NVGs & HEMS in Australia
 

There's another general NVG thread running - Link below >>>

NVG & EMS
 

Sitting in an Aviation Medicine refresher the other day and listening to the all important AME tasking lectures and Boyles Law and stuff and it occurred to me that the EMS world would benefit greatly from NVG/NVD usage (black hole night sun approach arguement already understood) especially when patients require to be flown as close to sea level as possibe due sucking chest wounds and FUBAR type injuries. This currently would be difficult at night given the current rules and regs for flight at LSALTS etc.

So my question to the greater aviation RWcommunity is who is going to strap on the 3 piece suit and sell the capability to CASA from a EMS life saving perspective. Vic Pol have been successful to date with NVG trial (not sure if air ambulance was included), and the folks at Adelaide on the Aust Helicopters contracts are rumoured to be looking at raising a NVG capability for EMS, Pol air work etc, which is why 90% of their last recruitment drive was ex mil NVG rated pilots.

Maybe its time to hang up the nomex and strap on the 3 piece suit, NVG/NVD would logically be the next step for EMS assuming the TRG is conducted appropriately and the ops manual caters for items like storage and security and ongoing check and Trg.

Hmmmmmmmm

Your thoughts Pruners????

Max

:cool:

Contact "STARS" EMS in Calgary, Alberta, Canada...They have been certified to use NVG's for a year or so now on their Bk117's and have set the standard in North America for civillian NVG operations. They are also now approved to use them in the mountains..Miles Mozel is the Chief Pilot...

max,

All help welcome! Lose the nomex, adopt the three peice suit and go for it!!

So far only clocking over the 14 year mark to get them going against the best efforts of the civil aviation SAFETY authority! Been done succesfully in EMS over seas for 15 years plus. US has more than 30 EMS providers doing the NVG thing. Kiwis are looking at restricting night scene response to NVG aircraft only (after 12 months of NVG ops).

What is your suggestion?

Ring Mick Haxell at CASA on 131757 and discuss the options with him.

The hopes of the industry are with you Luke..........

Hey Helmut,

Yes I have heard of the contact you have listed, and if I'm right very light on for making "D's" in the NVG Dept. Not sure if the guy even flew with the full face 5's from last century. Most likely the good old T-Aid, SLS, Bardic type of dude.

The world has turned a zillion times since those days and we are now up to very reliable tubes with better than the ANVIS-6 visual acuity and depth perception that you and I trained on.

I can't see what the hold up is given the amount of NVG experinece in the market place right now. AS long as the TRG was conducted appropriately by an accredited TRG organisation with ISO-9000 compliance etc can't see the huge drama. I suspect that the insurance costs would/could be prohibitive however limited release of the NVG capabability to operators that proved they can hack it in their AOC would stop the back yard operators from tarnishing the right of passage. Have many mates in EMS that are sick and tired of the operation being more complex than it has to be due no NVG. The Black hole and Sea Level patient transfer arguements are nearly arguement enough to get the goggs in service.

Surely we are nearly there with the solution and folks like Mick are only making descisions based on their corporate knowledge? not descisons that are limiting and stalling the value of the capability.

Hmmmmm


:oh:

Max,


Mick Haxell was CO 5SQN RAAF in the early 80s and introduced gen III ANVIS into ADF operations. We were probably about 10 !!

I'm sure perceived reluctance to endorse NVG is more likely due process through absolutely unimaginable Canberra bureacracy.

regards,

T

Thanks Trap. If thats the case I will remove both feet from my mouth and continue the thread better informed.

If what you say is true, then CASA should have enough info to make a well informed descision and get the ball rolling. NVG/NVD well managed and utilised by well trained crews means a much safer patient Transfer and safer night apps to unlit areas. I can understand the reluctance to approve all commers, however AOC's should be limited to organisations that can prove they can safely manage the capability and conduct appropriate on going check and TRG.

Surely with EMS over seas operators having used the capability for some time now Oz could see their way to CASA approvals in the not too distant future.

Seems like a waste of current technolgies and missions being more complex than they need to be?

Max

:ok:

Sooo Bertie the sun never sets in the Eastern UK then? Aren't you lucky. The rest of us will take the NVG's though, thankyouverymuch.

Kiowa Jack
 

I've spent 8 years flying OH58Ds with ANVIS-6s and have scared myself a few times. Hell of a lot better than scaring yourself without 'em. My hats off to the EMS guys doing the job without. Now that the resources and training standards are there from so many organizations, there's no reason mission dependent roles should be without a valuable resource. Pilots like PPRuNers and PHPA members should provide the voice to break through the barriers created by a bunch of old suits who lost their medical and aren't willing to let the next generation do their job efficiently and safely.

Maxee dear friend.....

You defeat your own point by your proposition.

Since when have the regulatory agencies ever used such a unique and innovative approach to any situation?:{

Day only Revolutionary. Nights too dangerous!

Aaaaah okay. Nights too dangerous indeed. We've been using our goggles for almost a year now in Arizona, over mostly rural and sometimes mountainous terrain. I never thought I would fall in love at my age with a tiny, grainy monochromatic TV tube that is, literally, a pain in the neck sometimes, but here I am with butterflies in my stomach whenever I think about her.

