have NVG and post 2012 (SARH) the civvy ones will as well.
The SAR Force started using NVG in the manner you describe with the crewman using hand held 'opera glasses' but it is f*ing scary flying mortal night techniques in the mountains when it is all black and trusting the Nav/winchop to talk you round the terrain!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmetfire,
What type of moving map do you have fitted, and as CASA are pretty narky on such things, is it approved for IFR Nav. We have a moving map system (an extremely accurate Avalex one that can even tell us who owns the plots of land, their daughters age, how may beers in the fridge etc - well not the last one) but stamped in large letters NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION it is not of the right level (B I think). For crab, yes we have maps of the paper kind as well but would have to dust them off to use them. All amended and legal but they are 1:1 000 000 so not real good to navigate at low level on.
As I operate in WA, the comparison with sandpaper is very apt - we have the worlds best beaches here - about 1000km wide all the way around. That said, normally pretty easy to guesstimate 5000m vis as there is always something around.
With regards to the FLIR being fitted, we have a FLIR Star Sapphire III and find it works very well on its own or in conjunction with our NVG.
Cheers.
What type of moving map do you have fitted, and as CASA are pretty narky on such things, is it approved for IFR Nav. We have a moving map system (an extremely accurate Avalex one that can even tell us who owns the plots of land, their daughters age, how may beers in the fridge etc - well not the last one) but stamped in large letters NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION it is not of the right level (B I think). For crab, yes we have maps of the paper kind as well but would have to dust them off to use them. All amended and legal but they are 1:1 000 000 so not real good to navigate at low level on.
As I operate in WA, the comparison with sandpaper is very apt - we have the worlds best beaches here - about 1000km wide all the way around. That said, normally pretty easy to guesstimate 5000m vis as there is always something around.
With regards to the FLIR being fitted, we have a FLIR Star Sapphire III and find it works very well on its own or in conjunction with our NVG.
Cheers.