Night Vision Goggles (NVG discussions merged)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kalif,
I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. NVG's are not designed for flying in the goo, but rather to allow you to see and avoid obstacles on the ground when you are operating in close proximity to mother earth, and to safely land in confined areas that you otherwise could not. Flying on instruments is the only way to go in IMC, however, it doesn't help you get your mission done when you are operating at tree top level or landing in a confined area. Yes, in Police work and in the military we have to do such things, and there is not an ILS in every enemy stronghold or field where a bad guy is hiding. So a good pilot needs both NVG's and an instrument rating, and the training to know when to use them. I can assure you, that anyone that has flown the latest generation of goggles will want them on their head as it is always better to see than to not see, and that is what NVG's give you the ability to do. While it is true that some have gone inadvertant IMC with NVG's, that again is a training issue, as with the NVG's you can at least see the WX, and then transition to the instruments and flip up the NVG's if necessary. Without the NVG's, you can't see the WX or anything, only the black of night and lights on the ground. So NVG's certainly INCREASE safety with a properly trained crew, just as instrument training does for the IMC environment. I have over 2,500 hours of helo pilot time, and over 500 of those are with NVG's, so before you discount the use of NVG's maybe you should check with those of us that use them on a regular basis. Fly safe!
I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. NVG's are not designed for flying in the goo, but rather to allow you to see and avoid obstacles on the ground when you are operating in close proximity to mother earth, and to safely land in confined areas that you otherwise could not. Flying on instruments is the only way to go in IMC, however, it doesn't help you get your mission done when you are operating at tree top level or landing in a confined area. Yes, in Police work and in the military we have to do such things, and there is not an ILS in every enemy stronghold or field where a bad guy is hiding. So a good pilot needs both NVG's and an instrument rating, and the training to know when to use them. I can assure you, that anyone that has flown the latest generation of goggles will want them on their head as it is always better to see than to not see, and that is what NVG's give you the ability to do. While it is true that some have gone inadvertant IMC with NVG's, that again is a training issue, as with the NVG's you can at least see the WX, and then transition to the instruments and flip up the NVG's if necessary. Without the NVG's, you can't see the WX or anything, only the black of night and lights on the ground. So NVG's certainly INCREASE safety with a properly trained crew, just as instrument training does for the IMC environment. I have over 2,500 hours of helo pilot time, and over 500 of those are with NVG's, so before you discount the use of NVG's maybe you should check with those of us that use them on a regular basis. Fly safe!
I have to jump in here too. Only about 500 hours police ops, and no civvy IR. Over 8000 hours mil (Proc IRE), with similar time on goggles to HeloEagle including instructional (desert, jungle) and ops (as above plus maritime, urban areas etc).
1. Situational awareness is why - once you've operated with NVG you will HATE reverting back to unaided night vision. That's what I believe the UK Mil call such flying now - Reversionary.
2. With training, you learn how to stay aware of what the weather is doing. You may think you can see nothing other than the picture through the tubes - not so, they are mounted with a gap of nearly 3cm between the objective and the eyes. Full peripheral vision is maintained, and the instruments/outside world can be scanned without having to move the head.
- His point here is that, once you've realised you're India Mike, then although the IR will give recognised skills to safely return the aircraft to base, that is ALL it can do. What it can't do, and this is why the police bean-counters may think long and hard before being persuaded of its benefits, is increase the crews' ability to achieve their police-role tasking. The increased situational awareness that NVGs offer WILL provide that extra capability, without the crew having to look inside to see what ONE crewmember is pointing the TI/FLIR kit at. The instinctive relative-bearing info from pointing goggles mounted on your flying helmet is far more intuitive than reading the screen in front of the LHS observer.
I agree with HeloEagle that once you've become used to operating with NVG and with an IR, you'll want to keep both. This includes operations over urban areas; there were several occasions in my last unit (a metropolitan area) where, had I been using NVG, I would have been able to track suspects that the FLIR wasn't watching. For police tasking purposes, if there has to be a choice between one or the other - real world conditions apply - then the NVGs will offer the police value for money over the IR. The former increase the operational capability of the crew, the latter merely ensures they have the skills to escape from a situation that they are already taught to avoid.
