Advise on PVS14 specs for flying and driving

[mrtoyz]

Would like color and minimum spec suggestions for flying or driving with dual PVS14’s.
Couple things:
Firstly, I’m assuming that color and minimum specs will matter greatly for my purposes.
Yes, I do know binos are likely the better choice. Would like to retain the ability to split them up.
Appreciate your help.

 

[_Windrider_]

Would like color and minimum spec suggestions for flying or driving with dual PVS14’s.
Couple things:
Firstly, I’m assuming that color and minimum specs will matter greatly for my purposes.
Yes, I do know binos are likely the better choice. Would like to retain the ability to split them up.
Appreciate your help.

Get Anvis 9’s

 

[Twistid]

I'm sure you're already fully aware but there are FARs surrounding NV use.

 

[Lowdown3]

Listen to Twistid he's an actual pilot I believe. Probably the best person here to give you advice relating to flying.

Know that most systems are going to state that they are "not approved for aviation" as well.

 

[TxWelder35]

No ability to add anything to flying, but for driving you will definitely want something to block out any light coming from inside the cab. I had to black out my radio and cluster guage on my truck when trying to drive

 

[_Windrider_]

I'm sure you're already fully aware but there are FARs surrounding NV use.

I was gonna mention that too but didn’t. It’s a lot of fun flying with NV but it’s not something you wake up and decide to go try.

 

[TxWelder35]

I was gonna mention that too but didn’t. It’s a lot of fun flying with NV but it’s not something you wake up and decide to go try.

Do you need an instructor and check ride to fly with nods?

 

[_Windrider_]

Do you need an instructor and check ride to fly with nods?

I’d have to look in the FARs for the specifics but whenever I’ve done it I’ve always had a safety pilot, someone who is rated and not wearing NV.

If you intend to actually log the NV in your logbook there are recency of experience requirements And aircraft has to be certified as well. This includes additional equipment with the one that is least common in GA is a radar altimeter.

Unless you have a ton of experience, the aircraft is certified and all of the other requirements are met it’s all good. But if you aren’t experienced in doing it have a safety pilot with you and don’t be stupid.

 

[mrtoyz]

Appreciate the thoughts on FARs.

 

[mrtoyz]

Any thoughts as too min specs or Green vs White?

 

[_Windrider_]

Any thoughts as too min specs or Green vs White?

Green is so 1980.

 

[CoryT]

It’s less about specs than the two tubes being well matched and the bridge well collimated. Nominal FOM is now way better than original Anvis aviation systems, as are all other specs. I’d like a FOM over 2000 and a Halo < 1. UA tubes will collimate better as a rule. The cockpit needs proper lighting, Anvis goggles have cut filters that 14s do not.

You need a second pilot, one to work inside and one on NODS working outside. Driving is not bad, but flight is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. Given the accident rate of extensively trained military pilots I’d say this is a pretty bad idea. When Buz had his helicopter here at Gunsite he wanted me to fly with him using NVG. Not happening, once we explained a few things that idea was quickly scrapped.

Driving is pretty easy though, once you get used to the reduced FOV and the need to scan. Kill or mask the interior lights and you should be fine.

 

[TurboTrout]

Also go price out NGV instrument lighting kit$​

Maybe in a experimental you might be able to save on the instrument lights after some research. Also these kits aren’t really seen in many GA aircraft, so experimental aircraft might be the best choice if you want to GA under NVGs

But give it a shot with a pilot buddy, ideally also a instructor, who’s not under NVGs

With proper training it’s safe, lots of non mil pilots got jobs with medevac companies in the US and do just fine with the NGVs


Ҥ61.31
Additional training required for night vision goggle operations.

(1) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night visiongoggles only if that person receives and logs ground training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies the person completed the ground training. The ground training must include the following subjects:

(i) Applicable portions of this chapter that relate to night vision goggle limitations and flight operations;

(ii) Aeromedical factors related to the use of night vision goggles, including how to protect night vision, how the eyes adapt to night, self-imposed stresses that affect night vision, effects of lighting on night vision, cues used to estimate distance and depth perception at night, and visual illusions;

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operations of night vision goggle equipment;

(iv) Night vision goggle performance and scene interpretation; and

(v) Night vision goggle operation flight planning, including night terrain interpretation and factors affecting terrain interpretation.

