IR EVS should be standard...

[bnt83]

When I used too fly my old 1953 Commander with only lap belts and no headrest, I tried to find a way to get a full harness belt and seats in there with support for the head. Was impossible without developing your own STC, more or less. So in that case the certification requirements are a direct detriment to safety. There are obviously thousands of similar examples.

The purpose of the STC was to ensure that such installation actually did what is intended. Without such proof as working as intended, you may be selling/buying snake oil, or "feel good" solutions that ultimately didn't improve safety.

I have a letter from the an ACO back from 1998 where we requested if adding an "unapproved" AOA to a Cessna 206 could be done, and their reply was (summerized)

#1 The physical installation was minor
#2 It was not replacing any primary flight instrument
#3 It MUST be placarded "NOT TO BE USED AS PRIMARY REFERENCE"

That was it. Much like the STC's for the EI fuel flow/totalizers say directly in their STC's, (cannot be used as primary instrument)

http://buy-ei.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/STC-AML-FP-5L.pdf

 

[bnt83]

In my opinion, the owners and operators who constantly spew "We can't do this because of FAA..." nonsense are part of the problem. Often they base such positions on hearsay, no real knowlege of process rules or regulations that govern part 43.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I got chewed out the other month when I was landing from a Matrix pilot who checked in with tower:

Pilot: Is a Commander N11XX landing there?
Tower: Yes, he's on short final.
Pilot: Well, tell him to monitor the common advisory frequency next time, he almost hit us.

Apparently I was close enough for him to be able to read my reg number. I never saw him. But I wish I'd had ADS-B/TCAS or some other system telling me where the bogies are. So I welcome the ADS-B implementation and the new technology.

Those systems are available for install now. Why are you delaying?

 

[bnt83]

Those systems are available for install now. Why are you delaying?

Because he wants cutting edge systems without the bleeding edge risks.


My work STC'ed a system FANS a/1 compliant recently, all ready to go, then the FAA changed some standard so now our STC is FANSa/1 "provisions". I'm not certain of all the details but it was going to be relatively minor compared to the original STC effort.

 

[denverpilot]

Again, Aviation Decision Making and Risk Management.



They made the decision to take a single engine airplane over this route. They knew the weather.



Loading the cockpit with gadgets doesn't replace ADM or RM.

They also chose not to buy the gadget, too. They're available if you have the cash.

 

[Henning]

Had they just invested in the SVT technology currently available they may have made it, the terrain database is damned accurate. It cost enough to make, they radar mapped the entire planet with the Space Shuttle.

 

[Henning]

Technology is the only thing (except stopping to fly completely) that can improve safety. It's all very well saying it was bad planning and "he should have thought of that before", but it is entirely possible, today, to make flight much safer so I find this attitude a little worrying. Why should we deny people that? Why is it better they die just to satisfy our armchair conservatism?

In 100 years time all these SVS, IR, HUDs, AOA's etc things will be standard and then some. And flying will be safer. We should embrace that, chaperon it and bring it on, at least in attitude.

In 100 years time planes will be autonomous, that is if our species survives the next 100 years.

 

[Henning]

FLIR while nice has its own limitations in a monothermic environment. If everything is the same temperature, everything is the same tone.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Technology is the only thing (except stopping to fly completely) that can improve safety. It's all very well saying it was bad planning and "he should have thought of that before", but it is entirely possible, today, to make flight much safer so I find this attitude a little worrying. Why should we deny people that? Why is it better they die just to satisfy our armchair conservatism?

In 100 years time all these SVS, IR, HUDs, AOA's etc things will be standard and then some. And flying will be safer. We should embrace that, chaperon it and bring it on, at least in attitude.

No.

Here is your major problem with GA safety, the pilot. Once a rating is obtained (to a minimum standard) the pilot no longer has to be subjected to any additional training nor does he have to follow any standards.

The BFR is a bare minimum and as everyone knows most BFR's are signed off by friends or someone who will put little effort in any constructive teaching or critiquing. The average GA pilot doesn't have to be concerned with recurrent training and check rides to keep his/her privileges.

Instrument competency? There again, no recurrent training, no standards. Staying "current"? Flying into an airport on a MVFR day and "fly the approach", log it and move on.

No additional training on Aviation Decision Making or Risk Management, only if the pilot cares to pursue it.

Put all of the gadgets you want in the airplane, it will not make the average GA pilot any safer. Aviation Safety is a mindset and not for those who only choose the minimum standards.

Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[Dr. O]

Thread drift - as usual.
Back to the topic - Flying is a risky business:

Single engine is risky.
Single engine over hostile terrain is risky.
Night flight is risky.
Flight into known or suspected icing is way beyond risky.

Combine them and you are playing Russian Roulette with four in the cylinder.
That some people do it and live does not change the risk level.
This pilot had no business taking anyone with him on that flight.
I would not have made that flight under those circumstances - no way.