Vic Pol included all of it's core functions, Police ops, SAR and EMS in the Trial. If you would like the Post Trial report to read send me a message and I'll send you a link to download it.

Where is VPAW with NVG's? The only thing holding them back is the Cockpit Mod which has been a works in progress since last September when the initial cockpit survey was done by Oxley Avionics and BAe. The rest is in the bag, HOM done, ground School PP lessons done, CASA ready to sign off IAW with CMI once cockpit is done, NVG instructor in house. Then flight training will commence and once non ex-military crews are competent and proficient enough ops use will start. Ex-mil NVG pilots will of course be ready after refresher.

New VPAW commercial tender for aircraft and maintenance to commence next year specifies that contractor must make all VPAW acft NVG compatible. This is the state of play for VPAW at the moment. VPAW does not want to procrastinate and argue any further, just do it once and for all!

EMS/NVG, this may be an idiot Q.
 

How many patients % wise have to be transported as near to sea level as possible. Does the med profession stipulate max ROC for critical atmospheric pressure or do they just say it is desirable to fly ‘sucking hole’ patients etc. close to sea level?

It could be that a density alt change rate of 300 FPM (say) is quite ok up to a designated density altitude (at or above LSALT) for that very small % of patients.

Have they ever quantified relationships between atmospheric and different combinations of systolic/diastolic pressures?

Given that if a patient is picked up in the OZ populated coastal fringes where most of the work happens, the machine is hardly going to bore holes in rising terrain to keep a low ambient deck pressure or climb very high unless the patient pick up spot is up in the hinterland.

Does the medical and aviation regulatory professions take into consideration the fact that at night, when NVG’s are required, there will be in most places in OZ a ten degree downward shift in temp and therefore much less density altitude than what they might be thinking of as in daylight hours.

I know that every time I have been asked to make sure the pilot (FW or RW) flies at a low altitude I have asked in return, would height xxxx be acceptable and never was my request able to be quantified.

Every time when asked that I made a point of asking the pilot upon his return “was there any change in the patient when you arrived at altitude xxxx?” They always have said no and such was noted in the company daily diary.

Would it be right to say that in rotary EMS work the only requirement for NVG and the encompassing regs is when the machine is to fly below LSALT on app/dep a remote pick up site?

It may be that there is a whole lot of hype and unnecessary regs bogging down the introduction of these procedures.

Surveillance work, different and a multitude of different skills/quals are perhaps required, no questions.

"nil bastido carborundum" Maxee!
:cool:

I suspect there are no absolutes when it comes to AVMED, as is the same when it comes to Aviation. Concepts are important. If the pressure decreases with altitude (WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE) then staying as low as safely possible is beneficial when it comes to having holes in your body that leak bodily fluids out board. Many car accidents result in lacerations cuts and holes etc so % wise there are large numbers of folks with holes in them when they are being transported by air. Transport by air rather than road is generally organised for the speed factor. Having to climb up/down to LSALT and let down at the other end adds t++++ (timings plus) to your mission and hence the speed factor is not as speedy as it could/should be.

As far as the DA being lower at night than day, this only makes the machine perform better (more bernoulis) not the patient. The patient is still subject to Press varies proportionally with height. As far as agencies challenging what altitude is acceptable to be flown at, they won't as the Aviatior is supposed to be the subject matter expert and hence advise what is a good compramise for flight safety vs patient transfer. Hence most non aviator folks will be happy with what is offered.

If NVG allow you as the PIC to fly below LSALT at night and hence lower than when you are unaided, then you are presenting the patient at the other end (Hospital facility) in potentially a more stable position so the dudes in the white suits can perform their duties. Enough Said.

The black hole night approach, manoeuvring and departing an unlit area is easier/safer to fly with the addition of NVG and that alone may be enough to tip the scales away from night unaided ops.

At present other EMS operations over seas have and use NVG with all the rules and regs in place, so why not OZ?

Max

:rolleyes:

The use of NVG would/will enhance all types of operations in many ways too numerous to list here. They simply make the critical phases of any flight so much safer.

Recent converts frequently comment that "I don't know how we did it without them" and "I can't believe how much I didn't see."
The wheel will turn and the luddites will eventually be forced to come on board.

Sol

:cool:

So many issues, so little time!

Traps: you forgot to mention that Mick Haxell is also a Master Aviator in the pilot's guild, one of very few helicopter pilots to attain that award.
I am intrested in your other comment that NVG reluctance was due "more likely" to paperwork bureaucracy. More likely than what?

TopETQ and Max: low altitude issues are of little relevance to the overall push for NVG, and the statistics and technical aspects are a red herring: though beneficial to the poor ba5tard with the pnuemathorax as they so demonstrably are. NVG are primarliy for safety.
As a secondary, the EMS helicopter essentially justifies itself in only three ways:
1. Speed. Speed of response, speed of search, speed of transport, etc.
2. Access. Ability to access patients that no other vehicle can, or could practically access, to insert medical aid, search remote/rugged/offshore areas, and provide extraction, etc.
3. Concentrate Assets (force multiplier). Ability to bring higher level care/equipment/personnel to patient/incident.