(2) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night visiongoggles only if that person receives and logs flight training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the use of night vision goggles. The flight training must include the following tasks:

(i) Preflight and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for night visiongoggle operations;

(ii) Preflight preparation of night visiongoggles for night vision goggle operations;

(iii) Proper piloting techniques when using night vision goggles during the takeoff, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight; and

(iv) Normal, abnormal, and emergency flight operations using night vision goggles.

(3) The requirements under paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply if a person can document satisfactory completion of any of the following pilot proficiency checks using night visiongoggles in an aircraft:

(i) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces.

(ii) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations under part 135 of this chapter conducted by an Examiner or Check Airman.

(iii) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations conducted by a night vision goggle manufacturer or authorized instructor, when the pilot—

(A) Is employed by a Federal, State, county, or municipal law enforcement agency; and

(B) Has logged at least 20 hours as pilot in command in night vision goggle operations.”

 

[Jong]

I had to black out my radio and cluster guage on my truck when trying to drive

I had no issue at all driving under NVGs with everything dimmed down to the lowest setting.

 

[stefan73]

Also go price out NGV instrument lighting kit$​

Maybe in a experimental you might be able to save on the instrument lights after some research. Also these kits aren’t really seen in many GA aircraft, so experimental aircraft might be the best choice if you want to GA under NVGs

But give it a shot with a pilot buddy, ideally also a instructor, who’s not under NVGs

With proper training it’s safe, lots of non mil pilots got jobs with medevac companies in the US and do just fine with the NGVs


Ҥ61.31
Additional training required for night vision goggle operations.

(1) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night visiongoggles only if that person receives and logs ground training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies the person completed the ground training. The ground training must include the following subjects:

(i) Applicable portions of this chapter that relate to night vision goggle limitations and flight operations;

(ii) Aeromedical factors related to the use of night vision goggles, including how to protect night vision, how the eyes adapt to night, self-imposed stresses that affect night vision, effects of lighting on night vision, cues used to estimate distance and depth perception at night, and visual illusions;

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operations of night vision goggle equipment;

(iv) Night vision goggle performance and scene interpretation; and

(v) Night vision goggle operation flight planning, including night terrain interpretation and factors affecting terrain interpretation.

(2) Except as provided under paragraph (k)(3) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft using night visiongoggles only if that person receives and logs flight training from an authorized instructor and obtains a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the use of night vision goggles. The flight training must include the following tasks:

(i) Preflight and use of internal and external aircraft lighting systems for night visiongoggle operations;

(ii) Preflight preparation of night visiongoggles for night vision goggle operations;

(iii) Proper piloting techniques when using night vision goggles during the takeoff, climb, enroute, descent, and landing phases of flight; and

(iv) Normal, abnormal, and emergency flight operations using night vision goggles.

(3) The requirements under paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply if a person can document satisfactory completion of any of the following pilot proficiency checks using night visiongoggles in an aircraft:

(i) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces.

(ii) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations under part 135 of this chapter conducted by an Examiner or Check Airman.

(iii) A pilot proficiency check on night visiongoggle operations conducted by a night vision goggle manufacturer or authorized instructor, when the pilot—

(A) Is employed by a Federal, State, county, or municipal law enforcement agency; and

(B) Has logged at least 20 hours as pilot in command in night vision goggle operations.”

The Aeormedical guys around here use NVG's. We have to be cognizant of how we have our trucks parked, route of approach and our lighting for setting up LZ's.

I'm no pilot so I can't speak about that for NVG's, I can speak about vehicle driving. Biggest issue I have with civilian vehicles is internal lighting!!! That glare will drown out your NVG's. If you can clear that up like we do in the mil vehicles you would be fine. Also, external IR lights are something I would highly recommend. there have been a lot of times driving in the woods where dense woods knocked the illumination out enough to where the IR flood became almost a necessity with my old issued 14's.

 

[mrtoyz]

It’s less about specs than the two tubes being well matched and the bridge well collimated. Nominal FOM is now way better than original Anvis aviation systems, as are all other specs. I’d like a FOM over 2000 and a Halo < 1. UA tubes will collimate better as a rule. The cockpit needs proper lighting, Anvis goggles have cut filters that 14s do not.

You need a second pilot, one to work inside and one on NODS working outside. Driving is not bad, but flight is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. Given the accident rate of extensively trained military pilots I’d say this is a pretty bad idea. When Buz had his helicopter here at Gunsite he wanted me to fly with him using NVG. Not happening, once we explained a few things that idea was quickly scrapped.

Driving is pretty easy though, once you get used to the reduced FOV and the need to scan. Kill or mask the interior lights and you should be fine.

