I used to teach procedural IF in my last job, so I have been higher than the cloud base. In answer:

Currency: 3 approaches for 4 pilots costs money. Who pays?

Fuel Reserves: Our 135 with 3 crew and all the kit has an endurance of approx 90 mins. We can plan all we want, but MAUW is MAUW.

SPIFR: We dinosaurs DO use the autopilot... It's better than us.

NVG for some units would move police aviation forward. I personally would love an IR, but if I was the UEO I wouldn't spend the precious cash.

Once upon a time I used to have an I/R:{. I have always been pro I/Rs for police pilots (maintaining currency where we are would be no problem whatsoever). However, I accept that operationally it would not provide a benefit that warrants the initial outlay (and for all the units in the UK bar D&C, Humberside and some of the Met that is some outlay). In fact it would be easier to raise the weather limits than demand an I/R. Although the only NVG I ever used was a hand held tank sight (Mk 1 PNG as it was then), I do think that the latest generation NVGs are the way ahead for night rural ops, not because we can go out in worse weather but because they would enhance situational awareness at night, in the sticks (for those of you that have 'the sticks!'. I do not know enough about them to judge their effectiveness in an urban situation but I feel sure that they wouldn't make things worse!

Semirigid.

You must calm down old chap. You will do yourself an injury with all that ranting. ;)

I do however agree that an IR would be nice...but that is all it would be, NICE not essential. NVG would be far more useful.

And as a dino myself, I love buttons and switches, can't get enough of them, infact the more the merrier.

Cost, cost, everbody talks about the cost of an IR, what about the cost of converting our machines to be NVG compatable? Makes an IR look like small change. If you have an agreement with your local IF approach airport, so that you can make some approaches during there quiet periods, you'll be surprised how you can negotiate on the price.

I'll admit that I'm not the most experienced NVG pilot in the world, but speaking to those who do have a lot of NVG time-most don't enjoy flying NVG but in the military world there is no option, it can sucker you in to flying in worse conditions than you would accept if you where visual, and finally if they stop working the sudden transition back to visual flight in poor weather, low level makes the palms sweaty for a short period.

I think Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for the rural areas and an IF to back it up. As they fly both could someone from the SW care to throw their hat in the ring and gives us the benefit of their experiences?

SRR,

I've got a lot of NVG hours, and I like flying NVG.

One issue that has not been raised is crew duty limits. Most mil operators impose a loading on NVG hr for the purposes of calculating crew duty because it is fatiguing. There are risks in every aviation endeavour, and NVG flying has its own peculiar set - kind of like flight in IMC.

I think I can speak for every one who has any experience on NVG - it beats the hell out of flying in the scary dark.

With regard to cost if you are upgrading to new aircraft for instance the EC135 with FCDS, which has some serious advantages, the Thales SMD screens are available NVG compatible FOC. Altough that would only be part of the equipment required to NVG compatible.

There is also a much cheaper alternative to NVG. Where the cockpit doesn't need to be NVG compatible. But that would be telling..................

GCN

Thales screens changed for NVG compatable ones FOC/ It will be interesting to see if your maintenance organisation will support that one. What about all the other clocks & dials?

But I'll bite ;) what is the alternative to NVG that we are all missing?

emergov: I can only report what has been said to me by various military types. They did it, but were never comfortable with it.

If you are purchasing a new aircraft with Thales SMD displays, so I have been told by more than one Thales person, NVG compatibility is a zero cost option. If you read what I said it did not infer that they will exchange them.

As to the maintenance organisation - have to ask myself one day.

I think that is what I wrote isn't it?

I live about 2 km's from one of the few civvy NVG operators in Europe - no need to guess that one.

So, the cost of the upgrade for most of us will be huge.

How many forces will be upgrading their machines in the next few years? Not that many I suggest, the rush to upgrade to 135 / 902 is just about exhausted, and I can't see the Met specifying NVG!:E

There are outfits that will NVG mod your machine for very much less than a new purchase. If the panel displays are not NVG (could be that they are, many LCD's are actually NVG capable by design - borrow some NVG's and just look at yours!) then minus-blue glass covers can be made. The rest can be post-lit with minus-blue posts.