The crash referred to, by the way, is the sad loss of the Strathclyde EC135 around a couple of years ago. It raised many issues, not just night-vision and IF currency - security of items in the cabin, pilot recruitment and other subjects were also aired I believe.
Fly Safe - AND Effectively
Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are
2. With training, you learn how to stay aware of what the weather is doing. You may think you can see nothing other than the picture through the tubes - not so, they are mounted with a gap of nearly 3cm between the objective and the eyes. Full peripheral vision is maintained, and the instruments/outside world can be scanned without having to move the head.
"An instrument rating is only of use to get you home."
I agree with HeloEagle that once you've become used to operating with NVG and with an IR, you'll want to keep both. This includes operations over urban areas; there were several occasions in my last unit (a metropolitan area) where, had I been using NVG, I would have been able to track suspects that the FLIR wasn't watching. For police tasking purposes, if there has to be a choice between one or the other - real world conditions apply - then the NVGs will offer the police value for money over the IR. The former increase the operational capability of the crew, the latter merely ensures they have the skills to escape from a situation that they are already taught to avoid.
The crash referred to, by the way, is the sad loss of the Strathclyde EC135 around a couple of years ago. It raised many issues, not just night-vision and IF currency - security of items in the cabin, pilot recruitment and other subjects were also aired I believe.
Fly Safe - AND Effectively
Last edited by Thud_and_Blunder; 9th Nov 2004 at 21:01.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As somebody who hasn't had the chance to fly with NVGs or done much night flying , would the bright lights from street lights, car lights etc not cause problems for the NVGs or even damage them?
Cyclic, yes bright lights do tend to cause a lot of "flare" in the goggles , although I understand the problem is a lot better with more recent models.
Rest of the World, 9 : Kalif, minus 5.
Game over, I think.
Rest of the World, 9 : Kalif, minus 5.
Game over, I think.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bright lights were definately a problem for the older generation NVG's, but the latest and greatest ANVIS-9's are not affected very much by them. I wore them flying around New York City during New Year's celebration last year, and they didn't white out, and I don't think you can get any brighter than that! We were conducting Homeland Security, and we were flying around all the major landmarks, and even under all the bridges looking for bombs, etc and never had any problems. We would sometimes take turns flipping up the goggles just to see what the different colors of the city looked like in Times Square since everything is just shades of green in the goggles, but other than that, we always used the goggles. The NYC Police guys wished they had them as well. I have even had lightning right in front of me without causing a problem with the goggles, in fact they shut down for a milisecond and save your night vision. NVG's are the only way to go at night.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to say how much I admire Dyfed-Powys for having the gumption to so publicly criticise the CAA.
I haven't used NVGs yet for night flying but all of the pilots I speak to who have used them before wouldn't be without them now.
They surely have to be an enhancement to flight safety and it would be nice to get the issues with the CAA sorted out, so that units such as ours could get on with purchasing them.
I haven't used NVGs yet for night flying but all of the pilots I speak to who have used them before wouldn't be without them now.
They surely have to be an enhancement to flight safety and it would be nice to get the issues with the CAA sorted out, so that units such as ours could get on with purchasing them.
Congrats to Dyfed Powys for that column in the helicopter (defence) mag. It has certainly re-ignited the slow burning fuse in this industry regarding the intransigence emanating from the glass house!
I suspect things will gain momentum now and we shall all be flying with the aid of NVIS sooner rather than later (for those of us who want them, of course - as this should never be a compulsory bolt on).
We're meeting up with them next week to discuss the technical spec (goggles/helmets etc)... Fingers crossed for some enlightenment!
Rumour has it that we might even be allowed to fly below 500' with them - but only if we're very very good
I suspect things will gain momentum now and we shall all be flying with the aid of NVIS sooner rather than later (for those of us who want them, of course - as this should never be a compulsory bolt on).
