Acceptable risks : Night offshore flying
I heard some fine chap was investigating introduction of a HUD for offshore cabs and was making some progress........right up until he lost his job!
Disappointing to see that the technology is still being hawked at Helitech and little progress made - some amongst you will be imagining a HUD with a cumbersome external projector - and you'd be about 40-years out ;-)
Disappointing to see that the technology is still being hawked at Helitech and little progress made - some amongst you will be imagining a HUD with a cumbersome external projector - and you'd be about 40-years out ;-)
The North Sea got its act together in 1975. Over the years I daresay there has been about ten landings a night during weekdays, less at weekends. That's about 1,500/year over 40 years which adds up to 60,000 landings.
How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.
I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.
Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.
How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.
I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.
Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.
Errrr - not in the dark they aren't - your eyeballs only have peripheral night vision unaided (can't use the cones, only the rods) with NVG in front of them you are using cones (albeit only the green ones) to focus on the phosphor screen.
Perhaps if some people just took the word of those that have used modern NVG and accepted that they pretty much turn night into day then some progress might be made.
Anything that might be missed on NVG is so many times less than you would miss with the unaided eye that it really isn't worth considering.
Google some footage on NVG flying and move into the 21st century.
Perhaps if some people just took the word of those that have used modern NVG and accepted that they pretty much turn night into day then some progress might be made.
Anything that might be missed on NVG is so many times less than you would miss with the unaided eye that it really isn't worth considering.
Google some footage on NVG flying and move into the 21st century.
Other modern aircraft types are more than happy to make night approaches coupled to the RadAlt which is, arguably, safer than a slightly antiquated baralt/RadAlt matching technique, using ALTA.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern NVGs are much more suited for landing in brightly lit areas, more so than the early versions of ANPVS5 and ANVIS 6, which did not operate in a high light environment. ANVIS 9, with ITT or L3 tubes, the current range of NL94 AU, with Phototonics tubes, these are all significant improvements.
NVGs are not without their issues, of course, and overwater operations are a particular problem, in that the water provides an extremely low contrast environment. Transit on ALT hold, and goggle up for the approach, the best of both worlds!
Non US NVG are freely available over the counter in Australia, now. Green or the new Greyscales. Expensive, but the purchaser doesn't have to wait two years for US State Dept approval.
NVGs should be the norm for night ops. Nice to see what you are about to hit! :-)
NVGs are not without their issues, of course, and overwater operations are a particular problem, in that the water provides an extremely low contrast environment. Transit on ALT hold, and goggle up for the approach, the best of both worlds!
Non US NVG are freely available over the counter in Australia, now. Green or the new Greyscales. Expensive, but the purchaser doesn't have to wait two years for US State Dept approval.
NVGs should be the norm for night ops. Nice to see what you are about to hit! :-)
The North Sea got its act together in 1975. Over the years I daresay there has been about ten landings a night during weekdays, less at weekends. That's about 1,500/year over 40 years which adds up to 60,000 landings.
How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.
I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.
Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.
How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.
I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.
Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.
But (and a big but) if night landings are now seen as a major safety issue, why wasn't this the case 35 years ago? Culture, training, expectations?
Has there been a change and if so, what is it and how should it be addressed.
Automation seems to have reached a degree of perfection that nothing should go awry, yet here we are discussing exactly such a situation.
I still have that niggling concern that airmanship and basic skills are taking a backseat to systems management, and there has to be a proper melding of the two.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, NVGs are usually helmet mounted. There is a bit of weight involved, and they are initially quite uncomfortable to wear, but the benefits soon outweigh the discomfort.
As a previous poster mentioned, the aircraft cockpit lighting needs to be NVG compatible, or NVG 'friendly', and this is a potential expense to operators, though most modern helicopters come out of the factory with compatible cockpit lighting, these days.
As a previous poster mentioned, the aircraft cockpit lighting needs to be NVG compatible, or NVG 'friendly', and this is a potential expense to operators, though most modern helicopters come out of the factory with compatible cockpit lighting, these days.
