Acceptable risks : Night offshore flying
I suspect so Sasless, every mil pilot in UK is trained on NVG as part of their BASIC training and regards it as normal night flying, just as in the US.
The regulatory authority just can't seem to understand this and adapt the rules and regs to meet the new capability. EASA does seem to be massively on the back foot for this.
The regulatory authority just can't seem to understand this and adapt the rules and regs to meet the new capability. EASA does seem to be massively on the back foot for this.
We seem to be winning the battle over here as NVG's are becoming far more common as the Operators and Customers realize the benefit they provide....primarily in the EMS business where so much of the flying is at night and far too often in very dark places in marginal weather.
If all I ever did was fly from Airport to Airport with fully instrumented Runways and all sorts of Light and Surface Reference aids.....then perhaps using NVG's would not be as useful as they are.
But when it gets really...really Dark....and the lights are scarce NVG's are magic kit. I used to land back to a fully lit Helipad....the usual perimeter in ground lights....but also lit up like daytime due to giant arrays of Flood Lights that were beamed onto the Pad for Security while the aircraft was parked awaiting a Scramble Call.
Unless you looked square into one of the Flood Light arrays it was not a problem and then only momentarily until you looked away....not much different than if you looked at them using the Naked Eye.
I can no reason why ordinary Platform, Rig, or Vessel lighting would be a problem for NVG Operations.
If all I ever did was fly from Airport to Airport with fully instrumented Runways and all sorts of Light and Surface Reference aids.....then perhaps using NVG's would not be as useful as they are.
But when it gets really...really Dark....and the lights are scarce NVG's are magic kit. I used to land back to a fully lit Helipad....the usual perimeter in ground lights....but also lit up like daytime due to giant arrays of Flood Lights that were beamed onto the Pad for Security while the aircraft was parked awaiting a Scramble Call.
Unless you looked square into one of the Flood Light arrays it was not a problem and then only momentarily until you looked away....not much different than if you looked at them using the Naked Eye.
I can no reason why ordinary Platform, Rig, or Vessel lighting would be a problem for NVG Operations.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting conundrum
If NVG's became the norm then we stand to lose the ability to operate without.
I've never experienced NVG's having come from a generation that preceded their arrival in the UK military. I did however spend much of my anti-submarine career flogging around the oggin in the pitch black at 200' and below and to and from very poorly lit (like near zero) decks on moving vessels. The key was always training and recency - plus a good deal of respect for this unforgiving environment thrown in.
I already see CV's that detail night flying with and without NVG's. What do we do when we see a candidate with nothing under the 'non-NVG night' column? I suggest it is a skill we do not wish to lose, for whatever reason. If NVG's are not available we may become prisoners of the dark.
I'm all for NVG's because they provide an excellent degree of safety but I am apprehensive about losing the basic night flying skills.
G.
I've never experienced NVG's having come from a generation that preceded their arrival in the UK military. I did however spend much of my anti-submarine career flogging around the oggin in the pitch black at 200' and below and to and from very poorly lit (like near zero) decks on moving vessels. The key was always training and recency - plus a good deal of respect for this unforgiving environment thrown in.
I already see CV's that detail night flying with and without NVG's. What do we do when we see a candidate with nothing under the 'non-NVG night' column? I suggest it is a skill we do not wish to lose, for whatever reason. If NVG's are not available we may become prisoners of the dark.
I'm all for NVG's because they provide an excellent degree of safety but I am apprehensive about losing the basic night flying skills.
G.
Last time I checked...training can be done goggled or with the Mk I Eyeballs or even with the Mk i's improved with spectacles.
What does happen when NVG's are not used is One realizes just how much One can not see in the Dark.
We did a Training flight down on the south end of our playground where the Trainer wore Goggles and the Learner had his flipped up out of the way but ready to go when flipped down.
We set up a track towards an abandoned Recycling Building with a very large and tall but unlit brick smoke stack....due to there being no electrical power being supplied to the derelict site. At a height well below the top of the Stack and it smack dab at 12 O'Clock to the nose of the aircraft....and at a somewhat uncomfortable distance from impact....the Learner was asked to confirm everything was Peaches and upon doing so....was instructed to lower his Goggles and offer a Second Opinion.
It is scary what you cannot see if you can see it.
Once you use Goggles you will quickly grasp Night Flying is much easier if you can see. It makes thinking in the dark far more easy.
What does happen when NVG's are not used is One realizes just how much One can not see in the Dark.
We did a Training flight down on the south end of our playground where the Trainer wore Goggles and the Learner had his flipped up out of the way but ready to go when flipped down.