We're meeting up with them next week to discuss the technical spec (goggles/helmets etc)... Fingers crossed for some enlightenment!
Rumour has it that we might even be allowed to fly below 500' with them - but only if we're very very good
It's unusual that Shepherd "we print your press handout verbatim" Press actually publish something useful; any chance of a precis/scan so it can be read sand-side?
Chatting to a UK Police Unit Chief Pilot who, while in the RN, knew the fella that became Mr CAA for this subject, it was interesting to note how one person's specific irrational fear of a given subject (flying at night, in this case) could become national Quango-enforced policy. It is a real shame that legislators don't have the opportunity to become as familiar with the equipment as the would-be operators. Bless 'im, even an experienced police heli operator like Kalif is prepared to criticise NVG from a position of, if not ignorance, then at least absence of personal acquaintance with the kit and procedures. Suggesting as he did that the presence of a "very large torch strapped to the machine" might help the pilot somehow with night flying suggests an interesting approach to maintaining orientation. My own experience with Nightsun over relatively-featureless, no-horizon countryside suggests it is far more of a hindrance than a help.
As for costs, most of the new aircraft being delivered to units these days have NVG-compatible lighting built-in at the factory. Gone are the days when the faithful 105 and 355 bore the brunt of the police task - thank goodness.
Training? After the initial course, there would be no extra requirement (unlike IR currency); unless, of course, the extra capability offered by night-vision equipment led to new roles being added to the police task. Line checks and OPCs would cover the necessary work.
Ops below 500 ft - why? We found with the jungle (urban or arboreal) that NVG were still perfectly useful above that height, so as the threat level allowed medium level ops we stayed up there and enjoyed the warm safe feeling of not being too close to stuff that could leap up and grab yer skids. In fact, with most transit tasks it was often easier to go over 2000 feet to keep the big picture, only descending prior to reaching the landing/ winching sites. My gut feeling is to leave the weed-trampling to the youngsters in the military; we more-mature police types have managed to get that out of our system, haven't we?! 
(it's amazing the drivel you'll type when you're on nights, it's Ramadan and there's no flying...)
Chatting to a UK Police Unit Chief Pilot who, while in the RN, knew the fella that became Mr CAA for this subject, it was interesting to note how one person's specific irrational fear of a given subject (flying at night, in this case) could become national Quango-enforced policy. It is a real shame that legislators don't have the opportunity to become as familiar with the equipment as the would-be operators. Bless 'im, even an experienced police heli operator like Kalif is prepared to criticise NVG from a position of, if not ignorance, then at least absence of personal acquaintance with the kit and procedures. Suggesting as he did that the presence of a "very large torch strapped to the machine" might help the pilot somehow with night flying suggests an interesting approach to maintaining orientation. My own experience with Nightsun over relatively-featureless, no-horizon countryside suggests it is far more of a hindrance than a help.
As for costs, most of the new aircraft being delivered to units these days have NVG-compatible lighting built-in at the factory. Gone are the days when the faithful 105 and 355 bore the brunt of the police task - thank goodness.
Training? After the initial course, there would be no extra requirement (unlike IR currency); unless, of course, the extra capability offered by night-vision equipment led to new roles being added to the police task. Line checks and OPCs would cover the necessary work.
Ops below 500 ft - why? We found with the jungle (urban or arboreal) that NVG were still perfectly useful above that height, so as the threat level allowed medium level ops we stayed up there and enjoyed the warm safe feeling of not being too close to stuff that could leap up and grab yer skids. In fact, with most transit tasks it was often easier to go over 2000 feet to keep the big picture, only descending prior to reaching the landing/ winching sites. My gut feeling is to leave the weed-trampling to the youngsters in the military; we more-mature police types have managed to get that out of our system, haven't we?!
(it's amazing the drivel you'll type when you're on nights, it's Ramadan and there's no flying...)
Inadvertant IMC dangers is one of the more common fears of NVG flight, and Kalif has touched on that concern by comparing the IR with an NVG rating.
