NVGs & HEMS in Australia
NASUS: hear, hear! I agree with much of what you say.
I want to pick up your comment re the FAA rules and "world's best practice". World's best practice is unfortunately subjective terminology because it means so many different things to so many different people. We are balancing the significantly increased safety represented by the adoption of NVG versus the cost of introducing the capability. If you make the capability so expensive to introduce, or the rules so restrictive, then few get to attain the desired outcome of a safer night flying method. Conversly, if you adopt ridiculous minimums to ensure the capability is cheap, you create more accidents because the operators are unaware of the limitations.
World's best practice is a throwaway line to articulate this balance. Resource rich operators invariably come up with a different answer than do resource poor ones, and NVG is no different. During the industry consultation phases of the HAA push for NVG there were operators and individuals who made arguements for a 10 hour pilot training courses, 8 hours for crewmen, full military style cockpit mods of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and hours and hours of ICUS before command. Then there were others who argued for NVG to be an endorsement on your night rating like a NDB or VOR. A lap around the block and box ticked, a cockpit mod costing $2000 (yes there is one flying), and lets get on with it. Everyone who presented an arguement claimed it as world's best practice - but who is right?
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded it's Aviation Research Report B2004/0152 – Night Vision Goggles in Civil Helicopter Operations by saying: “NVG’s have the potential to enhance safety but risk mitigation is required by ensuring a comprehensive implementation package AND properly resourcing the capability in terms of equipment and training.”
Though they too failed to quantify what "properly" and "comprehensive" actually meant. Nevertheless, it is an excellent report into the capabilities and limitations of NVG and the HAA used it to have a stab at creating Australian rules.
That brings us to the FAA rules. Years ago (1994 ish I think) the FAA comissioned an not-for-profit organisation to examine the adoption of an appropriate set of rules for NVG flight. That organisation (the RTCA)subsequently formed Standing Committee 196 (SC-196) and invited representatives from all over the world - including incidently, Mick Haxell from Australia (amongst others) and Mike Atwood from Aviation Specialties Unlimited (see link above) essentially steered the committee. I believe pprune's JimL was also there. SC-196 created and published a number of standards documents that have essentially become the international standard for NVG use - or at least the starting point.
This then begs the question - has this international group of subject matter experts got it so wrong? Or could they be said to have created "world's best practice"?
In accordance with the CASA CEO stated vision of adopting established international practices unless a safety case prohibts it, finding middle ground in the Oz industry views, PLUS recognising that SC-196 might have got it right, the HAA went down that line. So did the FAA.
The HAA "Australianised" it a bit: for example few other countries have a night LSALT like Oz (and the SC-196 does not refer to any) and tightened up some of the definitions in response to industry concerns - such as pilot flight training will be a min of "5 hours NVG flight time", not just "5 hours", and instrument profficiency must be demonstrated prior to commencement of the course.
Have the HAA got it that wrong?
Your last comment was:
What about Malborough and Mackay? 8 fatalities that I contend would have been prevented if NVG were in use. 8 fatalities that have occured since the SC-196 pointed the way forward. 8 fatalities that have occurred while CASA have tossed and turned over the meaning of "world's best practice" without resolution. How does that sit with your quote?
And if it was not for Tavcar, Beasey, Anderson (you named him above, I am not sure what role he played) VPAW,and now Byron, I shudder to think where development would be.
I want to pick up your comment re the FAA rules and "world's best practice". World's best practice is unfortunately subjective terminology because it means so many different things to so many different people. We are balancing the significantly increased safety represented by the adoption of NVG versus the cost of introducing the capability. If you make the capability so expensive to introduce, or the rules so restrictive, then few get to attain the desired outcome of a safer night flying method. Conversly, if you adopt ridiculous minimums to ensure the capability is cheap, you create more accidents because the operators are unaware of the limitations.
World's best practice is a throwaway line to articulate this balance. Resource rich operators invariably come up with a different answer than do resource poor ones, and NVG is no different. During the industry consultation phases of the HAA push for NVG there were operators and individuals who made arguements for a 10 hour pilot training courses, 8 hours for crewmen, full military style cockpit mods of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and hours and hours of ICUS before command. Then there were others who argued for NVG to be an endorsement on your night rating like a NDB or VOR. A lap around the block and box ticked, a cockpit mod costing $2000 (yes there is one flying), and lets get on with it. Everyone who presented an arguement claimed it as world's best practice - but who is right?
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded it's Aviation Research Report B2004/0152 – Night Vision Goggles in Civil Helicopter Operations by saying: “NVG’s have the potential to enhance safety but risk mitigation is required by ensuring a comprehensive implementation package AND properly resourcing the capability in terms of equipment and training.”
Though they too failed to quantify what "properly" and "comprehensive" actually meant. Nevertheless, it is an excellent report into the capabilities and limitations of NVG and the HAA used it to have a stab at creating Australian rules.
That brings us to the FAA rules. Years ago (1994 ish I think) the FAA comissioned an not-for-profit organisation to examine the adoption of an appropriate set of rules for NVG flight. That organisation (the RTCA)subsequently formed Standing Committee 196 (SC-196) and invited representatives from all over the world - including incidently, Mick Haxell from Australia (amongst others) and Mike Atwood from Aviation Specialties Unlimited (see link above) essentially steered the committee. I believe pprune's JimL was also there. SC-196 created and published a number of standards documents that have essentially become the international standard for NVG use - or at least the starting point.
This then begs the question - has this international group of subject matter experts got it so wrong? Or could they be said to have created "world's best practice"?
In accordance with the CASA CEO stated vision of adopting established international practices unless a safety case prohibts it, finding middle ground in the Oz industry views, PLUS recognising that SC-196 might have got it right, the HAA went down that line. So did the FAA.
The HAA "Australianised" it a bit: for example few other countries have a night LSALT like Oz (and the SC-196 does not refer to any) and tightened up some of the definitions in response to industry concerns - such as pilot flight training will be a min of "5 hours NVG flight time", not just "5 hours", and instrument profficiency must be demonstrated prior to commencement of the course.
Have the HAA got it that wrong?
Your last comment was:
If you think training is expensive try having an accident.....
And if it was not for Tavcar, Beasey, Anderson (you named him above, I am not sure what role he played) VPAW,and now Byron, I shudder to think where development would be.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes "Sleasy Beasy" a man after my own heart. Not sure what Greg is up to these days and YES its about time SH-T happend with respect to capability.
