NVG Long Line

[Flying Pig]

I hear that there are companies that do night time NVG power line work. Does that include NVG long line? If anyone does that I would be interested in discussing it. However..... if not, I am not interested in being the first guy to attempt it

[iChris]

I hear that there are companies that do night time NVG power line work. Does that include NVG long line? If anyone does that I would be interested in discussing it. However..... if not, I am not interested in being the first guy to attempt it

 

Sonoma County Sheriff 's Office Helicopter Unit, "Henry 1"

 

They’re equipped with an Night Vision system (NVG); however, its usage may have limits in this case.

 

http://youtu.be/PeVmsRfpA0o

Edited December 18, 2012 by iChris

[AS350 pilot]

I can see doing a rescue at night, but power line work...I don't think so. Doing LL work on a power line at night would be like jumping into a shark tank and swimming around with an open wound. I sincerely hope there isn't a company out there doing that.

[Falko]

i agree with AS350 ,

I don’t think they do LL with NVG, at least the pilot flying isnt hanging out the door, looking straight down. imagine all the stress on your neck by the goggles, battery pack and counter weight... that would be a physical nightmare. Plus depth perception under google’s isnt the greatest and you also need to point your goggles right at where your hook is located at…and that will be tricky too.

i wonder if a crew member is laying on the floor, looking straight down and gives the pilot over ICS instructions on what the line is doing underneath him. also you see a bright search light shining on the guys on the ground, if you look down on the illuminated ground from the helicopter under your goggles, your ABC" automatic brightness control" in your goggles will dim/ darken your monochromatic vision a lot, which makes it even harder to use them

[Trans Lift]

I would hope there is no-one out there doing any sort of powerline work at night with or without NVG's. It's dangerous enough during the day without adding all that extra risk.

[Flying Pig]

There is a company that advertises it as a capability.

[AS350 pilot]

If I owned a utility helicopter company (I don't) and I bought a used helicopter, and that used helicopter had an NVG capable cockpit and they threw in a pair of goggles with the sale.....I would advertise on my website that one of my helicopters was NVG capable. You might as well, that's a huge upgrade! That being said, I still don't think anyone would ever use NVG's for utility, but maybe it would land you some SAR work someday.

[Flying Pig]

We use NVGs on a regular basis. We have successfully ended a number of missing person/SAR calls in the mountains by having NVGs and finding the people clicking cigarette lighters, and found one in the rain who was using the screen of his cell phone. Lit up like a road flare!

 

We always have them at night, so its business as usual. I was just curious if anyone knew how they were being used in the utility market. I went out to our training area a couple nights ago (no line attached) and just simulated that I was long lining with my NVGs, leaning out and looking down and did a couple laps around the area. No thanks.

[500F]

I'm not sure what company you speak of, but that company sounds like it needs a wakeup call. Hopefully it doesn't come at the cost of a pilot's life when they get one.

 

Its not that it could not be done, it could. But like trans-lift said, its dangerous enough in the day. Doing it in an emergency situation is a stretch, but advertising it, thats just asking for it.

[Counterrotate]

What about with a crew calling the load? The military does stuff like that all the time.

[500F]

It doesn't work for precision loads. A pilot has to be one step ahead of his load, not 2 steps behind it.

[Counterrotate]

It doesn't work for precision loads. A pilot has to be one step ahead of his load, not 2 steps behind it.

 

Check. Never done it so I wouldn't know.

[iChris]

It's dangerous enough during the day without adding all that extra risk.

 

 

Is it really that dangerous? Then you must ask yourself why.

 

Is it the aircraft/equipment you’re using? Unrealistic pilot precision and skill required for the work? Is there a general lack of skilled pilots? Maybe it’s the overall poor training.

 

I went out to our training area a couple nights ago (no line attached) and just simulated that I was long lining with my NVGs, leaning out and looking down and did a couple laps around the area. No thanks.

 

What about with a crew calling the load? The military does stuff like that all the time.

 

 

The technologies are available to long-line not only at night, but in all most any environment. The same technologies that go into our High-Tec drones and other unmanned vehicles can massively enhance the pilot’s ability to safely operate in these extreme environments.

 

It could be as simple as a touch screen display presenting an enhance view of the area below, were the pilot need only select the point were the hook or load should arrive to. The avionics would handle all the stabilization and the auto approach to hover. The precision and skill is in the avionics and hardware reducing the pilot’s workload. It goes beyond heads outside wearing NVG's.

 

The unmanned K-MAX is just the low-end of what's going on. These systems are advanced with a pilot onboard in given environments.

 

http://youtu.be/vcmF-HgV5d0

Edited December 20, 2012 by iChris

[500F]

Chris, the K-max does not do precision external load. I drops a pallet in a field. I'm sure its plus or minus a few feet. It does not have to deal with changing situations, wait for crews to pin loads it. wait for crews to tie nots, pick up loads un-attended with a grapple, or go inbetween powerlines to do its job. It works only in a static environment.

 

Powerline work is dangerous because it has powerline risks on top of aviation risks. The pilot must understand what the lineman is doing and the engironment and how he and his aircrft fit in. Many accidents are not caused by the aviation side of things.

