IR EVS should be standard...

stratobee

stratobee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
1,112
Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
I was thinking about those poor souls in that Bonanza that lost an engine some week ago over Johnson Creek airport, in icing and bad wx and the tail end of daylight... Having flown into Johnson Creek in the summer, I could not think of a worse place to have that happen. Literally surrounded by giant mountains and unlit. They still haven't found them. Anyway, an IR EVS camera would have turned a sure death scenario into something with at least a semblance of a chance. Add this to the AOA equipment as something I think should be standard in all touring aircraft.

Rockwell are testing out a combined synthetic vision and IR EVS and HUD system that looks great, but we all know that's gonna cost more to install than Pablo Escobar ever stashed away. I heard something like $200K…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6kKdwu6ss0&feature=youtu.be

The sad thing is that this technology is actually dirt cheap and readily available. Every single digital camera you have, or your phone, has an IR camera in it. CMOS and CCD sensors are naturally IR sensitive, so what they do is they put a filter in front of the sensor to block IR light and only let visible light through. The internet is full of hacks on how to remove this and the results are great and in glorious HD. So, it's literally a technology we all could have access to for less than $100. But we all know that's never going to happen at that price. And unfortunately more pilots will needlessly pay with their lives...:(
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
I was thinking about those poor souls in that Bonanza that lost an engine some week ago over Johnson Creek airport, in icing and bad wx and the tail end of daylight... Having flown into Johnson Creek in the summer, I could not think of a worse place to have that happen. Literally surrounded by giant mountains and unlit. They still haven't found them. Anyway, an IR EVS camera would have turned a sure death scenario into something with at least a semblance of a chance. Add this to the AOA equipment as something I think should be standard in all touring aircraft.

Rockwell are testing out a combined synthetic vision and IR EVS and HUD system that looks great, but we all know that's gonna cost more to install than Pablo Escobar ever stashed away. I heard something like $200K…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6kKdwu6ss0&feature=youtu.be

The sad thing is that this technology is dirt cheap. Every single digital camera you have, or your phone, has an IR camera in it. CMOS and CCD sensors are naturally IR sensitive, but what they do is they put a filter in front of the sensor to block IR light and only let visible light through. The internet is full of hacks on how to remove this and the results are great and in glorious HD. So, it's literally a technology we all could have access to for less than $100. But we all know that's never going to happen at that price. And unfortunately more pilots will needlessly pay with their lives...:(
Click to expand...


How about pilots making better preflight decisions?
 
Sure, but why not get all the help you can get. Also, the engine quit. We'll never know if that was due to ice or something else.
 
stratobee said:
Sure, but why not get all the help you can get. Also, the engine quit. We'll never know if that was due to ice or something else.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
How about outlawing single-engine airplanes, and prohibiting flight over terrain above the single-engine service ceiling? Or making IFR qualification a requirement for even a Private Pilot ticket?

As they say in Latin, reduction ad absurdum.
 
Ron Levy said:
How about outlawing single-engine airplanes, and prohibiting flight over terrain above the single-engine service ceiling? Or making IFR qualification a requirement for even a Private Pilot ticket?

As they say in Latin, reduction ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

might as well. If you can't afford all that protection, you shouldn't be flying...
 
RotorAndWing said:
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.
Click to expand...
THIS!

All those Ipads didn't help the driver of the fully loaded Stinson last summer in Wyoming.....who flew a good 2 minutes before he gave up in the tress....
 
stratobee said:
The sad thing is that this technology is actually dirt cheap and readily available. Every single digital camera you have, or your phone, has an IR camera in it. CMOS and CCD sensors are naturally IR sensitive, so what they do is they put a filter in front of the sensor to block IR light and only let visible light through. The internet is full of hacks on how to remove this and the results are great and in glorious HD. So, it's literally a technology we all could have access to for less than $100. But we all know that's never going to happen at that price. And unfortunately more pilots will needlessly pay with their lives...:(
Click to expand...

This isn't quite right. CMOS and CCDs are naturally sensitive to "Near" IR, that is infrared radiation with relatively short wavelengths, close to the visible spectrum. But that isn't much help for seeing in the dark or through clouds. It is sometimes used in security CCTV cameras to see at night, but only when the camera is equipped by an infrared floodlight, which would of course be unusable at the ranges relevant to aviation.

For an effective enhanced vision system, you need a camera that is sensitive to the longer-wave infrared radiation that objects naturally emit due to their temperature. A $100 camera is not going to cut it for that - you're looking at something more like a $2k-10k FLIR system. Still vastly less than the $200k range that's being discussed for a certified EVS.
 