We set up a track towards an abandoned Recycling Building with a very large and tall but unlit brick smoke stack....due to there being no electrical power being supplied to the derelict site. At a height well below the top of the Stack and it smack dab at 12 O'Clock to the nose of the aircraft....and at a somewhat uncomfortable distance from impact....the Learner was asked to confirm everything was Peaches and upon doing so....was instructed to lower his Goggles and offer a Second Opinion.
It is scary what you cannot see if you can see it.
Once you use Goggles you will quickly grasp Night Flying is much easier if you can see. It makes thinking in the dark far more easy.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS and II
Like I say - NVG's are great and their routine use would make life safer but if I was flying around at night overland I wouldn't be doing it below the height of the highest obstacle on my route. That's the kind of consideration that might go out the window if we get too familiar with the NVG version of daylight.
Out of interest do you NVG specialists have a work around for NVG failure? Do you have a flight plan 'B' that revises the altitudes and/or the route if the kit fails?
G.
Out of interest do you NVG specialists have a work around for NVG failure? Do you have a flight plan 'B' that revises the altitudes and/or the route if the kit fails?
G.
You miss the point dear Boy....the teaching point was you can see obstacles with NVG's that One would not see without the benefit of Goggles.
No one flies around below obstacles at night...least ways not for long anyway.
Yes...Googles do fail....rarely but they do.
When the do One merely reverts to use of Dinosaur techniques based upon the Human Eye and either NVFR or IMC/IFR flight depending upon the external visual reference.
I have flown over lots of ground which at on an overcast night was just as dark as flying over the Oggin where there was no horizon, no ground lighting, and due to the Overcast....no celestial lighting to matter.
Our Flight Rules are based upon Weather and not whether despite there being nothing to see in the way of ground lights or celestial light....reversion to un-aided flight could easily put into a situation that would require use of Instruments to fly although while using Goggles it was quite easy to fly by visual contact with the surface.
That is one of those Carriages and Horses things as was mentioned before.
Goggles are an assist....but do come with some risks as well.
No one flies around below obstacles at night...least ways not for long anyway.
Yes...Googles do fail....rarely but they do.
When the do One merely reverts to use of Dinosaur techniques based upon the Human Eye and either NVFR or IMC/IFR flight depending upon the external visual reference.
I have flown over lots of ground which at on an overcast night was just as dark as flying over the Oggin where there was no horizon, no ground lighting, and due to the Overcast....no celestial lighting to matter.
Our Flight Rules are based upon Weather and not whether despite there being nothing to see in the way of ground lights or celestial light....reversion to un-aided flight could easily put into a situation that would require use of Instruments to fly although while using Goggles it was quite easy to fly by visual contact with the surface.
That is one of those Carriages and Horses things as was mentioned before.
Goggles are an assist....but do come with some risks as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the replies - really interesting views about NVG. Some seem to think they would help a lot, but I know some of the SAR guys who use them switch them off when doing a night rig landing at about 0.5nm and 500 RA from a rig due to excessive brightness from the rig lighting. I suppose if that's the case, then there's no real advantage, as its this final phase when things can go wrong - until .75 mm at night it's manadatory in our part A to be 4axis (or 3 if that's the max the AFCS can give) coupled, only decoupling when stable and within .75 mm.
Maybe an full NVG trial for the offshore world would be a sensible approach.
Maybe an full NVG trial for the offshore world would be a sensible approach.
only decoupling when stable and within .75 mm.
In the distant past on 332s I would declare 'autopilots are for weenys' at the take off point. I would then fly the leg autopilot out, albeit in daylight, and land it offshore. I once demonstrated to an incredulous co-pilot how it could fly normally with my hands in the air. I have also been known to do offshore shuttles with it out as well.
decommissioned rig and put it 10 miles off Aberdeen
It transpired that his total offshore night flying experience had been to a stacked rig in Aberdeen harbour. On this basis he had been signed off as fully competent for night operations in the North Sea.
Luckily I was ex single pilot on the Puma and also the S76 so I could carry on with the shuttle doing his landings cross-cockpit.
Geoffers, as part of the pre-flight planning there are certain safeguards;
Firstly an Obstacle Plane Value (OPV) is established, above which all obstacles are supposed to be marked on the relevant maps or in the Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF) for those using electronic mapping systems.
Next, a Minimum Operating Height (MOH) is established for the type of NVG you are doing.
Then, mark your map with obstacles out to a suitable distance from your desired track, especially highlighting those that are above the level you are flying at.
For each leg you will calculate a Minimum safe Height (MSH) which you will climb to if you are unsure of your position, have a goggle malfunction or can't see an obstacle that is above you by a certain minimum distance.
You will also calculate a Reversionary Altitude (RA) which you can climb to with a total navigation or NVG failure which will ensure you are above 500' for that route.
All mil pilots have to carry out reversionary (normal) night flying on a regular basis to ensure the basic skills are not lost - specifically making an approach to a lit site/ NATO T or similar.