NVGs should be the norm for night ops. Nice to see what you are about to hit! :-)
Of course...with NVG's you could see that you were going to hit the thing and perhaps avoid all the fun and games completely.
Now I do want to know how if we got it all together in 1975....what has happened since then that caused us to lose the bubble and have more CFIT Accidents than we had back in the Good Old Days?
Are Pilots less capable today?
If so....why?
A few months ago Canon launched a full colour hd video camera, the ME20 camera with an iso of 4million. US$30k At iso 1 million image is not too noisy.
It would turn a landing light into a nitesun.
Too bulky at moment for helmet mounting, although it may be possible to remote some of the processing. Sony A7sII consumer camera has an iso within a few stops of the Canon so this tech is in a growth stage.
Some car manufacturers are designing a sytem that from the drivers perspective appears to see through the body of the vehicle. Land Rover are testing the idea so the off road driver can see the road 1meter directly in front of the wheels that is obscured from the driver by the bonnett and dash.
Cruise ships have installed hd monitors on walls of interior cabins screening live images from side of ship with geat success.
So "glass cockpit" in the future may have a different connotation.
Mickjoebill
It would turn a landing light into a nitesun.
Too bulky at moment for helmet mounting, although it may be possible to remote some of the processing. Sony A7sII consumer camera has an iso within a few stops of the Canon so this tech is in a growth stage.
Some car manufacturers are designing a sytem that from the drivers perspective appears to see through the body of the vehicle. Land Rover are testing the idea so the off road driver can see the road 1meter directly in front of the wheels that is obscured from the driver by the bonnett and dash.
Cruise ships have installed hd monitors on walls of interior cabins screening live images from side of ship with geat success.
So "glass cockpit" in the future may have a different connotation.
Mickjoebill
"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."
It doesn't have to be rocket science! There are a lot of legacy opinions and stuff which needs to be worked through with the relevant authorities, yes however its worth it - we had some really tenacious guys here in oz who kept banging away until we finally moved into the 21 st century. Downunder (and many other places around the world) NVG is commonly used on Civil SAR/HEMs ops and they are even permitted for Marine Pilot Transfer ops out to ships - although not sure if anyone uses them in that application yet.
We can operate NVFR or IFR category using goggles - having shot an approach to minima's not that long ago, having NVGs donned gave me a massive increase in situational awareness off the non precision approach in a low light environment! There are massive amounts of flexibility benefits which goggles give for all sorts of operations and they only become apparent once you start using the things! Operated to rigs, winched off boats etc with/without NVG - to me a no brainer and is one of the rare times where one would say - once you try black (nights) you would definitely go back (to NVG)
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."
It doesn't have to be rocket science! There are a lot of legacy opinions and stuff which needs to be worked through with the relevant authorities, yes however its worth it - we had some really tenacious guys here in oz who kept banging away until we finally moved into the 21 st century. Downunder (and many other places around the world) NVG is commonly used on Civil SAR/HEMs ops and they are even permitted for Marine Pilot Transfer ops out to ships - although not sure if anyone uses them in that application yet.
We can operate NVFR or IFR category using goggles - having shot an approach to minima's not that long ago, having NVGs donned gave me a massive increase in situational awareness off the non precision approach in a low light environment! There are massive amounts of flexibility benefits which goggles give for all sorts of operations and they only become apparent once you start using the things! Operated to rigs, winched off boats etc with/without NVG - to me a no brainer and is one of the rare times where one would say - once you try black (nights) you would definitely go back (to NVG)
Thought not. Trying to convince all NS crews to wear helmets is going to be as big an obstacle to the widespread introduction of NVGs as any other.
Don't tell me the NS crews are a bunch of techno-fearing Luddites.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab;
Back in the 90's there was a move to make NS pilots wear helmets, a study was run and the findings were that as NS pilots flew far more hours annually than their on-shore or military counterparts (at that time pilots with my employer were running at a rolling 790+hours on their 365 day totals) that there was greater risk to health caused by the increased weight on the head being affected by vibration and therefore causing spinal damage high up in the neck.