NVG positively impact on all these aspects. It increases speed by reducing planning requirements significantly, reduces need for laborious night-sun approach and landings, reduces spiral climbs for terrain avoidance, dramatically increases speed of locating patients at night, etc, etc, etc. It increases access by safely enabling remote area night seraches (which can be done now, just not efficiently or with low risk). Lastly, the improved speed and access enables asset concentration at night with significantly less risk.

But remember: the number one reason is safety.

There is currently NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to strapping the goggs on right now and flying as long as you adhere to the current rules and regs. There is a Compiance Management Instruction (CMI) out that you can adhere to that allows you to gain the real benefits of NVG and use them as if you were on NVG rather than using them as if you didnt have them at all. Thanks to Mike Tavcar and the Victorian Police Airwing (VPAW).

The whole OZ industry will benefit from the labours of Tavcar and VPAW. Do a search and look up these names with NVG, and particularly the trial that NASUS mentions.

Oz lags the world by YEARS in getting over the fact that not only gifted ex military pilots are good enought to fly NVG safely. Hopefully VPAW will show us what the world has been trying to show us for 15 years.

FAA approved Part 135 NVG operations started in 1999. There are a large number of NVG operators in the US and I hardly think that STARS has set the standard for North America. Maybe Canada?

If anyone is serious about the application and regulatory approvals for this type of operation, they will not go far wrong in talking to Aviation Specialties Unlimited.

Helmet fire,

Yep Mike T did start the NVG project back in mid 90's and it is a shame that it has taken this long to even get this far, which by the way is still not there yet. I know the MT tried to get somewhere with Haxell who on the surface sympathised with the NVG cause but did substantially nothing to further it. Others, like Greg Olssen and the HAA have in recent years also taken on the battle to further the NVG cause for the benefit of all. It was only after the VPAW NVG Trial, now almost 4 years ago, that things started to move because of an excellent VIC/TAS CASA Team leader who got off his backside and did something positive to see the Trial start and the VPAW application proceed. Thankfully CASA people like Beasy & Anderson are in the CASA system who believe in progressing not stagnating.

I hope that Olssen,the HAA and others continue to lobby strongly for NVGs but I also hope they do not get to influenced by operators who want a cheap fix and FAA rules, which are not necessarily world's best practice.

If you think training is expensive try having an accident.....

NASUS: hear, hear! I agree with much of what you say.

I want to pick up your comment re the FAA rules and "world's best practice". World's best practice is unfortunately subjective terminology because it means so many different things to so many different people. We are balancing the significantly increased safety represented by the adoption of NVG versus the cost of introducing the capability. If you make the capability so expensive to introduce, or the rules so restrictive, then few get to attain the desired outcome of a safer night flying method. Conversly, if you adopt ridiculous minimums to ensure the capability is cheap, you create more accidents because the operators are unaware of the limitations.

World's best practice is a throwaway line to articulate this balance. Resource rich operators invariably come up with a different answer than do resource poor ones, and NVG is no different. During the industry consultation phases of the HAA push for NVG there were operators and individuals who made arguements for a 10 hour pilot training courses, 8 hours for crewmen, full military style cockpit mods of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and hours and hours of ICUS before command. Then there were others who argued for NVG to be an endorsement on your night rating like a NDB or VOR. A lap around the block and box ticked, a cockpit mod costing $2000 (yes there is one flying), and lets get on with it. Everyone who presented an arguement claimed it as world's best practice - but who is right?

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded it's Aviation Research Report B2004/0152 – Night Vision Goggles in Civil Helicopter Operations by saying: “NVG’s have the potential to enhance safety but risk mitigation is required by ensuring a comprehensive implementation package AND properly resourcing the capability in terms of equipment and training.”
Though they too failed to quantify what "properly" and "comprehensive" actually meant. Nevertheless, it is an excellent report into the capabilities and limitations of NVG and the HAA used it to have a stab at creating Australian rules.

That brings us to the FAA rules. Years ago (1994 ish I think) the FAA comissioned an not-for-profit organisation to examine the adoption of an appropriate set of rules for NVG flight. That organisation (the RTCA)subsequently formed Standing Committee 196 (SC-196) and invited representatives from all over the world - including incidently, Mick Haxell from Australia (amongst others) and Mike Atwood from Aviation Specialties Unlimited (see link above) essentially steered the committee. I believe pprune's JimL was also there. SC-196 created and published a number of standards documents that have essentially become the international standard for NVG use - or at least the starting point.

This then begs the question - has this international group of subject matter experts got it so wrong? Or could they be said to have created "world's best practice"?

In accordance with the CASA CEO stated vision of adopting established international practices unless a safety case prohibts it, finding middle ground in the Oz industry views, PLUS recognising that SC-196 might have got it right, the HAA went down that line. So did the FAA.

The HAA "Australianised" it a bit: for example few other countries have a night LSALT like Oz (and the SC-196 does not refer to any) and tightened up some of the definitions in response to industry concerns - such as pilot flight training will be a min of "5 hours NVG flight time", not just "5 hours", and instrument profficiency must be demonstrated prior to commencement of the course.

Have the HAA got it that wrong?

Your last comment was: What about Malborough and Mackay? 8 fatalities that I contend would have been prevented if NVG were in use. 8 fatalities that have occured since the SC-196 pointed the way forward. 8 fatalities that have occurred while CASA have tossed and turned over the meaning of "world's best practice" without resolution. How does that sit with your quote?

