IR (infrared) night vision video - amazing!
 

Have a look at this, pretty darn amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4miHW5bjak

very nice. from watching the video, i believe the IR provides somewhat of an illusion which leads you to believe that you are higher than you actually are. comparing the two (IR and normal), i would have placed at least a 500ft difference between the two at many stages of the approach (again, that illusion).

not much of a structured approach there anyway? im not farmiliar with this airfield, but it looks like that pilot was all over the shop.:confused:

isb't aspen the one with the offset localiser due terrain? Looked pretty good, AP off at 1000R then a jink to get on finals. Same thing you'd do off a VOR etc

Checklist calls? Standard calls? Gash operation backed up by technology the military have been using for decades.

NVG's
 

It might be of interest to know these night vision devices have a short life - less than 50 hours - and fail without warning...might have been better off without them !

Luckily mine failed ( somewhat prematurely I felt regarding the cost, though naturally about a second after the guarantee expired ) on my boat so I was able to pull up in time, but I'd think long & hard before flying even with latest standard NVG's.

As mentioned, they also give a wierd aspect, and are notorious in the military for restricting peripheral vision - important if one's trying to hover a Harrier - no, the nearest I'll get to that is a sim, but I knew Test Pilots who complained about it...

Also the cabin lighting has to be compatible.

DZ

HUD + EVS, not "NV Goggles"
 

Far more likely is the possibility that the runway's 2% upslope and 100-ft width creates the illusion.
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/sw_180_23NOV2006.pdf


Re: Double Zero's comment on Night Vision Goggles -- this is a vastly different and far more sophisticated application. Gulfstream Aerospace has delivered over 350 bizjets equipped with EFVS. The IR image is displayed on a HUD as well as on the co-pilots heads-down EFIS.
http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/

FAA has fully embraced the technology. Provided the image is displayed on a conformal HUD ($$$$), FAR 91.175 now provides operational credit for use of EFVS systems, permitting descent below MDA/DA:
http://tinyurl.com/ymzrvy
Excepts below:

(l) Approach to straight-in landing operations below DH, or MDA using an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS)...


(3) The following visual references for the intended runway are distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot using the enhanced flight vision system:
(i) The approach light system (if installed); or
(ii) The following visual references in both paragraphs (l)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section:
(A) The runway threshold, identified by at least one of the following:
(1) The beginning of the runway landing surface;
(2) The threshold lights; or
(3) The runway end identifier lights.
(B) The touchdown zone, identified by at least one of the following:
(1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;
(2) The touchdown zone lights;
(3) The touchdown zone markings; or
(4) The runway lights.
(4) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude, the flight visibility must be sufficient for the following to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot without reliance on the enhanced flight vision system to continue to a landing:
(i) The lights or markings of the threshold; or
(ii) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone;


Silverhawk: "...Checklist calls? Standard calls? Gash operation..."

The engineering test pilots at Gulfstream might disagree. As far as "standard calls" are concerned, the HUD symbology provides incredibly precise guidance, including airspeed deviation and glidepath reference line (with or without external GS signal). Read more about those here:
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/produ...ogy/index.html

Description of a competitive EFVS system here:
http://www.cmcelectronics.ca/En/Prod...erview_en.html



Best,

Zeffy

My god just look at all the knockers :ugh:

Purely on the basis of situational awareness, in an area of such close terrain, the left hand screen is ten thousand (no ten million) percent better :D

Good luck to them

Zeffy
 

I repeat, where the calls? Checklist was rushed. No minimums called, no decisions made. GASH. Does not surprise me these were production test pilots.

silverhawk
 

It was a visual approach.

Have you flown HUD? Are you familiar with the symbology such as the airspeed "worm" on the wingtip of the flightpath vector, the glidepath reference line, etc?

Why do you apparently think that the pilots should have duplicated/recited the same automatic callouts provided by the EGPWS?

How do you know the checklist was rushed? -- sounded to me like gear was down and flaps fully configured prior to the beginning of the video.

Engineering test pilots, not production test pilots.

What does "GASH" mean, anyway? :)

Gash means operated like a cowboy outfit, unprofessionally.

Was not a visual approach, it was dark! It was an instrument approach using computer generated images on the HUD to assist with the flare and landing. Those boys were too interested in monitoring the new toy rather than monitoring the actual approach.

And yes I do have some experience in production testing and flying.

A typical use of the FLIR
 

I have conducted many similar approaches in a G550, and can confirm the quality of visuals on the HUD and DU3, (for filming, or Co pilot awareness) is excellent.

Forget the comments re check lists etc, look at the benefits.

When I get on aG5 without the FLIR I wish I was back on the G550.

I understand that the JAA does not approve of this modern technology, so lets hope common sense prevails.