Now on to the issue of equipment.
The ELT is only for the convenience of body recovery teams No ELT has ever prevented a crash. No ELT has ever stopped a pilot from having his internal organs ripped loose upon impact.
FLIR and night vision glasses are nice and all. I would not turn them down. I would not expect them to do anything given the terrain/weather of this crash.

He either iced up and spun in (my guess) or the engine went bang.
In either case panic in the cabin makes it unlikely that the vision equipment would have been used.

I'm with Ron on this one. The broken link in the chain of causation started when the engine started.

denny-o

 

[RV10flyer]

Had they just invested in the SVT technology currently available they may have made it, the terrain database is damned accurate. It cost enough to make, they radar mapped the entire planet with the Space Shuttle.

At least 80% of the planet(60+ deg).

 

[stratobee]

Those systems are available for install now. Why are you delaying?

Oh, I will. As soon as I do the new panel. Won't do the EVS thing because it's too expensive now, but it'll come down hopefully. Bottom line - if I was legally able to, I'd build my own damn system. You can get a FLIR camera at B&H for not much, and an IR camera for peanuts. $100 will buy you an IR camera with a monitor.

 

[bnt83]

Bottom line - if I was legally able to, I'd build my own damn system. You can get a FLIR camera at B&H for not much, and an IR camera for peanuts. $100 will buy you an IR camera with a monitor.

What is stopping you? Other than your attitude. You have yet to produce a credible answer.


You will likely need approval of the structural installation of the camera itself, which may be fairly easy depending on where you put it.

If there are any documents that show altitude testing of these units to the service celling of the airplane then the electrical aspects of atitude effects are taken care of.

EMI/RFI testing can all be done one the ground using AC's that already exist.

The BOTTOM line - you don't want to put the effort into doing it, instead default to an already approved system that is currently out of your price range.

 

[Dav8or]

You can get a FLIR camera at B&H for not much, and an IR camera for peanuts. $100 will buy you an IR camera with a monitor.

There you go. People are putting Go Pro cameras all over their airplanes without STCs and little government interference, so just substitute the Go Pro with a FLIR camera and then route it to your iPad. Problem solved.

 

[stratobee]

You got me there Brian. I'd much rather have someone else go through the headaches of developing it and then sell it to me for a pittance. ..

Joking aside, the FLIR E60 would be a great candidate. It's portable, it has a zoom, and it has MSX technology which combines the images of the pure heat sensitive camera with an visible light camera, making a compound image that's easy to read. Not only that, it has an iPad app that wirelessly transmits the image to the iPad! So, now all you need is a way to attach the damn thing on top of the dashboard, have it send the image to the iPad so you can watch it in full screen and you're good to go. Since it's portable, there shouldn't be any need for approvals.

http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/en/view/?id=41372

Does anyone know if FLIR sees through clouds? I know IR doesn't.

 

[Henning]

Does anyone know if FLIR sees through clouds? I know IR doesn't.

It depends on the moisture content of the cloud and the temperature differential of what is behind. If you are hoping to be able to see the runway from any kind of distance in bad weather, you will be sorely disappointed, especially with one of these small cheap units.

As I said earlier, these things measure temperature differential, if there is no differential, there is no picture. I had a high dollar FLIR on the boat in Indonesia where the water is in the 90° range and the fishermen paddle their wood canoes around with no motors by the tens of thousands. The only reason I could see them even at 1/4 mile is because they all smoke and the cherry of their cig would show. At 100' I might see a shadow of them on the FLIR.

Runways on land should give you a better differential, but if the clouds are high in moisture, they will attenuate the heat rapidly. On a clear night, yeah, it works pretty good out to a couple miles (the $24,000 unit that you need a clearance from DOD and State to be able to buy and take out of the country, I don't know about this handheld), but in the conditions where you really want it, it's probably not going to show anything until you are on short, short final.

If I was using just one iPad and didn't have glass SVT in the panel, I would have the iPad on WingX Pro displaying the SVT rather than a FLIR unit if I was using it for situational awareness in really crap weather.

 

[stratobee]

On second thoughts it probably won't be able to see through the front window as that's a thermal barrier. It probably needs to be mounted outside.

 

[Henning]

On second thoughts it probably won't be able to see through the front window as that's a thermal barrier. It probably needs to be mounted outside.

Kinda, as long as the wavelengths make it through it will work, it all depends on the attenuation level. It's not measuring heat per se, it's reading the radiation that those temperatures produce.

Think of it kind of like RADAR, radar can see through a lot of things, but once you scatter enough of the radiation, you get nothing. FLIR just happens to work on the opposite end of the visible light spectrum and uses radiation from other sources rather than internally.

 

[darrell]

FLIR doesn't work through clouds or glass, although it should see through plexiglass just fine.

 

[Henning]

FLIR doesn't work through clouds or glass, although it should see through plexiglass just fine.

FLIR cameras have glass in front of the CCD type device and see through fog and thin clouds reasonably well. When you get to clouds about to precipitate is when they go to blank screen.

 

[Dav8or]

FLIR cameras have glass in front of the CCD type device and see through fog and thin clouds reasonably well. When you get to clouds about to precipitate is when they go to blank screen.