With any luck VPAW will be seen as the appropriate model from which other templates will follow.
CASA-Get on with it!
With any luck VPAW will be seen as the appropriate model from which other templates will follow.
CASA-Get on with it!
Rest assured Max, Greg, Dave Donaldson, Dan Tyler, Mike de Winton, Tony Wood,and Brendon Balin are still chipping away. Efforts also from Peter Cook, Brett Knowles, and Mark Morrison.
Curious though, why would you choose the VPAW model over the SC-196 model?
Curious though, why would you choose the VPAW model over the SC-196 model?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet fire,
I hear what you say...as an ex mil NVG instructor pilot I feel that there are 2 extremes that I do not feel comfortable with; what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high, especially for left hand seat NVG crewperson. On the other hand what the HAA propose of 5 hours only (HAA model) for pilot training is far too low. Somewhere in the middle would be more appropriate. 5 hours could be done in just two nights...and then the pilot is let loose PIC! Not sure if I feel comfortable with this I'm afraid. Has this pilot experienced different environmental conditions in those two nights? Has that pilot done all of his training, in those two nights, with a full moon and clear Wx? Am I missing something here?
Operators don't seem to complain to CASA much about having to pay for a 10 hour endorsement on a medium twin, just accept it, especially for pilots who have thousands of hours on twins yet they have a financial problem with paying out for more than 5 hours NVG for pilots who have never touched NVGs and may only have very little unaided night hours?? Strange! I would be more comfortable teaching NVG in the civil context over a 15 hour period, 5 hours dual and 10 hours ICUS say! 4 -5 hours for a non flying left hand seat NVG crewperson is more than enough. I know the FAA are saying 5 hours and that's it but I'm certainly not comfortable with releasing an NVG 'newby' pilot with those hours PIC! Sorry but that's how I feel.
I hear what you say...as an ex mil NVG instructor pilot I feel that there are 2 extremes that I do not feel comfortable with; what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high, especially for left hand seat NVG crewperson. On the other hand what the HAA propose of 5 hours only (HAA model) for pilot training is far too low. Somewhere in the middle would be more appropriate. 5 hours could be done in just two nights...and then the pilot is let loose PIC! Not sure if I feel comfortable with this I'm afraid. Has this pilot experienced different environmental conditions in those two nights? Has that pilot done all of his training, in those two nights, with a full moon and clear Wx? Am I missing something here?
Operators don't seem to complain to CASA much about having to pay for a 10 hour endorsement on a medium twin, just accept it, especially for pilots who have thousands of hours on twins yet they have a financial problem with paying out for more than 5 hours NVG for pilots who have never touched NVGs and may only have very little unaided night hours?? Strange! I would be more comfortable teaching NVG in the civil context over a 15 hour period, 5 hours dual and 10 hours ICUS say! 4 -5 hours for a non flying left hand seat NVG crewperson is more than enough. I know the FAA are saying 5 hours and that's it but I'm certainly not comfortable with releasing an NVG 'newby' pilot with those hours PIC! Sorry but that's how I feel.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmut,
VPAW only to say that it is happening in our own back yard and CASA has formed a relationship that recognises their AOC. Better to cut and paste (I mean this tounge in cheek) from your own lap top than some one elses.
Mike De Winton-Good bloke, Allo to Mike
Max
VPAW only to say that it is happening in our own back yard and CASA has formed a relationship that recognises their AOC. Better to cut and paste (I mean this tounge in cheek) from your own lap top than some one elses.
Mike De Winton-Good bloke, Allo to Mike
Max
Max,
I understand the sentiment, but by cutting and pasting the VPAW model, you are importing rules and requirements that aare suited to their environment, not necessarily yours. And that may be fine for your operation, but it will not suit others.
NASUS, you asked:
Ummm….only since you asked – yes! Ring up one of the guys listed and get the draft!!
The HAA model is a competency based system in accordance with the Australian training system. Unlike the VPAW or even the SC-196 model, it defines the competency outcome of the graduate pilot or crewman, and then breaks down those competencies into the sorties. Experience, however, is a valuable part of the aviation training system that is not really taken into account by competency-based systems. Recognising this, 5 hours was chosen IAW the international standards of SC-196. A “feeling” or being “uncomfortable” about 5 hours is not considered a sufficient safety case to ignore what the international standard is, especially until you begin to break it down into competencies and see how long it takes to achieve those competencies.
Unlike your Mil experience, civ NVG students will not only be the day 1 types. Some of them will show up with 20 years of IFR EMS, thousands of hours on type, more than 1000 hours of night and more than 1000 hours of IFR. Do you really “feel” that this guy will require more than 5 hours to fly from A to B with a GPS NB 500ft, descend, conduct a pad recce and approach and land on NVG? Note that other competencies such as aided winching or rapelling require more traininig.
Now if you are Mil, and a day 1 pilot, I agree with more traininig. But in that very same situation I had 10 hours instruction and came out a Black Hawk NVG Formation captain, doing time on target (no GPS) at 50 ft into non recce’d pads and dust landings. And I am not a good pilot. That’s what 10 hours gave us. Newby civ pilots will also require more hours, but that will be determined by their ability to achieve the competencies, not tick and flick an hours box. Your example of the twin training is exactly my point.
In order to further align the proposed system with SC-196, the HAA model specifies that you must have more than 250 hours total before training, have a NVFR rating with at least 20 hours night, 10 of which Are post a night rating, 5 in the last 3 months. If you have an instrument rating, you are sweet. If not, you have to complete at least a MINMUM of 1.5 hours night IFR (without a visible horizon) training with a night and IFR instructor, to achieve competency in U/A and Inadvertent IMC (IIMC) recovery to VFR flight before training.
Once on the course, you must do it in no less than 5 flights (busy 2 days I think), and one flight must be conducted in low illumination on in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting. And you must achieve all the competencies. A similar sorry for crewmen who have a 2 hour course.
The VPAW model suits VPAW, but it does not hope to cover the variety of operations, operators and pilot types that will be doing training. The SC-196 system did try to cover those.
As for companies letting the newby NVG pilot go PIC straight after, advice of which is also covered in the proposed CAAP, but essentially it is up to the Operator (and they are required to consider this issue), not CASA. What is your safety case to prohibit this international standard?
Any of that make you feel a little more comfortable?