Firstly, the more accurate comparison is to compare the NVFR rating with NVG, becuase that is the regime of flight in which it is used. NVG (or other NVIS for that matter) is now used as a matter of course by most military aviation ops who have access to the technology. It is now considered "aided" flight with NVG and they call NVFR without goggles as "unaided". This is an accurate reflection of reality, and nowadays, unadied flight is considered only as a back up to NVG when the goggles fail. Why on earth would anyone choose NOT to see the ground? Indeed in the Oz military unaided flight has to be specifically scheduled as a check ride to make sure people remain current because it is done so rarely.
As for the IMC thing: Is it easier to go inadvertant IMC on NVG than when NVFR? That depends upon your NVFR wx minima. In Oz they do not have the US requirement for a visible horizon, but you have to be 1000 ft above surrounding terrain (except EMS, Police, and some Marine Pilot transfer work). NVG do allow you to see wx at times and large cloud that is lit by urban or moon light is readily visible, yet few are visible when unaided unless urban lit. In any event, using the technique described by Thud (looking around the goggles) one can get any benefits of NVFR as well. Fog can be seen forming on NVG, but not NVFR, and the NVG allows you to look for open areas that are not affected by fog in order to let down to even unlit areas. Not so easy NVFR. In other words, NVG is safer from a weather point of view than the current NVFR and is infinately safer from a CFIT perspective.
That is not to say that the IR is not an entirely valuable rating - and I am very much pro the IR. Personally, I think the NVFR wx minima should apply to all operators of NVG, except if the pilot and aircraft is IR compliant, in which case wx minima and viz should be reduced. In this way we can keep the motivation high for IR, becuase it really is an important get out of jail free card and CFIT is our second biggest killer.
The US has legislated NVG for single pilot, single engine passenger ops, single pilot EMS, and I believe fixed and rotary wing night ag work. They have the most experience with the technology and that is how safe they believe it is. There is now over 20 approved NVG HEMS operators, with another 30ish waiting for final certification after completing mods, training, SOP's etc.
That is "world's best practice".
Firstly, the more accurate comparison is to compare the NVFR rating with NVG, becuase that is the regime of flight in which it is used. NVG (or other NVIS for that matter) is now used as a matter of course by most military aviation ops who have access to the technology. It is now considered "aided" flight with NVG and they call NVFR without goggles as "unaided". This is an accurate reflection of reality, and nowadays, unadied flight is considered only as a back up to NVG when the goggles fail. Why on earth would anyone choose NOT to see the ground? Indeed in the Oz military unaided flight has to be specifically scheduled as a check ride to make sure people remain current because it is done so rarely.
As for the IMC thing: Is it easier to go inadvertant IMC on NVG than when NVFR? That depends upon your NVFR wx minima. In Oz they do not have the US requirement for a visible horizon, but you have to be 1000 ft above surrounding terrain (except EMS, Police, and some Marine Pilot transfer work). NVG do allow you to see wx at times and large cloud that is lit by urban or moon light is readily visible, yet few are visible when unaided unless urban lit. In any event, using the technique described by Thud (looking around the goggles) one can get any benefits of NVFR as well. Fog can be seen forming on NVG, but not NVFR, and the NVG allows you to look for open areas that are not affected by fog in order to let down to even unlit areas. Not so easy NVFR. In other words, NVG is safer from a weather point of view than the current NVFR and is infinately safer from a CFIT perspective.
That is not to say that the IR is not an entirely valuable rating - and I am very much pro the IR. Personally, I think the NVFR wx minima should apply to all operators of NVG, except if the pilot and aircraft is IR compliant, in which case wx minima and viz should be reduced. In this way we can keep the motivation high for IR, becuase it really is an important get out of jail free card and CFIT is our second biggest killer.
The US has legislated NVG for single pilot, single engine passenger ops, single pilot EMS, and I believe fixed and rotary wing night ag work. They have the most experience with the technology and that is how safe they believe it is. There is now over 20 approved NVG HEMS operators, with another 30ish waiting for final certification after completing mods, training, SOP's etc.
