NVGs & HEMS in Australia
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We support Delta Torque
You guys have been giving DT a bit of a flogging...
We don't want to get involved in your debate except to say that after a 'straw' poll of our NVG qualified pilots:
1. We fully support DT's case for the highest levels of training and equipment.
2. We don't think that a case based on the opinions of 6 or 8 'experts' is any more 'reasoned' or 'bolstered with fact' than DT and his 'stand for standards.'
3. We don't have time to get into the politics...we just get on with the job.
4. We are surprised that no other international folk (bar our AAvn friend Crab) have made comment.
5. We think that Mike Tavcar's 15 years of research, writing and lobbying will shortly pay off. And he isn't looking to make a 'quick buck' out of it. Not that anyone is, of course...
6. We hope that CASA regularly read this forum...
Signed 6 'experts' and Julie, the office lady...
We don't want to get involved in your debate except to say that after a 'straw' poll of our NVG qualified pilots:
1. We fully support DT's case for the highest levels of training and equipment.
2. We don't think that a case based on the opinions of 6 or 8 'experts' is any more 'reasoned' or 'bolstered with fact' than DT and his 'stand for standards.'
3. We don't have time to get into the politics...we just get on with the job.
4. We are surprised that no other international folk (bar our AAvn friend Crab) have made comment.
5. We think that Mike Tavcar's 15 years of research, writing and lobbying will shortly pay off. And he isn't looking to make a 'quick buck' out of it. Not that anyone is, of course...
6. We hope that CASA regularly read this forum...
Signed 6 'experts' and Julie, the office lady...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rivnut, thank you in advance if you are a contributor to the cause. In fact thanks to all that have carried the torch thus far.. As for blowing wind up peoples arses, just acknowledging some credit where credit is due. Helmut and I know each other from a previous life and in that life we gave lots of S- - T to each other. Now that I am re-incarnated as an ex serving Mil guy I am less tense these days.
Having been a NVG QFI for many years, I follow with interest how the capability can be introduced/inculcated into the Civil industry. Fact is it is long over due and is required.
All that have contributed-Thanks
CASA get on with it.
Max
Having been a NVG QFI for many years, I follow with interest how the capability can be introduced/inculcated into the Civil industry. Fact is it is long over due and is required.
All that have contributed-Thanks
CASA get on with it.
Max
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mix & match
The main reason for not operating with dissimilar goggles is so that both pilots or pilot and nav can see the same things. If one guy..... because it's in a different place each time.
For HEMS/police work I can see no real safety case for avoiding mixed goggles, it's just nice if you can, that's all.
vpaw and the six experts: welcome to the debate, even though you claim you dont want to get involved!! And a special welcome to Julie. The more people exposing arguments, the more likely we are to get a stronger and more balanced end result. In answer to your points:
1. This was not meant to be a personality contest where you have to stick by someone because they are a much better bloke than me, it was intended as a way to examine the proposed standards. The beauty of the industry proposal (not my standards) is that you can easily implement higher standards and training on top of the minimum so as to suit your environment and your opinions. The bonus here is that you dont even have to justify those higher standards with any evidence!! Nor do you have to convince arseholes like me. Should suit you guys just fine.
But if you want to impose higher standards on all other players - I politely suggest that the way to do it is to back up your requirements with a reason.
The industry proposal will only affect the VPAW CMI in that competencies are established, and the minimum sequences for award of a NVG qualification or renewal are listed.
2. Welcome back the Straw Man! Never have I said or implied, that "our" six or eight experts are any better than "your" six or eight experts. What I said was that to impose any further requirements on the INTERNATIONAL standards created by SC-196 then we should have a justification. Is your experitse, or mine, any better than that international pannel of subject matter experts? I certainly cannot claim that.
3. What politics are involved here? I really do not understand your point. Is it political down there?
4. Perhaps because it is so Australian-centric and they have no real stake in the development of our regulations.
5. With a name like vpaw, perhaps you should 'know" rather then "think" Mike's work will shortly come to fruition. What a fantastic day for the industry: at last an NVG operation. It is a significant milestone for all of us, and Mike Tavcar can take an enourmous amount of credit for the achievement.