Thank you Cory. Great info. I’m hearing green disturbs night vision less and is this better for flying as nods would be on and off. True?

 

[TurboTrout]

The Aeormedical guys around here use NVG's. We have to be cognizant of how we have our trucks parked, route of approach and our lighting for setting up LZ's.

I'm no pilot so I can't speak about that for NVG's, I can speak about vehicle driving. Biggest issue I have with civilian vehicles is internal lighting!!! That glare will drown out your NVG's. If you can clear that up like we do in the mil vehicles you would be fine. Also, external IR lights are something I would highly recommend. there have been a lot of times driving in the woods where dense woods knocked the illumination out enough to where the IR flood became almost a necessity with my old issued 14's.

The internal light changes on vehicles often are overlooked, and can be more of a process than getting the NVGs

 

[stefan73]

The internal light changes on vehicles often are overlooked, and can be more of a process than getting the NVGs

Especially with everything that is computer controlled/monitored in a vehicle these days.

The old school stuff would be a lot easier but still a PITA.

 

[TurboTrout]

Especially with everything that is computer controlled/monitored in a vehicle these days.

The old school stuff would be a lot easier but still a PITA.

It’s one of those, call for prices thing, it’s also priced for its demographic, which is .gov, so people who arnt spending their own $$ or who need to show ROI

NVG cockpit STC’s

 

[stefan73]

Easiest would be to find an old Mill vehicle CUCV, HMMWV, deuce, 5-ton, etc etc

I won't even try to learn what the potential cost for an aircraft would be!

 

[TurboTrout]

Easiest would be to find an old Mill vehicle CUCV, HMMWV, deuce, 5-ton, etc etc

True, or just something with round dials and maybe swap a LED in that works for NVG, or can swap to IR?

 

[stefan73]

True, or just something with round dials and maybe swap a LED in that works for NVG, or can swap to IR?

Would depend on vehicle application, if he planned to ever drive it on the road again? Last thing you want is to drive down the road without being able to see how fast you are going at night in town. Of course that mistake might help to fund the City Halls new big screen TV.

 

[TxWelder35]

I had no issue at all driving under NVGs with everything dimmed down to the lowest setting.

Depends on what/where you are driving. My truck has a lot of screens in it that are bright. Driving where there is zero ambient light, it will really wash out your nods. It was literally impossible to drive my truck blacked out without completely covering every light source inside.

I’m going to make a cut out out of cardboard or plastic with a rubber gasket around it for my cluster in front of me, and probably some type of Velcro to attach a cardboard/plastic panel in front of the giant screen in the dash.

 

[TxWelder35]

The Aeormedical guys around here use NVG's. We have to be cognizant of how we have our trucks parked, route of approach and our lighting for setting up LZ's.

I'm no pilot so I can't speak about that for NVG's, I can speak about vehicle driving. Biggest issue I have with civilian vehicles is internal lighting!!! That glare will drown out your NVG's. If you can clear that up like we do in the mil vehicles you would be fine. Also, external IR lights are something I would highly recommend. there have been a lot of times driving in the woods where dense woods knocked the illumination out enough to where the IR flood became almost a necessity with my old issued 14's.

I’m going to put some IR LED light pods on the front of my truck for that reason. I can see plenty good with my new milspec WP pvs14 but more light is always better. On a starlight only night, under dense canopy, it wasn’t super easy to see and definitely could have used some extra illum. Makes the critters eyes glow also.

 

[CoryT]

Thank you Cory. Great info. I’m hearing green disturbs night vision less and is this better for flying as nods would be on and off. True?

In theory, but in actual practice the NVG will burn your night vision out just like a white light no matter the phosphor color. Phosphor color is not at all important, it's really personal preference. For many people WP tubes seem more 'natural', because your normal night vision is pretty much black and white, you don't really see color at night. Also in theory the eye is more sensitive to green and sees more shades of green than gray, but your really can't see any difference in the NVG's.

Anything with a S/N of 34 >, resolution of 64lp/mm, halo < 1 and auto gating should be perfectly fine.

 

[mrtoyz]

In theory, but in actual practice the NVG will burn your night vision out just like a white light no matter the phosphor color. Phosphor color is not at all important, it's really personal preference. For many people WP tubes seem more 'natural', because your normal night vision is pretty much black and white, you don't really see color at night. Also in theory the eye is more sensitive to green and sees more shades of green than gray, but your really can't see any difference in the NVG's.