 

The equipment that is used is the best equipment that is available (and certified) new stuff takes time to pass certification but all of us powerline companies are constanly getting STC's or 337s for safety/performance enhancing equipment.

[Trans Lift]

Couldn't have said it better!

[Flying Pig]

The technologies are available to long-line not only at night, but in all most any environment. The same technologies that go into our High-Tec drones and other unmanned vehicles can massively enhance the pilot’s ability to safely operate in these extreme environments.

 

It could be as simple as a touch screen display presenting an enhance view of the area below, were the pilot need only select the point were the hook or load should arrive to. The avionics would handle all the stabilization and the auto approach to hover. The precision and skill is in the avionics and hardware reducing the pilot’s workload. It goes beyond heads outside wearing NVG's.

I dont think the Sheriff is ready to pop for a K-Max quite yet. Thats good news for me though! So until then it will be me with my head out the door..... in the daylight.

[iChris]

Chris, the K-max does not do precision external load. I drops a pallet in a field. I'm sure its plus or minus a few feet. It does not have to deal with changing situations, wait for crews to pin loads it. wait for crews to tie nots, pick up loads un-attended with a grapple, or go inbetween powerlines to do its job. It works only in a static environment.

 

 

 

You need to go back and read and understand what I wrote. Separate the technology and how it can be applied to other situations. Never be resistant to change. I’m talking about using like technologies in a manned helicopter to enhance the pilot’s abilities.

 

“The same technologies that go into our High-Tec drones and other unmanned vehicles can massively enhance the pilot’s ability to safely operate in these extreme environments.”

 

“The unmanned K-MAX is just the low-end of what's going on. These systems are advanced with a pilot onboard in given environments.”

 

These new systems will allow the pilot far more precision. In fact, without such systems that have the ability to stabilize the aircraft against those changing situations you’ll never reach those higher levels of precision or safety. Those speedy little electrons detect and correct errors much faster. “Place the precision and skill in the avionics and hardware reducing the pilot’s workload”.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an onboard system that stabilized the helicopter, in a dead-nuts-on hover, with the work platform right were you wanted it, the system automatically correcting for wind and the like.

 

Don’t you think that would allow the pilot increased precision and provide increase safety? Much better than most today flying an old-school MD500 with the cyclic/trim motor setup.

 

I was talking to an Army Lakota (UH-72) pilot last month that was impressed at the precision at which the Lakota flies IFR approaches and auto approaches-to-hover. It’s all part of the new-age avionics and hardware.

Edited December 20, 2012 by iChris

[Flying Pig]

Don’t you think that would allow the pilot increased precision and provide increase safety? Much better than most today flying an old-school MD500 with the cyclic/trim motor setup.

 

Awwwww c'mon now...... be nice

[iChris]

The equipment that is used is the best equipment that is available (and certified) new stuff takes time to pass certification but all of us powerline companies are constanly getting STC's or 337s for safety/performance enhancing equipment.

 

I dont think the Sheriff is ready to pop for a K-Max quite yet. Thats good news for me though! So until then it will be me with my head out the door..... in the daylight.

 

Now you know better than that, the equipment that is used is not always the best equipment that is available.

 

We all understand that. Sometimes the most cost- effective solution is not the safest or best solution. We all balance between the old $$ vs. risk game.

 

Also, no need to pop for a K-MAX

[iChris]

Awwwww c'mon now...... be nice

 

I knew you would like that.... The MD500 is one of the best ships out there.

[500F]

Chris, an auto hover would be nice, and reduce fatigue, but im not clear how it would work with the CG constantly shifting each time the lineman moves.

Would it reduce accidents, I doubt it. There is not one accident I know of in our industry that resulted from a failure of the pilot to hover stability. There are a few that you could throw it out as a factor, but there were other factors as well, like trim failure, which in a automated helictoper would be disasterous, and in a piloted helicopter with autohover likely would have turned out exactly how it did. Yes, I would love to see somone buy the 500 type cert and remake it using modern tech. Or make something very similar using modern tech.

 

Keep in mind a core tennent of risk assessments is evaluating any proposed impovements to see if they have any risk trade offs. Almost all "improvements" do. It is the responsibility of the operator to determine if the result is still safer with the tradeoffs considered. Auto-hover hydraulics etc, all incrase weight, decrease power margin and add failure modes. To be a safety improvement you would have to say that the amount of accidents prevented would outweigh those caused. To me, both numbers would be so minute its a matter of subjectivity.

 

The reason the 500 is the bird of choice for this work is manifold.

It is dead nuts stable properly track and balanced. It has no computer to fail, hydraulics to fail in an energized environment. It has skids with a weight rating and a large CG envelope due to the rotorhead design. It has hardpoints at the vertical center of gravity that work well for wire pulling and as a class A external load attachpoint. It has STC'd class A external load attaach points. The pilot has the best view of his external load of any aircraft, even with short longlines. It has a small enough rotor diamater to be able to get right up close to the tower or wires, and it has had 49 years of refinements. Lastly its got the best crash survivability by far of any aircraft made.

