TC, how many times have you only realised it was raining when the goggle picture degraded - it's happened to me countless times. You use a met forecast and regular actuals to avoid bad weather, NVGs just let you fly in it in the dark.
If you have a lovely starlit, moonlit night and there are showers around, the goggles will help you avoid them but in overcast conditions with embedded CB and the likes they do not help a bit. If GA are trying to sell the CAA on 'extra safety' so they are allowed to fly on goggles then they are having a laugh. About the only safety increase is from better collision avoidance except that people will be avoiding traffic that is in airways or 50 miles away.
If Police and HEMS want goggles then I see no problem with it, but letting PPL H holders lose with them is asking for trouble.
Goggle flying is not a black art but you have to practise it, especially that tricky bit of getting into a site and onto the ground.

I don't want to stir up anything, but Neville's mag, the Nov/Dec 2002 issue, had an article on Mountain Area Medical Airlift of Asheville, NC that was the first civilian company to be approved for NVG's in the US. Bell also offers NVG courses.

ANVIS Trial
 

I'm somewhat disapointed by comments that if we let the EMS/SAR?Police start to use NVGs it will open a flood gate of pilots of all sorts buying NVgs and using them. There will always be those rogue pilots who will do the wrong thing, who will fly in IMC when not IFR rated, fly at night when not night rated, use VFR GPS for IFR navigation, etc. Anyhow this should not stop reputable emergency service operators from using what we found to be a highly desirable piece of technology for both operational effectivness and safer night operations into what we call "black-hole" operations. As a 24-hour Police/EMS/SAR operator, flying IFR N3 Dauphines, we are routinely required to operate into and land in unlit and unprepared outlandings with nothing more than a powerful torch strapped to the side of the machine. All our pilots are IFR rated and current and routinely do many night hours.
I have used NVGs in the military as well as now civil and I can attest that this is the single best piece of night flying aid since the invention of the night sun searchlight.
There is more than just buying goggles, cockpits have to be properly modified (preferrably to RTCA DO275 or equivalent standard), operating procedures have to be mandated, such as, inadvertent IMC, goggle/de-goggle, tube failure procedure, etc. Syllabus of initial training and recency requirements must be met and as a minimum Gen III ANVIS goggles must be used. We are mandating ANVIS9 (F4949) omnibu IV class B goggles as minimum (although some would argue that ANVIS 6 is OK...and that is true). The civil aviation regulatory body must ensure that regulations are drafted to ensure that procedures and equipment meet at least RTCA DO268 & 275 or mil equivalent. Most operators, other than emergency service, would not have the resources to either fund or operate on NVGs under such regulations. Gen III goggles normally can only be sold to govt or emergency service operators although this could be different in Europe.

Anyhow we have concluded a major airborne study of goggles and if interested the report is available to anyone interested by emailing me or downloading from www.simflight.com.au/NVG_report.htm

Mike Tavcar
Training & Checking Captain
Victoria Police Air Wing
Australia

STARS in Calgary Canada, has approval for NVG operations in a EMS operation. The first with a Transport Cat operation It has been over three years in coming. A company called Nite Owl North America ltd helped in the training and Transport Canada approvals.

As I said in the BK117 thread a while back - flying EMS at night without NVG should be phased out as a dangerous practice the old guys had to do. We should be already telling our younger pilots "...when I was a lad, we had to do this WITHOUT NVG!" and they would look at us in amazement that we could have been so brave. Instead, our regulatory bodies are making us continue to unecessarily risk our lives by not mandating NVG. :mad:

I reckon NVG are the biggest single safety improvement to HEMS ops since the helmet.

Well done Mike Tavcar for the thoroughness and level of your report, and especially the willingness to share this information for the good of all, rather than harbour it as a "knowledge is power" thing like so many others have. Bravo. :ok:

Concur with the above - thanks Mike:ok:

Concur with Mike. The military managed to plow a blackhawk into the dirt in Timor using NVG's. CHC, however has managed to uphold an unblemished record.

crab

do you have a problem with private pilots your posts seem to promote doom and gloom for any private pilot using any new equiptment

you may have fortunate for the hm gov to pay for all of your flight training but that does not mean all military pilots have the god given right to fly or they are better or more proffesional in their flying

belive or not private pilots can go to the same training courses that mil pilots do

the courses that are run for nvg. Private pilots can go to so why are they liable to cause interesting accidents

or do you think all private pilots should have a robbie with no extras at all ,as its all they can opperate

did you also know that there are a lot of private pilots flying more hours than military or hems/police/air taxi opps

and flying in better equipt helicopters

rant over still cant spell

MD600, I think we have been round this 'you were lucky enough to have the HM pay for your training, don't think this makes you any better' argument before on other threads - YES I was lucky enough but I had to work hard for it and NO I don't think that all military pilots are neccessarily more professional than others.

