Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Florida,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil NVG
We are a mosquito control agency (public use) in Southern Florida and anticpate using NVGs on our fixed wing night flying spray missions in the coming season (spray alt approx. 300' agl) ; we did some initial evaluation at end of last season, and will be taking a course from manufacturer shortly in which methods of use will be refined. As the fixed wing ops have the luxury of two pilots in the ac, it is likely that the PNF will utilise this technology as enhanced obstacle avoidance, and it will help with anticipation of wx problems ; PF cannot realistically use them as scan/adjustment significantly degrades ability to fly accurate track and altitude.
One of our staff, an ex Mil rotorhead, observes that for rotary night ops, with correct training and understanding of limitations, this technology is a vast leap forward and is certainly applicable to EMS/Law Enforcement ops and the like.
One of our staff, an ex Mil rotorhead, observes that for rotary night ops, with correct training and understanding of limitations, this technology is a vast leap forward and is certainly applicable to EMS/Law Enforcement ops and the like.
Crab, I had imagined your techniques was to come to a 200 - 300 ft agl hover and go through the transition there - but your method appears far superior to that, thanks for the clarification.
When gogs went to Gen3 they did indeed incorporate the coating onto the objective side of the microchannel plate (MCP) to protect the bit that turns photons into electrons. As I was taught (and my memory has never been that flash) it is the protons that do the damage, and the excess of protons caused by the excess of electrons produced at the MCP during white light ops is the issue. As I understood it, the Gen3 not only incorporated the coating (some form of boron alluminium chloride from memory) but advances with the MCP modulation technology prevented excessive damage in white light. These advances did not stop production of the protons, and the coating is like any other coating - it is able to be worn down. Thus, using white light will not cause the goggles irrepairable damage like in the Gen2 gogs, but it degrades the coating and thus lessens the life of the tubes. The ANVIS 6 publications still contain a warning that they are not to be used in anything more than "full moonlight". White lights obviously significantly exceed this. Hence my earlier comments that white light is sometimes the safer way to hover, but not allways, and when you do, you are causing a bit of wear and tear that may very well be worth it for the safety enhancement offered by the white light. In other words - there are still no free lunches!
When gogs went to Gen3 they did indeed incorporate the coating onto the objective side of the microchannel plate (MCP) to protect the bit that turns photons into electrons. As I was taught (and my memory has never been that flash) it is the protons that do the damage, and the excess of protons caused by the excess of electrons produced at the MCP during white light ops is the issue. As I understood it, the Gen3 not only incorporated the coating (some form of boron alluminium chloride from memory) but advances with the MCP modulation technology prevented excessive damage in white light. These advances did not stop production of the protons, and the coating is like any other coating - it is able to be worn down. Thus, using white light will not cause the goggles irrepairable damage like in the Gen2 gogs, but it degrades the coating and thus lessens the life of the tubes. The ANVIS 6 publications still contain a warning that they are not to be used in anything more than "full moonlight". White lights obviously significantly exceed this. Hence my earlier comments that white light is sometimes the safer way to hover, but not allways, and when you do, you are causing a bit of wear and tear that may very well be worth it for the safety enhancement offered by the white light. In other words - there are still no free lunches!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed some discussion about use of white light. In our trial we used both the standard swivelling landing light and the SX16 Nightsun unfortunately we could not trial an IR filtered light.
We found that the nightsun was OK but somewhat too bright (except on a dark night in which case worked well). All in all the swivelling landing light worked very well all the way to the ground. The only time the landing light was a problem was approaching the hover with reflection back into the cockpit causing the goggles to dim down unacceptably but this was corrected by lifting the landing light up towards but not into the blades. The nightsun was too bright near the ground in all ambient conditions. Indeed the standard landing lights worked very well with the goggles.
We used both ANVIS 6 omnibus II and ANVIS 9 Omnibus IV tubes and without a doubt I can say that the 9's worked exceptionally well with white light with less dimming then the 6's. Also when the US restriction is lifted the gated pinnacle goggles will make bright white light use a non event.
Our conclusion from the trial is that all front seat crew must be on goggles all the way to the ground. We strongly oppose any de-goggling on final approach with transition to white light only (as I believe some operators do)....personaly I don't know how they do it as we found it very uncomfortable and disconcerting to do so. We will only goggle and de-goggle whilst over a cultural lighting area or at safe altitude.