6. Bruce Byron has been driving this process throughout. He asked the industry to put forward a ratified position paper. He stated that divergence from international practice or industry ratified procedures must only be made with a safety case. His vision is for CASA to create usable regulations by relience on international practices and established procedures, helped by industry groups for the industry. His vision is to examine rules by using outcomes, and to reduce prescription where possible. He wants to move to two tiers of rules: CAR and CAAP.
We need to support this vision 100%, less it be destroyed by the old method of the industry waiting for the "fatherly" regulator to tell us what and how.
So I really hope that CASA do read this thread. They can see, as can we, that as yet there is little substantive reason put forward to justify divergence from the international standards. They can see that we certainly support Bruce Byron's vision.
rivnut: look back through the thread carefully. Throughout the thread, many people have been credited with work toward the NVG development, and just because I had the time to put out the proposal onto a public forum doesn't at all mean I am the one who "owns" all the effort. Neither you, nor I, have yet mentioned the 50 or so industry people who have replied in writing with suggstions and contributions to the industry paper. Nor have we mentioned the many Kiwis (Chris Moody, Graeme Gale, John Funnel, John Fogden, etc) who have helped, nor the 65 people who came up to Queensland and spent hours of their own time going through the paper before voting unanimously on the current position in May last year. Nor the CASA people for whom this whole project has become representative of the change that Bruce Byron strives for: Rob Collins, Charles Lenarcic, Greg Vaughan, Warren Duff, and Joe Tully. What about David Fawcett MP, David Earley and Peter Heath of the Australian Safety Forum and Mike Watson and others from the ATSB? I am sure that I have forgotten some.
Any attempt to claim that credit is due to one or two people is to fly in the face of reality.
I find your comments to be insulting, bizarre, and smacking of some sort of hidden agenda.
gadget guru: there is a minimum standard of NVG set down, so you cannot simply go and get the "cheapest & nastiest pieces of crap". Given that you are unable to buy Omnibus II tubes any longer (they are out of production), it is most likely that the "cheapest and nastiest" you can buy is the same set of NVG stipulated by the VPAW CMI - Omnibus IV.
1. This was not meant to be a personality contest where you have to stick by someone because they are a much better bloke than me, it was intended as a way to examine the proposed standards. The beauty of the industry proposal (not my standards) is that you can easily implement higher standards and training on top of the minimum so as to suit your environment and your opinions. The bonus here is that you dont even have to justify those higher standards with any evidence!! Nor do you have to convince arseholes like me. Should suit you guys just fine.
But if you want to impose higher standards on all other players - I politely suggest that the way to do it is to back up your requirements with a reason.
The industry proposal will only affect the VPAW CMI in that competencies are established, and the minimum sequences for award of a NVG qualification or renewal are listed.
2. Welcome back the Straw Man! Never have I said or implied, that "our" six or eight experts are any better than "your" six or eight experts. What I said was that to impose any further requirements on the INTERNATIONAL standards created by SC-196 then we should have a justification. Is your experitse, or mine, any better than that international pannel of subject matter experts? I certainly cannot claim that.
3. What politics are involved here? I really do not understand your point. Is it political down there?
4. Perhaps because it is so Australian-centric and they have no real stake in the development of our regulations.
5. With a name like vpaw, perhaps you should 'know" rather then "think" Mike's work will shortly come to fruition. What a fantastic day for the industry: at last an NVG operation. It is a significant milestone for all of us, and Mike Tavcar can take an enourmous amount of credit for the achievement.
6. Bruce Byron has been driving this process throughout. He asked the industry to put forward a ratified position paper. He stated that divergence from international practice or industry ratified procedures must only be made with a safety case. His vision is for CASA to create usable regulations by relience on international practices and established procedures, helped by industry groups for the industry. His vision is to examine rules by using outcomes, and to reduce prescription where possible. He wants to move to two tiers of rules: CAR and CAAP.