Anything with a S/N of 34 >, resolution of 64lp/mm, halo < 1 and auto gating should be perfectly fine.

And thin filmed?

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

The handful of times I have screwed around with night driving was on private property with private roads, which makes it a lot simpler. I taped off my headlights with gaffer tape, threw a black cloth over the dash and held it in place with more gaffer tape, and covered the few remaining obnoxious interior lights with the same. An IR illuminator with rare earth magnets taped to it was stuck to the roof of the car where I could reach it out my window to adjust/focus as needed to serve as an IR headlight.

That setup worked really damn well driving in the dark at speed using a pair of ANVIS 9s. I tried it once with with a single PVS-14 and it blew goats. I had to practically drive at crawling speeds because ditches suddenly became ninjas that would sneak up on you with no depth perception. When I switched to duals, it was not a problem to drive around at normal speeds, and just scan more to watch for wild hogs or coyotes running out in front of me or popping up in the fields.

 

[TurboTrout]

These are TSOed

L3 Harris ANVIS-9 (M949) Night Vision Aviator Goggles

9S1002-BUWA, L3 Harris ANVIS-9 (M949) Night Vision Aviator Goggles

ownthenight.com

 

[CoryT]

And thin filmed?

Does not really matter. Thin film or unfilmed will only show a real difference in very low light, at which point you’ll have turned on IR lights anyway.

 

[mrtoyz]

These are TSOed

L3 Harris ANVIS-9 (M949) Night Vision Aviator Goggles

9S1002-BUWA, L3 Harris ANVIS-9 (M949) Night Vision Aviator Goggles

ownthenight.com

From the little reading I’ve done it looks like the biggest plus to Anvis 9’s is that the mount has interface adjustments. Can’t the same be accomplished with adjustable mount for 2 PVS14’s?

 

[WindstormSCR]

From the little reading I’ve done it looks like the biggest plus to Anvis 9’s is that the mount has interface adjustments. Can’t the same be accomplished with adjustable mount for 2 PVS14’s?

the anvis systems also have different filters on the external lens that make it so you have less focus issues going from near to far. if you try and read something close with NV (like an instrument cluster) and then look outside you have to focus for each one with PVS units, while the filters on anvis make them better suited.

I have only very limited experience with this via a demonstration, but in person the difference is stark and obvious.

 

[CoryT]

From the little reading I’ve done it looks like the biggest plus to Anvis 9’s is that the mount has interface adjustments. Can’t the same be accomplished with adjustable mount for 2 PVS14’s?

There's no LEGAL way to fly in the US using a bridged 14 system that I'm aware of, they are not aviation approved. The cut filters in the lenses of the Anvis are related to the NV cockpit illumination, not focus. The lens system does have somewhat better depth of field, but this is a two pilot operation, one looking outside, one looking inside.

All bridged 14 systems have issues with collimation. They were not designed for dual use, so the 14 itself has no precision mounting system that gets two units in alignment. The optical path has no way to be adjusted other than rotating the ocular assembly and that's pretty limited. The lenses themselves have no aviation spec and can vary widely in image shift even just changing focus.

For the typical user (short term ground use) this is not often a problem. Users may get eyestrain and a headache from merging the images but they put up with it. Currently only three manufacturers provide “FAA- Accepted” NVGs: Elbit AN/AVS9, NIVISYS NVAG-9 and NVAG-6, and L-3's M949.

 

[_Windrider_]

There's no LEGAL way to fly in the US using a bridged 14 system that I'm aware of, they are not aviation approved. The cut filters in the lenses of the Anvis are related to the NV cockpit illumination, not focus. The lens system does have somewhat better depth of field, but this is a two pilot operation, one looking outside, one looking inside.

All bridged 14 systems have issues with collimation. They were not designed for dual use, so the 14 itself has no precision mounting system that gets two units in alignment. The optical path has no way to be adjusted other than rotating the ocular assembly and that's pretty limited. The lenses themselves have no aviation spec and can vary widely in image shift even just changing focus.

For the typical user (short term ground use) this is not often a problem. Users may get eyestrain and a headache from merging the images but they put up with it. Currently only three manufacturers provide “FAA- Accepted” NVGs: Elbit AN/AVS9, NIVISYS NVAG-9 and NVAG-6, and L-3's M949.

Correct. As Turbo trout mentioned you must look for a TSO’d set of NVG’s. But if you aren’t logging the time and as long as you have a safety pilot and don’t attempt any maneuvers or takeoffs and landings Pvs 14 Bino for casual fun is fine. BUT as I said all along don’t be stupid.