That is "world's best practice".
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
This thread is far more important than everyone thinks. It has highlighted some of the attitudes of the more conservative and older pilots in police aviation. I have operated at Merseyside for a year now after 24 years in the military. I was a Puma instructor for many years teaching NVG to ab-initio pilots and have used goggles extensively on operations. I class myself as very experienced!!
When we first introduced NVG in the RAF we heard these same arguments, I know because it was me saying it!! I quickly changed my mind. The only reason goggles are more dangerous is because confidence levels go up. Trust me when I say, if you use them a few times, you would not want to fly without. Inadvertant IMC?? Yes it is possible, but sensible airmanship and training lower the risk. There are many levels of use available, however Nav Assist (.500') and no lighting field landings are the ones to concern us. Nav Assist requires very little training for a massive benefit. Field landings are a bit harder, but not that much so. The only problem is that the military generally use a 2 crew NVG cockpit, remember that police observers are officially classed as passengers!! That said, we are a city unit who would mainly benefit from goggles when away from our core task. We are unlikely to spend the money.
Current IF training versus IR? I get enough training to get down safely from an inadvertant IMC. The allocation is just about to increase, it is enough... Just. This unit could not justify spending money on IR currency, the budget is being squeezed as it is!
In summary.... My view is only my view, but an IR would be nice, NVG would be nicer (and safe)
When we first introduced NVG in the RAF we heard these same arguments, I know because it was me saying it!! I quickly changed my mind. The only reason goggles are more dangerous is because confidence levels go up. Trust me when I say, if you use them a few times, you would not want to fly without. Inadvertant IMC?? Yes it is possible, but sensible airmanship and training lower the risk. There are many levels of use available, however Nav Assist (.500') and no lighting field landings are the ones to concern us. Nav Assist requires very little training for a massive benefit. Field landings are a bit harder, but not that much so. The only problem is that the military generally use a 2 crew NVG cockpit, remember that police observers are officially classed as passengers!! That said, we are a city unit who would mainly benefit from goggles when away from our core task. We are unlikely to spend the money.
Current IF training versus IR? I get enough training to get down safely from an inadvertant IMC. The allocation is just about to increase, it is enough... Just. This unit could not justify spending money on IR currency, the budget is being squeezed as it is!
In summary.... My view is only my view, but an IR would be nice, NVG would be nicer (and safe)
Thud: apologies for the confusion, when I meant flying below 500' I meant to land or take off on NVG, not cruise
It is anathema it seems (by a single rep within the CAA), to want to promote what can only be described as an aid to flight safety, after all!
It is unusual for the UK to be lagging so far behind the real world in this area. Hopefully we have turned a corner and like Jayteeto said
.
It's worth reminding others that to 'plan' to fly IFR (which is technically what you would be doing if you considered inadvertent imc as an option every time you got airborne), then you would have to
(a) carry reserve fuel - which is impossible in light twins.
(b) be prepared to climb to MSA - which might not be available due to icing, or the terrain you're in.
(c) divert to an airfield to get back down again - which is not always available due to distance or weather limits.
For the police in the UK, assuming we thought IR's were a good thing, lets look at the maths:
Average police unit of 4 pilots: £50,000 / pilot for the course.
Time away for course: 5-6 weeks, cost of replacement pilot?
currency training / year / pilot: £?
Conversion of a/c to IFR (for those not already equipped)£250,000. + downtime.
34 forces with air support, each with 4 pilots (average): 136, plus floaters; say 150 (of which probably 20 are IR).
130 pilots needing conversions in addition to those already in the GA IR pipeline, with about 8 TRI's available in the country - how long to clear the backlog?
And the end product: the use of your new qualifications for about <5% of the time you are employed in police ops.
Best value - I think not
It has been suggested that an IR pilot might be tempted to 'push' it that little bit further because of his belief that he always has a get out ticket??? Trouble is what's his currency and proficiency like, (say) 9 months after the last check?
Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????
For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................
What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all.