Some possible links (no direct knowledge of these, just the product of a search):
http://www.oxleygroup.com/

http://www.skyquest.co.uk/nvg.html

Nick,

As you are one of the most respected authorities on this forum, can I put you on the spot?

Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not?

And to balance the arguement, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?

Semi

What I was alluding to is that Enhanced Vision Systems could more likely see acceptance in the civil world than NVG's which really have a few legacy issues. Crashworthiness, like flying looking through a drinking straw etc etc.....

Enhanced vision is certified in the plank world. Check out a current G550 or newer Global Express, Airbus etc etc. Granted not cheap. Check out the Gulfstream EVS site here

You have been able to buy a Cadillac with Night Vision Head Up Display for about the last 2 years!! They are even talking about using it in their Endurance racing at night!!!

With our current aircraft, it would be possible, and is being considered, to install an uncooled microbolometer (read IR camera) which weighs 1 kg in the nose. MaxVision for example.

Because we have an aircraft with Thales SMD45 and 68 displays and video radar unit (that narrows it down a bit) which accepts a video input it is a matter of plugging in the cable and a bit of software configuration.

Bingo IR in the cockpit. Although granted it's not certified (doesn't have to be), its fixed not gimballed and the FOV is about 30 degees and it would be a Head Down Display. You don't have to fly around with anything attached to your head or maybe left behind. One switch.

But the increase in safety and awareness is huge for very little outlay (compared to the alternatives). And it is IR. Granted you are not flying using it as sole reference it is just "enhancing" things.

Next trick is to get it up on the inside of the windscreen along with a bit more info which is already available from the flight displays which would be another leap.

It's the mass produced technologies and the fact that the certifying aviation authorities are aware of these types of systems, have certified them and produced standards that will help.

Synthetic Vision Systems is the next step, but what you are looking at isn't real of course.

Getting back to the mass produced side you could possibly be surprised that the electronic control unit parts in a lot of smaller helicopter FADEC units have a much in common with a Korean car.

Just looking at the issue from a different angle and the return for the outlay!

TC

I think you have shown remarkable restraint!!;)
Vfr

Giovanni,

Very informative post; delighted for you that your operation has access to something which will make fixed-wing runway approaches easier and safer in poor visibility. Regrettably, it isn't really entirely applicable to the rotary, and specifically the police rotary task. We need to be able to see more than 30 degrees(hover references are commonly 60 degrees off-centre (the 2 o'clock position)), and we need something that doesn't require interpretation before the information is assimilated into our thick heli-pilot brains! Goggles (and remember even Gen2 had 40 degrees FOV, far from like looking through straws) allow the pilot to orient himself in space by pointing his head where he wants to look.

Semirigid,

It is unbecoming for me to assume to speak for Mr Lappos, but if you respect his opinion so much perhaps you ought to read it. He's posted on Page 2 of this thread, a sample herewith:
..and again on Page 3, where he is remarkably direct:
Which rather suggests that your second, "balanced" question is irrelevant having already been answered twice. By using the word "balance" you appear to suggest it should be IR or NVG, that the 2 are are somehow opposed and mutually exclusive. Am I wrong to reach this conclusion?

Oh, and I don't think dinosaurs wore NVG - you may find that progress occurs once all the pilots who've NEVER operated with it have moved on to their next career choice. This will allow those who appreciate NVG's operational and Flight Safety benefits to spread their experience to the police world.

edited to move a misplaced "quote" box

The NVG arguement is indicative of just about every other "discussion" on technique, training, etc: we all seem to passionately believe in what we have experienced and are reluctant to believe that it could be done any better. The long line introduction is a good example. A bloke in the States thought it was the bees knees in the 60s (I believe) and yet it is only recently in Oz (last four years or so) that we have seen it as an often preferable way to conduct external loads, and it is still not getting favour in the UK. Why? because we are reluctant to believe it could be better than how we learnt to do it. Same as NVG.