 

[Twistid]

One last thing I would mention, I think most people would agree flying under NV is one of those things that sounds more fun than it actually is. Like flying in general, it has that romantic theme to it, "soaring with the clouds, not a care in the world, looking at the people below!" When we all know it's nothing like that, it's hot, sweaty, takes hours and hours of planning, studying your systems/regs, being proficient at absolutely everything, emergency procedures, etc.

Not trying to discourage anyone in the slightest, just being honest. In general aviation if something happens sure you can just turn off the NODs and go back to overt lighting to handle the situation, but it does add complexity and 100% falls under the "dumb, different, dangerous" category.

Be safe!!

 

[TurboTrout]

From the little reading I’ve done it looks like the biggest plus to Anvis 9’s is that the mount has interface adjustments. Can’t the same be accomplished with adjustable mount for 2 PVS14’s?

It’s having the TSO, for aviation that’s a big deal

 

[TurboTrout]

Correct. As Turbo trout mentioned you must look for a TSO’d set of NVG’s. But if you aren’t logging the time and as long as you have a safety pilot and don’t attempt any maneuvers or takeoffs and landings Pvs 14 Bino for casual fun is fine. BUT as I said all along don’t be stupid.

I do wonder if flying a experimental if you’d need a TSOed set of NVGs

Seems the smallest aircraft I could find approved lighting kits for was a R44 for rotor (plus you’d need a radar altimeter I think) or a Cessna Caravan for fixed wing.

 

[_Windrider_]

I do wonder if flying a experimental if you’d need a TSOed set of NVGs

Seems the smallest aircraft I could find approved lighting kits for was a R44 for rotor (plus you’d need a radar altimeter I think) or a Cessna Caravan for fixed wing.

Any aircraft can be certified under part 61 for NV with correct equipment and yes an RA is required which is why you don’t find many GA aircraft certified for it. It’s just not practical unless you have an operational necessity to need it (Med Evac, SAR, LE). Otherwise just grab a safety pilot go fool around But please don’t attempt takeoff and landing.

 

[stefan73]

And thin filmed?

Thin filmed will work fine for driving. You need to familiarize yourself first. Practice in a safe area free from any hazards

 

[jwhjwh54]

CFII,MEI blah blah here that hog hunts a bunch at night. Doesn't seem like the pro's out weigh the risks for maybe a few more hogs. After trying green lights and all sorts of crap on my truck I've finally realized, it's gonna be what it's gonna be and some nights will be slim and others will be shoot outs at the ok corral. The hogs don't hear my truck or don't seem to mind even and if I get the wind right and shoot well I'll pile them up.

 

[TurboTrout]

Any aircraft can be certified under part 61 for NV with correct equipment and yes an RA is required which is why you don’t find many GA aircraft certified for it. It’s just not practical unless you have an operational necessity to need it (Med Evac, SAR, LE). Otherwise just grab a safety pilot go fool around But please don’t attempt takeoff and landing.

Indeed, just wondering if one could get around the NVGs needing a TSO if you’re flying a experimental.

No dog in this fight, no need for NVGs and mines certified, just something I was just pondering.

 

[_Windrider_]

Indeed, just wondering if one could get around the NVGs needing a TSO if you’re flying a experimental.

No dog in this fight, no need for NVGs and mines certified, just something I was just pondering.

I’m not sure. Honestly I doubt it, but who knows. Experimental precludes you from using it for a commercial type operation and honestly most people flying with NVGs are doing it in some commercial capacity.

 

[TurboTrout]

I’m not sure. Honestly I doubt it, but who knows. Experimental precludes you from using it for a commercial type operation and honestly most people flying with NVGs are doing it in some commercial capacity.

I could totally picture the RV6 crowd flying formation at night with NVGs

 

[CoryT]

It does not appear that a private Part 91 operation needs an LOA, but you still need an STC cockpit install and approved goggles
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.237.pdf

 

[WindstormSCR]

Like flying in general, it has that romantic theme to it, "soaring with the clouds, not a care in the world, looking at the people below!" When we all know it's nothing like that, it's hot, sweaty, takes hours and hours of planning, studying your systems/regs, being proficient at absolutely everything, emergency procedures, etc.

Completely tangent from the thread, but it sounds like you really, really need to experience soaring to get some of the pure joy of flying back into your system. More details here: https://www.ssa.org/