For SAR work, the mil generally flew above the OPV and used lookout and normal map reading techniques to avoid obstacles, knowing that you were above the highest normal pylons ie above 250'. If forced down by bad weather then the navigation skills became much more important and speed was reduced commensurate with height - even down to the hover taxi and the use of white light with NVG was the norm.
Firstly an Obstacle Plane Value (OPV) is established, above which all obstacles are supposed to be marked on the relevant maps or in the Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF) for those using electronic mapping systems.
Next, a Minimum Operating Height (MOH) is established for the type of NVG you are doing.
Then, mark your map with obstacles out to a suitable distance from your desired track, especially highlighting those that are above the level you are flying at.
For each leg you will calculate a Minimum safe Height (MSH) which you will climb to if you are unsure of your position, have a goggle malfunction or can't see an obstacle that is above you by a certain minimum distance.
You will also calculate a Reversionary Altitude (RA) which you can climb to with a total navigation or NVG failure which will ensure you are above 500' for that route.
All mil pilots have to carry out reversionary (normal) night flying on a regular basis to ensure the basic skills are not lost - specifically making an approach to a lit site/ NATO T or similar.
For SAR work, the mil generally flew above the OPV and used lookout and normal map reading techniques to avoid obstacles, knowing that you were above the highest normal pylons ie above 250'. If forced down by bad weather then the navigation skills became much more important and speed was reduced commensurate with height - even down to the hover taxi and the use of white light with NVG was the norm.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The autopilot functions of an aircraft like the 225 make night flying a lot safer. The protection functions in the 225 autopilot minimise the risk of getting your feet wet if you get it wrong. To take value from the above, you have to use the autopilot or it is of no help. The "I used to fly the whole trip manually" attitude and I can do better than the autopilot is a thing of the past. In recent years offshore we have seen at least two accidents where had the autopilot been used correctly, there would have been a different outcome. There will precious little currency for any crew this season due to the low flying rate. All the more important to use all the help you can get.
Absolutely - a 4-axis autopilot with a good rad alt hold is the minimum that should be mandated for night overwater work.
Add a TAS hold and a decent nav kit driving the aircraft in the right direction and, of course, NVG and you have a safe and managable setup.
If you have some transition modes as well you can get yourself to a comfortable position to hand-fly the remainder of the approach.
But, as already hinted at, you need to know how to use the autopilot modes and not get lost in them.
Add a TAS hold and a decent nav kit driving the aircraft in the right direction and, of course, NVG and you have a safe and managable setup.
If you have some transition modes as well you can get yourself to a comfortable position to hand-fly the remainder of the approach.
But, as already hinted at, you need to know how to use the autopilot modes and not get lost in them.
Seems some of us embrace Technology and want to use it to our best advantage.....and I endorse that notion strongly.
I was Old Skool.....but loved being able to punch buttons and watch George do his thing for me....and when NVG's turned darkness into light (even if a bit green) Night flying was changed forever for me.
All that being said....we do have to be able to hand fly the machine because at some time in our Lives that will save our Lives.
We see that very well demonstrated when we read Accident Reports of Pilots just plain ol' losing control of an airplane when the AutoHelm goes for a Run Ashore.
I shall never say I can out fly George.....but I am also George's Supervisor and QC Inspector. I will fire his ass when he gets to messing up which then forces me to prove I can fly as well as he can and better than he was when I tied the Can to his Tail.
I was Old Skool.....but loved being able to punch buttons and watch George do his thing for me....and when NVG's turned darkness into light (even if a bit green) Night flying was changed forever for me.
All that being said....we do have to be able to hand fly the machine because at some time in our Lives that will save our Lives.
We see that very well demonstrated when we read Accident Reports of Pilots just plain ol' losing control of an airplane when the AutoHelm goes for a Run Ashore.
I shall never say I can out fly George.....but I am also George's Supervisor and QC Inspector. I will fire his ass when he gets to messing up which then forces me to prove I can fly as well as he can and better than he was when I tied the Can to his Tail.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation friend or foe
Amen to that SAS but unfortunately it is the minority of pilots that have both the skill and knowledge to operate the automation effectively. The majority need more training and practice than they currently receive.
After hearing at a recent conference that 50% of a major airline's pilot applicants fail their selection process (EASA CPL/IR's remember) it seems to indicate that whatever we are doing we need to find a way of doing it better.
We are being overtaken by a technology-rich future that is swamping our ability to cope and deliver a pilot with good handling skills too. For many the step up to flat screens, and their digits and text, from the good old round dials is proving a challenge that maybe too big.
G
PS - Thanks to CRAB for that fulsome explanation of the NVG protocols in the UK Mil
After hearing at a recent conference that 50% of a major airline's pilot applicants fail their selection process (EASA CPL/IR's remember) it seems to indicate that whatever we are doing we need to find a way of doing it better.