For covert police ops an IR searchlight with position and anti-col lights off is essential but all other ops the use of white light landing lights (that can be swivelled) works very well.
We have formulated SOP's for weather, illumination, pilot requirements, crewing, inadvertent IMC, etc. If interested I'm happy to share these with those interested
Regulatory bodies such as CASA here are not placing NVGs on a high priority and as such will wallow and bubble along for years to come. It is up to the emergency service operators and the HAA to actively lobby CASA to lift NVGs to a higher priority so that CASA standards section can be made to work on this project for benefit of us all.
CASA seems happy to issue concessions to the regulations for us to fly below LSALT with a big torch strapped to the side....but are you the pilots at the coal face happy with that? I'm not! CASA rhetoric is that they support the concept of NVGs but they seem misguided in the level of importance they place on having good SA when working under their concessions. Goggles will give us the SA we need when working at night below LSALT and CASA needs to get that message.
We found that the nightsun was OK but somewhat too bright (except on a dark night in which case worked well). All in all the swivelling landing light worked very well all the way to the ground. The only time the landing light was a problem was approaching the hover with reflection back into the cockpit causing the goggles to dim down unacceptably but this was corrected by lifting the landing light up towards but not into the blades. The nightsun was too bright near the ground in all ambient conditions. Indeed the standard landing lights worked very well with the goggles.
We used both ANVIS 6 omnibus II and ANVIS 9 Omnibus IV tubes and without a doubt I can say that the 9's worked exceptionally well with white light with less dimming then the 6's. Also when the US restriction is lifted the gated pinnacle goggles will make bright white light use a non event.
Our conclusion from the trial is that all front seat crew must be on goggles all the way to the ground. We strongly oppose any de-goggling on final approach with transition to white light only (as I believe some operators do)....personaly I don't know how they do it as we found it very uncomfortable and disconcerting to do so. We will only goggle and de-goggle whilst over a cultural lighting area or at safe altitude.
For covert police ops an IR searchlight with position and anti-col lights off is essential but all other ops the use of white light landing lights (that can be swivelled) works very well.
We have formulated SOP's for weather, illumination, pilot requirements, crewing, inadvertent IMC, etc. If interested I'm happy to share these with those interested
Regulatory bodies such as CASA here are not placing NVGs on a high priority and as such will wallow and bubble along for years to come. It is up to the emergency service operators and the HAA to actively lobby CASA to lift NVGs to a higher priority so that CASA standards section can be made to work on this project for benefit of us all.
CASA seems happy to issue concessions to the regulations for us to fly below LSALT with a big torch strapped to the side....but are you the pilots at the coal face happy with that? I'm not! CASA rhetoric is that they support the concept of NVGs but they seem misguided in the level of importance they place on having good SA when working under their concessions. Goggles will give us the SA we need when working at night below LSALT and CASA needs to get that message.
I am a recent convert to NVG's and IR lens SX-16 use. Without any reservation at all.....I cannot state how enjoyable it is to have these new tools for use at night. The only way I can describe the difference is to report the delight I had in making repeated approaches to a completely unlit confined area....in the middle of a very dark part of the forest....on an overcast night....with minimum natural light. Without the goggles on....I could not see the trees....or the ground...from a three foot hover. This was done without any use of man made light. With the goggles.....it might as well have been daylight with the one exception of the diminished field of view.
They are clumsy....take some getting used to....require a lot of head turning....but what an improvement. I actually look forward to flying in dark places now whereas it used to be a stressful time. Night flying over unlit mountainous areas used to fill me with glee...but now it would be a cake walk.
I fly a BK....and due to its small cockpit and the resulting restrictions to the field of view....I do find it a bit hard to see all the way around the aircraft and thus in a busy area of the sky....traffic avoidance might become an issue. However, usually, that situation would occur in a well lit place and thus the googles could be flipped up out of the way.
The other situation that I can see that would argue against goggles would be flying over very large bodies of very calm, smooth, glassy water. The reflection of the stars which becomes very easy to see with goggles could present a spatial disorientation problem exactly like it does with the naked eye.
The IR lens works great in conjunction with the nightsun as well...with the advantage that no white light is displayed. Cockpit lights can be seen inside other aircraft with the goggles at some considerable distance....thus very dim lights anywhere can be seen with ease.