And if it was not for Tavcar, Beasey, Anderson (you named him above, I am not sure what role he played) VPAW,and now Byron, I shudder to think where development would be.

Ah yes "Sleasy Beasy" a man after my own heart. Not sure what Greg is up to these days and YES its about time SH-T happend with respect to capability.

With any luck VPAW will be seen as the appropriate model from which other templates will follow.

CASA-Get on with it!

:cool:

Rest assured Max, Greg, Dave Donaldson, Dan Tyler, Mike de Winton, Tony Wood,and Brendon Balin are still chipping away. Efforts also from Peter Cook, Brett Knowles, and Mark Morrison.

Curious though, why would you choose the VPAW model over the SC-196 model?

Helmet fire,

I hear what you say...as an ex mil NVG instructor pilot I feel that there are 2 extremes that I do not feel comfortable with; what the CASA CMI proposes is far too high, especially for left hand seat NVG crewperson. On the other hand what the HAA propose of 5 hours only (HAA model) for pilot training is far too low. Somewhere in the middle would be more appropriate. 5 hours could be done in just two nights...and then the pilot is let loose PIC! Not sure if I feel comfortable with this I'm afraid. Has this pilot experienced different environmental conditions in those two nights? Has that pilot done all of his training, in those two nights, with a full moon and clear Wx? Am I missing something here?

Operators don't seem to complain to CASA much about having to pay for a 10 hour endorsement on a medium twin, just accept it, especially for pilots who have thousands of hours on twins yet they have a financial problem with paying out for more than 5 hours NVG for pilots who have never touched NVGs and may only have very little unaided night hours?? Strange! I would be more comfortable teaching NVG in the civil context over a 15 hour period, 5 hours dual and 10 hours ICUS say! 4 -5 hours for a non flying left hand seat NVG crewperson is more than enough. I know the FAA are saying 5 hours and that's it but I'm certainly not comfortable with releasing an NVG 'newby' pilot with those hours PIC! Sorry but that's how I feel.

Helmut,

VPAW only to say that it is happening in our own back yard and CASA has formed a relationship that recognises their AOC. Better to cut and paste (I mean this tounge in cheek) from your own lap top than some one elses.

Mike De Winton-Good bloke, Allo to Mike

Max

:)

Max,
I understand the sentiment, but by cutting and pasting the VPAW model, you are importing rules and requirements that aare suited to their environment, not necessarily yours. And that may be fine for your operation, but it will not suit others.

NASUS, you asked:
Ummm….only since you asked – yes! Ring up one of the guys listed and get the draft!!

The HAA model is a competency based system in accordance with the Australian training system. Unlike the VPAW or even the SC-196 model, it defines the competency outcome of the graduate pilot or crewman, and then breaks down those competencies into the sorties. Experience, however, is a valuable part of the aviation training system that is not really taken into account by competency-based systems. Recognising this, 5 hours was chosen IAW the international standards of SC-196. A “feeling” or being “uncomfortable” about 5 hours is not considered a sufficient safety case to ignore what the international standard is, especially until you begin to break it down into competencies and see how long it takes to achieve those competencies.

Unlike your Mil experience, civ NVG students will not only be the day 1 types. Some of them will show up with 20 years of IFR EMS, thousands of hours on type, more than 1000 hours of night and more than 1000 hours of IFR. Do you really “feel” that this guy will require more than 5 hours to fly from A to B with a GPS NB 500ft, descend, conduct a pad recce and approach and land on NVG? Note that other competencies such as aided winching or rapelling require more traininig.

Now if you are Mil, and a day 1 pilot, I agree with more traininig. But in that very same situation I had 10 hours instruction and came out a Black Hawk NVG Formation captain, doing time on target (no GPS) at 50 ft into non recce’d pads and dust landings. And I am not a good pilot. That’s what 10 hours gave us. Newby civ pilots will also require more hours, but that will be determined by their ability to achieve the competencies, not tick and flick an hours box. Your example of the twin training is exactly my point.

In order to further align the proposed system with SC-196, the HAA model specifies that you must have more than 250 hours total before training, have a NVFR rating with at least 20 hours night, 10 of which Are post a night rating, 5 in the last 3 months. If you have an instrument rating, you are sweet. If not, you have to complete at least a MINMUM of 1.5 hours night IFR (without a visible horizon) training with a night and IFR instructor, to achieve competency in U/A and Inadvertent IMC (IIMC) recovery to VFR flight before training.

Once on the course, you must do it in no less than 5 flights (busy 2 days I think), and one flight must be conducted in low illumination on in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting. And you must achieve all the competencies. A similar sorry for crewmen who have a 2 hour course.

The VPAW model suits VPAW, but it does not hope to cover the variety of operations, operators and pilot types that will be doing training. The SC-196 system did try to cover those.

As for companies letting the newby NVG pilot go PIC straight after, advice of which is also covered in the proposed CAAP, but essentially it is up to the Operator (and they are required to consider this issue), not CASA. What is your safety case to prohibit this international standard?

Any of that make you feel a little more comfortable?

I agree with NASUS wholeheartedly...

Anything less than Mil Spec (the `VPAW' model) is asking for trouble..NVGs are not just a strap on and go option...