I understand the sentiment, but by cutting and pasting the VPAW model, you are importing rules and requirements that aare suited to their environment, not necessarily yours. And that may be fine for your operation, but it will not suit others.
NASUS, you asked:
Am I missing something here?
Ummm….only since you asked – yes! Ring up one of the guys listed and get the draft!!
The HAA model is a competency based system in accordance with the Australian training system. Unlike the VPAW or even the SC-196 model, it defines the competency outcome of the graduate pilot or crewman, and then breaks down those competencies into the sorties. Experience, however, is a valuable part of the aviation training system that is not really taken into account by competency-based systems. Recognising this, 5 hours was chosen IAW the international standards of SC-196. A “feeling” or being “uncomfortable” about 5 hours is not considered a sufficient safety case to ignore what the international standard is, especially until you begin to break it down into competencies and see how long it takes to achieve those competencies.
Unlike your Mil experience, civ NVG students will not only be the day 1 types. Some of them will show up with 20 years of IFR EMS, thousands of hours on type, more than 1000 hours of night and more than 1000 hours of IFR. Do you really “feel” that this guy will require more than 5 hours to fly from A to B with a GPS NB 500ft, descend, conduct a pad recce and approach and land on NVG? Note that other competencies such as aided winching or rapelling require more traininig.
Now if you are Mil, and a day 1 pilot, I agree with more traininig. But in that very same situation I had 10 hours instruction and came out a Black Hawk NVG Formation captain, doing time on target (no GPS) at 50 ft into non recce’d pads and dust landings. And I am not a good pilot. That’s what 10 hours gave us. Newby civ pilots will also require more hours, but that will be determined by their ability to achieve the competencies, not tick and flick an hours box. Your example of the twin training is exactly my point.
In order to further align the proposed system with SC-196, the HAA model specifies that you must have more than 250 hours total before training, have a NVFR rating with at least 20 hours night, 10 of which Are post a night rating, 5 in the last 3 months. If you have an instrument rating, you are sweet. If not, you have to complete at least a MINMUM of 1.5 hours night IFR (without a visible horizon) training with a night and IFR instructor, to achieve competency in U/A and Inadvertent IMC (IIMC) recovery to VFR flight before training.
Once on the course, you must do it in no less than 5 flights (busy 2 days I think), and one flight must be conducted in low illumination on in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting. And you must achieve all the competencies. A similar sorry for crewmen who have a 2 hour course.
The VPAW model suits VPAW, but it does not hope to cover the variety of operations, operators and pilot types that will be doing training. The SC-196 system did try to cover those.
As for companies letting the newby NVG pilot go PIC straight after, advice of which is also covered in the proposed CAAP, but essentially it is up to the Operator (and they are required to consider this issue), not CASA. What is your safety case to prohibit this international standard?
Any of that make you feel a little more comfortable?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with NASUS wholeheartedly...
Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble..NVGs are not just a strap on and go option...
A whole lot of early NVG accidents US/UK provide the basis for the current Mil Spec....why re invent the wheel, Greg?
Goggle Up!
Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble..NVGs are not just a strap on and go option...
A whole lot of early NVG accidents US/UK provide the basis for the current Mil Spec....why re invent the wheel, Greg?
Goggle Up!
Um, I think NASUS actualy said about the VPAW (CASA CMI) model was:
and then mentioned the 5 hours of the HAA model as at the other end of the spectrum. I tried to demonstrate that model is a lot more than just 5 hours of NVG and away you go. Which bit of the HAA model troubles you, Delta? Lets talk specifics, not just general degradation of a model I am sure you are intimate with. You are aren't you?
Because you are so well informed, let me take the time to help you out a bit: the mil spec and VPAW models are very different.
What part of the HAA model says "strap them on and go"? Just a tad condescending and emotive, n'est pas?
And if you soooooo dont want to re-invent the wheel, that rules the VPAW model right out. It is not mil spec, and it is not SC-196. The HAA model is based on.....actually read all about this point above - it has been made enough times.
Hopefully I have shown above that the HAA model is not that different from the VPAW model after all, and is competency driven. The VPAW CMI requires 8 hours, (not 8 hours of NVG flight), and includes mission training too. It does not define competency outcomes. The VPAW model was used extensively in the development of the HAA model, and if you look back through the thread you will see that I praise the VPAW efforts as the van-guard of NVG in Oz. I stand by that praise.
But some one needs to mount a safety case as to why we should not adopt the international standard. A safety case is more than a gut feeling. Pointing to an unknown, unquantifiable number of "early" accidents is not a safety case. Delta, over to you to substantiate those claims.
And if someone can, now is the time we need to hear it before the rules are finalised in Oz. We need input, and we need experiences. No good pooh poohing the cake if you have not helped to bake it.
In fact I am aware of only two civ NVG accidents in the US/UK (or the world for that matter), but only one that was being operated IAW the FAA/International standards.
1. Often mistakenly quoted here was a US public use police op where a 500 hour pilot took off at night in fog and flew over water. Accident investigators failed to confirm if he was on NVG or not. BUT....Public Use aare not subject to the FAA rules, and this op did not comply with them in any way, including no documented traaininig course, no instrument profficiency, etc, etc, etc.
2. a squirrel that went in after alleged pilot disorientation. he goggled up, and degoggled during the disorientation recovery (don't remember thhat bit in the traaining), and used the goggles at the bottom to avoid losing his own life.
Meanwhile, how many have died from CFIT without the NVG?
Rega in Switzerland have been doing NVG for 15 years WITHOUT INCIDENT. And their training regimeis....? A clue: it is less restrictiive than the HAA model, and they operate in a slightly more adverse environment, don't you think?
Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?
I know what the kiwis are thinking right now...
Any guesses?
Goggle up? absolutely.
what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high
Because you are so well informed, let me take the time to help you out a bit: the mil spec and VPAW models are very different.
What part of the HAA model says "strap them on and go"? Just a tad condescending and emotive, n'est pas?
And if you soooooo dont want to re-invent the wheel, that rules the VPAW model right out. It is not mil spec, and it is not SC-196. The HAA model is based on.....actually read all about this point above - it has been made enough times.
Hopefully I have shown above that the HAA model is not that different from the VPAW model after all, and is competency driven. The VPAW CMI requires 8 hours, (not 8 hours of NVG flight), and includes mission training too. It does not define competency outcomes. The VPAW model was used extensively in the development of the HAA model, and if you look back through the thread you will see that I praise the VPAW efforts as the van-guard of NVG in Oz. I stand by that praise.