It is anathema it seems (by a single rep within the CAA), to want to promote what can only be described as an aid to flight safety, after all!
It is unusual for the UK to be lagging so far behind the real world in this area. Hopefully we have turned a corner and like Jayteeto said
if you use them a few times, you would not want to fly without
It's worth reminding others that to 'plan' to fly IFR (which is technically what you would be doing if you considered inadvertent imc as an option every time you got airborne), then you would have to
(a) carry reserve fuel - which is impossible in light twins.
(b) be prepared to climb to MSA - which might not be available due to icing, or the terrain you're in.
(c) divert to an airfield to get back down again - which is not always available due to distance or weather limits.
For the police in the UK, assuming we thought IR's were a good thing, lets look at the maths:
Average police unit of 4 pilots: £50,000 / pilot for the course.
Time away for course: 5-6 weeks, cost of replacement pilot?
currency training / year / pilot: £?
Conversion of a/c to IFR (for those not already equipped)£250,000. + downtime.
34 forces with air support, each with 4 pilots (average): 136, plus floaters; say 150 (of which probably 20 are IR).
130 pilots needing conversions in addition to those already in the GA IR pipeline, with about 8 TRI's available in the country - how long to clear the backlog?
And the end product: the use of your new qualifications for about <5% of the time you are employed in police ops.
Best value - I think not
It has been suggested that an IR pilot might be tempted to 'push' it that little bit further because of his belief that he always has a get out ticket??? Trouble is what's his currency and proficiency like, (say) 9 months after the last check?
Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????
For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................
What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all.
Though I sort of understand the rationale that NVG could be used above 500 ft - it is really defeating almost all the benefits of the NVG. The closer you are to the ground the more you want to see it surely - and given that a majority of CFIT are during take off and landing: why dont we let them see?
The US rule is single pilot to take off and landing IF the LZ is prepared and lit. Unprepared LZs require a second crew member (not necessarily a pilot) trained in NVG and positioned so as to observe the side of the aircraft not covered by the pilot's scan.
Amazingly logical for a regulatory body (and I never thought I would say that). Oz lags the same as the UK in the NVG department, maybe even more so: we are still caught on minimum of 2 pilots, IR required, etc, etc, etc, and no legislation in sight.
The US rule is single pilot to take off and landing IF the LZ is prepared and lit. Unprepared LZs require a second crew member (not necessarily a pilot) trained in NVG and positioned so as to observe the side of the aircraft not covered by the pilot's scan.
Amazingly logical for a regulatory body (and I never thought I would say that). Oz lags the same as the UK in the NVG department, maybe even more so: we are still caught on minimum of 2 pilots, IR required, etc, etc, etc, and no legislation in sight.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sydney to hobart yacht race
shortly after the bad one a few years back, the Vic Police did a trial of NVG's for their Air Wing, i think this was mostly attributed to the fact that these poor buggers were flying out over bass strait in attrocious weather, plucking yachties that they could find from the mess below, & unlike their Navy counter parts in the sea-hawks without NVG's
having to bunny hop each wall of 'blacker than black' that loomed out of the darkness.
I believe that the current chief pilot is x- army & was a driving force behind the initiative, but am not in the know.
it seems we(helo community) tend to lose a lot of SAR birds at night, i thought it would have been a distinct advantage (& a no-brainer) to insist that Police & SAR be allowed the leverage of such great technology, that is readily available & no longer the singular domain of the military.
personally i have never flown on NVG, but have spent a great deal of time behind some of the older stuff tip-toeing through the 'J'
having to bunny hop each wall of 'blacker than black' that loomed out of the darkness.
I believe that the current chief pilot is x- army & was a driving force behind the initiative, but am not in the know.
it seems we(helo community) tend to lose a lot of SAR birds at night, i thought it would have been a distinct advantage (& a no-brainer) to insist that Police & SAR be allowed the leverage of such great technology, that is readily available & no longer the singular domain of the military.
personally i have never flown on NVG, but have spent a great deal of time behind some of the older stuff tip-toeing through the 'J'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that chaps.