A whole lot of early NVG accidents US/UK provide the basis for the current Mil Spec....why re invent the wheel, Greg?

Goggle Up!

Um, I think NASUS actualy said about the VPAW (CASA CMI) model was:
and then mentioned the 5 hours of the HAA model as at the other end of the spectrum. I tried to demonstrate that model is a lot more than just 5 hours of NVG and away you go. Which bit of the HAA model troubles you, Delta? Lets talk specifics, not just general degradation of a model I am sure you are intimate with. You are aren't you?

Because you are so well informed, let me take the time to help you out a bit: the mil spec and VPAW models are very different.
What part of the HAA model says "strap them on and go"? Just a tad condescending and emotive, n'est pas?
And if you soooooo dont want to re-invent the wheel, that rules the VPAW model right out. It is not mil spec, and it is not SC-196. The HAA model is based on.....actually read all about this point above - it has been made enough times.

Hopefully I have shown above that the HAA model is not that different from the VPAW model after all, and is competency driven. The VPAW CMI requires 8 hours, (not 8 hours of NVG flight), and includes mission training too. It does not define competency outcomes. The VPAW model was used extensively in the development of the HAA model, and if you look back through the thread you will see that I praise the VPAW efforts as the van-guard of NVG in Oz. I stand by that praise.

But some one needs to mount a safety case as to why we should not adopt the international standard. A safety case is more than a gut feeling. Pointing to an unknown, unquantifiable number of "early" accidents is not a safety case. Delta, over to you to substantiate those claims.
And if someone can, now is the time we need to hear it before the rules are finalised in Oz. We need input, and we need experiences. No good pooh poohing the cake if you have not helped to bake it.

In fact I am aware of only two civ NVG accidents in the US/UK (or the world for that matter), but only one that was being operated IAW the FAA/International standards.
1. Often mistakenly quoted here was a US public use police op where a 500 hour pilot took off at night in fog and flew over water. Accident investigators failed to confirm if he was on NVG or not. BUT....Public Use aare not subject to the FAA rules, and this op did not comply with them in any way, including no documented traaininig course, no instrument profficiency, etc, etc, etc.
2. a squirrel that went in after alleged pilot disorientation. he goggled up, and degoggled during the disorientation recovery (don't remember thhat bit in the traaining), and used the goggles at the bottom to avoid losing his own life.
Meanwhile, how many have died from CFIT without the NVG?
Rega in Switzerland have been doing NVG for 15 years WITHOUT INCIDENT. And their training regimeis....? A clue: it is less restrictiive than the HAA model, and they operate in a slightly more adverse environment, don't you think?

Do we Aussies really know NVG that much better than a international pannel of experts who have been doing NVG in the civ environment for up to 15 years whilst we are yet to kick off?
I know what the kiwis are thinking right now...:}
Any guesses?

Goggle up? absolutely.:ok:

...first to qualify my comments, I'm ex-mil, NVG qual'ed now EMS SPIFR 24 hour ops in mountainous, freezing-level environment (Australian) - Jeeze, talk about outing yourself -
I agree with the model Helmut Fire is refering to for Aust Ops, but only after reading his comments above.
I too at first thought that 5 hours gog trg is way too few to command in this challenging environment (won't comment on non-EMS as I don't feel I have the experience to claim that right). But, to paraphrase some of his comments, this training is competency based, so if the trainee isnt up to speed on the prescribed manoeuvres and knowledge, he wont get the tick in the box.
I also strongly agree with the point that this will be training for crew already experienced in the environment in which they are to opperate . That environment doesnt involve anything like low level tac nav time on target formation in an actively hostile environment. Yes the EMS role takes us potentially into difficult and dangerous situations, but in my operation and all that I know of, it is here where the EMS crew use their experience and knowledge to avoid actual risk, be that by using certain techniques/training/equipment(NVG?), or by turning down the job outright. This will not change with the application of NVG methods.
I am comfortable with the idea of 5 NVG hours training for experienced opperators who will only be allowed to opperate NVG once they prove they are competent.
I'm glad to hear that ops such as winch will require extra training. It sounds like the basic qual will allow us to get airbourne, cruise (say what you like about medical requirements for low level, if I can stay low, avoid ice, decrease the flight time, avoid traffic, help the patient, and have the advantage of always seeing where I am going to land if I or the patient have an emergency), locate and land without ever losing visual touch with obstacles. Simple, safe, smart.
HAA and the guys pushing this deserve our full support and thanks, and the future of our industry deserves our input. From experience, this isnt a closed shop, the guys appreciate all the industry input they can get.
Keep this thread going. It's a great way to get the message out there, and to gather industry/individual input.
W

I didn't 'out' you mate, you 'outed' yourself! :) I mentioned your name because I imagined you would be reading the thread.....

Your response was articulate and well reasoned, and I believe that we both have the same aims in mind...

NASUS makes the point regarding the CMI setting too high a standard, but I think he was referring to the non flying NVG crewmember....

The UK/US accidents I refer to are not civilian...I am talking about the many military accidents which occurred as people started discovering some of the pitfalls in the (then) emerging technology...the weather traps, the new range of illusions, the need for new cockpit ergonomics and crew protocols...these are the things which served to define the 'mil spec'.