We need to support this vision 100%, less it be destroyed by the old method of the industry waiting for the "fatherly" regulator to tell us what and how.
So I really hope that CASA do read this thread. They can see, as can we, that as yet there is little substantive reason put forward to justify divergence from the international standards. They can see that we certainly support Bruce Byron's vision.
rivnut: look back through the thread carefully. Throughout the thread, many people have been credited with work toward the NVG development, and just because I had the time to put out the proposal onto a public forum doesn't at all mean I am the one who "owns" all the effort. Neither you, nor I, have yet mentioned the 50 or so industry people who have replied in writing with suggstions and contributions to the industry paper. Nor have we mentioned the many Kiwis (Chris Moody, Graeme Gale, John Funnel, John Fogden, etc) who have helped, nor the 65 people who came up to Queensland and spent hours of their own time going through the paper before voting unanimously on the current position in May last year. Nor the CASA people for whom this whole project has become representative of the change that Bruce Byron strives for: Rob Collins, Charles Lenarcic, Greg Vaughan, Warren Duff, and Joe Tully. What about David Fawcett MP, David Earley and Peter Heath of the Australian Safety Forum and Mike Watson and others from the ATSB? I am sure that I have forgotten some.
Any attempt to claim that credit is due to one or two people is to fly in the face of reality.
I find your comments to be insulting, bizarre, and smacking of some sort of hidden agenda.
gadget guru: there is a minimum standard of NVG set down, so you cannot simply go and get the "cheapest & nastiest pieces of crap". Given that you are unable to buy Omnibus II tubes any longer (they are out of production), it is most likely that the "cheapest and nastiest" you can buy is the same set of NVG stipulated by the VPAW CMI - Omnibus IV.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hoping for the best
all good
have been long accustomed to using the cheapest contract bid winners' product
(green machine)
I sir*, like many others, I'm sure look forward to the acceptance of NVG ops.
& appreciate the efforts of all to get it off the ground.
[sir*: don't take it personally - it's just a word]
have been long accustomed to using the cheapest contract bid winners' product
(green machine)
I sir*, like many others, I'm sure look forward to the acceptance of NVG ops.
& appreciate the efforts of all to get it off the ground.
[sir*: don't take it personally - it's just a word]
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the boot
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by helmet fire
I find your comments to be insulting, bizarre, and smacking of some sort of hidden agenda.
Cheer the team - don't throw mud at the players
Agree with helmetfire.
There have been so many people pushing this project.
From many angles.
Mike T was a pioneer in getting a formal "in house" thing going with CASA. Their "confidential" study was based on maybe roles the rest of us do not need. Probably police stuff?
Time has brought all of these people closer together, and the HAA group has taken a slightly different approach, but on the same playing field, aiming at the same goal posts.
Problem, is the Kiwis came and listened to the Oz conferences, linked up with the overseas experts and took our ball home and scored their own goal.
They have NVG in service, we are still arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Recent CASA email to an industry member suggested another six months delay. (Resources?)
Keep rowing, we can see land ahead..........
There have been so many people pushing this project.
From many angles.
Mike T was a pioneer in getting a formal "in house" thing going with CASA. Their "confidential" study was based on maybe roles the rest of us do not need. Probably police stuff?
Time has brought all of these people closer together, and the HAA group has taken a slightly different approach, but on the same playing field, aiming at the same goal posts.
Problem, is the Kiwis came and listened to the Oz conferences, linked up with the overseas experts and took our ball home and scored their own goal.
They have NVG in service, we are still arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Recent CASA email to an industry member suggested another six months delay. (Resources?)
Keep rowing, we can see land ahead..........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by robsrich
Their "confidential" study was based on maybe roles the rest of us do not need. Probably police stuff?
I don't know that VPAW had a 'confidential' study....My understanding was that it was about operating below LSALT at night on NVGs! Hardly police stuff that the rest of the industry do not need..
Their industry trial, which was certainly not confidential (as I got an invite), as did other major operators..consisted of takeoff, fly to destination and land...