However, on the subject of NVG - the military are the ones with all the expertees, flying in all weathers, in all sorts of inhospitable environments, at all sorts of ridiculous heights. If the civilian world does not take notice some of the hard lessons learned by mil pilots as the whole sphere of NVG ops has eveolved then they will be doomed to repeat them.
Fortunately the role of introducing NVG to HEMS/police has fallen to ex- mil pilots in the main, partly because so many of those HEMS/Police pilots are ex-military themselves and cannot understand why they are asked to do similar jobs to the military without the same kit.
Hot on the heels of HEMs /police use of goggles will inevitably come private pilots demanding that they be allowed to use them as well (probably citing human rights legislation as their defence) and this is where I have a problem.

NVGs do not make night flying safer! They allow you to do the same job with a helicopter by night as you would by day and operate at low level into and out of unrecced sites. My question is why would a PPLH holder want to do this - so he can press on rather than making the sensible decision to divert, just because he wants to get home on time?

As Mike Tavcar stated, NVG flying is much more than just strapping the green toilet roll tubes to your helmet and pulling pitch - training, compatible aircraft equipment and more training are vital.

I think all HEMS/police crews should be NVG equipped, when you are required to do a job with a helicopter at night, goggles enhance your operational capability without doubt. Do they make it safer? I don't think so, they just let you push further.

Trimpot - have you stopped to consider what the aircraft in Timor was doing when it ploughed in? Do CHC do the same job as the military? I don't think you are comparing like with like.

To all those who see NVG as a panacea for all night ops - they are a piece of equipment which has many limitations, almost as many as the human beings who have to be trained to interpret what they see through them. NVG will often get you to short finals for a site quite easily but white light (or even a combination of the two) is frequently the safest way to achieve the hover/landing.
If you don't believe me just wait til you've frightened the sh*t out of yourself on goggles - the margin for error is not large.

I have on many occasions had military accidents thrown back at me when discussing NVGs, not least from our regulatory body, some who have said, and I quote, "I've heard that if the goggles fail you can crash". This same person has since flown on NVGs during our trial and came away a convert. Actually every non-NVG pilot and visitor that we had on goggles during the trial made the same remark,"Hell, I can see!!"

It is misinformation and just plain ignorance that continues to keep NVGs somewhat of a dark horse amongst the tools of trade. It is incumbent on us all who believe in the safety advantage that these things will give to spread the word and inform the uninitiated.

Remember that many of the military accidents, if not all, occur in dificult tactical training senarios. Civil use of NVGs have no place in tactical low level, NOE, multi-ship operations....as I see it. Compared to what we are doing now, with regulatory blessing, NVG is SAFE, very SAFE.

And yes weather is a significant limitation to goggle use. It is important that training and SOPs are used to regulate its use. This is no different then flying unaided. I have heard of many who have gone inadvertent IMC unaided day or night...and this will continue to happen...for those who either push to far or don't abide by SOP. But again this should not be a reason to stop use of NVGs just because some element out there will abuse their privalege to use goggles. We might as well stop all flying that way there will never be any misuse of flying full stop!!

Mike, I thoroughly agree that people doing a job with a helicopter at night should have NVGs - I have done lots of normal night flying into difficult sites including mountain ones and without doubt, being able to see makes you feel much more comfortable. The only problem is that pilots become less cautious when flying on goggles, thinking that because they can see that it is just like day flying. That is when they come into a LS too fast and are caught out by the poor rate of closure and depth perception cues and end up overshooting/overtorquing/scaring themselves.

I know that a lot of guys like yourself have put a lot of work into getting civil regs in many countries changed to allow the use of NVG in HEMS/police ops - 2nd2none has been hard at work in Canada as he states in an earlier post. However I stand by what I said earlier - NVGs do not make night flying safer, they just make it easier to see where you are going.