I am now more convinced of the use of NVGs, but there seems a wide and differing view as to why they are wanted, from weather avoidance, earth avoidance, night landings ( not sure if that meant ad-hoc) and so on. No single solid thread for the use of them but plenty of reasons.
It's my personal opinion that the rear obs is a good idea for them, surely the CAA couldn't argue that in the short term, and the front crew - well let's not go back there.
Thanks for the discussion, I think this has been put to bed.
Sorry that Thomes Coupling gets up tight so quickly, or is that DT, must be the air up in North Wales............
I am now more convinced of the use of NVGs, but there seems a wide and differing view as to why they are wanted, from weather avoidance, earth avoidance, night landings ( not sure if that meant ad-hoc) and so on. No single solid thread for the use of them but plenty of reasons.
It's my personal opinion that the rear obs is a good idea for them, surely the CAA couldn't argue that in the short term, and the front crew - well let's not go back there.
Thanks for the discussion, I think this has been put to bed.
Sorry that Thomes Coupling gets up tight so quickly, or is that DT, must be the air up in North Wales............
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kalif,
Sorry to wander into the thread so late, but I'd like to comment:
1) The goggles are always better than not. If you want to see into a dark area, goggles allow you to do so. They amplify so greatly it is spooky. They are pilotage devices, which means you use them to fly with directly, as opposed to panel mounted FLIR, which is not a pilotage device. You can't control your vehicle directly while staring at the screen, it is a prescription for disaster. With goggles, you can fly using them directly, thus the term pilotage device.
2) Why do goggle operations seem more dangerous? Because the military pilots use them to fly low altitude, close to obstructions and dangerous profiles mean more risk. If regular police profiles are flown with goggles, they will be far safer than without goggles, and far safer than military NOE operations with goggles.
3) Why did the FAA approval not allow goggles for approach? Because the FAA did not know how to approve them, and anyone with signature authority hid in the bushes while the Advisory Circular was being passed around. Simply said, in FAA the world, one must have criteria to meet to make an approval, and since no goggle criteria exist, it took years to approve them for flight far away from objects.
4) The goggles help everything at night, because they let you see more. Terrain and obstructons, weather avoidance, pilotage navigation are all made better, and they also let you see the areas you are patroling, so you do a better job too.
5) There should be no debate, goggles are a tool that makes current contour altitude operations safer. They will measurebly improve effectiveness of crews at night, and if the same altitudes are flown, they will always improve safety. Given the choce of goggles or panel mounted FLIR, I would always choose goggles. I would like both, of course!
Sorry to wander into the thread so late, but I'd like to comment:
1) The goggles are always better than not. If you want to see into a dark area, goggles allow you to do so. They amplify so greatly it is spooky. They are pilotage devices, which means you use them to fly with directly, as opposed to panel mounted FLIR, which is not a pilotage device. You can't control your vehicle directly while staring at the screen, it is a prescription for disaster. With goggles, you can fly using them directly, thus the term pilotage device.
2) Why do goggle operations seem more dangerous? Because the military pilots use them to fly low altitude, close to obstructions and dangerous profiles mean more risk. If regular police profiles are flown with goggles, they will be far safer than without goggles, and far safer than military NOE operations with goggles.
3) Why did the FAA approval not allow goggles for approach? Because the FAA did not know how to approve them, and anyone with signature authority hid in the bushes while the Advisory Circular was being passed around. Simply said, in FAA the world, one must have criteria to meet to make an approval, and since no goggle criteria exist, it took years to approve them for flight far away from objects.
4) The goggles help everything at night, because they let you see more. Terrain and obstructons, weather avoidance, pilotage navigation are all made better, and they also let you see the areas you are patroling, so you do a better job too.
5) There should be no debate, goggles are a tool that makes current contour altitude operations safer. They will measurebly improve effectiveness of crews at night, and if the same altitudes are flown, they will always improve safety. Given the choce of goggles or panel mounted FLIR, I would always choose goggles. I would like both, of course!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
My apologies also for being late on parade...