Cheers...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My arse crack
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I look at the past accidents that have occurred and think, Would NVGs have possibly made a difference?
I believe a strong YES is the answer there, then I get angry at the inaction and dithering by the regulator and think boy if I was a relative of those victims, I would be looking to see if it is possible to file a civil suit against the regulator for their inaction. Thoughts anyone?
I do feel that collegues and relatives of people who have died in the past would be just as frustrated and upset as much as we are in the industry, upon reading this thread knowing there is a capability that can improve safety and may have potentially prevented the deaths and injuries sufferred by personnel involved in these past accidents.
Normally nothing is done until someone gets hurt (its called "blood priority". look at the recent case of Sophie Delezio and traffic lights at school crossings). But in these accident cases the regulator still just did not get it! A big failure of their responsibilities! Sad really.
I believe a strong YES is the answer there, then I get angry at the inaction and dithering by the regulator and think boy if I was a relative of those victims, I would be looking to see if it is possible to file a civil suit against the regulator for their inaction. Thoughts anyone?
I do feel that collegues and relatives of people who have died in the past would be just as frustrated and upset as much as we are in the industry, upon reading this thread knowing there is a capability that can improve safety and may have potentially prevented the deaths and injuries sufferred by personnel involved in these past accidents.
Normally nothing is done until someone gets hurt (its called "blood priority". look at the recent case of Sophie Delezio and traffic lights at school crossings). But in these accident cases the regulator still just did not get it! A big failure of their responsibilities! Sad really.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LJCE
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Vison lights on helicopters
Hay!
I'm doing an seminar work at electro-engeneering class about lights and optical signalisation on airplanes and helicopters.
One of topics that i would like to write about is "NVG lights(exterior and interior) on helicopters".
So i would like to ask you if you have any data on NVG lights instaled on helicopters, any pictures, wiring diagrams, any data on how lights are constructed, how do they produce light, voltages... anything.
I would be very gratefull if any of you could help me!
I'm doing an seminar work at electro-engeneering class about lights and optical signalisation on airplanes and helicopters.
One of topics that i would like to write about is "NVG lights(exterior and interior) on helicopters".
So i would like to ask you if you have any data on NVG lights instaled on helicopters, any pictures, wiring diagrams, any data on how lights are constructed, how do they produce light, voltages... anything.
I would be very gratefull if any of you could help me!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you doing the work or are we?
I think the most promising field for NVG compatible and NVG friendly lighting is in LED's. I don't have a company, but there's three terms to use in your search.
I think the most promising field for NVG compatible and NVG friendly lighting is in LED's. I don't have a company, but there's three terms to use in your search.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aerodynamix.com/
this guy did some good work at my previous place of employment.
He has really cool tea shirts.
Neil
this guy did some good work at my previous place of employment.
He has really cool tea shirts.
Neil
I am moving my reply to someplace from the other eurocentric thread to here and into the NVG thread relating to Oz issues.
Heliport has very kindly ressurected this thread so that we can continue to discuss the Oz specific issues of NVG introduction as they occur.
Someplace said:
This brings up a couple of issues:
There is unlikely to be a need for a school to teach NVG qualifications as NVG is unlikely to be a rating - rather the concept will be as an endorsement on your night rating. Consequently, I would expect most operators to conduct a form of in-house training, but there is no question that an NVG school would be a good thing in Oz - same concept as factory endorsements, etc. It would be good for someone to benchmark the NVG training, and it would probably fit in with that operator's respected IFR training program.
At the moment, there is no legal impediment to conducting NVG flight in Oz other than Section 20A of the Aviation Act that pertains to "reckless acts", and the ability under the CARs to make directions to the holders of an AOC. VPAW (Mike Tavcar) and CASA (John Beasey) created CMI 04/074 which provides an excellent initial framework for NVG operations, and the HAA have now created a long term framework during NVG working Group evolutions.
Essentially then, if you conduct NVG operations without regard to one of the sets of guidelines, fail to firmly establish that you are using best practice, or cannot justify the divergence of your standards from those of the CMI or HAA, then you would be considered in breach of Section 20A. CASA could also use their power to make directions to holders of an AOC in the case of an operation that began NVG ops without CASA oversight. Methinks that could be a very expensive mistake for any operator to make.
