FLIR for the Common Man

Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Honeck
Not long ago, I started a thread about wanting to put an infrared camera in our RV-8 -- basically a poor man's FLIR. Aside from just being neat, it's hard to imagine a better aircraft safety enhancement than an instrument that can turn night into day.

As always, the usual group of naysayers came off their rockers to dispel the notion as "too expensive", "not effective", or (my favorite) another "toy in the cockpit to substitute for flying skill".

And now...here it is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...7860?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Amazingly, the technology is now being demonstrated in a cell phone camera! It certainly can't be long before some intrepid homebuilder adapts this technology to the cockpit, bringing true FLIR capabilities to the common man.

We live in amazing times. Just three years ago, the tablet I use in the cockpit every day was Star Trek stuff... :D
 
Getting there, price is still very high (I was pricing some FLIR equipped tools within the month) and the range of these small "cheap" devices is still extremely limited, "spotting" a person at 300yards still leaves a lot to be desired.
 
[tease]

Overhead breaks, working the pattern NORDO, and now you want to do your pattern work at night with no lights?

Sheesh... you experimental guys are another breed altogether

[/tease]
 
Yep, Popular Mechanics.

Great source there.

Those are the same guys that brought you the flying car .... in 1957. That worked out real good, right?

That magazine has always been good for lining birdcages, but not a whole lot more.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yep, Popular Mechanics.

Great source there.

Those are the same guys that brought you the flying car .... in 1957. That worked out real good, right?

That magazine has always been good for lining birdcages, but not a whole lot more.
Click to expand...

And....as if on cue... :D :):D
 
Has application for helping shoot an instrument approach or not hitting a mountain at night. My current instruments and a little preflight planning are more than enough to cover both contingencies. It's a neat gadget but it is far from being something essential.
 
Velocity173 said:
Has application for helping shoot an instrument approach or not hitting a mountain at night. My current instruments and a little preflight planning are more than enough to cover both contingencies. It's a neat gadget but it is far from being something essential.
Click to expand...

I have flown for 19 years without ever needing a VOR, an ADF, or a glideslope indicator. I would have traded ALL of that junk in my panel for a good FLIR displayed on a 1080p screen.

Sadly, the FAA made that impossible. Not anymore! :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
And....as if on cue... :D :):D
Click to expand...

There is a real fine line between a "visionary" and a "crackpot."

Given that you are ignoring range issues, the idea of using this thing in the pattern is very, very VERY squarely in the latter category.

You might be able to use it to avoid running into a stairway bannister. But a mountain? No. Not even close.

IR does not have unlimited range. The AIR (well, more specifically, the water vapor it contains) glows in thermal IR. There is a reason we put our telescope in a 747 rather than out on the lawn. Now, let's try to imagine what the pattern or terrain avoidance is like with 1 mile visibility.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the technology works they will be scarce for civilians. Every cop on the beat will want one.
 
I can purchase and install a FLIR unit to display on my GRT HX displays today apparently.
FLIR for GRT

I'm actually interested given that I've already killed one deer on the home 'port..
 
Wouldn't it be far cheaper to make your cockpit NVG-compatible and buy a set of goggles?

Bonus: You have a legitimate reason to wear a helmet!
 
MAKG1 said:
There is a real fine line between a "visionary" and a "crackpot." ... the idea of using this thing in the pattern is very, very VERY squarely in the latter category.
Click to expand...

Yep. They'll never be practical or useful for anything involving transportation.
Wait, what? http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-bmw-vs-mercedes-benz-vs-audi-comparison-test

Are there limitations currently? Yes.
Does adoption by car companies and the pace of technological advancement tell me that more advanced systems will be available soon, and at reasonable price points? Yes.

IR does not have unlimited range. ... Now, let's try to imagine what the pattern or terrain avoidance is like with 1 mile visibility.
Click to expand...
Ao I guess the IR system I used in a police helicopter was a figment of my imagination. And the systems the military uses to drop a bomb on a mouse from 20,000 feet are using some magical pixie targeting dust.
And what is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4miHW5bjak

Yeah. Not possible at all. Jay, you're a crackpot.
 
Last edited:
PilotAlan said:
Yep. They'll never be practical or useful for anything involving transportation.
Wait, what? http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-bmw-vs-mercedes-benz-vs-audi-comparison-test

Are there limitations currently? Yes.
Does adoption by car companies and the pace of technological advancement tell me that more advanced systems will be available soon, and at reasonable price points? Yes.