There was also mumbling about how the pax would feel seeing the pilots with an apparently enhanced form of protection denied to the customers. Personally I would not have wanted to wear a helmet for those lengths of time, sometimes the grow bag/lifejacket combination was bloody uncomfortable enough for 8 airborne hours in warm weather.
SND
Back in the 90's there was a move to make NS pilots wear helmets, a study was run and the findings were that as NS pilots flew far more hours annually than their on-shore or military counterparts (at that time pilots with my employer were running at a rolling 790+hours on their 365 day totals) that there was greater risk to health caused by the increased weight on the head being affected by vibration and therefore causing spinal damage high up in the neck.
There was also mumbling about how the pax would feel seeing the pilots with an apparently enhanced form of protection denied to the customers. Personally I would not have wanted to wear a helmet for those lengths of time, sometimes the grow bag/lifejacket combination was bloody uncomfortable enough for 8 airborne hours in warm weather.
SND
Odd......knowing many pilots who put in 1000-1400 hour Years wearing helmets and body armor....not one complaint about Neck injuries. Piles, bad backs from Bell Helicopter Seats, and drinking habits but no neck injuries.
Adding a balance weight to the battery pack so the NVG's are balanced and no bending strain is generated goes a long way towards eliminating pressure on the Neck. After all, we do not pull the G's in Public Transport work as do Fighter Pilots wearing the things.
Adding a balance weight to the battery pack so the NVG's are balanced and no bending strain is generated goes a long way towards eliminating pressure on the Neck. After all, we do not pull the G's in Public Transport work as do Fighter Pilots wearing the things.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
They protect your head, protect your hearing and allow you to use NVG - the downside is???????
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Don't tell me the NS crews are a bunch of techno-fearing Luddites.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclic, I agree with almost all your posts except Baralt use - in the 139 we must use radalt. I think the baralt use is s throwback to having some over torques in the 332 when it went into "fly up" mode.
Fareastdriver - I think that the culture has changed now and the realization has come about that with a properly managed and functioning modern AFCS system the aircraft is safer flown with full use of the system - indeed its mandatory at night. The accident rate has now changed with fewer mechanical issues to a higher percentage of CFIT due to mishandling. The overall fatality rate in the UK offshore world is identical now to that of 20 years ago (CAA stats). I think the use of AFCS in bad weather or at night is a great move, but agree it brings in issues that revolve around hand flying skills. At night the final sector of the approach (for us .75nm maximum) needs to be hand flown to fly the sight picture to the deck, it is this part which i feel is still an issue that needs to be addressed - although as I've said I'm not sure how. Most offshore pilots I know would agree this is the most challenging thing we do, but also one we don't do regularly due to summer months, flights occurring often in the day in winter due to icing etc. I did about 10-15 night landings last winter, which is within the recency rules, but I'd question if that is enough for crews to be as competent as they need to be. My fear is that we will, as an industry, carry on as we are until another night time offshore fatal accident occurs, and then suddenly regulations will change. Why not try to change things before this occurs? Looking at statistics another crash will happen at some point if we continue as we are.
Fareastdriver - I think that the culture has changed now and the realization has come about that with a properly managed and functioning modern AFCS system the aircraft is safer flown with full use of the system - indeed its mandatory at night. The accident rate has now changed with fewer mechanical issues to a higher percentage of CFIT due to mishandling. The overall fatality rate in the UK offshore world is identical now to that of 20 years ago (CAA stats). I think the use of AFCS in bad weather or at night is a great move, but agree it brings in issues that revolve around hand flying skills. At night the final sector of the approach (for us .75nm maximum) needs to be hand flown to fly the sight picture to the deck, it is this part which i feel is still an issue that needs to be addressed - although as I've said I'm not sure how. Most offshore pilots I know would agree this is the most challenging thing we do, but also one we don't do regularly due to summer months, flights occurring often in the day in winter due to icing etc. I did about 10-15 night landings last winter, which is within the recency rules, but I'd question if that is enough for crews to be as competent as they need to be. My fear is that we will, as an industry, carry on as we are until another night time offshore fatal accident occurs, and then suddenly regulations will change. Why not try to change things before this occurs? Looking at statistics another crash will happen at some point if we continue as we are.