A NVG CAO and CAAP are imminent from CASA (though we have thought that before) thanks to some hard work by CASA and industry members which will encapsualte acceptable minimum standards. Any program on the verge of going NVG thus is likely to have two options available: compliance with the CMI and a grandfather clause to align to the CAO at some later date, or compliance with the CAO system. They are not that different, but the CAO has some additional comprehensive requirements such as competency based training systems, a risk management plan, and a detailed operations manual supplement - whereas the CMI is more straight forward and user friendly but wont suit all organisations.
In the previous pages, I have detailed some of the latest draft standards that are being moulded for the CAO, and I will include the training organisation requirements in a couple of days for your info.
If you want any specific info about the areas being considered, then yell and I can try and post the various drafts under consideration.
Heliport has very kindly ressurected this thread so that we can continue to discuss the Oz specific issues of NVG introduction as they occur.
Someplace said:
Heard a rumor that the rescue operator in tasmania is about to do a course in NVG operation and instuction and is fitting out a twin squirrell to be compatable so as to tie up the australian market in training.
There is unlikely to be a need for a school to teach NVG qualifications as NVG is unlikely to be a rating - rather the concept will be as an endorsement on your night rating. Consequently, I would expect most operators to conduct a form of in-house training, but there is no question that an NVG school would be a good thing in Oz - same concept as factory endorsements, etc. It would be good for someone to benchmark the NVG training, and it would probably fit in with that operator's respected IFR training program.
At the moment, there is no legal impediment to conducting NVG flight in Oz other than Section 20A of the Aviation Act that pertains to "reckless acts", and the ability under the CARs to make directions to the holders of an AOC. VPAW (Mike Tavcar) and CASA (John Beasey) created CMI 04/074 which provides an excellent initial framework for NVG operations, and the HAA have now created a long term framework during NVG working Group evolutions.
Essentially then, if you conduct NVG operations without regard to one of the sets of guidelines, fail to firmly establish that you are using best practice, or cannot justify the divergence of your standards from those of the CMI or HAA, then you would be considered in breach of Section 20A. CASA could also use their power to make directions to holders of an AOC in the case of an operation that began NVG ops without CASA oversight. Methinks that could be a very expensive mistake for any operator to make.
A NVG CAO and CAAP are imminent from CASA (though we have thought that before) thanks to some hard work by CASA and industry members which will encapsualte acceptable minimum standards. Any program on the verge of going NVG thus is likely to have two options available: compliance with the CMI and a grandfather clause to align to the CAO at some later date, or compliance with the CAO system. They are not that different, but the CAO has some additional comprehensive requirements such as competency based training systems, a risk management plan, and a detailed operations manual supplement - whereas the CMI is more straight forward and user friendly but wont suit all organisations.
In the previous pages, I have detailed some of the latest draft standards that are being moulded for the CAO, and I will include the training organisation requirements in a couple of days for your info.
If you want any specific info about the areas being considered, then yell and I can try and post the various drafts under consideration.
Here are the latest PROPOSED standards out of the NVG CAAP and CAO in relation to NVG training. It is proposed that the CAO will be called CAO 82.6 and the CAAP will be CAAP 174B
Latest proposal for training:
1.7.4 If intending to conduct NVG training outside an authorised flying school or approved CAR 217 Check and Training organisation, the applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the following additional requirements:
a. Where initial NVG Pilot qualifications are required, the proposed NVG Flight Instructors, and the proposed NVG ATO responsible for achieving stated training competencies and overseeing the training, are to be nominated to include written substantiation of their qualifications,
b. a suitable means of instructing students in the theory subjects appropriate to the licence (training of theory subjects may be conducted by a separate organisation),
c. maps of a suitable scale clearly depicting the following:
i. aerodromes and HLS used in training;
ii. the general flying training area; and
iii. low flying areas with major obstructions clearly marked.
d. briefing and teaching facilities appropriate to the number of staff and students at each place of instruction, separate from administrative and recreational areas,
e. satisfactory means of simulating instrument flight conditions either in an aircraft or with a ground based training aid, and
f. aircraft
i. of a type satisfactory to CASA for the flying training; and
ii. equipped with an efficient means of electronic intercommunication.