I don't think the VPAW's stance is about being exclusive, I firmly believe that the best fallback from a degraded or failed NVG situation is an instant reversion to IFR...and IFR in a well equipped IFR cockpit..it's all about risk mitigation..

Competency based training has its merits...but with NVG, it is important to expose the pilot to the full range of operating conditions..and it may not be possible to achieve this over a short training period.

(sips coffee,....thinks) I make the analogy of deck landing qualifications in the military (because NVG ops in Oz are still confined to the military) You would have probably qualified in Moreton Bay, or some relatively benign location. Remember when you first tried the same procedure,landing on the same ship at sea? You would have found it a little different, to say the least!

NVGs will save lives in Australia...we both know that...but they can bite even the well trained.. you know that too.... What experience level and aircraft capablity was on board 108, when it made its unscheduled (and very lucky) landing on top of a mountain in ET? Fair enough, you say...we don't intend to conduct those sort of ops...I agree...

But it is a contemporary example of a well trained crew in a very capable and sophisticated aircraft, coming unstuck in an NVG/bad weather combination...

Dampen down that fire a tad, helmet...we are both on the same side...:)

Just from different schools.....(of thought)

Happy landings, old friend!

P.S. Your command of French is impressive, to say the least...:ok:

Fair enough. Except for the French bit!! Mon Dieu.

Sorry for the fire, but it has been a long road that is not over yet.

I will post the pilot competency statements tonight and that may help you come to terms with the proposal. As I said above, all input to the current development is welcome, but it really helps if the current standards are well understood before-hand as comments linking the HAA and SC-196 models to a strap on and go scenario are both provocative and wide of the mark: resulting in occaisional fire from mein helmet!!! As w'ocker says, most of those exposed to the actual detail of the model come to agree with the general thrust.

No course of training will expose you to a large variety of conditions, and I hear your concerns. As a direct result of that very issue, the HAA model added to the SC-196 requirements by having to have a sortie completed with low illumination in an area devoid of surroundiing cultural lights. If you are trying to squeeze all your training into two days, then most of your course will be done like that. As for a variety of weather and terrain, that sort of supervision will be an operator responsibility, as it is now.

The ET event is not applicable really (tac formation to very low weather limitations). But your IFR points have also been heavily considered by both the SC-196 and the HAA models. In short, the HAA model is proposing that where no IFR rating/aircraft is used, the min wx is NVFR over the entire route too NVFR LSALT levels. Qualification competencies also include a demonstrated IIMC recovery.

Helmet/Hellfire,

I touch base with the hard working NASUS from time to time, and I am familiar with the proposals on the table.

At the risk of drawing fire from itinerant jet ranger drivers, I think you overstate the ease with which the average pilot will come to grips with NVG ops...and I still believe you are paying lip service to the requirement for a prolonged and varied exposure to different operating environments.

At the additional risk of 'playing the man', look at yourself, and Daff, and Mike A, et al. You are all highly experienced ex military pilots, who have had the benefit of a thorough and extremely expensive training course, followed by a long period of consolidation, followed by years of experience, during which you would have seen a vast array of NVG environments. Have you forgotten how difficult it was during the first couple of hours? And given you had a crew of four?

You can't buy experience, nor can the average operator afford to buy the sort of equipment you have been fortunate enough to fly...

As I previously mentioned, these environments are not what we envisage for civil ops, but it doesn't take much to move from a benign cockpit situation to a nasty one. You've been there...we all have...

Why do you think companies like IT* don't want to sell this equipment to anyone but 'big chopper' law enforcement and EMS organisations?

I acknowledge and applaud your efforts so far...but there is a way to go yet, and I think the first transition from military to civil ops should mirror the former as much as possible.

Down the track, after a few years of safe and successful operation...then look at lowering the standards...don't start out that way mon ami...

Cheers...

Mate, I appologise for the fire and you come back with Helmetfire/Hellfire.
Ok then.
But you think the VPAW model is the mil spec....sounds like you are well on top of it.

If you have a safety case to back up this thought, now is the time to share as they are getting close to finalising the standards.
Also, do I really need to explain the relationship between "average pilot" and competency based training?

And the VPAW solution is what?
When I went through in 1990 or 91, we did our entire course, 10 hours of it, in two weeks in the same Townsville training area. Hardly meets your proposition, how about you?
Environmental conditions vary so much across bases, a one rule fits all is ridiculous. Learning out at Mataranka in the dry is going to be a challenge if you require all sorts of different conditions. So it is left to the operator to supervise the transition into their environment. As it should be. Do you have a superior suggestion?


I did get a 'phone call today with a suggestion that we post a bit of the HAA stuff to get the info out there, so I will do that in response to any questions or issues, starting with the pilot stuff posted below. But before I do, Delta has asked of the system: Again, I am proposing that we accept that 15 years of safe civil ops meets this measure. And yet again I ask: I am still keen on hearing from Delta why 5 hours is not enough, or why the SC-196 standards are defective. That is; keen to hear a safety case rather than a feeling, or simply because thats how we did it when we were military.

Here is the current proposal for the pilot training for initial qual.