From personal experience, (I'm an ex-mil QHI and civvie NVG instructor, ex Police ASU chief pilot with full UK IR, now flying IFR almost every day / night in a different heli job) I think the police role always requires every pilot to have the ability to make a night / IMC abort safely, hence a requirement for instrument flying training and currency and a properly IFR equipped aircraft.
The job would benefit from NVGs on some occasions. On some occasions it wouldn't. NVGs are extremely useful safety equipment if operating at at low level by night, especially so away from cultural lighting in the hills. As someone already stated, the military now see them as esssential equipment. I have aborted police jobs in the past because there was insuffient visual reference in transit, so it was unsafe to continue. With NVG I WOULD have very often been able to carry on and the job would have continued in safety. No one is advocating that police pilots should fly at ultra low level by night but 500 ft agl would be perfectly safe in a known area if the pilot was able to orientate himself with the terrain and obstructions. NVGs are NOT good for ad-hoc landings due to the inability to see wires.
What the police are prepared to buy is a different matter.....
From personal experience, (I'm an ex-mil QHI and civvie NVG instructor, ex Police ASU chief pilot with full UK IR, now flying IFR almost every day / night in a different heli job) I think the police role always requires every pilot to have the ability to make a night / IMC abort safely, hence a requirement for instrument flying training and currency and a properly IFR equipped aircraft.
The job would benefit from NVGs on some occasions. On some occasions it wouldn't. NVGs are extremely useful safety equipment if operating at at low level by night, especially so away from cultural lighting in the hills. As someone already stated, the military now see them as esssential equipment. I have aborted police jobs in the past because there was insuffient visual reference in transit, so it was unsafe to continue. With NVG I WOULD have very often been able to carry on and the job would have continued in safety. No one is advocating that police pilots should fly at ultra low level by night but 500 ft agl would be perfectly safe in a known area if the pilot was able to orientate himself with the terrain and obstructions. NVGs are NOT good for ad-hoc landings due to the inability to see wires.
What the police are prepared to buy is a different matter.....
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
TC,
You said: "Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????
For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................
What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all."
---------
Well, a police chopper is safe parked up at a diversion for the night, that's good in my book. Alternatively, having rebriefed, if it's safe and the VCF conditions can be met, then why not refuel and fly in visual contact back to base? If it's not good enough to do so, then you presumably wouldn't be getting airborne again in any event, even if you had landed back at base instead?
I agree about the anomaly of your point 1. Could be cured by a change to the PAOM part 2. However, an IR'd pilot in an IFR aircraft can practice it any time he likes....
Re. point 2. In an ideal world maybe, but I guess you must work where there is a lot of cultural lighting or spend a lot of time playing cards....
But GPS self letdowns? You don't need THEM if you have no excuse to go inadvertent IMC!!
You said: "Anyway what good is a police chopper parked up at a diversion airfield for the night??????
For those of you who say - a diverted a/c is better than a crashed a/c due to inadvertent imc:
1. Non Ir pilots train for inadvertent IMC 4 times a year, an IR pilot only does it once a year!
2. There is NO EXCUSE for going inadvertent IMC in police work - none. You simply don't go / land / or turn back early.................
What we need is NVIS to the deck (t/o and l/o) and GPS self let downs...this is the 21st century after all."
---------
Well, a police chopper is safe parked up at a diversion for the night, that's good in my book. Alternatively, having rebriefed, if it's safe and the VCF conditions can be met, then why not refuel and fly in visual contact back to base? If it's not good enough to do so, then you presumably wouldn't be getting airborne again in any event, even if you had landed back at base instead?
I agree about the anomaly of your point 1. Could be cured by a change to the PAOM part 2. However, an IR'd pilot in an IFR aircraft can practice it any time he likes....
Re. point 2. In an ideal world maybe, but I guess you must work where there is a lot of cultural lighting or spend a lot of time playing cards....
But GPS self letdowns? You don't need THEM if you have no excuse to go inadvertent IMC!!