But some one needs to mount a safety case as to why we should not adopt the international standard. A safety case is more than a gut feeling. Pointing to an unknown, unquantifiable number of "early" accidents is not a safety case. Delta, over to you to substantiate those claims.
And if someone can, now is the time we need to hear it before the rules are finalised in Oz. We need input, and we need experiences. No good pooh poohing the cake if you have not helped to bake it.
In fact I am aware of only two civ NVG accidents in the US/UK (or the world for that matter), but only one that was being operated IAW the FAA/International standards.
1. Often mistakenly quoted here was a US public use police op where a 500 hour pilot took off at night in fog and flew over water. Accident investigators failed to confirm if he was on NVG or not. BUT....Public Use aare not subject to the FAA rules, and this op did not comply with them in any way, including no documented traaininig course, no instrument profficiency, etc, etc, etc.
2. a squirrel that went in after alleged pilot disorientation. he goggled up, and degoggled during the disorientation recovery (don't remember thhat bit in the traaining), and used the goggles at the bottom to avoid losing his own life.
Meanwhile, how many have died from CFIT without the NVG?
Rega in Switzerland have been doing NVG for 15 years WITHOUT INCIDENT. And their training regimeis....? A clue: it is less restrictiive than the HAA model, and they operate in a slightly more adverse environment, don't you think?
Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?
I know what the kiwis are thinking right now...
Any guesses?
Goggle up? absolutely.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dunnunder
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...first to qualify my comments, I'm ex-mil, NVG qual'ed now EMS SPIFR 24 hour ops in mountainous, freezing-level environment (Australian) - Jeeze, talk about outing yourself -
I agree with the model Helmut Fire is refering to for Aust Ops, but only after reading his comments above.
I too at first thought that 5 hours gog trg is way too few to command in this challenging environment (won't comment on non-EMS as I don't feel I have the experience to claim that right). But, to paraphrase some of his comments, this training is competency based, so if the trainee isnt up to speed on the prescribed manoeuvres and knowledge, he wont get the tick in the box.
I also strongly agree with the point that this will be training for crew already experienced in the environment in which they are to opperate . That environment doesnt involve anything like low level tac nav time on target formation in an actively hostile environment. Yes the EMS role takes us potentially into difficult and dangerous situations, but in my operation and all that I know of, it is here where the EMS crew use their experience and knowledge to avoid actual risk, be that by using certain techniques/training/equipment(NVG?), or by turning down the job outright. This will not change with the application of NVG methods.
I am comfortable with the idea of 5 NVG hours training for experienced opperators who will only be allowed to opperate NVG once they prove they are competent.
I'm glad to hear that ops such as winch will require extra training. It sounds like the basic qual will allow us to get airbourne, cruise (say what you like about medical requirements for low level, if I can stay low, avoid ice, decrease the flight time, avoid traffic, help the patient, and have the advantage of always seeing where I am going to land if I or the patient have an emergency), locate and land without ever losing visual touch with obstacles. Simple, safe, smart.
HAA and the guys pushing this deserve our full support and thanks, and the future of our industry deserves our input. From experience, this isnt a closed shop, the guys appreciate all the industry input they can get.
Keep this thread going. It's a great way to get the message out there, and to gather industry/individual input.
W
I agree with the model Helmut Fire is refering to for Aust Ops, but only after reading his comments above.
I too at first thought that 5 hours gog trg is way too few to command in this challenging environment (won't comment on non-EMS as I don't feel I have the experience to claim that right). But, to paraphrase some of his comments, this training is competency based, so if the trainee isnt up to speed on the prescribed manoeuvres and knowledge, he wont get the tick in the box.
I also strongly agree with the point that this will be training for crew already experienced in the environment in which they are to opperate . That environment doesnt involve anything like low level tac nav time on target formation in an actively hostile environment. Yes the EMS role takes us potentially into difficult and dangerous situations, but in my operation and all that I know of, it is here where the EMS crew use their experience and knowledge to avoid actual risk, be that by using certain techniques/training/equipment(NVG?), or by turning down the job outright. This will not change with the application of NVG methods.
I am comfortable with the idea of 5 NVG hours training for experienced opperators who will only be allowed to opperate NVG once they prove they are competent.
I'm glad to hear that ops such as winch will require extra training. It sounds like the basic qual will allow us to get airbourne, cruise (say what you like about medical requirements for low level, if I can stay low, avoid ice, decrease the flight time, avoid traffic, help the patient, and have the advantage of always seeing where I am going to land if I or the patient have an emergency), locate and land without ever losing visual touch with obstacles. Simple, safe, smart.
HAA and the guys pushing this deserve our full support and thanks, and the future of our industry deserves our input. From experience, this isnt a closed shop, the guys appreciate all the industry input they can get.
Keep this thread going. It's a great way to get the message out there, and to gather industry/individual input.
W
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't 'out' you mate, you 'outed' yourself! I mentioned your name because I imagined you would be reading the thread.....
Your response was articulate and well reasoned, and I believe that we both have the same aims in mind...
NASUS makes the point regarding the CMI setting too high a standard, but I think he was referring to the non flying NVG crewmember....
The UK/US accidents I refer to are not civilian...I am talking about the many military accidents which occurred as people started discovering some of the pitfalls in the (then) emerging technology...the weather traps, the new range of illusions, the need for new cockpit ergonomics and crew protocols...these are the things which served to define the 'mil spec'.
I don't think the VPAW's stance is about being exclusive, I firmly believe that the best fallback from a degraded or failed NVG situation is an instant reversion to IFR...and IFR in a well equipped IFR cockpit..it's all about risk mitigation..
Competency based training has its merits...but with NVG, it is important to expose the pilot to the full range of operating conditions..and it may not be possible to achieve this over a short training period.
(sips coffee,....thinks) I make the analogy of deck landing qualifications in the military (because NVG ops in Oz are still confined to the military) You would have probably qualified in Moreton Bay, or some relatively benign location. Remember when you first tried the same procedure,landing on the same ship at sea? You would have found it a little different, to say the least!
NVGs will save lives in Australia...we both know that...but they can bite even the well trained.. you know that too.... What experience level and aircraft capablity was on board 108, when it made its unscheduled (and very lucky) landing on top of a mountain in ET? Fair enough, you say...we don't intend to conduct those sort of ops...I agree...