We are being overtaken by a technology-rich future that is swamping our ability to cope and deliver a pilot with good handling skills too. For many the step up to flat screens, and their digits and text, from the good old round dials is proving a challenge that maybe too big.
G
PS - Thanks to CRAB for that fulsome explanation of the NVG protocols in the UK Mil
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 12th Oct 2015 at 13:40. Reason: PS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 225 has everything required but the next development from Airbus will add more in terms of positioning, IAS etc. The IAS hold works down to 30kts so with a North Sea breeze you can be at a fast walk at the latter stages and still be 4 axis. The later 225s have ground speed hold as well which is the next step in safer approaches. In 4 axis it runs on rails, no requirement for a rad alt hold, the bar alt being extremely accurate although you could use cruise height as there is no "fly-up" fear like the L2.
The 225 is the safest aircraft out there by a country mile, it's a shame it got such a bad rep after shaft-gate but guess what.....it's worth compared to other heavies is now being realised, full fuel, full payload, highest range and the best/safest automation on the market. And you get your own door!
The 225 is the safest aircraft out there by a country mile, it's a shame it got such a bad rep after shaft-gate but guess what.....it's worth compared to other heavies is now being realised, full fuel, full payload, highest range and the best/safest automation on the market. And you get your own door!
Except that a bar alt hold can be fooled by pressure changes - hi to lo = overread - as you fly towards a depression.
For anything below 500' I would want rad alt hold engaged over the sea at night.
For anything below 500' I would want rad alt hold engaged over the sea at night.
Interestingly the US Navy will not carry "passengers" to and from ships outside daylight hours or after 60 minutes before sunset.
Maybe they know something?
I think the question needs to be asked as to "why" you have to fly at night.
Regular crew changes? Those things are changing as well as the rosters change with the current oil price and folk are being let go.
Fleein' a tea boy neep who disnae even work half a year back to e's hame in Ayberdeen tae be wi e's quine for denner?
As to NVG's I think you may find that is not really the way forward and there are limits as to how far you can take it.
Issues being that as you are pretty much relying solely on the device it needs to meet a whole truckload of standards which they will struggle with.
Plus it is a portable device which brings another can of worms. No doubt it works but how do you "certify" it and what are the rules going to be.
It ain't VFR, Night VFR or IFR as you know it. We are talking about Transport Category aircraft and regular pax ops here not the military.
Enhanced and/or Synthetic vision which is part of the aircraft seems to be the way forward and systems are already certified in the plank world
with lower minima approved.
For the whole time to date of offshore night operations possibly hasn't changed in 30 years. A poxy little ring of lights out the window somewhere?
We know it has knobs on it. Thats why we are speaking about it here and it has been proven to be.
Maybe they know something?
I think the question needs to be asked as to "why" you have to fly at night.
Regular crew changes? Those things are changing as well as the rosters change with the current oil price and folk are being let go.
Fleein' a tea boy neep who disnae even work half a year back to e's hame in Ayberdeen tae be wi e's quine for denner?
As to NVG's I think you may find that is not really the way forward and there are limits as to how far you can take it.
Issues being that as you are pretty much relying solely on the device it needs to meet a whole truckload of standards which they will struggle with.
Plus it is a portable device which brings another can of worms. No doubt it works but how do you "certify" it and what are the rules going to be.
It ain't VFR, Night VFR or IFR as you know it. We are talking about Transport Category aircraft and regular pax ops here not the military.
Enhanced and/or Synthetic vision which is part of the aircraft seems to be the way forward and systems are already certified in the plank world
with lower minima approved.
For the whole time to date of offshore night operations possibly hasn't changed in 30 years. A poxy little ring of lights out the window somewhere?
We know it has knobs on it. Thats why we are speaking about it here and it has been proven to be.
Trouble is, those enhanced/synthetic vision systems are OK for aiming at several thousand feet of runway with no obstacles where the transition from instrument/synthetic flight just involves flaring to land ahead but in a helo manoeuvring to a rig?
You still have the problem of going to visual flying to complete the landing which is why NVG are the better option - do you want to be looking in at the screen when you need to be looking outside?
Setting a minimum illumination level (the Met office already provide the data for this) and specifying a minimum generation of NVG tubes would go a long way to standardising things for the purposes of certification.
You still have the problem of going to visual flying to complete the landing which is why NVG are the better option - do you want to be looking in at the screen when you need to be looking outside?
Setting a minimum illumination level (the Met office already provide the data for this) and specifying a minimum generation of NVG tubes would go a long way to standardising things for the purposes of certification.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that a bar alt hold can be fooled by pressure changes - hi to lo = overread - as you fly towards a depression.