Find me an ANVIS 6 or 9 NVG pilot or crewman who would choose to fly without them. So why is it so hard to convince those who have yet to experience them? As with long line, the yanks were on to it straight away, the Kiwis saw the benefits are changing asap, and the Aussies and Poms? Still saying it couldn't possibly be better than how WE do it now.

The cost of an NVG upgrade is NO WHERE NEAR the cost of an IFR upgrade. A 3 axis autopilot cannot be fitted for much less than $1M US. An NVG cockpit can generally be done for less than $50K US. A slight difference. And I say 50K because you do not need to go to the lengths that some NVG product pushers have you believe. Simply floodlight the cockpit.

But this arguement again pits Instrument flying against NVG. As I said before, I believe they are not competitive technologies, NVG is a direct competitor for NVFR not IFR. So the question is whether or not you want to spend about $80K US on significantly enhancing your safety and response envelope or not - not wether it is more cost effective than an IFR upgrade.

To give you some sense of objective perspective, let me ask how much resistance would there be to a technology that increased your visual acuity by nearly 16 times?

Unaided night vision acuity is 6/200 (metric here) yet ANVIS 9 (omnibus IV) caims acuity of 6/12. Resistance to such huge technological leaps or changes really shouldnt take us by suprise: we see it throughout our past, like we did with long lines, and like we will continue to see with NVG, HUMS, etc.

Giovanni, the thought of having an EVS system on the helicopter is nice. But it would have to move/follow with the pilots head. That would either mean another IR ball, or a mad observer. And the added weight and space needed for it is not available in what I fly.

Just to put this in, most major police departments in the U.S. are going to NVG's as money is available. My department is within the next several months, and in the environment that I fly in at night, it is not soon enough.

I do not know of any departments here that have IMC capability in their patrol helicopters. The best solution is to set up a procedure to reduce that risk. Maybe having someone on board that is not using the NVG's. Or going off NVG and looking, then proceeding to a next established point. Just thoughts.

TC,

"Kalif has never flown new gen police a/c...all his police time was with the AS355 which never had slaving as an option??? "

Oh dear, wrong answer yet again!
Seems that you have a bit of personal problem with me.
I have flown new gen police a/c with slaving. If you like I can give you the details of a reputable company that provides crm or anger management courses. Let's keep things to the point of the discussion...

Back to the original thread, and I say yet again, I'm not against NVGs, just trying to promote discussion.

Take this situation, one I've seen on several instances.
Police pilot operating out in a very dark night over countryside with few nearby external references. In the orbit on task, eyes totally outside of the cockpit with the nitesun being used. Very quickly the aircrafts AoB increases and the rate of descent builds up due to target fixation. Good old rad alt warning or crew prevents CFIT. Non IR pilot not scanning the instruments and totally outside of the cockpit.
Now put goggles on him and do the same again, possibly down at the suggested 500 ft agl. By having the goggles on he will naturally get drawn into the ground situation because that's where his eyes will be, outside. No instrument scan, rat alt warning kicks off to get his eyes off goggles and back where they should be. Training and currency will prevent this, but the risk does increase quite steeply.

HeliMark

"Maybe having someone on board that is not using the NVG's. Or going off NVG and looking, then proceeding to a next established point."

Good point, something along what I've been saying.


TC, stop it before you start....

Kalif,

Why would a pilot using NVG at 500 ft in the orbit NOT be scanning his instruments? It's what we are all taught to do, isn't it? Bear in mind the RADALT is positioned - in most of the aircraft I've flown - at the bottom RH corner of the instrument panel to allow the pilot to include it in his scan. RADALT audio warning is a go/no-go item for NVG ops. If you hear it go off the HP immediately goes for the climb above min ht, among the first lessons he learns in NVG training. Some units include further SOPs - eg audio is not manually cancelled but left on until the a/c is above safe height so the whole crew knows the a/c is safe; HP only climbs wings-level until above a specified min ht, etc.