I can appreciate what you are saying, Crab. But I will have to agree to disagree. Having flown mostly night ops for the past 21 years unaided of which the last 16 using a nightsun into night outlandings and then doing the same with goggles I am convinced that it is safer doing my job aided then unaided. And yes you can scare yourself flying, hell I've done it unaided day or night but I would scare myself a hell of alot less and have a more relaxed sphincter when going into those black holes. Situational awareness is paramount at night something a big torch strapped to the side of my helo won't do as well. I'll take aided landings any day over the nightsun. NVGs like the nightsun, IFR, FLIR are all aides to flying and that's how it should be viewed...an aid to flying.

On the question of private pilots or other non emergency pilots flying NVG...if they equip properly (both goggles and cockpit) and train to an acceptable standard and maintain recency then I guess, in a free world, they should not be denied the right to access technology...this is the same in anything we do, aviation or not. Regulatory standards will ensure that honest pilots will do the right thing. The risk takers will still exist no matter if you ban NVGs or not. You would be surprised how many illegal NVG flights are going on out there and not necessarily using ANVIS. Example many drug runners use NVGs for cross border smuggling, etc. You're not going to stop so called "private" pilots using them by denying those who should have it. Better to regulate it properly and so control it through training establishments, etc.

NVGs are an extremely good aid to night flying. They are certainly not a panacea to night flying...that I agree wholeheartly but by gee they are sure better than a big torch.

Lets move on from being negative about NVGs and work to make it a positive thing for us all who have to fly at night for a crust.

Mike, now that I have actually bothered to download and read your report (which I think is very good by the way) I can understand your evangelical fervour to equip your guys with goggles. I did not appreciate how constrained your ops were by your safety altitude regulations. In the UK mil we can fly at 500' agl without goggles, so being forced into IFR to get to a job was less of a drama. However NVG do make life even easier, especially for completely unlit sites or those away from cultural lighting.
I think the only trick you might be missing is having a halfway house between nightsun and pure NVG approaches, we transfer from goggles to white light on most approaches to the hover whether it be alongside a ship, into a field, against a cliff or halfway up a mountain. Precision hovering for winching is easier on white light than on goggles because you retain the peripheral vision you use during the day; even the fastest goggle scan can't replace that. We have the advantage of 2 steerable landing lights and 4 hover/floodlights that give us a very nice pool of light in which to work. Clearly not much use for tactical ops but top banana for SAR work. On really dark nights when the goggles are struggling the white light comes into its own and the pool of light is much better to work in than just the beam from a nightsun.
We used to use nightsun approaches in NI to both field and HLS landings so I understand the problems flying down the beam of light into the 'black hole'.
I hope you are successful in your quest for the NVG capability, it will give you the freedom in your ops that we have been enjoying for years.

Crab,
when the fully NVG compatable Blackhawk crashed it was on a night training mission. CHC do in fact do everything the military do in Timor and more! They are flying a partially NVG equiped 212 and non-NVG 332's. Yet they have a higher success rate for night missions than the military. So, yes I do think I am comparing apples with oranges but I'm not sure who are the apples and who are the oranges.
Also, you seem to take it for granted that civilian operators will not/have not learn't from the lessons and experiences of the military. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Lastly, the military are not the only people on the planet that fly in unhospitable conditions. Ask anyone flying offshore in Darwin during the wet or the North Sea, the guys flying EMS out of La Trobe Valley and Canberra and the guys fire bombing in Australia and Canada and the guys flying Aeromedical evacuations in Timor.

Rocky Mountain Helicopters were the first FAA Part 135 commercial operator approved for NVG operation, in 1999.

The programme was established in conjunction with Aviation Specialties Unlimited and addressed every aspect of of initial and recurrent training as well as equipping the aircraft.

I remember moves to utilise NVG's in the North Sea a long time ago (mid 80's?) and various trials being undertaken offshore.

Commercial operators (and regulators) are more than adept at adapting and adopting modern technology in a safe, organised and regulated manner; whilst addressing the safety of their personnel, operation and aircraft. If anyone honestly believes that any regulatory authority is incapable of initiating and regulating an operation of this nature prior to it's inception, then they really must have no comprehension of commercial operation or regulation.

Mike well done on your report....your walk before you run style and methodical approach is commendable. I wish you the best.