Part 6 – Minimum Training requirements for NVG Operations.
6.1 In accordance with outcome-based philosophies and current international practice, the Authority recognise the inherent value of NVG training conducted in the Operator’s own aircraft and environment. Therefore, and in concurrence with precedents of endorsement training, CASA may approve initial qualification training under the authority of an Operator’s AOC. Part 1 of this CAAP details the specific extra requirements for an organisation seeking this approval.
6.2 Of particular note for non-school operators seeking approval to conduct NVG endorsement training is the need for the operator to nominate an NVG ATO as responsible for over seeing the training and ensuring that training competencies are met. This requirement is to ensure that the Authority exploits the unique opportunity of setting a strong and standardised NVG culture from the outset of NVG operations in Australia.
6.3 CAO 82.6 establishes a basic set of training constraints for the design of any NVG course seeking CASA approval. Those basics are established so that NVG endorsements have a uniform minimum competency level for pilots across the industry that would therefore gain recognition and transportability between companies, and externally as a qualification recognised by other member states. Although aircrew members will only hold a company recognised qualification (pending aircrew member licensing), standardisation of the course through CASA approval of the minimum competencies of any training should allow for transportability between operators if so detailed in their operations manuals.
6.4 The basic competencies established by CAO 82.6 provide the minimum requirements for NVG crew, and the order stresses that any requirement by the operator for the crew to perform additional competencies will attract a training liability. As it is impossible for a one rule fits all solution across the diversity of probable NVG operations, CAO 82.6 establishes the minimum, and then holds the operator responsible for additional competency training.
6.5 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. 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.
6.6 Annex 1 to this CAAP provides an example of a course that covers the minimum competencies of CAO 82.6 for a basic NVG endorsement or company qualification on which to build operational competencies if desired. Annex 1 is an example of a CASA approved NVG course that would require inclusion in the operations manual of an operator intending to conduct initial NVG qualification training.
Hope that helps, yell if more required.
Latest proposal for training:
1.7.4 If intending to conduct NVG training outside an authorised flying school or approved CAR 217 Check and Training organisation, the applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the following additional requirements:
a. Where initial NVG Pilot qualifications are required, the proposed NVG Flight Instructors, and the proposed NVG ATO responsible for achieving stated training competencies and overseeing the training, are to be nominated to include written substantiation of their qualifications,
b. a suitable means of instructing students in the theory subjects appropriate to the licence (training of theory subjects may be conducted by a separate organisation),
c. maps of a suitable scale clearly depicting the following:
i. aerodromes and HLS used in training;
ii. the general flying training area; and
iii. low flying areas with major obstructions clearly marked.
d. briefing and teaching facilities appropriate to the number of staff and students at each place of instruction, separate from administrative and recreational areas,
e. satisfactory means of simulating instrument flight conditions either in an aircraft or with a ground based training aid, and
f. aircraft
i. of a type satisfactory to CASA for the flying training; and
ii. equipped with an efficient means of electronic intercommunication.
Part 6 – Minimum Training requirements for NVG Operations.
6.1 In accordance with outcome-based philosophies and current international practice, the Authority recognise the inherent value of NVG training conducted in the Operator’s own aircraft and environment. Therefore, and in concurrence with precedents of endorsement training, CASA may approve initial qualification training under the authority of an Operator’s AOC. Part 1 of this CAAP details the specific extra requirements for an organisation seeking this approval.
6.2 Of particular note for non-school operators seeking approval to conduct NVG endorsement training is the need for the operator to nominate an NVG ATO as responsible for over seeing the training and ensuring that training competencies are met. This requirement is to ensure that the Authority exploits the unique opportunity of setting a strong and standardised NVG culture from the outset of NVG operations in Australia.