Training Competency Outcome of this course: Perform the duties of an an NVG Pilot to safely and effectively take off, fly and navigate en-route across country, and descend, reconnoitre and land or hover to lit, unlit and unprepared HLSs using NVG.
Minimum Qualifications prior to commencing NVG training
Before commencing NVG training leading to the award of an NVG qualification, the trainee pilot must , as a minimum, have the following:
a. Hold at a current Commercial Helicopter Pilot licence or Air Transport Helicopter licence; and
b. Hold a current night VFR rating for helicopters; and
c. Have logged at least 250 hours of aeronautical experience as a helicopter pilot of which no more than 50 can be in an approved flight simulator representative of the aircraft category that will be used for NVG operations; and
d. Be appropriately endorsed on the aircraft type intended for training; and
e. Have logged at least 10 hours of night (unaided) helicopter (not including training leading to the award of a NVFR rating), 5 of which are in the three months leading up to the initial award of an NVG rating; and
f. Hold a current Instrument Rating or in the three months immediately prior to the commencement of training, undergo not less than 1.5 helicopter flight hours of dedicated dual night instrument training with an approved helicopter instrument instructor to achieve competency in unusual attitude recovery and inadvertent IMC recovery with sole reference to the aircraft’s instruments.
g. Pilots are to be qualified/certified for advanced operational sequences, such as winching, etc, unaided prior to undergoing NVG training for those sequences.
Training Intent
Due to the importance of the pre flight planning and goggle adjustment phases, it is intended that the lessons be conducted in no less than 5 flights, and expose the trainee to at least 1 flight in low illumination conditions such as those with little or no moon in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.

NVG Pilot Training is a competency based system with a prescribed minimum of 5 hours NVG Flight time. The minimum is set with the intent of specifying the minimum training an experienced night/IFR pilot would require to achieve basic competencies. Therefore, where pilots have low night, IFR or total helicopter time, these minimums shall be increased.

The intent is that Operators (as opposed to the Authority) will build extra requirements into training syllabi to satisfy any advanced operational sequences particular to their operation, such as specialised coastal rescue, winch, rappel, etc , and are a component of risk management when seeking variation on the operational guidelines established in this CAAP. As another example, Operators may feel a progression through a period of ICUS is suitable to their operation, and should institute those requirements overlaid on these minimums. Such increases are not limited to the flight sequences, but may also be desired in the ground training phases.

With the exception of inadvertent IMC recovery, and loss of visual reference procedures, training may be conducted in an approved NVG flight simulator. Notwithstanding the minimum flight time, proficiency must be demonstrated in at least the following subjects:
a. Preparation and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for NVG flights and operations.
b. Preflight preparation of NVGs, planning considerations, and appropriate route selection for NVG flights and operations.
c. Correct piloting techniques (during normal, abnormal, and simulated emergency aircraft operations) whilst using NVGs during the take off, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight.
d. Normal, abnormal and emergency operations of the NVGs during flight.
e. In flight simulated Inadvertent IMC recovery to VMC with sole reference to the aircraft instruments. Non instrument rated pilots require training additional to the 5 hours in order to demonstrate instrument proficiency.
f. Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off.
g. Sound crew co-ordination.

These competencies can be achieved in an example of a qualification competency evaluation that reads:
As a minimum, trainee to demonstrate competency in:
1. Mission planning/flight planning for the flight.
2. Determining the serviceability of NVIS equipment, including aircraft components.
3. Performing cockpit drills including switch selection and ‘Goggle/de-goggle” procedure.
4. Performing hover, taxi and transit procedures.
5. Performing crew resource management appropriate to NVIS operations.
6. Performing NVIS practice malfunctions and emergency procedures.
7. Performing NVIS departure and navigation.
8. Performing circuit operations to unlit confined areas located in areas devoid of surrounding cultural lighting.
9. Performing Loss of Visual reference procedures on landing and take off .
10. Perform Inadvertent IMC penetration procedures and safe recovery to VFR flight.
11. Perform a selection of practice aircraft emergency procedures, under NVIS conditions, applicable to the aircraft type.


Note that these standards are the current proposal at the working group level. They are not a finalised position, and are subject to change.
All safety cases pointing out deficiencies in the above are invited.

Good info.
 

Well done Helmet Fire. Good post and it sets the scene for what is being discussed.
Did this make it to a NPRM (or similar) for public discussion?

Congratulations to Helmet Fire and friends
 

I know how much you have all devoted to this frustrating project over the years. The others who have helped, and stayed with you, when CASA had a flat tyre are also deserving of a pat on the back.

This project was first pushed by a group of which I was a member in 1993. At that time I was an Army Reserve instructor using NVG. I was told by CASA that it was a low priority - lacking expertise within the regulator.

The industry members who have fought so hard to run with the ball in Australia need to be recognised. You can image how they must feel when NZ, with their limited NZCAA resources, got the project underway, a couple years ahead of us - when it was our launch!

They have used the current US model (and US advisors under contract). It seems to be working.

Even today, CASA are advising industry that the earliest this will be resolved will be mid-year. So hopefully, we will see some progress - as this is only a few months away.

I hope the CASA move to Brisabne, and new restructuring, and the spilling of the 65 technical positions, will not distract from this important safety issue.

Well done guys.......if you had a dollar for every hour you spent finding a workable paper .... then you would be "millionaires".

And you are volunteers too!