I concur with crabbo too (now theres a first) You should really look into the concept of NVG approach to a white-light termination. For precision work (non-tactical) white light is the business. We found the following a great compromise in the hover:

Goggles on, NVG search light pointing ahead, white light search light pointed straight down! The peripheral glow of the white light significantly aides hover references (and if youre winching it allows the crewman to see the many obstacles they otherwise wouldnt see on gogs)

Trimpot old boy.... CHC did fine work in ET - in fact Id say exceptional work and yes they did out often out perform the military (well done)..... but you are generalising about military ops when I think you mean Aussie Army Ops?
When CHC start flying low level fast, 6-8 ship NVG formations to HLS's, receiving ground fire, co-ordinating with Gnd Attack Acft and AWACS, with instantaneous time on target rendevous's in the Bosnian winter....then we can talk turkey. (When its done right m'ol china you are talking apples and oranges)

Lastly Im no guru...I'm still on this earth as much through good luck as good management. I sincerely hope all civil NVG operations can access military accident reports....and not make the fatal errors we made whilst learning the ropes.

As a matter of interest what light/ mlux levels are civil operators flying to? As any experienced NVG operator knows....some nights are just as dark with the goggles on!

Very good thread.........to the RN pilots about to go into action in the Persian Gulf - Good Shooting! "Fear God Honour the SeaKing"

Some very good pionts made by Jungly! As a trainer for NVG Operations the non mil white light aid is absolutly outstanding for NVG Civ operations. But for the mil guys it would be Operation Certain Death with any lights. If you can, use white light for most of the operational profiles increases the SA no end. For Mike, Real good report, have a look at some of these web sites.
www.nite-owl-nvg.com
www.ntis.com, search for NVG

Good luck!!

Cyclic hotline:

I think you are right, regulatory agencies are not "incapable" but name an example of a regulatory body actually "initiating" the change to adopt NVG. It seems that it has been left to operators to do what Mike Tavcar has done, though I recognise that generally speaking it's due to regulator staffing levels and workload.

Crab: I disagree a wee bit sir: I believe NVG flight IS safer. I am not a fan of the transition to white light prior to the hover as I recall that being the cause fo a few incidents in the Oz Army during the early days of thier NVG ops. I am however a fan of the method described by Jungly of using the white light straight down as a "fill" light, with one caveat: only use it on dark nights. The reason for this caveat is that it appears to be a widely held misconception that white light cannot harm ANVIS 6 and later generation crystals/tubes. As it does degrade the tubes, I would only use this method where it provides a clear benefit, but on nice clear moonlit nights, the light can actually degrade your view through the NVG, in much the same way too bright an IR light can.

Trimpot:

CHC must be fantastic - or are you the marketing manager? You guys fly around below 200 ft at night in formation (you did say: "CHC do in fact do everything the military do in Timor and more! ") and you have learnt all the military lessons. AND you state that CHC have a higher success rate for night missions than the military. How so?

Jungly and helmet fire,
point taken. However, I did not state that CHC had learn't all the military lessons, merely that they did learn from the military, in some cases directly. As for the having a higher success/completion rate for night missions (and that's actual missions, not training) it's a simple statement of fact. Please don't miss my point, I am not trying to bag the military, but there is a perception that there are some jobs that can only be done by the military. This is true in some cases such as formation at night where civilian operators clearly do not have a need to do that sort of flying. In other cases it is not true and civilian operators do very well.

Helmet fire, I understand where you are coming from regarding the white light prior to hover in that just turning on a bright light while you are still on goggles and closing them down completely is a receipe for disaster.
We are able to gradually increase the amount of white light we use, starting with the hover lights on the sponsons which shine straight down and then introducing the forward facing flood lights and then the 2 steerable landing lights. In this way the transition from gogs to white light can be varied according to conditions and light levels.
I understood that the coating on the microchannel plates in the later generation tubes was what prevented high levels of incoming photons from releasing excessive electrons from the plates and thus damaging the tubes - do you have other information to the contrary?
Trimpot - when I mentioned inhospitable conditions it was with specific reference to NVG ops in inhospitable conditions - I am well aware that lots of other people fly in cruddy weather.
2nd2none - good plug mate!!!!