IIRC, the expensive certified units have the camera in a housing that is sealed in a vacuum to reduce false readings.

 

[darrell]

FLIR cameras have glass in front of the CCD type device

I'm talking about "normal" glass windows, FLIR can't see through those. The lenses and protective sheets used in the lenses and on the pods isn't "glass" in the typical sense of the word.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

That might be the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. No matter what technology we give people you can't fix stupid. Just look at the automotive industry.

I have 4WD and ABS, I can drive crazier in the winter.
I have an airbag, I can tailgate closer.
I have side airbags, I can run red lights.
and the list goes on...

You can give an idiot all the technology in the world, he's still an idiot.

IR is nice but in the high humidity/icing environment they are nearly useless. We had IR viewers on the HU-25 and clouds and rain blinded them.

 

[Sluggo63]

Because looking outside has historically worked sooooo well. Remember there was a time before all the "gadgets" and "TVs" when the only distraction inside the cockpit was your passengers? Well, back in those "good ol' days" aircraft used to bump into one another frequently. Looking outside is required and still the best anti collision system we have, but quite frankly, that's not saying a whole lot. See and avoid sucks.

The sort of uber conservative "Luddite" mentality of many pilots today really discourages me. If it were up to them, shoulder belts, wing tip strobes, stall warning horns and all kinds of things we take for granted now never would have been invented. IMO, good enough never really is.

Flying at night? SVT and a FLIR system would significantly improve your chances of surviving the off field forced landing. I say bring on the tech. I say let new avionics be as they are in the E/AB category for everyone so that affordable prices mean wider spread adoption of the tech. I say do not bring the mandates. If the system has merit and value, the owners will voluntarily adopt just as they have with shoulder belts, GPS, glass panels, traffic systems, 406 ELTs, etc.

Looks nice, but I sure wouldn't get that ap and then think I'm safe at night or in hard IMC. I am one of those crazy guys that thinks that night and hard IMC should be avoided in single engine piston planes. If you're one of the many that do a lot of night and IMC flying and believe that all is well because "these engines are pretty much bullet proof" and "the engine doesn't know the difference" and "my super, above average pilot skills will save me", then yes. Get the ap. It's better than what you have now by a long shot and actually gives you a chance of utilizing those amazing pilot skills.

I don't get it. It almost seems like these two quotes from you are diametrically opposed. In the first you seem to be extolling the virtues of technology in flying (I agree with you), and the next, you seem to poo-poo the idea of that app being able to lessen (not eliminate) the risk of single-engine night or IFR flight.

I have no "super, above average pilot skills" so I have to use my average skills and some risk-mitigation techniques to get me safely from Point A to Point B.

Do I understand there is risk flying SE night? Sure. SE IMC... absolutely. Do I take that into account when planning my flight. Of course.

Do you never fly SE at night or IMC? That's fine if you determine that the increased risk is above your threshold. Sometimes it's above mine. Sometimes, after looking at all the factors, I think the risk is acceptable and I complete the flight. That's why we as PICs get to make those decisions.

 

[Dav8or]

I don't get it. It almost seems like these two quotes from you are diametrically opposed. In the first you seem to be extolling the virtues of technology in flying (I agree with you), and the next, you seem to poo-poo the idea of that app being able to lessen (not eliminate) the risk of single-engine night or IFR flight.

I have no "super, above average pilot skills" so I have to use my average skills and some risk-mitigation techniques to get me safely from Point A to Point B.

Do I understand there is risk flying SE night? Sure. SE IMC... absolutely. Do I take that into account when planning my flight. Of course.

Do you never fly SE at night or IMC? That's fine if you determine that the increased risk is above your threshold. Sometimes it's above mine. Sometimes, after looking at all the factors, I think the risk is acceptable and I complete the flight. That's why we as PICs get to make those decisions.

Basically I'm saying, I don't trust the iPad to be true aviation hardware. I trust it to be highly useful for informational purposes only. I don't use it for navigation and I wouldn't start flying through clouds and at night using that ap. In other words, I wouldn't down load that ap and then feel safe to go fly night and IMC.

I don't plan any flights for night anymore. I have occasionally made it home late and conclude in the dark, but I don't plan for it. I no longer am IFR current, but if were to ever get an IPC, I would limit my IMC to high ceilings and of course steer well clear of any icing. I no longer would try to shoot approaches to minimums. I don't need to be anywhere at any particular time and I refuse to try to run a personal airline.

If better, more solid technology were installed in my plane, like real FLIR and the SVT, I would reconsider my avoidance of night and low IMC to a degree, but you still have to consider the detail and accuracy of what these systems are showing you. I expect that the tech will just get better and better and I can't wait!

Like I said above, if you are one of many who believe there isn't that much risk flying at night, then yes, get the ap. It is much better than nothing. I'm not against iPad aps, in fact I think it's awesome, but at some point when they start marketing SVT and AI, I think they might be over stepping the bounds of the technology and giving people false security.