The state of the art equipment is great.....I would shudder to think of having to fly the full face goggles such as the military did for so many years.
They are clumsy....take some getting used to....require a lot of head turning....but what an improvement. I actually look forward to flying in dark places now whereas it used to be a stressful time. Night flying over unlit mountainous areas used to fill me with glee...but now it would be a cake walk.
I fly a BK....and due to its small cockpit and the resulting restrictions to the field of view....I do find it a bit hard to see all the way around the aircraft and thus in a busy area of the sky....traffic avoidance might become an issue. However, usually, that situation would occur in a well lit place and thus the googles could be flipped up out of the way.
The other situation that I can see that would argue against goggles would be flying over very large bodies of very calm, smooth, glassy water. The reflection of the stars which becomes very easy to see with goggles could present a spatial disorientation problem exactly like it does with the naked eye.
The IR lens works great in conjunction with the nightsun as well...with the advantage that no white light is displayed. Cockpit lights can be seen inside other aircraft with the goggles at some considerable distance....thus very dim lights anywhere can be seen with ease.
The state of the art equipment is great.....I would shudder to think of having to fly the full face goggles such as the military did for so many years.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that Spectrolab is no longer providing remotely driven IR filter for the SX16 only for their new range of nightsuns. Anyone know where we could source a couple of IR filters for the SX16 (the one that can be remotely controlled from inside the cockpit)?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hello Kitty City
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR nightsuns
Mike you might want to try the RNZAF. Their nightsuns have an IR filter that is 'flipped up and down' from inside the cockpit. They should be able to tell you where they got them from etc
PM me if you want an email address.
PM me if you want an email address.
Upon return to work on Monday....will check for the source of ours.....and let you know.
If you have the luxury of a second crewmember on the same side of the aircraft as the pilot, you may wish to consider using a Dragonlight handheld high-power torch with IR Filter instead of SX16. The Dragonlight is far more easily controlled and responsive when compared to an aircraft-mounted, joystick-steered light. Main disadvantage is that for illuminating targets further forward than the 2 o'clock (assuming the operator is on the RHS) the AS needs to be below 60 kts to enable the man with the light to hold it steady in the airflow. My RAF Chinook experience finished in '98, but this was certainly the system in use then, and also what was taught in Brunei from 98 to 01.
Be aware that there appear to be 2 different thicknesses/densities of Dragonlight IR filter, both with the same part number; the UK-forces issue version gave an excellent light source, whereas the type initially bought by the Brunes was so opaque as to be useless.
No-one seems to have raised the topic of diffuse-light sources; the type used by the UK (Brightstar) on a fixed mounting underneath the fuselage give invaluable reference info without the high contrast problems of IR or white-light searchlights. Very handy on OVC Borneo nights over the ulu...
Be aware that there appear to be 2 different thicknesses/densities of Dragonlight IR filter, both with the same part number; the UK-forces issue version gave an excellent light source, whereas the type initially bought by the Brunes was so opaque as to be useless.
No-one seems to have raised the topic of diffuse-light sources; the type used by the UK (Brightstar) on a fixed mounting underneath the fuselage give invaluable reference info without the high contrast problems of IR or white-light searchlights. Very handy on OVC Borneo nights over the ulu...
thud,
Good points. I am a huge fan of the diffused IR light, especially for low flying and any hover ops. Having flown NVG on UH-1H and UH-60s, I found that the UH-60 IR searchlight was excellent, but I always ended up with a sore thumb from motoring it around on dark nights and in the hover because it did not diffuse enough. The Huey on the other hand lacked a sharp IR light and this made identification of various features a challenge, especially during low level with no GPS (what was that ancient technique again...clock to map to ground or something? Anybody??
). But, the diffused light on the Huey was fantastic for low flying, hover ops and liftoff and landing from the hover. Much better than the UH-60.
I would rather the diffused IR light for civ HEMS ops than the beam style lights. I would be intrested to see what the SX16 looked like with IR filter and no focus, but I suspect it would still be to bright for dark night ops. SASless - you would probably know.