Civil NVG
 

We are a mosquito control agency (public use) in Southern Florida and anticpate using NVGs on our fixed wing night flying spray missions in the coming season (spray alt approx. 300' agl) ; we did some initial evaluation at end of last season, and will be taking a course from manufacturer shortly in which methods of use will be refined. As the fixed wing ops have the luxury of two pilots in the ac, it is likely that the PNF will utilise this technology as enhanced obstacle avoidance, and it will help with anticipation of wx problems ; PF cannot realistically use them as scan/adjustment significantly degrades ability to fly accurate track and altitude.
One of our staff, an ex Mil rotorhead, observes that for rotary night ops, with correct training and understanding of limitations, this technology is a vast leap forward and is certainly applicable to EMS/Law Enforcement ops and the like.

Crab, I had imagined your techniques was to come to a 200 - 300 ft agl hover and go through the transition there - but your method appears far superior to that, thanks for the clarification.

When gogs went to Gen3 they did indeed incorporate the coating onto the objective side of the microchannel plate (MCP) to protect the bit that turns photons into electrons. As I was taught (and my memory has never been that flash) it is the protons that do the damage, and the excess of protons caused by the excess of electrons produced at the MCP during white light ops is the issue. As I understood it, the Gen3 not only incorporated the coating (some form of boron alluminium chloride from memory) but advances with the MCP modulation technology prevented excessive damage in white light. These advances did not stop production of the protons, and the coating is like any other coating - it is able to be worn down. Thus, using white light will not cause the goggles irrepairable damage like in the Gen2 gogs, but it degrades the coating and thus lessens the life of the tubes. The ANVIS 6 publications still contain a warning that they are not to be used in anything more than "full moonlight". White lights obviously significantly exceed this. Hence my earlier comments that white light is sometimes the safer way to hover, but not allways, and when you do, you are causing a bit of wear and tear that may very well be worth it for the safety enhancement offered by the white light. In other words - there are still no free lunches! :D

I noticed some discussion about use of white light. In our trial we used both the standard swivelling landing light and the SX16 Nightsun unfortunately we could not trial an IR filtered light.

We found that the nightsun was OK but somewhat too bright (except on a dark night in which case worked well). All in all the swivelling landing light worked very well all the way to the ground. The only time the landing light was a problem was approaching the hover with reflection back into the cockpit causing the goggles to dim down unacceptably but this was corrected by lifting the landing light up towards but not into the blades. The nightsun was too bright near the ground in all ambient conditions. Indeed the standard landing lights worked very well with the goggles.

We used both ANVIS 6 omnibus II and ANVIS 9 Omnibus IV tubes and without a doubt I can say that the 9's worked exceptionally well with white light with less dimming then the 6's. Also when the US restriction is lifted the gated pinnacle goggles will make bright white light use a non event.

Our conclusion from the trial is that all front seat crew must be on goggles all the way to the ground. We strongly oppose any de-goggling on final approach with transition to white light only (as I believe some operators do)....personaly I don't know how they do it as we found it very uncomfortable and disconcerting to do so. We will only goggle and de-goggle whilst over a cultural lighting area or at safe altitude.

For covert police ops an IR searchlight with position and anti-col lights off is essential but all other ops the use of white light landing lights (that can be swivelled) works very well.

We have formulated SOP's for weather, illumination, pilot requirements, crewing, inadvertent IMC, etc. If interested I'm happy to share these with those interested

Regulatory bodies such as CASA here are not placing NVGs on a high priority and as such will wallow and bubble along for years to come. It is up to the emergency service operators and the HAA to actively lobby CASA to lift NVGs to a higher priority so that CASA standards section can be made to work on this project for benefit of us all.

CASA seems happy to issue concessions to the regulations for us to fly below LSALT with a big torch strapped to the side....but are you the pilots at the coal face happy with that? I'm not! CASA rhetoric is that they support the concept of NVGs but they seem misguided in the level of importance they place on having good SA when working under their concessions. Goggles will give us the SA we need when working at night below LSALT and CASA needs to get that message.

I am a recent convert to NVG's and IR lens SX-16 use. Without any reservation at all.....I cannot state how enjoyable it is to have these new tools for use at night. The only way I can describe the difference is to report the delight I had in making repeated approaches to a completely unlit confined area....in the middle of a very dark part of the forest....on an overcast night....with minimum natural light. Without the goggles on....I could not see the trees....or the ground...from a three foot hover. This was done without any use of man made light. With the goggles.....it might as well have been daylight with the one exception of the diminished field of view.

They are clumsy....take some getting used to....require a lot of head turning....but what an improvement. I actually look forward to flying in dark places now whereas it used to be a stressful time. Night flying over unlit mountainous areas used to fill me with glee...but now it would be a cake walk.