6.3 CAO 82.6 establishes a basic set of training constraints for the design of any NVG course seeking CASA approval. Those basics are established so that NVG endorsements have a uniform minimum competency level for pilots across the industry that would therefore gain recognition and transportability between companies, and externally as a qualification recognised by other member states. Although aircrew members will only hold a company recognised qualification (pending aircrew member licensing), standardisation of the course through CASA approval of the minimum competencies of any training should allow for transportability between operators if so detailed in their operations manuals.
6.4 The basic competencies established by CAO 82.6 provide the minimum requirements for NVG crew, and the order stresses that any requirement by the operator for the crew to perform additional competencies will attract a training liability. As it is impossible for a one rule fits all solution across the diversity of probable NVG operations, CAO 82.6 establishes the minimum, and then holds the operator responsible for additional competency training.
6.5 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. 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.
6.6 Annex 1 to this CAAP provides an example of a course that covers the minimum competencies of CAO 82.6 for a basic NVG endorsement or company qualification on which to build operational competencies if desired. Annex 1 is an example of a CASA approved NVG course that would require inclusion in the operations manual of an operator intending to conduct initial NVG qualification training.
Hope that helps, yell if more required.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H.F
It all looks good on paper but the problem is there are a lot of operators who can satisfy all the requirements set out on the surface but when you dig a bit deeper they do not have the experience, knowledge or discipline to conduct a safe operation. By the time this is obvious it is to late because CASA do not have the courage either as individuals or as an organisation to hold operators accountable for fear of ending up in court.
It all looks good on paper but the problem is there are a lot of operators who can satisfy all the requirements set out on the surface but when you dig a bit deeper they do not have the experience, knowledge or discipline to conduct a safe operation. By the time this is obvious it is to late because CASA do not have the courage either as individuals or as an organisation to hold operators accountable for fear of ending up in court.
I agree with the sentiments, and as a direct result of those very same sentiments surfacing many times during the working group process there were some subtle cahnges to the NVG endorsement system that are not requirements of the endorsement system in general. The safety case put forward in relation to these extra requirements were (in brief):
a. The perpetual nature of the NVFR rating has led to a significant breakdown in the discipline surrounding NVFR ops.
b. The lack of control over training competencies and qualification standards of the NVFR system.
c. The generally very poor quality of type endorsement training under our existing endorsement system, and
d. The frequency with wich CASA allow non instructors to conduct type endorsement training as permitted by the current system.
Accordingly, there are some strict requirements about the NVG endorsement system that preclude (or are meant to inhibit) the setting up of an NVG school by inexperienced people. Endorsements will only be able to be awarded by an NVG ATO, and they are not perpetual.
The ATO system will be set up a little unlike the current system, in that it is envisaged that the ATOs will be required to attend a standardisation meeting regularly with CASA so CASA can excersize a standardised control over the system. Thi system is set up in order to make sure NVG starts with a disciplined and standardised sytem and culture, recognising that it would be almost impossible to retrospectively impose a culture an an established system.
At least that is the proposed system - not yet finalised!
a. The perpetual nature of the NVFR rating has led to a significant breakdown in the discipline surrounding NVFR ops.
b. The lack of control over training competencies and qualification standards of the NVFR system.
c. The generally very poor quality of type endorsement training under our existing endorsement system, and
d. The frequency with wich CASA allow non instructors to conduct type endorsement training as permitted by the current system.
Accordingly, there are some strict requirements about the NVG endorsement system that preclude (or are meant to inhibit) the setting up of an NVG school by inexperienced people. Endorsements will only be able to be awarded by an NVG ATO, and they are not perpetual.
The ATO system will be set up a little unlike the current system, in that it is envisaged that the ATOs will be required to attend a standardisation meeting regularly with CASA so CASA can excersize a standardised control over the system. Thi system is set up in order to make sure NVG starts with a disciplined and standardised sytem and culture, recognising that it would be almost impossible to retrospectively impose a culture an an established system.
At least that is the proposed system - not yet finalised!