Just install a radar altimeter, change out your cockpit lighting to be NVG-compatible, put some NVG-filters over your white light instruments, and get some NVG's. I would argue that's far better than a fixed-forward FLIR system.
 
darrell said:
Just install a radar altimeter, change out your cockpit lighting to be NVG-compatible, put some NVG-filters over your white light instruments, and get some NVG's. I would argue that's far better than a fixed-forward FLIR system.
Click to expand...

Our Blackhawks when I was in and many EMS heli guys now have this setup. We still had many NVG accidents in the Army. Had a medevac in Ky and Tn crash in the last year.
 
I have EVS in my plane. I don't find it particularly useful. Sometimes at night it's nice to see where the clouds are but in this scenario, I can't see how it would make a difference in the outcome. Rotor&Wing is right, the outcome of this accident was determined prior to engine start. This part of Idaho is some of the most inhospitable terrain in the lower 48. Even if this plane had landed safely, temps at the time of the accident were low to negative F. Rescue in this terrain would take days at best. You would need some incredible survival skills and equipment to stay alive. Flying over this terrain in winter is incredibly risky. My heart goes out to the friends and relatives of these passengers. If something can be learned from this accident, aside from understanding weather related risks, it is to never fly over someplace you are not prepared and willing to spend two nights waiting for a rescue in a piston plane. This particular area of the country should be treated with extra caution in the winter. It's worth the detour to avoid the fly over.
 
RV10flyer said:
Our Blackhawks when I was in and many EMS heli guys now have this setup. We still had many NVG accidents in the Army. Had a medevac in Ky and Tn crash in the last year.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying NVG's prevent accidents, I'm saying they are better at preventing accidents than a fixed-forward FLIR, which is what most (all?) commercial, civilian EVS systems are.

In other words, would any of the NVG accidents have turned out differently if you would have taken away their NVG's and replaced them with a fixed forward FLIR? I seriously doubt it, I'd think it would have resulted in MORE accidents.
 
No technology can overcome people that exibit poor decision making skills. With that said, technology can help you make better decisions when used properly. Technology does not have to be expensive either to be useful. The terrain database in WingX along with its synthetic vision are great preflight and in flight tools to help you make better flight plans for flying in and around airports with obstacles and terrain, especially when the ceiling is less than desirable. One of my brothers lives in the north Georgia mountains near 1A3 and my other brother has a second home near 1A5 which is surrounded by mountains. I love having the WingX terrain overlay on my charts along with the synth vision when flying around there.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Big difference between embracing a technology and forcing it down everyone's throats. But hey, if you're buying, I'll take one!
 
darrell said:
Big difference between embracing a technology and forcing it down everyone's throats. But hey, if you're buying, I'll take one!
Click to expand...


How many are still flying without a 406ELT?
 
Quite a few, I'm sure, but should 406MHz be required by law? I agree with AOPA's stance in the issue:

AOPA said:
AOPA's position

AOPA opposes any attempt to mandate or otherwise require the replacement of existing 121.5/243-MHz ELTs with 406-MHz units. AOPA recognizes the benefits that can be derived from the advanced ELTs available today. However, the benefits of advanced ELTs must be balanced against cost and the needs of the individual aircraft owner. AOPA supports the installation of these more advanced ELTs on a voluntary basis. General aviation is an industry already struggling under the weight of increased regulation and mandated equipage, and the decisions to replace an existing ELT should be left to the discretion of the aircraft owner. The association supports the education of pilots and aircraft owners as to the limits of 121.5/243-MHz ELTs and the benefits of 406-MHz units.
Click to expand...

Just replace "ELT" with "EVS" and I would agree with that, too.
 
stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't say technology is the only thing. It can help make an inexperienced pilot a little safer but it can't replace sound decision making and proper planning. What technology does a lot of times is make a lazy pilot fly in conditions they shouldn't be in. It can also make them soo reliant on technology, that when it fails, they can't adapt.


If you're over hostile terrain either at night or in bad wx, SVT & FLIR are telling you what you already know; you can't land down there. Looking through SVT or a fixed FLIR isn't going to be of much help in finding an open field to land either. NVGs will but then again I'm not going to see the wires guarding that field until its too late.

I won't debate the fact this type of technology helps. I fly NVGs with SVT every night but to say that this stuff is a necessecity would be a stretch. They're just bells and whistles that allow me to do the job more efficiently but won't save me if something catastrophic happens. Now, take away my GPS and we have problems. :)
 
darrell said:
Quite a few, I'm sure, but should 406MHz be required by law? I agree with AOPA's stance in the issue:



Just replace "ELT" with "EVS" and I would agree with that, too.
Click to expand...


