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 ;-)

$50 a barrel EESDL. The cheapest aircraft are very popular again....

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.

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.

A servicable RadAlt is obligatory for night approaches (as you're well aware). RadAlt U/S = Go Around and/or RTB.

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.

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! :-)

A quick look at my annual logbook summaries show 287 night Brent landings in 1977 and 278 in 1978, as one of 8 or so pilots on site: we managed, but the concept of NVG use would be a great addition to improve the lot of the current offshore pilot.

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.

Question - can NVGs be worn with a headset?

Not many NS crews currently wear helmets.

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.

At some point I would revert to no NVG's Mode as I would certainly have my Eyes closed just prior to impact with whatever I was going 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?

My speculation would be a mix of mission creep, in the context of a gradual lowering of pilot experience.

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

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.

Oh, your neck stops hurting after awhile. :-)

"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);)

They protect your head, protect your hearing and allow you to use NVG - the downside is???????

Don't tell me the NS crews are a bunch of techno-fearing Luddites.

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

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.

Comfort, cost and culture are three reasons off the top of my head. (Pun intended!)

As you can see from the comments in the thread above, some are but most aren't.

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.

SAS;

Shoot at me and I'll go for every bit of protection going! In the meantime I'll opt for as much comfort as possible, and with modern active headsets much of the hearing protection argument is going away.

SND

We Triassic Luddites are not knocking modern technology. What is worrying is the dependence on that technology. It appears that SOPs are being written not by the people who are going to fly to them but by accountants and lawyers. The is leading to a deterioration in the skill level of the profession as a whole.

It would take very little for there to be so much equipment available that a offshore aircraft could virtually do the whole thing by itself. When that happens you can pay the crew the same as call centres; because that is all they will have to do.

NVG
 

Visual acuity unaided at night is 20-200, with NVG this is improved to 20-40, you choose..
20-200 is also the legal definition of blindness, I believe.

Serf, how do the NVG's cope with the lighting around a rig? I've never used them so don't know, but that appears to be an issue - ie you can use them approaching the rig but within about 1/2nm the rig lighting becomes too bright with NVG's to be of much benefit. I don't know if that's a general issue or an issue with a particular type of NVG?

It is, although the fly-up is easily caught if you have your hand on the collective below 500'!

I assume the shiny new Helioffshore organisation is looking into all of this?

I'm not aware of anything getting looked into. As far as I can see the issue has been dealt with as far as it's going to be by establishing 3 landings/take offs within 90 days, stabilized approaches by regulating AFCS useage and operators now all (at least I think all, I'm not sure about NHV) establishing some gated approach at about .75 mm. I don't think this is sufficient to establish a safe night time offshore enviroment though, and think regulations will change again after the next accident at night. I'm just trying to get a discussion going to see if changes can be made - and also what those changes should be - before another accident or fatality occurs.

Offshore - as mentioned by others previously, the modern NVGs have much better capability with variable gain to prevent them closing down in brighter lights.

As long as you are not staring directly into the flare then a hand-flown NVG approach will be straightforward - you do need to scan laterally however since depth perception and rate of closure assessment are more difficult using NVG but still waaaayyy better than the unaided eye.

Surely you can hand fly the cyclic from 0.75 nm but still utilise rad alt hold (on manoeuvre if you have the capability) or wind down on it so you retain height protection until the last moment.

The correct challenge and response between the pilots will also help - eg responding to rad alt height warnings/audios (if you have them) and calling check heights.

Mixed mode flying is one of the issues that we try to avoid although retaining height protection is priority. With a 225 the segment between decision and landing at the bottom of an ARA is easily within the capability of the autopilot and therefore you can remain 4 axis until very short final to the deck. This is also the segment most open to mistakes. By having an upper mode engaged you also get free protection from the ultimate cock up. The new (ish) night VGA is flown 4 axis and experience has shown that most crews do not feel the need to manually fly until inside the last 0.2 miles, even less in a strong headwind even though decision is still at 0.75 With follow up trim, if you do very little apart from keeping it moving, the stabilised approach is now a much calmer affair.

As for height, speed, ROD and deviation calls then this is very much SOP, not just at night but during all approaches. TAWS & EGWPS give all the audio you need along with a much more sophisticated bug setting regime.

Thanks for the info crab.

I was doubtful about NVGs until I actually started using them. Then I wouldn't consider going out at night without them. Most HEMS operations in the US use NVGs for night flights. I don't use them all the time, often flying with them flipped up, but that's in cruise flight at altitude. Down low, they're essential. They can be used in situations with high ambient light, such as lighted pads in cities with all sorts of lights. I don't usually use them in those places because there is so much light that it's easy to land unaided, with more peripheral vision cues. But current generation NVGs are not affected by bright lights, to any major extent. They can bloom slightly when looking directly at a very bright light, but they're still usable. It takes some training to be proficient, like any other maneuver, but it's not that difficult. I see no reason at all that they couldn't be used on offshore rigs. I've done many hundreds of night offshore landings over the years unaided, and I would hate to go back to doing that without goggles.

