Hey guys,

Got a question for the hive, anyone have any experience with flying backcountry and float ops under NVGs, got a few ideas and want to know if anyone’s got any experience with this?

Thanks!

PM sent

Doesn't it take Apache gunship pilots a ton of training to do it?

Yes, and two pilots required.

I know the medevac guys do it single pilot, know some king air guys do it for low level aerial application.

Just wasn’t sure if this made it way to backcountry yet. And if there is any example of how folks are trained up for NVGs, the progression and all, if that makes sense.

I'm sorry but night flying in the backcountry where for me it's all about the visual splendor and scenic beauty makes no sense at all. I can see NVG in a SAR application but I believe those roles already exist, with well defined training and operational protocols in place.

Mapleflt wrote:I'm sorry but night flying in the backcountry where for me it's all about the visual splendor and scenic beauty makes no sense at all. I can see NVG in a SAR application but I believe those roles already exist, with well defined training and operational protocols in place.

NVG’s in a SAR application don’t make much sense outside of terrain/obstacle avoidance for low flying aircraft. Perhaps you mean FLIR?

NOD’s provide an unreal level of SA while flying at night.

I've used NVG's quite a bit in an EMS helicopter application. Not quite sure of requirements for use in airplanes, but I know they have to be STC'd for use in helicopters and that costs big bucks! Not to mention the NVG's themselves are around $10K per set and additional for periodic inspections. The cockpit has to be setup with filters on any light emitting instruments or avionics...thats where the expense comes in for the STC.

Operationally they are great for a small portion of the flight...Takeoff, landing and the occasional flight in terrain when you have to descend below the peaks of the highest terrain or otherwise follow terrain low level...and for an emergency situation that requires a forced landing off airport which is rare. For most of the "cruise" portions of the flight they are heavy, awkward, uncomfortable and mostly unnecessary except for the novelty of seeing things on the ground under a "different light" so to speak. Their performance directly correlates with the level of ambient or celestial lighting. If the moon is out and lots of stars, the contrast is pretty amazing and allows for the best performance and visual cues. If the lighting is low, such as under an overcast layer, the view through the tubes fairly grainy and unspectacular...but still better than nothing! Also don't forget about the 40 degree field of view. I suspect, however, that this would be less of a limitation for airplanes than it is with helicopters.

Weather wise, they are a blessing and a potential curse. In good visibility they allow you to see, and subsequently avoid, clouds at night that you normally couldn't see in a low ambient light condition. In low visibility conditions, such as in rain or a general misty condition, they can lull you into a false sense of security very easily. I've been in "low vis" conditions under NVG's, cruising along fat dumb and happy with the current vis, only to take a quick peek under the goggles and see nothing but black out the window (I've embellished a bit on the last sentence for effect, but you need to stay vigilant under less than ideal conditions). In those conditions a sudden change for the worse in visibility you would end up IMC with the goggles being mostly useless. This situation is much worse in an unstabilized helicopter limited to VFR, mind you, but still an urgent situation in any aircraft depending in particular of its capabilities.

I fly Mosquito abatement at night occasionally and have often thought how NVG's could enhance safety of those flights. We fly the runs at 200-300' AGL but all of those are known routes with two pilots in a multi-engine plane in the central valley of CA where the elevation doesn't change much...biggest obstacles are a few known towers and a few 150 foot eucalyptus trees I think NVG's wouldn't really pencil out. I guess since we're restricted category, maybe we could get away without all the STC crap and with the non-flying pilot only under NVG's

For backcountry airplane ops, I could imagine NVG's allowing you to land and depart at night without much issue aside from the cost prohibitive nature of the idea. Probably not much need for part 91 backcountry night ops, though I do know a guy that dabbles in it

A few random thoughts, useful or not:

On float flying at night, Seattle Seaplanes, where I got my SES Commercial add-on, trains ab initio pilots from zero hours to private SES, which has to include some night work under the ACS. I don't know their night training techniques, but they must work. They don't use NVGs.

My experience in the backcountry amongst the rocks of the Rockies tells me that I wouldn't want to count on an electronic gizmo down in some canyon at night--electronics can fail, and there you are.

I watched a true total idiot make multiple passes at night in a Super Cub before finally setting it down at Marble, CO, several years ago, and each time he did it, my heartbeat went up as I imagined scraping what might be left of him off of the rocks and trees on either side of the strip. Would NVGs have helped him? I don't know, but having watched him fly both the Super Cub and his replacement, a souped up 175, I suspect he would just get in deeper, eventually killing him and one of his kids and leaving his cute little wife a widow to raise the rest of the kids.

That would be my biggest concern, that both float and backcountry flying already have some additional risk; adding NVGs to the equation might entice people to take further chances and increase that risk some more. I can see them for SAR work, perhaps for some other legitimate purposes. But for normal Part 91 recreational flying, the cost (both in money and risk) far outweighs any benefit.

But that's me. The older I get, the more conservative I am as a pilot. Some might argue too conservative. But I'm still here, I still fly, and I'd like to do it for a few years more.

Cary

Cary wrote:A few random thoughts, useful or not:

On float flying at night, Seattle Seaplanes, where I got my SES Commercial add-on, trains ab initio pilots from zero hours to private SES, which has to include some night work under the ACS. I don't know their night training techniques, but they must work. They don't use NVGs.

My experience in the backcountry amongst the rocks of the Rockies tells me that I wouldn't want to count on an electronic gizmo down in some canyon at night--electronics can fail, and there you are.

I watched a true total idiot make multiple passes at night in a Super Cub before finally setting it down at Marble, CO, several years ago, and each time he did it, my heartbeat went up as I imagined scraping what might be left of him off of the rocks and trees on either side of the strip. Would NVGs have helped him? I don't know, but having watched him fly both the Super Cub and his replacement, a souped up 175, I suspect he would just get in deeper, eventually killing him and one of his kids and leaving his cute little wife a widow to raise the rest of the kids.