But it is a contemporary example of a well trained crew in a very capable and sophisticated aircraft, coming unstuck in an NVG/bad weather combination...
Dampen down that fire a tad, helmet...we are both on the same side...
Just from different schools.....(of thought)
Happy landings, old friend!
P.S. Your command of French is impressive, to say the least...
I mentioned your name because I imagined you would be reading the thread.....Your response was articulate and well reasoned, and I believe that we both have the same aims in mind...
NASUS makes the point regarding the CMI setting too high a standard, but I think he was referring to the non flying NVG crewmember....
The UK/US accidents I refer to are not civilian...I am talking about the many military accidents which occurred as people started discovering some of the pitfalls in the (then) emerging technology...the weather traps, the new range of illusions, the need for new cockpit ergonomics and crew protocols...these are the things which served to define the 'mil spec'.
I don't think the VPAW's stance is about being exclusive, I firmly believe that the best fallback from a degraded or failed NVG situation is an instant reversion to IFR...and IFR in a well equipped IFR cockpit..it's all about risk mitigation..
Competency based training has its merits...but with NVG, it is important to expose the pilot to the full range of operating conditions..and it may not be possible to achieve this over a short training period.
(sips coffee,....thinks) I make the analogy of deck landing qualifications in the military (because NVG ops in Oz are still confined to the military) You would have probably qualified in Moreton Bay, or some relatively benign location. Remember when you first tried the same procedure,landing on the same ship at sea? You would have found it a little different, to say the least!
NVGs will save lives in Australia...we both know that...but they can bite even the well trained.. you know that too.... What experience level and aircraft capablity was on board 108, when it made its unscheduled (and very lucky) landing on top of a mountain in ET? Fair enough, you say...we don't intend to conduct those sort of ops...I agree...
But it is a contemporary example of a well trained crew in a very capable and sophisticated aircraft, coming unstuck in an NVG/bad weather combination...
Dampen down that fire a tad, helmet...we are both on the same side...
Just from different schools.....(of thought)
Happy landings, old friend!
P.S. Your command of French is impressive, to say the least...
Fair enough. Except for the French bit!! Mon Dieu.
Sorry for the fire, but it has been a long road that is not over yet.
I will post the pilot competency statements tonight and that may help you come to terms with the proposal. As I said above, all input to the current development is welcome, but it really helps if the current standards are well understood before-hand as comments linking the HAA and SC-196 models to a strap on and go scenario are both provocative and wide of the mark: resulting in occaisional fire from mein helmet!!! As w'ocker says, most of those exposed to the actual detail of the model come to agree with the general thrust.
No course of training will expose you to a large variety of conditions, and I hear your concerns. As a direct result of that very issue, the HAA model added to the SC-196 requirements by having to have a sortie completed with low illumination in an area devoid of surroundiing cultural lights. If you are trying to squeeze all your training into two days, then most of your course will be done like that. As for a variety of weather and terrain, that sort of supervision will be an operator responsibility, as it is now.
The ET event is not applicable really (tac formation to very low weather limitations). But your IFR points have also been heavily considered by both the SC-196 and the HAA models. In short, the HAA model is proposing that where no IFR rating/aircraft is used, the min wx is NVFR over the entire route too NVFR LSALT levels. Qualification competencies also include a demonstrated IIMC recovery.
Sorry for the fire, but it has been a long road that is not over yet.
I will post the pilot competency statements tonight and that may help you come to terms with the proposal. As I said above, all input to the current development is welcome, but it really helps if the current standards are well understood before-hand as comments linking the HAA and SC-196 models to a strap on and go scenario are both provocative and wide of the mark: resulting in occaisional fire from mein helmet!!! As w'ocker says, most of those exposed to the actual detail of the model come to agree with the general thrust.
No course of training will expose you to a large variety of conditions, and I hear your concerns. As a direct result of that very issue, the HAA model added to the SC-196 requirements by having to have a sortie completed with low illumination in an area devoid of surroundiing cultural lights. If you are trying to squeeze all your training into two days, then most of your course will be done like that. As for a variety of weather and terrain, that sort of supervision will be an operator responsibility, as it is now.
The ET event is not applicable really (tac formation to very low weather limitations). But your IFR points have also been heavily considered by both the SC-196 and the HAA models. In short, the HAA model is proposing that where no IFR rating/aircraft is used, the min wx is NVFR over the entire route too NVFR LSALT levels. Qualification competencies also include a demonstrated IIMC recovery.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet/Hellfire,
I touch base with the hard working NASUS from time to time, and I am familiar with the proposals on the table.
At the risk of drawing fire from itinerant jet ranger drivers, I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops...and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments.
At the additional risk of 'playing the man', look at yourself, and Daff, and Mike A, et al. You are all highly experienced ex military pilots, who have had the benefit of a thorough and extremely expensive training course, followed by a long period of consolidation, followed by years of experience, during which you would have seen a vast array of NVG environments. Have you forgotten how difficult it was during the first couple of hours? And given you had a crew of four?
You can't buy experience, nor can the average operator afford to buy the sort of equipment you have been fortunate enough to fly...
As I previously mentioned, these environments are not what we envisage for civil ops, but it doesn't take much to move from a benign cockpit situation to a nasty one. You've been there...we all have...
Why do you think companies like IT* don't want to sell this equipment to anyone but 'big chopper' law enforcement and EMS organisations?
I acknowledge and applaud your efforts so far...but there is a way to go yet, and I think the first transition from military to civil ops should mirror the former as much as possible.
Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...
Cheers...
I touch base with the hard working NASUS from time to time, and I am familiar with the proposals on the table.
At the risk of drawing fire from itinerant jet ranger drivers, I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops...and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments.
At the additional risk of 'playing the man', look at yourself, and Daff, and Mike A, et al. You are all highly experienced ex military pilots, who have had the benefit of a thorough and extremely expensive training course, followed by a long period of consolidation, followed by years of experience, during which you would have seen a vast array of NVG environments. Have you forgotten how difficult it was during the first couple of hours? And given you had a crew of four?
You can't buy experience, nor can the average operator afford to buy the sort of equipment you have been fortunate enough to fly...
As I previously mentioned, these environments are not what we envisage for civil ops, but it doesn't take much to move from a benign cockpit situation to a nasty one. You've been there...we all have...
Why do you think companies like IT* don't want to sell this equipment to anyone but 'big chopper' law enforcement and EMS organisations?