If you were orbiting by day and your height crept down below minimum auth'd, you'd use your instruments and your outside references to regain appropriate height. Well, on NVG you use precisely the same technique. At night without NVG, you are at risk of disorientation if you concentrate your scan near the Nightsun beam. With NVG, you still have references outside the beam which enable you to fly your orbit using conventional, daytime-style flying techniques - the sort for which you train and in which you maintain currency already. No huge extra dedicated training bill. Please don't get the impression that the goggles lead to target fixation outside the aircraft. You can, and do, scan the instruments without having to move your head away from the 1 o'clock-2 o'clock position..No need to get off-goggles as you suggest; look around them AND through them to acquire the necessary information.

While on the subject of Nightsun, I'll add that as HP I very rarely look toward the beam unless assisting the crew in steering it onto the correct target. I've had to track a vehicle using the collective-mounted steer-switch on a few occasions when the observers' workload has gone ballistic; hardest handling task of the lot. THERE'S where you're going to get an aircraft go below minima. With training and appropriate CRM, however, it was always possible to prioritise effectively.

Of course, with NVG you have the added option of employing the IR filter so that the target is unaware that it is being illuminated. The surrounding neighbourhood is also untroubled by the unearthly shaft of visible light at the inevitably-ungodly hour at which we go to such tasks. When would you use an IR beam? When the heat-source you're searching for is surrounded by similar-temperature distractions. Someone hiding by a transformer perhaps, or a car on a desert road at night here where we work.

I am concerned about your previous, and possibly negative, NVG experiences - did you receive a proper, structured training course? Had you been taught effectively - sadly, one of the best civvy NVG instructors, Pete Rainey, is no longer with us - you would 'view the world differently', I'm sure. No amount of chat on a forum like this will persuade you; the best way is to see it for yourself with expert guidance,

Thud_and_Blunder,

My comments are not meant to be negative, if NVGs are the way to go then let's get on with it; that was the original point of this topic. There seems to be wide and differing views as to thier use and knowledge of them; yes, I can be included in that.

The situation I described is one that has happened, target fixation leading to a total breakdown in where the aircraft is in space. As you say, we're all taught to scan, but in some cases when things are getting busy this scan can, and does break down.

Re your last paragraph. As I said in earlier posts I've no NVG experience to speak of, but there again, niether have plenty of the others who have posted threads on this.

Kalif,

Fair enough. Perhaps starting the topic with a post which included:is why folk have the impression that you tend towards the negative, but I'm sure reason and experience will win through in the end, eh?

:ok:

Helmet fire: excellent post.

Thud: concur. Is that (was that) the Pete Rainey from the RN who emigrated. Bit of a wild child, exceptional helo pilot? If so what happened to him??

Kalif: what r we going to do with you, perhaps you are one of the dinosaurs Semi was talking about.

Do I have to remind you that you shouldn't have been in the position you refer to where you 'lose' sufficient visual references so as to descend below minimums at night (day even).
POM I lays out visual reference minimums which you must keep to even in one of your 'black hole' areas of operation. If there aren't sufficient lights out there - you can't go there!!!

The introduction of NVG will NOT affect these minimums. The POM I will still be the bible, so if you start having spatial disorientational problems on NVG, you can come off them and revert to good old fashioned night visual POM I references again:ok:

Please don' t go down the road of IFR Vs NVIS again, it's been thrashed to death in this thread, in User Gps, with the CAA, with the HO with my mother inlaws next door neighbours! It won't happen for common sense reasons - THE JOB DOESN'T NEED IT.
What the job needs is NVIS now no more delays, no more pussy footing around by the CAA.
I had a meeting with the HO on friday - guess what, ALL future police helos will be fitted for but not with NVIS, you won't have any option. For those who then want to operate NVIS in anger they simply purchase the goggles and get on with it.
Hooray for common sense - atleast this time from the HO:cool:

PS: Kalif, are you a police pilot at the mo'?

Nick,

I apologise for missing your post on page 2, my fingers must be a bit quick on the mouse wheel!