Good points. I am a huge fan of the diffused IR light, especially for low flying and any hover ops. Having flown NVG on UH-1H and UH-60s, I found that the UH-60 IR searchlight was excellent, but I always ended up with a sore thumb from motoring it around on dark nights and in the hover because it did not diffuse enough. The Huey on the other hand lacked a sharp IR light and this made identification of various features a challenge, especially during low level with no GPS (what was that ancient technique again...clock to map to ground or something? Anybody??
). But, the diffused light on the Huey was fantastic for low flying, hover ops and liftoff and landing from the hover. Much better than the UH-60.I would rather the diffused IR light for civ HEMS ops than the beam style lights. I would be intrested to see what the SX16 looked like with IR filter and no focus, but I suspect it would still be to bright for dark night ops. SASless - you would probably know.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police and NVGs
In the Oct/Nov edition of Defence Helicopter, the Dyfed-Powis ASU try to make a case for the use of NVGs for Police Air Support Operations.
Various arguments are made ranging from we've bought the kit, why can't we use it. Safety enhancement and costs.
Silly move if you've spent money before things are firmed up!
You've got a very good Thermal Image system with a very large torch strapped to the machine. I can see the reasoning for the rear observer using NVG's; he's remote from the front seat crew/pax and it can enhance his ability to operate. Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are. A very real possibility of going inadvertant IMC then exists with the pilot (not instrument rated) then having to go onto instruments and recover what would be a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated.
The costs of fitting a helicopter for NVG against the costs of instrument rating pilot would I think come out in favour of the instrument rating.
The Defence Hewlicopter article quite rightly says that as far as the CAA is concerned, police operations are public transport; quite correct. As such public transprot rules must apply and can't be watered down due to a ill-informed view that NVG's are the way to go.
Any way all you Air Support Units, let's have your views.
Oh, by the way, before I get told to not to go on about things I no nothing about, police operations, been there and done that.
Various arguments are made ranging from we've bought the kit, why can't we use it. Safety enhancement and costs.
Silly move if you've spent money before things are firmed up!
You've got a very good Thermal Image system with a very large torch strapped to the machine. I can see the reasoning for the rear observer using NVG's; he's remote from the front seat crew/pax and it can enhance his ability to operate. Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are. A very real possibility of going inadvertant IMC then exists with the pilot (not instrument rated) then having to go onto instruments and recover what would be a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated.
The costs of fitting a helicopter for NVG against the costs of instrument rating pilot would I think come out in favour of the instrument rating.
The Defence Hewlicopter article quite rightly says that as far as the CAA is concerned, police operations are public transport; quite correct. As such public transprot rules must apply and can't be watered down due to a ill-informed view that NVG's are the way to go.
Any way all you Air Support Units, let's have your views.
Oh, by the way, before I get told to not to go on about things I no nothing about, police operations, been there and done that.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated
However you partly answered your own question. Costs would be the main thing that the Police Chancellors would object to. As far as I am aware Devon and Cornwall are the only Police unit that has gone the extra mile in this area. 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that costs would be an issue. What I'm saying is that NVGs would be a deficit to flight safety and instrument ratings would be a huge enhancement to flight safety. The article gives a figure of £150,000 to convert a machine to NVG, plus there'll be a training add on. I'll bet you'll get I/R's for less than that figure.
Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.
Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.
Maybe I`m wrong. I would be interested to hear what some of the European countries do in this area.
An instrument rating is only of use to get you home. You can't fly to a job on instruments. How do you regain visual? If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there. As for inadvertant, we fly sim IF every 3 months, just in case. Not ideal, but we don't need a fully fledged IR.
Your profile doesn't say whether you have NVG experience, but NVG's are the only way to fly at night when you're operating in amongst the high ground, trying to avoid bumping in to the lumpy bits. Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety.
Your profile doesn't say whether you have NVG experience, but NVG's are the only way to fly at night when you're operating in amongst the high ground, trying to avoid bumping in to the lumpy bits. Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"An instrument rating is only of use to get you home."
Wrong answer! An instrument rating will prevent you flying into the ground should you end up in the middle of a cloud. Then you can go home in one piece, as can your crew.
"You can't fly to a job on instruments."
If you're operating amongst high ground then the weather should be suitable for you to do so; I'll bet there's a paragraph in the PAOM about operating above the highest obstacle within a certain distance. That's how you don't fly into that obstacle, be it a building or hill.
"How do you regain visual?"