Ao I guess the IR system I used in a police helicopter was a figment of my imagination. And the systems the military uses to drop a bomb on a mouse from 20,000 feet are using some magical pixie targeting dust.
And what is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4miHW5bjak

Yeah. Not possible at all. Jay, you're a crackpot.
Click to expand...

Big difference in the equipment you used versus what Jay is proposing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Big difference in the equipment you used versus what Jay is proposing.
Click to expand...

Jay's not *proposing* anything. He's making a point that technology is advancing, and things will be available that we cannot imagine being possible.

Further, MAKG called him a crackpot for even thinking such a thing, and that IR can't travel that far. Clearly, that's not correct.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yep, Popular Mechanics.

Great source there.

Those are the same guys that brought you the flying car .... in 1957. That worked out real good, right?

That magazine has always been good for lining birdcages, but not a whole lot more.
Click to expand...

Those ***damn xray vision goggles did not work when I was 13.
 
PilotAlan said:
Jay's not *proposing* anything. He's making a point that technology is advancing, and things will be available that we cannot imagine being possible.

Further, MAKG called him a crackpot for even thinking such a thing, and that IR can't travel that far. Clearly, that's not correct.
Click to expand...

From the C & D article:

"As we discovered, night vision makes an awful substitute for transparent glass and a regular old pair of eyeballs."

"Adding another layer of  visual information is not necessarily a boon to night driving, certainly  when that information is presented in a different location from the images you see through the windshield. It is potentially a significant distraction, which can diminish, not improve, your awareness during night driving."

Like I said, if you do a bunch of nighttime flying or low IFR approaches, it'll be a slight benefit. Outside of that, an expensive gadget that won't get much use.
 
I think the problem lies in the equipment.Not sure the equipment would work in the cockpit,as the infrared doesn't usually work through glass or water.From what I understand that is why flir is mounted outside the cockpit.Im with Jay anything that makes flying safer should be considered,I can remember when we used a whiskey compass and no headset .now I love my GPS.
 
It will get there but we are still quite a ways away from off the shelf consumer level equipment that will look like this
1_SUAS_FLIR_thermal_imaging_camera_1.jpg


(That is a $15,000 unit)
 
I started flying FLIR first gen PINVS in an AH-64A in 1988. I can tell you that it sucked compared to what is out there today. Low level clouds and fog no problem unless your at FLIR crossover. Goggles are perhaps better but you cannot transition from goggles to naked eye like you can FLIR. In the early days because of the limitations we would often fly mixed in the cockpit. Frontseat copilot in Goggles and PIC in the back on FLIR. We had the advantage of the sensor being 13 ft in front of the pilot station and with the IHAD's you were able to look through the floor. Possibly the hardest mind game was that fact, after transitioning from AH-1's and pure Goggles.

Don't discount FLIR it takes marginal/special VFR and makes it easy to get home in a pinch. On an ILS you would break out way before the naked eye.

FYI Jay is not a Crackpot...You need a reality check.
 
Last edited:
Here is another crackpot idea, display the FLIR image in the new Google eyeglass. When you don't need FLIR, it could be used as a regular HUD.
 
PilotAlan said:
Yep. They'll never be practical or useful for anything involving transportation.
Wait, what? http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-bmw-vs-mercedes-benz-vs-audi-comparison-test

Are there limitations currently? Yes.
Does adoption by car companies and the pace of technological advancement tell me that more advanced systems will be available soon, and at reasonable price points? Yes.


Ao I guess the IR system I used in a police helicopter was a figment of my imagination. And the systems the military uses to drop a bomb on a mouse from 20,000 feet are using some magical pixie targeting dust.
And what is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4miHW5bjak

Yeah. Not possible at all. Jay, you're a crackpot.
Click to expand...
I had one of these systems in my 2008 mercedes. It was a fun gimmick but it did absolutely nothing to make driving safer. In the future these systems I think will have some application, but I think it may be on the order of the SVT for the G1000 for some considerable amount of time. Nice to have but I have much better things to blow $10,000(or whatever 1000's of dollars) on.
 
When the patents expire, everyone will have cheap Chinese FLIR. No worries.
 
denverpilot said:
When the patents expire, everyone will have cheap Chinese FLIR. No worries.
Click to expand...

When did the Chinese wait for a patent to expire before they saturated the market with their "new and improved' models ???:dunno:;)
 
darrell said:
Wouldn't it be far cheaper to make your cockpit NVG-compatible and buy a set of goggles?