Thud & Blunder,

OK, I missed Nicks post, but he didn't mention anything about IF. If you read my post on page 4, I said that Devon & Cornwall have it about right, NVG for their area, with an IR to back it up. I'm not against NVG per se, (this discussion has become a sort of one or the other arguement), after chatting to some of my military friends Iam more convinced than ever that NVG should not be used as a primary means of weather avoidance. Great for flying in very dark areas.

I still find it difficult to reconcile while the rest of the aviation world, inc. a large part of the rotary world, feel that flying IF is a normal part of aviation practice, (I will qualify that statement by saying in a stabilised helicopter IF equipped), there is still a hard core of pilots who feel very different, and make wild assumptions about IF not based on fact.

Thud_and_Blunder,

Quite agree, cheers...:ok:

TC,

You just had to didn't you....
It wasn't me who got into the situation I described, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Semi: you won't shake this IF thing off will you.

You do your fellow colleagues an injustice. All us ex mil guys have a very very solid background in IF. Just because the mil didn't give us a blue peter IR badge at the end of it all doesn't mean to say we don't know what it's like to fly IMC in anger - OK?

There isn't a 135 / 355 / 902 out there that can fly with minimum IFR fuel on board and still offer its force area sufficient airborne time to make it worthwhile.

You can't (and wouldn't) use your IR in anger to take off from your police base can you?(to a task). Unless you live on a procedural airfield - which would also take even longer to get you airborne. So it will never be used here.

How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger to get you down the other end (where the job is), because you certainly won't be descending on top the job, IMC:ooh: So it can never be used here.

So that leaves two scenarios where an IR might come in handy:

1. Task complete - can't get back to base because of weather:
So you go IMC with your shiney new IR ticket and divert to the nearest (to your base) airport. Land on and take the number 14 bus home back to the Unit, I presume. Then the next shift picks the cab up in the morning if the weather clears??
This is assuming you had enough fuel to divert in the first place.
The alternative would have been to land while still VMC, its cheaper and you're no better/worse off than above.


2. While on task you go inadvertent IMC - tut tut naughty boy, never mind, just IFR to that lovely warm diversion 15 miles away. Park it up and come back tomorrow. A/c unavailable to force for the next 12+ hrs....
For the non IR pilot: (a) he trains for this eventuality either for a self let down (like us), or diverts for a radar vector to an ILS (same scenario as yours). Without an IR.

Lets get this straight for the record:
No police pilot has been killed (or killed his crew) because he didn't have an IR ticket.
The E Mids crash was not caused by the pilot's inability to adopt IFR procedures successfully. It was more complex than that and this is not the place to dissect it (I would suggest).
The Strathclyde crash - the pilot was freshly IR current! he was one of yours!!!

Give me ONE example where an IR would therefore be beneficial to the industry when you take into account:
number of incidents / accidents involving NON IR pilots.
Diverse operating areas of each Unit.
Financial outlay.
The aim of an aerial police platform.

For once - the CAA have risk assessed this well.
They have looked at the frequency x consequences (definition of risk).
And what they have laid down in the latest POM I amendment is just about bang on!

Now - all that money can be spent on worthwhile equipment, like...........................................

Kalif: you raise excellent points, and it will enable us to discuss some of the other benefits of NVG that are generally not thought about.

The disorientation scenario you describe is not unheard of at night unaided, though the mechanism of entering it is more specific to your scenario. It is precisely this kind of disorientation that NVG would seek to minimise (if not mitigate). What I find fascinating is that you believe that NVG would excacerbate the disorientation scenario, whilst I believe that NVG would have almost entirely prevented it firstly, and secondly, if entered, NVG would significantly aid recovery.

As TC says: NVG would have almost certainly prevented fixation on a nitesun becasue ALL the countryside is visible, not just the circle of light. Even if he kept his head still, the NVG visible circle (Field of View) on the ground would also be much larger than a nitesun beam width allowing far more oreintation cues. Once disorientation starts, the unaided pilot must hop onto the instruments he neglected and effect an instrument UA recovery. The NVG pilot simply moves his head and is able to find the horizon and effect an instant visual recovery using the AI and RADALT to cross reference his visual cues. Should he fail to find the horizon in that glance, it is simply a matter of conducting the instrument recovery in the same manner as the unaided pilot by glancing under the tubes (they are set so he can easily see the full instrument pannel without looking through the goggles) and using the AI as his primary horizon.