I acknowledge and applaud your efforts so far...but there is a way to go yet, and I think the first transition from military to civil ops should mirror the former as much as possible.
Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...
Cheers...
Mate, I appologise for the fire and you come back with Helmetfire/Hellfire.
Ok then.
But you think the VPAW model is the mil spec....
sounds like you are well on top of it.
If you have a safety case to back up this thought, now is the time to share as they are getting close to finalising the standards.
Also, do I really need to explain the relationship between "average pilot" and competency based training?
And the VPAW solution is what?
When I went through in 1990 or 91, we did our entire course, 10 hours of it, in two weeks in the same Townsville training area. Hardly meets your proposition, how about you?
Environmental conditions vary so much across bases, a one rule fits all is ridiculous. Learning out at Mataranka in the dry is going to be a challenge if you require all sorts of different conditions. So it is left to the operator to supervise the transition into their environment. As it should be. Do you have a superior suggestion?
I did get a 'phone call today with a suggestion that we post a bit of the HAA stuff to get the info out there, so I will do that in response to any questions or issues, starting with the pilot stuff posted below. But before I do, Delta has asked of the system:
Again, I am proposing that we accept that 15 years of safe civil ops meets this measure. And yet again I ask:
I am still keen on hearing from Delta why 5 hours is not enough, or why the SC-196 standards are defective. That is; keen to hear a safety case rather than a feeling, or simply because thats how we did it when we were military.
Here is the current proposal for the pilot training for initial qual.
Training Competency Outcome of this course: Perform the duties of an an NVG Pilot to safely and effectively take off, fly and navigate en-route across country, and descend, reconnoitre and land or hover to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG.
Minimum Qualifications prior to commencing NVG training
Before commencing NVG training leading to the award of an NVG qualification, the trainee pilot must , as a minimum, have the following:
a. Hold at a current Commercial Helicopter Pilot licence or Air Transport Helicopter licence; and
b. Hold a current night VFR rating for helicopters; and
c. Have logged at least 250 hours of aeronautical experience as a helicopter pilot of which no more than 50 can be in an approved flight simulator representative of the aircraft category that will be used for NVG operations; and
d. Be appropriately endorsed on the aircraft type intended for training; and
e. Have logged at least 10 hours of night (unaided) helicopter (not including training leading to the award of a NVFR rating), 5 of which are in the three months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating; and
f. Hold a current Instrument Rating or in the three months immediately prior to the commencement of training, undergo not less than 1.5 helicopter flight hours of dedicated dual night instrument training with an approved helicopter instrument instructor to achieve competency in unusual attitude recovery and inadvertent IMC recovery with sole reference to the aircraft’s instruments.
g. Pilots are to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences.
Training Intent
Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 5 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
NVG Pilot Training is a competency based system with a prescribed minimum of 5 hours NVG Flight time. The minimum is set with the intent of specifying the minimum training an experienced night/IFR pilot would require to achieve basic competencies. Therefore, where pilots have low night, IFR or total helicopter time, these minimums shall be increased.
The intent is that Operators (as opposed to the Authority) will build extra requirements into training syllabi to satisfy any advanced operational sequences particular to their operation, such as specialised coastal rescue, winch, rappel, etc , and are a component of risk management when seeking variation on the operational guidelines established in this CAAP. As another example, Operators may feel a progression through a period of ICUS is suitable to their operation, and should institute those requirements overlaid on these minimums. Such increases are not limited to the flight sequences, but may also be desired in the ground training phases.
With the exception of inadvertent IMC recovery, and loss of visual reference procedures, training may be conducted in an approved NVG flight simulator. Notwithstanding the minimum flight time, proficiency must be demonstrated in at least the following subjects:
a. Preparation and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for NVG flights and operations.
b. Preflight preparation of NVGs, planning considerations, and appropriate route selection for NVG flights and operations.
c. Correct piloting techniques (during normal, abnormal, and simulated emergency aircraft operations) whilst using NVGs during the take off, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight.
d. Normal, abnormal and emergency operations of the NVGs during flight.
e. In flight simulated Inadvertent IMC recovery to VMC with sole reference to the aircraft instruments. Non instrument rated pilots require training additional to the 5 hours in order to demonstrate instrument proficiency.
f. Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off.
g. Sound crew co-ordination.
These competencies can be achieved in an example of a qualification competency evaluation that reads:
As a minimum, trainee to demonstrate competency in:
1. Mission planning/flight planning for the flight.
2. Determining the serviceability of NVIS equipment, including aircraft components.
3. Performing cockpit drills including switch selection and ‘Goggle/de-goggle” procedure.
4. Performing hover, taxi and transit procedures.
5. Performing crew resource management appropriate to NVIS operations.
6. Performing NVIS practice malfunctions and emergency procedures.
7. Performing NVIS departure and navigation.
8. Performing circuit operations to unlit confined areas located in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
9. Performing Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off .
10. Perform Inadvertent IMC penetration procedures and safe recovery to VFR flight.
11. Perform a selection of practice aircraft emergency procedures, under NVIS conditions, applicable to the aircraft type.
Note that these standards are the current proposal at the working group level. They are not a finalised position, and are subject to change.
All safety cases pointing out deficiencies in the above are invited.
Ok then.
I am familiar with the proposals on the table
Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble
I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops
Also, do I really need to explain the relationship between "average pilot" and competency based training?
and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments
When I went through in 1990 or 91, we did our entire course, 10 hours of it, in two weeks in the same Townsville training area. Hardly meets your proposition, how about you?
Environmental conditions vary so much across bases, a one rule fits all is ridiculous. Learning out at Mataranka in the dry is going to be a challenge if you require all sorts of different conditions. So it is left to the operator to supervise the transition into their environment. As it should be. Do you have a superior suggestion?
I did get a 'phone call today with a suggestion that we post a bit of the HAA stuff to get the info out there, so I will do that in response to any questions or issues, starting with the pilot stuff posted below. But before I do, Delta has asked of the system:
Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...
Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?
Here is the current proposal for the pilot training for initial qual.
Training Competency Outcome of this course: Perform the duties of an an NVG Pilot to safely and effectively take off, fly and navigate en-route across country, and descend, reconnoitre and land or hover to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG.