Bonus: You have a legitimate reason to wear a helmet!
Click to expand...

Actually what he wants is synthetic vision and he can buy it today.

Flying NORDO (this from the man who berated the glider pilots for not making traffic calls at Iowa City).
 
I do think there's some potential benefits to the technology, especially once it advances to where it can be affordable and reasonable. I agree we aren't there yet, but will be in a few years.

I'd envision the best implementation as similar to synthetic vision. Doesn't Cirrus offer some option for this?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I do think there's some potential benefits to the technology, especially once it advances to where it can be affordable and reasonable. I agree we aren't there yet, but will be in a few years.

I'd envision the best implementation as similar to synthetic vision. Doesn't Cirrus offer some option for this?
Click to expand...

Cirrus offers the EVS system as an option.

I like this FLIR video the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFGUitnBxv4
 
Jay is absolutely correct, the rise of 21st century technology is utterly breathtaking. I can only imagine the kinds of amazing instruments I'll be able to put in my airplane once I'm too damned old to fly it.
 
steingar said:
Jay is absolutely correct, the rise of 21st century technology is utterly breathtaking. I can only imagine the kinds of amazing instruments I'll be able to put in my airplane once I'm too damned old to fly it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I suspect you'll be about as likely to put them in as you have been to put the currently available instruments in.
 
PilotAlan said:
Jay's not *proposing* anything. He's making a point that technology is advancing, and things will be available that we cannot imagine being possible.

Further, MAKG called him a crackpot for even thinking such a thing, and that IR can't travel that far. Clearly, that's not correct.
Click to expand...

Ever taken a look at "clear" plexiglass with an IR camera?

Ever try to get 3D awareness from any camera?

Jay is saying technology is magic, nothing more nor less.

No, it's never going to be a meaningful Android app either.

You can either fantasize about nonexistent X-ray vision, or you can fly a plane that really exists. Guess which I choose.
 
flyingron said:
Actually what he wants is synthetic vision and he can buy it today.

Flying NORDO (this from the man who berated the glider pilots for not making traffic calls at Iowa City).
Click to expand...

WTF? I NEVER fly NORDO into an airfield. Never have, never will.

It's one of the dumbest things a pilot can do. IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Perezhr said:
Here is another crackpot idea, display the FLIR image in the new Google eyeglass. When you don't need FLIR, it could be used as a regular HUD.
Click to expand...

That will be fantastic.

I think Google Glass will change EVERYTHING in the cockpit. No more $20K glass panels -- everything projected into your eye!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is a neat feature. I could see it being especially useful in a 2-pilot environment where one could monitor the video game and the other do the traditional flying.
Click to expand...

That is the challenge. I thought about putting one in, but the only scenario I can see it being useful for my flying was in an engine out scenario over an unpopulated area at night. Then I wondered if I could really try and land looking at the screen over on the right until the last couple of seconds when the lights reach the ground.

Before I spent that kind of money I would like to go out and fly with one at night practicing that very scenario. Of course just practicing that could be really dangerous if you got low enough to make the FLIR useful.
 
Alexb2000 said:
That is the challenge. I thought about putting one in, but the only scenario I can see it being useful for my flying was in an engine out scenario over an unpopulated area at night. Then I wondered if I could really try and land looking at the screen over on the right until the last couple of seconds when the lights reach the ground.

Before I spent that kind of money I would like to go out and fly with one at night practicing that very scenario. Of course just practicing that could be really dangerous if you got low enough to make the FLIR useful.
Click to expand...

The general TAWS/Synthetic Vision with terrain warnings seems like it would provide most of the real benefit. Get told "Hey stupid, you're about to hit something."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The general TAWS/Synthetic Vision with terrain warnings seems like it would provide most of the real benefit. Get told "Hey stupid, you're about to hit something."
Click to expand...

Got it, use it, love it.

I'm thinking about having to differentiate between open ground and a pine forrest in dark night conditions. Or avoid a power line, or ???? That's where I see the benefit of FLIR vs. SVT. Synthetic vision does depict water and over certain terrain like heavy tall forrest I've considered using water in an emergency vs. something worse. With FLIR you might have even better options like a field.

I just had an oil pressure control spring go out on me. It happened in daylight, but suddenly having low oil pressure over a very unpopulated area was un-nerving. If it was night... well that would really get your attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top