Thus it can be seen that the NVG pilot holds all the trumps: not only is disoreintation SIGNIFICANTLY less likely, but he has the option of conducting a visual recovery AND then reverting to the instrument recovery if still unsure. The poor old unaided pilot, whose chances of disorientation are much higher, can only rely on an instrument recovery. The choice is simple.

To put this safety margin in more perspective, whilst we are concentrating on Police/military/HEMS ops here - the yanks have already allowed the benefits to flow onto passenger charter. That should be our aim: ALL NVFR ops would be routinely conducted by NVG because it is SAFER than NVFR. Semirigid: As TC says there is no need to lower NVFR minima or even change the way we operate (including for weather avoidance), just add NVG to help what we already do.

I don't believe the pilot in the strathclyde accident was Instrument rated, he had basic IF training for an OPC(N). And inadvertant IMC was certainly a significant factor in the accident.

I am a great believer in NVG but I also think a full IR can be obtained and maintained for a lot less cost than is being mentioned here. Further quite a lot of police units are located very close to or on airfields that offer IFR recovery. How often do the met liers get it wrong and weather is either worse than forecast or closes in behind you and terrain makes an IFR pull up a safe option.

To use the example of strathclyde, an area with lots of hilly terrain, the ability to do an ILS into Glasgow to land or break cloud for a return down the river to base is a worthwhile option and I am sure this is not the only unit where this option is useful.

I feel this arguement should not be either or, it should be have both NVG and IR, they are compatible. There have been enough tragic night accidents with people operating night VFR, who I am sure felt that given their training they could cope with inadvertant IMC but didn't. Also, not everyone has masses of previous military IF to fall back on and instrument flying is a perishable skill, doing it 5 years ago doesn't ensure you are still an ace now.

helmet fire,

Thanks for that. If current NVG do what you say, then that's excellent. Recovery from UA's isn't so simple when it really happens and coupled with inadvetant imc, sorry for going back to this one.

I'm not pro I/R against NVG; both would be the solution but bean counters will dictate otherwise.

Cheers:ok:

Hi TC

What does the 'self let down' consist of, is that a GPS based cloud break procedure?

TeeS

Semi Rigid Rotor asked:

Do you have an opinion whether European Police pilots should be Instrument rated or not? And to balance the argument, should police pilots have access to NVG's and be trained?


Do I have an Opinion!! Does Santa Clause have cold toes??

1) All professional helicopter pilots should be instrument rated, and all commercial helicopters operated at night should have baseline IFR capability. Police, Offshore, Corporate, all of them, PERIOD
To place professional helicopter pilots (especially emergency responders!) in situations where they must personally decide whether they do their job, earn their pay, please their boss and save that life is wrong, unless that person has an IFR escape route. There are few operational helicopter situations at night that can’t be cured by climbing into the cloud and shooting an ILS to an airport. The US EMS industry learned their lesson years ago, when they started upgrading their equipment and people to stop the CFIT epidemic.

2) All patrol and emergency responders who operate at night should have NVG available. The darkness is the problem, goggles lift that darkness. Those who think the goggles require extensive training and add to safety concerns are wrong, they are extrapolating Military experience. Military pilots fly Nap of the Earth (NOE) profiles, which require extensive night training and expose the arcraft to many hazards. Goggle contour profiles (500 ft AGL, as a swag) need just a few hours and are far safer than those same profiles without goggles.

3) Do Goggles and compatible cockpits cost money? Does Instrument training and equipment cost money?
No, accidents cost money.

One of those great aviation sayings:

"If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident..."

TC,
Peter Rainey was tragically killed in a drowning accident in Cyprus last year, whilst trying to save his wife and son. Left his two children orphaned. There was a thread on the subject at the time.

TC.

No, I won't shake off this IF thing because I believe passionately that it will enhance flight safety.