I fly a BK....and due to its small cockpit and the resulting restrictions to the field of view....I do find it a bit hard to see all the way around the aircraft and thus in a busy area of the sky....traffic avoidance might become an issue. However, usually, that situation would occur in a well lit place and thus the googles could be flipped up out of the way.

The other situation that I can see that would argue against goggles would be flying over very large bodies of very calm, smooth, glassy water. The reflection of the stars which becomes very easy to see with goggles could present a spatial disorientation problem exactly like it does with the naked eye.

The IR lens works great in conjunction with the nightsun as well...with the advantage that no white light is displayed. Cockpit lights can be seen inside other aircraft with the goggles at some considerable distance....thus very dim lights anywhere can be seen with ease.

The state of the art equipment is great.....I would shudder to think of having to fly the full face goggles such as the military did for so many years.

I have been told that Spectrolab is no longer providing remotely driven IR filter for the SX16 only for their new range of nightsuns. Anyone know where we could source a couple of IR filters for the SX16 (the one that can be remotely controlled from inside the cockpit)?

IR nightsuns
 

Mike you might want to try the RNZAF. Their nightsuns have an IR filter that is 'flipped up and down' from inside the cockpit. They should be able to tell you where they got them from etc
PM me if you want an email address.

Upon return to work on Monday....will check for the source of ours.....and let you know.

If you have the luxury of a second crewmember on the same side of the aircraft as the pilot, you may wish to consider using a Dragonlight handheld high-power torch with IR Filter instead of SX16. The Dragonlight is far more easily controlled and responsive when compared to an aircraft-mounted, joystick-steered light. Main disadvantage is that for illuminating targets further forward than the 2 o'clock (assuming the operator is on the RHS) the AS needs to be below 60 kts to enable the man with the light to hold it steady in the airflow. My RAF Chinook experience finished in '98, but this was certainly the system in use then, and also what was taught in Brunei from 98 to 01.

Be aware that there appear to be 2 different thicknesses/densities of Dragonlight IR filter, both with the same part number; the UK-forces issue version gave an excellent light source, whereas the type initially bought by the Brunes was so opaque as to be useless.

No-one seems to have raised the topic of diffuse-light sources; the type used by the UK (Brightstar) on a fixed mounting underneath the fuselage give invaluable reference info without the high contrast problems of IR or white-light searchlights. Very handy on OVC Borneo nights over the ulu...

thud,
Good points. I am a huge fan of the diffused IR light, especially for low flying and any hover ops. Having flown NVG on UH-1H and UH-60s, I found that the UH-60 IR searchlight was excellent, but I always ended up with a sore thumb from motoring it around on dark nights and in the hover because it did not diffuse enough. The Huey on the other hand lacked a sharp IR light and this made identification of various features a challenge, especially during low level with no GPS (what was that ancient technique again...clock to map to ground or something? Anybody??;) ;) ). But, the diffused light on the Huey was fantastic for low flying, hover ops and liftoff and landing from the hover. Much better than the UH-60.

I would rather the diffused IR light for civ HEMS ops than the beam style lights. I would be intrested to see what the SX16 looked like with IR filter and no focus, but I suspect it would still be to bright for dark night ops. SASless - you would probably know.

Police and NVGs
 

In the Oct/Nov edition of Defence Helicopter, the Dyfed-Powis ASU try to make a case for the use of NVGs for Police Air Support Operations.

Various arguments are made ranging from we've bought the kit, why can't we use it. Safety enhancement and costs.

Silly move if you've spent money before things are firmed up!

You've got a very good Thermal Image system with a very large torch strapped to the machine. I can see the reasoning for the rear observer using NVG's; he's remote from the front seat crew/pax and it can enhance his ability to operate. Why would a pilot want to go on NVGs? On NVGs you're very unaware of what the outside weather conditions are. A very real possibility of going inadvertant IMC then exists with the pilot (not instrument rated) then having to go onto instruments and recover what would be a rapidly deteriorating situation.

Surely to enhance safety all police pilots should be instrument rated and not do this micky mouse "instrument awareness" training. There have been accidents of inadvertant IMC that would have been perfectly recoverable had the pilot been rated.

The costs of fitting a helicopter for NVG against the costs of instrument rating pilot would I think come out in favour of the instrument rating.