Regulatory oversight is problematic. The FAA really has no clue about NVGs, and their regulations and enforcement make little sense. It's obvious none of their inspectors have ever used NVGs seriously, only a few flights in a training situation. Regulatory agencies in other countries probably have even less experience. Current FAA regulation actually makes operations less safe than they could be, and that may be the case elsewhere when (not if, when) NVGs are adopted there. They're coming, technology cannot be denied forever, and they're a very good thing.

So back to the original subject.

Having used nvg in the mob, I wouldn't be without them overland or operating at low level in the coastal environment, but as a rig runner they have limited utility, apart from the dark bits inbetween landings, but these are generally flown IFR anyway.

We use either an instrument approach or a visual gate approach to get the helideck at night. Both are highly procedural and tightly controlled and monitored. As north sea crews can lack night continuity, especially as night flying starts the risks have been largely mitigated by this procedural approach.

There is now no space for cowboys, mishandling etc in the modern north sea. Not saying it won't happen but much less likely.

It's like saying you'll never hit anything if low flying on goggles. The risks are reduced but not eradicated.

NVGs would be nice but mostly for interest rather than a great leap forward in safety.

OffshoreFlyer0274
 

As you mentioned the CAA, I presume UK as you are in England - if so having read their report there was only one fatal CFIT 1973-2012 ...... G-BLUN where lack of adequate procedures and practising them in a suitable flight simulator were contributory causes. So yes, not nearly - but clearly 100 percent of fatal accidents at night were CFIT(W)!

The only other CFIT(W) reported G-REDU was very fortunately not fatal, but a classic example for CRM courses on how not to approach at night. So I just think you are exaggerating the situation. The report did not highlight any concern; but we have surely frightened the customers enough to make many restrict their night activity.

I am sure larger operators have improved procedures and training for 2 crew ops. I believe the 90 day requirement adequate - and many of today's flight simulators provide much improved night visuals for OEI training to complement this. If a pilot is OGP current for night shuttling, his exposure to that task will no doubt quickly and happily maintain proficiency.

I understand your concern for NUI's however. Sure NVG may help to reduce the chance of striking the structure at night, but I just think line aircraft simply need a better AFCS etc to complete the profile during that final 0.2 nm at night as someone suggested - whether it be from a VMC 500' sight picture approach, or straight in from an ARA at 300' or whatever. DGPS might perhaps help, then we can ditch the NDB's and cost of (not) maintaining them .....

(Comments are simply referring to UK CAA report - I know there have been other night CFIT(W) offshore.)

So, short finals to the rig in the dark and there is a big bang (or maybe just a whimper) as one of the donks gives up - would you rather fly your go-around on instruments without being able to see the horizon, the rig or the surface OR would you like to fly a go-around just as you would by day except using NVG?

Instruments for sure ..... you are going home, not landing on the rig ?! You have two reliable artificial horizons!

If you're on any sort of finals to a rig and you lose sight of it you are going around anyway as per the procedure and back to the bar..

You don't fly on dark and stormy nights. They tried it on the Cormorant A once and it turned into a disaster. Offshore pilots can, when necessary do it, as the evacuation of the Hermod proved; but they are not paid to.

Maybe in the Klondike days of the seventies we did it.

Radalt???? XXXII.XXXIII,XXXIV on a semisub's pontoon leg was good enough.

Vtoss and hit the go around button Crab. Heading hold in, sit back and relax :)
NVGs, we are taking people to work not trying to storm the rig!

Arrr....it's nice to be able to see in the dark. A bit of a training and equipment cost, but it must be worth it. Why fly blind, when you can see?

Tistisnot : I'll try and get hold of the data. We got this from our flight safety officer giving a brief using CAA stats a year or so ago. I'll try to find the exact data used.

My money is still on EFVS being more the norm in the future.

NVG's work up to a point - but don't actually work without some light.

EFVS can be certified and it would be a better idea to mount the multi-spectral sensors on the aircraft for lots of reasons.

EFVS is common on a lot of private jets where "money no object" prevails.
Have a look at your local jet ramp someday.

ELBIT seem to have made some significant progress with EFVS and the Wearable HUD.

Skylens and LPV anyone ?

http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmai..._(638X253).jpg

http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmai...learVision.jpg

Newer generation AH aircraft are already using ELBIT having dumped Thales.

I would bet that this is an available option on the new H160 and could easily integrate on the current H145.

NVG's actually go back to WW II.