Glf av

I agree about the benefits. I was testing FLIR for the civvy world 10 years ago.

My point was these guys seemed to be operating a private operation with no set procedures in IMC conditions, gash.

So you can't make a visual approach at night then? (especially if aided by electro-optics). Try telling that to everyone who operates into Kabul.

Before you condemn them, how do you know to what SOP this crew was operating? SOPs and checklists are developed to allow an aircraft to be operated in it's intended role by line crews. When such procedures are being written the lowest common denominator has to be kept in mind - the "average" pilot skill level and a crew who may have only just met. Consequently a high degree of standardization of words and actions is required. Engineering/development test flying does not necesarily take place within such boundaries. Tests are flown using whatever SOPs that those conducting/managing the test deem appropriate. Certain aspects of test flying take place entirely outside any relevant SOP and require a higher level of crew brefing, skill and familiarity. It may not be appropriate for a test crew to overlay airline SOPs onto their test schedule. It seems as if this was an approach being flown for development purposes and, as such, it is entirely reasonable for the crew to be commenting on the performance of the equipment.

A test crew may sound "gash" to a line crew, but they are doing a different job. One of the marks of good flight-test personnel is that they can drop straight back into routine practices as soon as the need to operate outside the SOPs is over.

At the October 2006 NBAA convention in Orlando FL, the manager of FAA Flight Standards office AFS-410 stated that harmonization efforts with JAA were in progress. Something along the lines of a 1/3 reduction in approach ban visibility minima for EFVS aircraft. Haven't heard anything beyond that.

As you know, FAA has no approach ban for non-commercial operations in the U.S. And the amendment to 14 CFR 91.175 was carefully worded so as to require that the visibility at 100 HAT only be sufficient to flare and land. A refreshing application of common sense, IMO. :)

this video is real or a sim session???

Real, night time (visual):ugh: conditions.

The limitations of the cockpit cameras and the intentional low brightness setting of the primary HUD guidance can't convey all of the information available to the pilot.

For most/many operators, the HUD airspeed trend cue (aka "worm", aka "nail") makes redundant airspeed callouts by the monitoring pilot, similar to the automatic role of EGPWS altitude callouts.

Several additional videos (in IMC and in VMC) are available at the Gulfstream web site.
http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamevs/

Some of this difference in procedures is philosophical. Americans tend to use minimal callouts and streamlined checklists on more modern aircraft. Look at Boeing's before takeoff checklist on the 767 for example - Flaps. On the other hand, I've flown with British style procedures where you verbalized (or should I say recited) almost everything that happened and even called out every 5000 ft. in the climb and descent. I'm told Air Canada still uses hand signals for gear up and level off, a legacy of noisy piston cockpits of years ago.

Yes, probably so -- the Dassault product I'm currently flying also uses a minimalist philosophy for the electronic takeoff/landing checklists and Cat II/III SOP's.

Silverhawk's characterization of the Gulfstream engineering test pilots video demonstration as a "cowboy" operation is a bit of a puzzlement -- especially when considered in the context of his own post in another thread,
"...Superfluous SOPs only detract from the whole ethos. If one item is deemed to be questionable, then all items become suspect by default.
"Just because eons ago some old fart used to have to retard the throttles on their Viper engines in the climb and used FL200 and 300 as a reminder does not mean modern equipment needs to be governed by rules that are irrelevant."

HUD guidance provides direct, conformal display of the aircraft's actual flight path in addition to the airspeed delta. See slide #9 here: http://www.wingfiles.com/files/liais...6/20069hud.pps

Any deviation from airspeed or descent profile will show prominently on the HUD (and immediately be corrected) well before it's likely to be detected by the Monitoring Pilot using conventional head-down instruments and/or view through the windscreen.

As confirmed by the audio in the EVS demo, EGPWS makes automatic altitude callouts.

When the Approach Reference (Flight Path Angle) marker and the Flight Path Vector (bird) are both sitting on the runway's touchdown aim point and the airspeed delta is nihl, what is left for the monitoring pilot to call out?

(Silverhawk did not answer the question "Have you flown HUD?"). I still don't understand the basis of his criticism.:confused:

Take care,

Zeffy

Silver-something you're bothering me:yuk: with your remarks about the professionalism and supposely missing standard calls...etc... of these guys landing in such an amazing and difficult airport...you are one of those who would fly direct in the mountains to respect his SOP's:ugh: :ugh: ...when a guy is able to land his a$$ there you have no lesson to give him,so go back to your books and theories,and let the real professionnals fly!

QCM
 

Man you are so far off the mark you wouldn't believe!


I'm looking at joining a private outfit on a 7X, with a HUD. There is no way, even on a private set up, I'd be happy with the SOP the video seems to show.

Anyway Happy New Year to all, even Gulfstream test crew!