I have not said anything about ex mil pilots and flying IF. I have flown with many ex mil pilots and they have all been excellent IF drivers.

Not use an IR to depart an airfield? Maybe not at your base, but please try to think outside your area. We have an agreement with ATC and we get out of our International airport very quickly indeed.

Quote: How do you know (in the short notice prior to the task) that you might need to use your IR in anger. Answer: Look and keep up to date with the weather.

I can't believe you put the next phrase in writing.

NOBODY IS SUGGESTING EVEN REMOTELY LETTING DOWN IMC WITHOUT AN APPROVED AID.

A couple of scenario's:
1) missing small child, it's foggy. Depart IF - the fog is not that deep - maybe patchy so a search can be carried out. Spend as long as you can on the task then back to base if it has cleared or divert and fly an authorised approach. After the approach, land suck of gas and maybe back to the task again. Remember if you have good visual contact with the ground in the area of your search you can cancel IFR.
2) do I need to carry on? Not every job is a rush out the door job.

Why after a divert park up and walk away? The weather may change / there maybe a change of circumstances ie your base becomes clear so you can depart IF and return home and keep the aircraft online as long as possible.

I will not comment on your interpretation of those accidents. This is a public forum and friends and family read this regularly. The AAIB reports are for all to see.

And finally, are you suggesting that non-rated pilots fly IMC in controlled airspace for an approved approach? That is about as daft as saying that when your cockpit is NVIS you just strap on some NVG's and go!!

Glad your not my Flight safety Officer!:uhoh:

Nicely put semirigid!
Thought that I was the only punch bag for TC...

Kalif - your thread has certainly provoked discussion but I do think you should have tried NVG yourself before commenting on their shortcomings.
We in the UK SAR (mil) world have probably the best handle on mixed IFR/NVG ops as we have the ability to depart on instruments, transit to the job, either let down using ILS etc over land or internal aids (radar) letdown over the sea and then continue using NVG to do the rescue/search, often transitioning to white light for the actual winching before departing IF or NVG for the hospital. I have flown ordinary (mortal, reversionary, NVFR) whatever you want to call it, in sh8t conditions and have come much closer to getting disorientated/inadvertant than when using NVG.
There is NO doubt in my mind that anyone flying at night in Police/HEMS role should be using NVG as a matter of course.

[email protected],

Yep, the idea was to promote discussion, and it cetainly did that.

I'd love to try NVGs but the local B&Q aint got any in; must be the christmas rush...:D

Seriously though, I've no NVG experience but there again a fair number of others who have had a rant and rave haven't either.

Cheers.....

Kalif, no problem. I don't believe TC really believes what he says, he's just trying to wind us up!:D

Crab@SAA,

You have kind of hit the nail on the head. You have a number of skills plus the equipment at your disposal, also you are trained / current. You mix and match as the task / situation demands.

We don't have that onshore in the Police / Air Ambulance world. But we are expected by our masters and the public to operate at times, in conditions that could leave us embarassed.:\

Hopefully someone at the Home Office will read this, and realise the strength of feeling. No one piece of equipment or one piece of training will do, we need both. When we have both we can start to make CFIT a thing of the past.

:ok:

My frst NVG experience was a checkout at the factory with one of our TP's who was a USAF instructor. I then took the goggles home, and drove in the back routes, lights off for a few dozen miles. I could see opposing traffic miles away because they made the sky glow minutes before they came in sight. I had to tape over the car internal indicators, of course. Stunning experience. It is as if I was a different species (no cracks, SASless!)

Hey Nick. I hope you remembered that oncoming traffic can't see YOU if you're lights out, sounds silly now but.......

I know a certain eccentric RAF pilot who decided to cycle home no lights wearing his helmet and NVGs. First car he met round the corner came close to wiping him out..... :ouch:

shy -
If they don't like my driving, they should stay off the sidewalks!

Nick,

That's one that shows the difference between US English and our version. When I was a wayward 3-year old pedestrian in Canada, my Mum (note the 'u') told me to "stay on the pavement" - to the horror of passers-by.