Minimum Qualifications prior to commencing NVG training
Before commencing NVG training leading to the award of an NVG qualification, the trainee pilot must , as a minimum, have the following:
a. Hold at a current Commercial Helicopter Pilot licence or Air Transport Helicopter licence; and
b. Hold a current night VFR rating for helicopters; and
c. Have logged at least 250 hours of aeronautical experience as a helicopter pilot of which no more than 50 can be in an approved flight simulator representative of the aircraft category that will be used for NVG operations; and
d. Be appropriately endorsed on the aircraft type intended for training; and
e. Have logged at least 10 hours of night (unaided) helicopter (not including training leading to the award of a NVFR rating), 5 of which are in the three months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating; and
f. Hold a current Instrument Rating or in the three months immediately prior to the commencement of training, undergo not less than 1.5 helicopter flight hours of dedicated dual night instrument training with an approved helicopter instrument instructor to achieve competency in unusual attitude recovery and inadvertent IMC recovery with sole reference to the aircraft’s instruments.
g. Pilots are to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences.
Training Intent
Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 5 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
NVG Pilot Training is a competency based system with a prescribed minimum of 5 hours NVG Flight time. The minimum is set with the intent of specifying the minimum training an experienced night/IFR pilot would require to achieve basic competencies. Therefore, where pilots have low night, IFR or total helicopter time, these minimums shall be increased.
The intent is that Operators (as opposed to the Authority) will build extra requirements into training syllabi to satisfy any advanced operational sequences particular to their operation, such as specialised coastal rescue, winch, rappel, etc , and are a component of risk management when seeking variation on the operational guidelines established in this CAAP. As another example, Operators may feel a progression through a period of ICUS is suitable to their operation, and should institute those requirements overlaid on these minimums. Such increases are not limited to the flight sequences, but may also be desired in the ground training phases.
With the exception of inadvertent IMC recovery, and loss of visual reference procedures, training may be conducted in an approved NVG flight simulator. Notwithstanding the minimum flight time, proficiency must be demonstrated in at least the following subjects:
a. Preparation and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for NVG flights and operations.
b. Preflight preparation of NVGs, planning considerations, and appropriate route selection for NVG flights and operations.
c. Correct piloting techniques (during normal, abnormal, and simulated emergency aircraft operations) whilst using NVGs during the take off, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight.
d. Normal, abnormal and emergency operations of the NVGs during flight.
e. In flight simulated Inadvertent IMC recovery to VMC with sole reference to the aircraft instruments. Non instrument rated pilots require training additional to the 5 hours in order to demonstrate instrument proficiency.
f. Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off.
g. Sound crew co-ordination.
These competencies can be achieved in an example of a qualification competency evaluation that reads:
As a minimum, trainee to demonstrate competency in:
1. Mission planning/flight planning for the flight.
2. Determining the serviceability of NVIS equipment, including aircraft components.
3. Performing cockpit drills including switch selection and ‘Goggle/de-goggle” procedure.
4. Performing hover, taxi and transit procedures.
5. Performing crew resource management appropriate to NVIS operations.
6. Performing NVIS practice malfunctions and emergency procedures.
7. Performing NVIS departure and navigation.
8. Performing circuit operations to unlit confined areas located in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
9. Performing Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off .
10. Perform Inadvertent IMC penetration procedures and safe recovery to VFR flight.
11. Perform a selection of practice aircraft emergency procedures, under NVIS conditions, applicable to the aircraft type.
Note that these standards are the current proposal at the working group level. They are not a finalised position, and are subject to change.
All safety cases pointing out deficiencies in the above are invited.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good info.
Well done Helmet Fire. Good post and it sets the scene for what is being discussed.
Did this make it to a NPRM (or similar) for public discussion?
Did this make it to a NPRM (or similar) for public discussion?
Congratulations to Helmet Fire and friends
I know how much you have all devoted to this frustrating project over the years. The others who have helped, and stayed with you, when CASA had a flat tyre are also deserving of a pat on the back.
This project was first pushed by a group of which I was a member in 1993. At that time I was an Army Reserve instructor using NVG. I was told by CASA that it was a low priority - lacking expertise within the regulator.
The industry members who have fought so hard to run with the ball in Australia need to be recognised. You can image how they must feel when NZ, with their limited NZCAA resources, got the project underway, a couple years ahead of us - when it was our launch!
They have used the current US model (and US advisors under contract). It seems to be working.
Even today, CASA are advising industry that the earliest this will be resolved will be mid-year. So hopefully, we will see some progress - as this is only a few months away.
I hope the CASA move to Brisabne, and new restructuring, and the spilling of the 65 technical positions, will not distract from this important safety issue.
Well done guys.......if you had a dollar for every hour you spent finding a workable paper .... then you would be "millionaires".
And you are volunteers too!
This project was first pushed by a group of which I was a member in 1993. At that time I was an Army Reserve instructor using NVG. I was told by CASA that it was a low priority - lacking expertise within the regulator.
The industry members who have fought so hard to run with the ball in Australia need to be recognised. You can image how they must feel when NZ, with their limited NZCAA resources, got the project underway, a couple years ahead of us - when it was our launch!
They have used the current US model (and US advisors under contract). It seems to be working.
Even today, CASA are advising industry that the earliest this will be resolved will be mid-year. So hopefully, we will see some progress - as this is only a few months away.
I hope the CASA move to Brisabne, and new restructuring, and the spilling of the 65 technical positions, will not distract from this important safety issue.
Well done guys.......if you had a dollar for every hour you spent finding a workable paper .... then you would be "millionaires".
And you are volunteers too!
G'day CYHeli,
The original document was directed by the CEO's office of CASA to be a CAAP (or possibly a revised CMI) for NVG. Therefore, the document evolved through less formal public input than the NPRM process. It was widely circulated through the HAA to everyone that attended either of the HAA conferences, and then on to all industry people that had an email contact available, including through to NZ. Comment was recieved and collated, a final draft compiled, and this was distributed, discussed, ammended, and finally ratified by 60 odd people at the May 2005 night conference. A published complete paper was sent to CASA in a outcomes based CMI format by July 2005 as promised, with publication of the CAAP comitted to by CASA of 1st September 2005.
We are still going through the process to publication now. That is not to say comment has finished, but it is late in the picture and thus my call for a demonstrated or evidentiary safety case rather than just a "feeling" at this stage in the process. The NPRM was assesed by CASA as unecessary for a CAAP given the wide distribution and comment already recieved. That may change as CASA are now trying to change the format to a prescriptive CAO.
Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.