G'day CYHeli,
The original document was directed by the CEO's office of CASA to be a CAAP (or possibly a revised CMI) for NVG. Therefore, the document evolved through less formal public input than the NPRM process. It was widely circulated through the HAA to everyone that attended either of the HAA conferences, and then on to all industry people that had an email contact available, including through to NZ. Comment was recieved and collated, a final draft compiled, and this was distributed, discussed, ammended, and finally ratified by 60 odd people at the May 2005 night conference. A published complete paper was sent to CASA in a outcomes based CMI format by July 2005 as promised, with publication of the CAAP comitted to by CASA of 1st September 2005.

We are still going through the process to publication now. That is not to say comment has finished, but it is late in the picture and thus my call for a demonstrated or evidentiary safety case rather than just a "feeling" at this stage in the process. The NPRM was assesed by CASA as unecessary for a CAAP given the wide distribution and comment already recieved. That may change as CASA are now trying to change the format to a prescriptive CAO.

Remember that NVG in Oz is currently legal.

Thanks for the reply..

'Hellfire' was firmly tongue in cheek...don't be so touchy...:eek:

I hear what you say, but I still think you are expecting too much of an outcome for the training you propose.... but these are only personal opinions, and time will tell.

Good to see Rob and others lending their support to this very important issue.

Cheers....

Delta, your humour is almost as well hidden as your evidence backing your contentions. In fact, if I have you pegged correctly, it was you that once told me opinions are like arseholes....everyone has got one. Especially those who are as articulate as you. And I am no diifferent - I too have an arsehole and an opinion.

If you really don't mean offence, I suggest you review the tone of your responses. Posting the correct and intended emotion into the written word is difficult, and you can rectiify miss-understandings with clarity when you see it as not had the desired effect. If you want to. You know where to reach me and talk it through.

But I must say, I really take offence at your last remark: The last resort. Sounds like something we have heard at the working group meetings.
So, you have not constructively put forward a safety case or in fact any evidence that the proposal is flawed, but all is not lost: simply pop in a little parting shot just to show you know best, and just so you can say to the rest of the international industry who created this "I told you so, I knew best and you have it all wrong".

And you are right! Because if anyone has not yet made the leap, there IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE A NVG ACCIDENT. Same as there are day accidents (hold on, maybe we should not fly during the day), NVFR (lets stop doing this as well), and IFR (insert smart-arse comment here too.)

And when it does happen, we can forget all those lives saved because of the technology, and focus on the fact that "we were warned". Delta told us. There was no evidence for his position, but he just, ..well, he just knew the rest of the world was wrong. And see...he was right.

Just wait for the people to stand around the first smoking hole pointing with self justification. Where were they when Paddy smacked in at Malborough, or Andy off Mackay? When....etc, etc, etc.

I will try not to rise to any more of these baits.

I do stress again to anyone intrested, PLEASE put forward any safety case you have to alter the standards NOW before they become published. Any evidentary arguement. Any substantive, reasoned, factual issues at all. w-ocker, (f I have him pegged) actually took the time to do this over icing levels and his contention was adopted.

BTW, I am happy to post the other areas of the proposal if anyone is intrested, including crewman training, equipment levels, or whatever you are concerned or intrested in.

Thank you Rob for the tireless efforts you have put into the NVG issue. The industry owes you many beers.

No, I don't think I was the fellow who made the remark about opinions and arseholes....but I would agree with that observation...I have a similar saying regarding 'advice'....that's my favourite, but nothing to do with this exchange!

But you must acknowledge that opinions are often tempered by experience....

The term 'time will tell' is not intended as a parting short...nor a precursor to 'I told you so'..it is literally...'time will tell'..ie ' in time this issue will be resolved one way or the other'...nothing more, nothing less, ffs...mate...don't fly off the handle whenever an opposing viewpoint is produced...

Don't cloud your delivery with fiery, emotive blasts.....You have a strong and popular argument...it should fly without that sort of reinforcement!

And don't use the cheap and easy argument that no legal impediment exists for civil NVG ops in Australia...Even if correct,it won't achieve anything...and will only serve to get CASA's back up...:{



If you can get civil NVG ops off the ground...then excellent..that is a significant step forward...if MT and his boys in blue down at the VPAW can do it, then good luck to him...that is a significant step forward....Have I repeated myself here, or does it indicate some similarity regarding the aim? :rolleyes:

It's not that I think that SC-196 is a poorly written document...It is just my opinion that it provides an inadequate foundation for a new NVG pilot flying a general aviation style aircraft...It is simply my opinion that the original CASA offering is better.....

Does that make me narrow minded, and poorly informed? Possibly...

Does that make me wrong? Who knows...just look at the NASA vs el cheapo 'space plane' model....(hint...the 'space plane' came back in one piece)..

Does that make me an...an..an.....ARSEHOLE? Most certainly!

Keep up the good work!


And yes...I'm sure I'll have a beer with you in the near future....

Cheers...

United we stand - divided we fall!
 

Keep your eye on the ball!

A lot of young pilots today need our leadership, vision and guidance to see this project through.

Helmet Fire is right, we have talked enough. Unless a safety case exists to change things, then let us run with the ball - there is no perfectly round ball. (Even the earth is a bit suspect, with the odd out of shape bits.)

You can only do so many circuits during a confined area landing site recce ... otherwise you run out of gas?