That would be my biggest concern, that both float and backcountry flying already have some additional risk; adding NVGs to the equation might entice people to take further chances and increase that risk some more. I can see them for SAR work, perhaps for some other legitimate purposes. But for normal Part 91 recreational flying, the cost (both in money and risk) far outweighs any benefit.

But that's me. The older I get, the more conservative I am as a pilot. Some might argue too conservative. But I'm still here, I still fly, and I'd like to do it for a few years more.

Cary

I did my initial CPL with Seattle seaplanes a decade or so ago, didn’t know they did night ops, but as someone who used to call their runway my backyard, lake union has a ton of lights around it, perhaps that helps?

The thought behind this was a proof of concept I was looking to do with my plane, figure some filters and stuff for my skywagon (nu lights, ehsi, 430/530) and 12k for some NVGs, but it would be a proof of concept for 135 specialized stuff

bart wrote:I've used NVG's quite a bit in an EMS helicopter application. Not quite sure of requirements for use in airplanes, but I know they have to be STC'd for use in helicopters and that costs big bucks! Not to mention the NVG's themselves are around $10K per set and additional for periodic inspections. The cockpit has to be setup with filters on any light emitting instruments or avionics...thats where the expense comes in for the STC.

Operationally they are great for a small portion of the flight...Takeoff, landing and the occasional flight in terrain when you have to descend below the peaks of the highest terrain or otherwise follow terrain low level...and for an emergency situation that requires a forced landing off airport which is rare. For most of the "cruise" portions of the flight they are heavy, awkward, uncomfortable and mostly unnecessary except for the novelty of seeing things on the ground under a "different light" so to speak. Their performance directly correlates with the level of ambient or celestial lighting. If the moon is out and lots of stars, the contrast is pretty amazing and allows for the best performance and visual cues. If the lighting is low, such as under an overcast layer, the view through the tubes fairly grainy and unspectacular...but still better than nothing! Also don't forget about the 40 degree field of view. I suspect, however, that this would be less of a limitation for airplanes than it is with helicopters.

Weather wise, they are a blessing and a potential curse. In good visibility they allow you to see, and subsequently avoid, clouds at night that you normally couldn't see in a low ambient light condition. In low visibility conditions, such as in rain or a general misty condition, they can lull you into a false sense of security very easily. I've been in "low vis" conditions under NVG's, cruising along fat dumb and happy with the current vis, only to take a quick peek under the goggles and see nothing but black out the window (I've embellished a bit on the last sentence for effect, but you need to stay vigilant under less than ideal conditions). In those conditions a sudden change for the worse in visibility you would end up IMC with the goggles being mostly useless. This situation is much worse in an unstabilized helicopter limited to VFR, mind you, but still an urgent situation in any aircraft depending in particular of its capabilities.

I fly Mosquito abatement at night occasionally and have often thought how NVG's could enhance safety of those flights. We fly the runs at 200-300' AGL but all of those are known routes with two pilots in a multi-engine plane in the central valley of CA where the elevation doesn't change much...biggest obstacles are a few known towers and a few 150 foot eucalyptus trees I think NVG's wouldn't really pencil out. I guess since we're restricted category, maybe we could get away without all the STC crap and with the non-flying pilot only under NVG's

For backcountry airplane ops, I could imagine NVG's allowing you to land and depart at night without much issue aside from the cost prohibitive nature of the idea. Probably not much need for part 91 backcountry night ops, though I do know a guy that dabbles in it

Y’all based out of bridgewater by chance?

FWIW, here are the NVG requirements in 91.205:

(h) Night vision goggle operations. For night vision goggle operations, the following instruments and equipment must be installed in the aircraft, functioning in a normal manner, and approved for use by the FAA:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Night vision goggles;
(3) Interior and exterior aircraft lighting system required for night vision goggle operations;
(4) Two-way radio communications system;
(5) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon);
(6) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity for the required instruments and equipment; and
(7) Radar altimeter.

Rather than clutter up the forum with the specific FAA requirements for 135 ops using NVGs, look here: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%2 ... 06_006.htm

I gather that NVG ops aren't likely to be approved easily for any 135 operation that can't justify it. Lots of hoop jumping, over and above the normal hoops that must be jumped through with any 135 operation.

Cary

I flew NVG's for many years as a SPIFR Helicopter pilot. We operated in the Colorado Rockies, Four Corners and even went into the Grand Canyon at night, I have hundreds of night landings high and deep in the mountains on NVGs. I've also done countless SAR missions - Blah Blah Blah I know, but I say that because I have zero ambition of ever using them in my personal airplane in the back country. One thing I did learn from NVG's is I do not fly my airplane VFR over the mountains at night ever anymore. We used to have a saying before we got NVG's that if you went down at night and didn't like what was in front of you, just turn the landing lights off...

NVG's are a tool and can get you into as much trouble as they can get you out of. You are limited to 40 degrees of view. Strap two toilet paper tubes to your head and go fly for a day, now do it at night, it's just a tool. Consider bouncing down a dirt runway, your 3lbs of helmet, NVGs and Battery pack bobbing around while you try and focus on your 40 degree field of vision climbing out of a valley. They do have some illusion issues that take some time to overcome.

It's not my intention to shoot down the idea, just provide my opinion from using them in the mountains for years. They do require a significant amount of modification to your panel lighting to be certified. We used ANVIS 8's and then got 9's later on if I remember right. They have to be inspected and maintained every 180 days at a certified shop. Shipping them is like shipping a gun and requires some additional work.

Now, if you do decide to pursue this and want some experience doing it, let me know!