Indeed.
 
Most of the corperate world is already ADS-B comnpliant and working daily to get those who aren't. How many GA aircraft have yet to meet the 2020 requirements?


The GA fleet is essentially behind 2 new standards. 406ELT and the ADS-B. Not to mention how many lack GPS.


The sleeping airplanes will remain undisturbed the next decade.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But, between 1950 and 2012, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. fell from 7.24 to 1.14. (Source) I dare say that this dramatic change is almost all due to improvements in technology, in the form of better-designed cars and roads, many of these improvements mandated by the government. Certainly, people in 1950 were not 6 times more likely to be idiots than they are today (though drunk driving was probably more common), but they were 6 times more likely to die every mile they drove.

Maybe some of the benefit of improved safety technology is negated by people taking greater risks, but the net improvement in driving safety is hard to dispute.
 
How many airplanes have decent shoulder harnesses? How many pilots wear them all the time? I think the single biggest fix in automotive safety came from the inclusion of more/better seat belts, and the fact that these days, nearly everybody wears them.
 
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.
 
stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure the equipment in the thread title would have made any difference in that case. I believe the Matrix is equipped with most of the traffic stuff available now days.
 
stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...

I only monitor app then tower freq. So, what other freq were you req to be on?
 
Last night I flew 4 hours mostly at night in the Southern Rockies. Looking down into pitch black valleys had me considering the value of some form of enhanced vision. Especially in areas without any signs of civilization. I have SVT and it is a great tool but just like anything it has its limitations. Especially when it comes to trees vs. no trees, big rocks vs. fields. In the above conditions in an emergency I would have probably landed on the top of one of the flatter mountains. Why? Because we had a full moon and although there was a high layer of overcast the light reflected off the snow on the mountain tops and gave a pretty good view of the terrain, trees, etc. Sort of natures EVS.
 
RV10flyer said:
I only monitor app then tower freq. So, what other freq were you req to be on?
Click to expand...

There's a common advisory freq over LA where you're supposed to give position reports. It's only a recommendation, but is not a bad idea. I just had such a short repositioning flight I didn't jump on it this time.
 
stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does that help with non-transponder equipped aircraft? Here's an idea, instead of looking at all your fancy crap in the panel while VFR, look outside!
 
EdFred said:
How does that help with non-transponder equipped aircraft? Here's an idea, instead of looking at all your fancy crap in the panel while VFR, look outside!
Click to expand...


That would make sense. Instead we need another gadget (ADS-b to distract more VFR pilots from what's going outside.
 
Has anybody looked at or used Xavion?

http://xavion.com/

Seems like a pretty good solution for night/IMC single-engine flying as a backup.
 
EdFred said:
How does that help with non-transponder equipped aircraft? Here's an idea, instead of looking at all your fancy crap in the panel while VFR, look outside!
Click to expand...

Because looking outside has historically worked sooooo well.:rolleyes: 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.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Has anybody looked at or used Xavion?

http://xavion.com/

Seems like a pretty good solution for night/IMC single-engine flying as a backup.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Agreed Dave. Just look at the reluctance from legislators to implement AOA meters. The simplest technology there is and it would have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives if it had been implemented decades ago. Thankfully, FAA are encouraging it now and have eased up on the regs so you can get a field approval for installing one. But that's a fairly recent thing.

That said, I also hope that these things become cheaper with the new FAR part 23 certification. A big problem is the cost to develop STC's and get approvals for stuff. Safety enhancing things should have an easier and cheaper way of coming to market than today, maybe even be exempt.

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.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Agreed Dave. Just look at the reluctance from legislators to implement AOA meters. The simplest technology there is and it would have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives if it had been implemented decades ago. Thankfully, FAA are encouraging it now and have eased up on the regs so you can get a field approval for installing one. But that's a fairly recent thing.

That said, I also hope that these things become cheaper with the new FAR part 23 certification. A big problem is the cost to develop STC's and get approvals for stuff. Safety enhancing things should have an easier and cheaper way of coming to market than today, maybe even be exempt.

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.
Click to expand...

The faulty logic here is that even if the FAA required it tomorrow, 85% of GA airplanes were shipped many years ago, and still wouldn't be equipped. That 1953 Commander still won't have an AOA, shoulder harness, ADS-B, EVS, 406 ELT, airbags, BRS chute or anything else.
If the FAA required such equipment be installed on old airplanes retroactively, those old airplanes would be going to salvage yards and many many aviation professionals would be standing in the unemployment line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top