I think it's called an ILS, PAR, NDB or something along those lines.
"If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there."
Exactly! But people do go inadvertant IMC and end up not going home.
I don't have NVG experience but that isn't to say only the people who do, probably from the military, should advocate the use of them. As I said, the rear observer, yes, and it would help his role
"Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety."
You must be trying to wind me up!
Wrong answer! An instrument rating will prevent you flying into the ground should you end up in the middle of a cloud. Then you can go home in one piece, as can your crew.
"You can't fly to a job on instruments."
If you're operating amongst high ground then the weather should be suitable for you to do so; I'll bet there's a paragraph in the PAOM about operating above the highest obstacle within a certain distance. That's how you don't fly into that obstacle, be it a building or hill.
"How do you regain visual?"
I think it's called an ILS, PAR, NDB or something along those lines.
"If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there."
Exactly! But people do go inadvertant IMC and end up not going home.
I don't have NVG experience but that isn't to say only the people who do, probably from the military, should advocate the use of them. As I said, the rear observer, yes, and it would help his role
"Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety."
You must be trying to wind me up!
You don't know anything about NVIS, you aren't aware that the last crash was caused by pilot error, that pilot being instrument rated. You don't know how much it would cost to become IR'd nor to staycurrent with IR's. You don't know jack ***t.
Your observations are incredibly naive to say the least. In fact they're a joke.
Stop fishing and try and be constructive will you?
There, I feel better now......................
Your observations are incredibly naive to say the least. In fact they're a joke.
Stop fishing and try and be constructive will you?
There, I feel better now......................
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve....
Don't think that I said that the last crash (which one?) was pilot error.
I do know how much it is to be instrument rated, and how much it is to stay current; I'm TRE/TRI with the instrument endorsement!
Trying to create discussion to further enhance flight safety is not fishing but very constructive I would have thought.
So I do think that I know jack ***t...
Please grow up.
Don't think that I said that the last crash (which one?) was pilot error.
I do know how much it is to be instrument rated, and how much it is to stay current; I'm TRE/TRI with the instrument endorsement!
Trying to create discussion to further enhance flight safety is not fishing but very constructive I would have thought.
So I do think that I know jack ***t...
Please grow up.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banzai-blades,
Think through what I'm saying. It's not about using the I/R to operate on task. It's about having the equipment and training to prevent CFIT after going inadvertaant IMC. NVG verses I/R; the I/R must win by the virtue that NVG won't get you out of inadvetant IMC, the I/R will.
If you read my posts you will see that I'm not argueing against NVG, but the use of them; it the back seat yes. Given the large costs involved does the end justify the means.
Are you really telling me that you do not regard an I/R as a benefit to flight safety?
If you think I'm wrong then convince me as to the benefits of NVG over an I/R. It is a discussion...
Think through what I'm saying. It's not about using the I/R to operate on task. It's about having the equipment and training to prevent CFIT after going inadvertaant IMC. NVG verses I/R; the I/R must win by the virtue that NVG won't get you out of inadvetant IMC, the I/R will.
If you read my posts you will see that I'm not argueing against NVG, but the use of them; it the back seat yes. Given the large costs involved does the end justify the means.
Are you really telling me that you do not regard an I/R as a benefit to flight safety?
If you think I'm wrong then convince me as to the benefits of NVG over an I/R. It is a discussion...
Kalif
The problem with the instrument rating, with reference to these sort of ops, is that when you really want to use it, you stand a good chance of not being able to. The 2 main limitations usually being icing and fuel reserves.
Additionally, once you instrument rate a pilot specifically for these ops, you really need to allow considerable IF flying to maintain a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, these sort of operations do not generally lend themselves to disappearing off for an hour to bash the hold!
Now if you were to offer me NVG to go with the instrument rating, then yes please - best of both worlds!!
Cheers
Tees
The problem with the instrument rating, with reference to these sort of ops, is that when you really want to use it, you stand a good chance of not being able to. The 2 main limitations usually being icing and fuel reserves.
Additionally, once you instrument rate a pilot specifically for these ops, you really need to allow considerable IF flying to maintain a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, these sort of operations do not generally lend themselves to disappearing off for an hour to bash the hold!
Now if you were to offer me NVG to go with the instrument rating, then yes please - best of both worlds!!
Cheers
Tees