The Defence Hewlicopter article quite rightly says that as far as the CAA is concerned, police operations are public transport; quite correct. As such public transprot rules must apply and can't be watered down due to a ill-informed view that NVG's are the way to go.

Any way all you Air Support Units, let's have your views.

Oh, by the way, before I get told to not to go on about things I no nothing about, police operations, been there and done that.

Agree 100%:rolleyes: However you partly answered your own question. Costs would be the main thing that the Police Chancellors would object to. As far as I am aware Devon and Cornwall are the only Police unit that has gone the extra mile in this area. :hmm:

I agree that costs would be an issue. What I'm saying is that NVGs would be a deficit to flight safety and instrument ratings would be a huge enhancement to flight safety. The article gives a figure of £150,000 to convert a machine to NVG, plus there'll be a training add on. I'll bet you'll get I/R's for less than that figure.

Make the case for I/R's and argue it with the bean counters, don't waste time and money on the latest must have.

Too many units do get sucked in to the "must haves". But the cost of training five pilots and maintain their currency would surely be prohibitive to most?
Maybe I`m wrong. I would be interested to hear what some of the European countries do in this area.

An instrument rating is only of use to get you home. You can't fly to a job on instruments. How do you regain visual? If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there. As for inadvertant, we fly sim IF every 3 months, just in case. Not ideal, but we don't need a fully fledged IR.

Your profile doesn't say whether you have NVG experience, but NVG's are the only way to fly at night when you're operating in amongst the high ground, trying to avoid bumping in to the lumpy bits. Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety.

"An instrument rating is only of use to get you home."

Wrong answer! An instrument rating will prevent you flying into the ground should you end up in the middle of a cloud. Then you can go home in one piece, as can your crew.

"You can't fly to a job on instruments."

If you're operating amongst high ground then the weather should be suitable for you to do so; I'll bet there's a paragraph in the PAOM about operating above the highest obstacle within a certain distance. That's how you don't fly into that obstacle, be it a building or hill.

"How do you regain visual?"

I think it's called an ILS, PAR, NDB or something along those lines.

"If the weather's that bad that you need to IF then it's probably going to be too bad to do the job when you get there."

Exactly! But people do go inadvertant IMC and end up not going home.

I don't have NVG experience but that isn't to say only the people who do, probably from the military, should advocate the use of them. As I said, the rear observer, yes, and it would help his role

"Can't see how NVGs would be a deficit in regards to flight safety."

You must be trying to wind me up!

You don't know anything about NVIS, you aren't aware that the last crash was caused by pilot error, that pilot being instrument rated. You don't know how much it would cost to become IR'd nor to staycurrent with IR's. You don't know jack ***t.
Your observations are incredibly naive to say the least. In fact they're a joke.
Stop fishing and try and be constructive will you?
There, I feel better now......................:*

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve....

Don't think that I said that the last crash (which one?) was pilot error.
I do know how much it is to be instrument rated, and how much it is to stay current; I'm TRE/TRI with the instrument endorsement!

Trying to create discussion to further enhance flight safety is not fishing but very constructive I would have thought.

So I do think that I know jack ***t...

Please grow up.

Are we going to install letdown facilities on the bobbie's ( baddies')vehicles?

You're in for a hiding mate.

TC I agree fully. What a joker
:}

Banzai-blades,

Think through what I'm saying. It's not about using the I/R to operate on task. It's about having the equipment and training to prevent CFIT after going inadvertaant IMC. NVG verses I/R; the I/R must win by the virtue that NVG won't get you out of inadvetant IMC, the I/R will.

If you read my posts you will see that I'm not argueing against NVG, but the use of them; it the back seat yes. Given the large costs involved does the end justify the means.

Are you really telling me that you do not regard an I/R as a benefit to flight safety?

If you think I'm wrong then convince me as to the benefits of NVG over an I/R. It is a discussion...

Kalif

The problem with the instrument rating, with reference to these sort of ops, is that when you really want to use it, you stand a good chance of not being able to. The 2 main limitations usually being icing and fuel reserves.

Additionally, once you instrument rate a pilot specifically for these ops, you really need to allow considerable IF flying to maintain a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, these sort of operations do not generally lend themselves to disappearing off for an hour to bash the hold!

Now if you were to offer me NVG to go with the instrument rating, then yes please - best of both worlds!!

Cheers

Tees