The original document was directed by the CEO's office of CASA to be a CAAP (or possibly a revised CMI) for NVG. Therefore, the document evolved through less formal public input than the NPRM process. It was widely circulated through the HAA to everyone that attended either of the HAA conferences, and then on to all industry people that had an email contact available, including through to NZ. Comment was recieved and collated, a final draft compiled, and this was distributed, discussed, ammended, and finally ratified by 60 odd people at the May 2005 night conference. A published complete paper was sent to CASA in a outcomes based CMI format by July 2005 as promised, with publication of the CAAP comitted to by CASA of 1st September 2005.
We are still going through the process to publication now. That is not to say comment has finished, but it is late in the picture and thus my call for a demonstrated or evidentiary safety case rather than just a "feeling" at this stage in the process. The NPRM was assesed by CASA as unecessary for a CAAP given the wide distribution and comment already recieved. That may change as CASA are now trying to change the format to a prescriptive CAO.
Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply..
'Hellfire' was firmly tongue in cheek...don't be so touchy...
I hear what you say, but I still think you are expecting too much of an outcome for the training you propose.... but these are only personal opinions, and time will tell.
Good to see Rob and others lending their support to this very important issue.
Cheers....
'Hellfire' was firmly tongue in cheek...don't be so touchy...
I hear what you say, but I still think you are expecting too much of an outcome for the training you propose.... but these are only personal opinions, and time will tell.
Good to see Rob and others lending their support to this very important issue.
Cheers....
Delta, your humour is almost as well hidden as your evidence backing your contentions. In fact, if I have you pegged correctly, it was you that once told me opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one. Especially those who are as articulate as you. And I am no diifferent - I too have an arsehole and an opinion.
If you really don't mean offence, I suggest you review the tone of your responses. Posting the correct and intended emotion into the written word is difficult, and you can rectiify miss-understandings with clarity when you see it as not had the desired effect. If you want to. You know where to reach me and talk it through.
But I must say, I really take offence at your last remark:
The last resort. Sounds like something we have heard at the working group meetings.
So, you have not constructively put forward a safety case or in fact any evidence that the proposal is flawed, but all is not lost: simply pop in a little parting shot just to show you know best, and just so you can say to the rest of the international industry who created this "I told you so, I knew best and you have it all wrong".
And you are right! Because if anyone has not yet made the leap, there IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE A NVG ACCIDENT. Same as there are day accidents (hold on, maybe we should not fly during the day), NVFR (lets stop doing this as well), and IFR (insert smart-arse comment here too.)
And when it does happen, we can forget all those lives saved because of the technology, and focus on the fact that "we were warned". Delta told us. There was no evidence for his position, but he just, ..well, he just knew the rest of the world was wrong. And see...he was right.
Just wait for the people to stand around the first smoking hole pointing with self justification. Where were they when Paddy smacked in at Malborough, or Andy off Mackay? When....etc, etc, etc.
I will try not to rise to any more of these baits.
I do stress again to anyone intrested, PLEASE put forward any safety case you have to alter the standards NOW before they become published. Any evidentary arguement. Any substantive, reasoned, factual issues at all. w-ocker, (f I have him pegged) actually took the time to do this over icing levels and his contention was adopted.
BTW, I am happy to post the other areas of the proposal if anyone is intrested, including crewman training, equipment levels, or whatever you are concerned or intrested in.
Thank you Rob for the tireless efforts you have put into the NVG issue. The industry owes you many beers.
If you really don't mean offence, I suggest you review the tone of your responses. Posting the correct and intended emotion into the written word is difficult, and you can rectiify miss-understandings with clarity when you see it as not had the desired effect. If you want to. You know where to reach me and talk it through.
But I must say, I really take offence at your last remark:
and time will tell
So, you have not constructively put forward a safety case or in fact any evidence that the proposal is flawed, but all is not lost: simply pop in a little parting shot just to show you know best, and just so you can say to the rest of the international industry who created this "I told you so, I knew best and you have it all wrong".
And you are right! Because if anyone has not yet made the leap, there IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE A NVG ACCIDENT. Same as there are day accidents (hold on, maybe we should not fly during the day), NVFR (lets stop doing this as well), and IFR (insert smart-arse comment here too.)
And when it does happen, we can forget all those lives saved because of the technology, and focus on the fact that "we were warned". Delta told us. There was no evidence for his position, but he just, ..well, he just knew the rest of the world was wrong. And see...he was right.
Just wait for the people to stand around the first smoking hole pointing with self justification. Where were they when Paddy smacked in at Malborough, or Andy off Mackay? When....etc, etc, etc.
I will try not to rise to any more of these baits.
I do stress again to anyone intrested, PLEASE put forward any safety case you have to alter the standards NOW before they become published. Any evidentary arguement. Any substantive, reasoned, factual issues at all. w-ocker, (f I have him pegged) actually took the time to do this over icing levels and his contention was adopted.
BTW, I am happy to post the other areas of the proposal if anyone is intrested, including crewman training, equipment levels, or whatever you are concerned or intrested in.
Thank you Rob for the tireless efforts you have put into the NVG issue. The industry owes you many beers.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't think I was the fellow who made the remark about opinions and arseholes....but I would agree with that observation...I have a similar saying regarding 'advice'....that's my favourite, but nothing to do with this exchange!
But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....
The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...
Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!
And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...
If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim?
It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....
Does that make me narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...
Does that make me wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..
Does that make me an...an..an.....ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!
Keep up the good work!
And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....
Cheers...
But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....
The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...
Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!
And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...
If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim?
It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....
Does that make me narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...
Does that make me wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..
Does that make me an...an..an.....ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!
Keep up the good work!
And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....
Cheers...
United we stand - divided we fall!
Keep your eye on the ball!
A lot of young pilots today need our leadership, vision and guidance to see this project through.
Helmet Fire is right, we have talked enough. Unless a safety case exists to change things, then let us run with the ball - there is no perfectly round ball. (Even the earth is a bit suspect, with the odd out of shape bits.)
You can only do so many circuits during a confined area landing site recce ... otherwise you run out of gas?
A lot of young pilots today need our leadership, vision and guidance to see this project through.
Helmet Fire is right, we have talked enough. Unless a safety case exists to change things, then let us run with the ball - there is no perfectly round ball. (Even the earth is a bit suspect, with the odd out of shape bits.)
You can only do so many circuits during a confined area landing site recce ... otherwise you run out of gas?