 

Best equipment available. Within reason yeah. Show me I can get a measureable increase in safety by spending any reasonable amount and its a done deal.

 

Keeep in mind, the military and police are using a ton of equipment that is not approved for use on civilian aircraft. I got my eye on several "improvements" that are waiting on STCs.

 

As far different aircraft go, I dont think you could have a better safety record using any part 27 aircraft.

 

[iChris]

Chris, an auto hover would be nice, and reduce fatigue, but im not clear how it would work with the CG constantly shifting each time the lineman moves.

 

Would it reduce accidents, I doubt it. There is not one accident I know of in our industry that resulted from a failure of the pilot to hover stability. There are a few that you could throw it out as a factor, but there were other factors as well, like trim failure, which in a automated helictoper would be disasterous, and in a piloted helicopter with autohover likely would have turned out exactly how it did. Yes, I would love to see somone buy the 500 type cert and remake it using modern tech. Or make something very similar using modern tech.

 

Keep in mind a core tennent of risk assessments is evaluating any proposed impovements to see if they have any risk trade offs. Almost all "improvements" do. It is the responsibility of the operator to determine if the result is still safer with the tradeoffs considered. Auto-hover hydraulics etc, all incrase weight, decrease power margin and add failure modes. To be a safety improvement you would have to say that the amount of accidents prevented would outweigh those caused. To me, both numbers would be so minute its a matter of subjectivity.

 

The reason the 500 is the bird of choice for this work is manifold.

It is dead nuts stable properly track and balanced. It has no computer to fail, hydraulics to fail in an energized environment. It has skids with a weight rating and a large CG envelope due to the rotorhead design. It has hardpoints at the vertical center of gravity that work well for wire pulling and as a class A external load attachpoint. It has STC'd class A external load attaach points. The pilot has the best view of his external load of any aircraft, even with short longlines. It has a small enough rotor diamater to be able to get right up close to the tower or wires, and it has had 49 years of refinements. Lastly its got the best crash survivability by far of any aircraft made.

 

Best equipment available. Within reason yeah. Show me I can get a measureable increase in safety by spending any reasonable amount and its a done deal.

 

Keeep in mind, the military and police are using a ton of equipment that is not approved for use on civilian aircraft. I got my eye on several "improvements" that are waiting on STCs.

 

As far different aircraft go, I dont think you could have a better safety record using any part 27 aircraft.

 

 

Once again, go back and read and understand what I wrote. Separate the technology and how it can be applied to other situations. Never be resistant to change. I’m talking about using like technologies in a manned helicopter to enhance the pilot’s abilities under more demanding flight conditions.

 

We’re talking about going beyond what light helicopters (Like the MD500) currently do in the day to precision work at night, in low visibility, or even over water at night.

 

These new Stability Augmentation Systems will allow the pilot far more precision. In fact, without such systems that have the ability to stabilize the aircraft against those changing situations you’ll never reach those higher levels of precision or safety.

 

The MD500 is an excellent utility aircraft. It was an aircraft before its time. It set 23 world records for speed, altitude, distance, and climbing ability out of the box. It has since been proven by hundreds of thousands of hours of combat flying. Its excellence in crashworthiness is also unmatched.

 

This was never a post about any one helicopter, the MD500 or a knock on the 500. It started about long-line at night under NVG. Then it turned into how dangerous that would be, it shouldn’t be done at night, and it couldn’t be done at night. It was hung-up on the limits of NVG. There’s much more out there than that. I posted it could be done and we have the technology (Stability & Control Systems) to do it.

 

Past possibilities that have become reality for light helicopters.

 

Advanced Control System Increases Helicopter Safety

 

Vertical Magazine - Steady As She Goes

 

 

http://youtu.be/Kv6HZPmEvFU

 

http://youtu.be/3U_CU4UppgI

Edited December 22, 2012 by iChris

[500F]

Chris, as always your library of links is interesting and fitting.

The original question refered to powerline work spicifically (which is done almost exclusivly with 500s), at night. When you talk about system such as SAS that to my knowledge dont exist on 500s the topic has to become, could it be done safely if the industry changes aircraft, which I dont believe would help. The industries problems lay in training and maiteance.

 

I didnt say it could not be done, I've seen it done. But that doesnt make it safe.

[iChris]

When you talk about system such as SAS that to my knowledge dont exist on 500s the topic has to become, could it be done safely....

 

As a side note, back in the 80’s there was an old Collins two-axis system on the market. You can still find a few 500’s with that installation.

 

STC - Collins APS-841H automatic flight control system Installation (369D) (369E)

 

1981 MD 500D (converted to E) with Collins APS-841H Autopilot for Sale

 

Collins APS-841H Receives UK Certification

Edited December 25, 2012 by iChris

[adam32]

Word is that the Feds are pushing for a Type II NVG contract for this year...has anyone ever tried to dip a short hooked bucket or a donkey dick while using NVG's?

 

I'm thinking this is a disaster in the making...

 

LA County drops water at night, but they land in an open field and get filled by a truck.

 

Is a house really worth the extra risk to pilots and helicopters?