Night vision? Thermal cameras? Other night survival gadgets?

[Comatose]

I fly over the mountains a lot. I live in Ohio and my wife lives in Washington DC, I fly at night more than I'd like. Flying over the mountains at night seems like suicide to me, so I don't do it.

Does anyone here who flies at night have any sort of night vision or a thermal camera or some other field-finder-gadget in their flight bag or mounted on the off chance you lose an engine at night? Synthetic vision with a satellite overlay?

I have terrain and obstacles on my GTN650. I'm not worried about smacking into the mountains. I'd just feel awful dumb if there's nothing but black below me and nothing but quiet in front of me, saying "well, this direction seems more likely to be landable than that other equally dark direction" when technology exists that could help. Has anyone tried anything of the sort?

[M016576]

I use NVG's at work, but we land un-aided. You lose depth perception with them and they are prone to optical illusions at low altitude. They would probably help if you spent some time training with them, but I'm not sure if there is a civilian course for something like that. In low ambient light conditions, the cintilation can be so bad, though, that its like flying in a sand storm... An IR camera is nice, but extremely expensive...

[Gone]

Coma

Have you seen the EVS 100 system? (http://www.forward-vision.net/) Pretty expensive, but it appears to work pretty well. I believe it is based on thermal imaging.

I don't think they have an STC for any Mooney models yet.

[Steve Dawson]

Have you taken a look at the Garmin 796? It has a form of 3D vision. It as well as most of the Garmin portables have both obstacle and terain avoidance visual and audio warnings. I have an Area 510 and it's very effective.

[N201MKTurbo]

I just use a sectional when flying over the mountains at night....

[AndyFromCB]

I seriously considered getting the EVS 100 system until I checked the price. About 20K installed for a PathFinderIR camera that one can pick up on Amazon for $2.5K. In the end I simply decided that my schedule is flexible enough not to fly at night. I consider night flight to be an unacceptable risk for a weekend warrior like myself. Same with low IFR anywhere but midwest where the entire state of Iowa and so on are one giant flat like a pancake airport.

[1964-M20E]

Quite a coincidence this topic I recently had an experience in difficult conditions that I feel I’m quite lucky to have it turned out ok. I’m doing a write up and will post it later. The EVS 100 would have been fabulous to have on board but @ $20k it is a bit pricy. Maybe someone could come up with a much cheaper version say 10% or less of the EVS 100 cost. It could be a portable version that can be used for “reference”.

[John Pleisse]

Coma- I fly in your area and have made many similar trips. You could invest in an EVS 100 or wing it with synthetic vision on a GPS. At the end of the day, you could avoid some terrain. But you would still have to find a landing area void of obstructions, power wires, ground junk, etc. Is not smacking into the side of a mountain the lesser of two evils? I think your first instinct is correct. Btw...those big dark blotches with no ground lighting? Mountains.

I have a friend who routinely flies and "F" model from Cleveland to Martin State (Balt) with 0/0 underneath him the whole way. He doesn't think twice about it and has been doing it for years. Go figure. On these threads, there is also a 201 owner and a Corporate Lear pilot from the Pittsbirgh area. He has said more than once that he likes to get over the mountains before dark.

[AndyFromCB]

Quite a coincidence this topic I recently had an experience in difficult conditions that I feel I’m quite lucky to have it turned out ok. I’m doing a write up and will post it later. The EVS 100 would have been fabulous to have on board but @ $20k it is a bit pricy. Maybe someone could come up with a much cheaper version say 10% or less of the EVS 100 cost. It could be a portable version that can be used for “reference”.

10% would be impossible. The base camera wholesales for about 2K to automotive manufactures. The other problem, it must be installed outside. It will not 'see' thru plexiglass, so creating a portable version is a non-starter. Too bad, I think.

[Hank]

I fly a more southerly route from the OH/WV border to different parts of NC [western, central and coastal] and to metro-Atlanta. I keep a current database card in the 430W, current sectionals open with my route highlighted, a pad on my kneeboard with a list of every airport, ATIS/AWOS and VOR in the order that I will pass by. There's two flashlights in my flightbag within arms reach and a small light hanging on my headset cord where the wires split to plug into the panel. My handheld radio with headset adapter plugged in is also in the flightbag, and I have a battery-powered light mounted where there used to be an ashtray [so another electrical failure won't leave me blinded if it happens at night].

Other than that, all I carry is a fresh briefing and some notes on alternate routes if needed. Yes, parts of SW VA are dark, parts of W NC are dark, and E KY may as well not exist at night. That's part of why I participate in my maintenance, and study everything I can get my hands on. "Be prepared" is what the Boy Scouts taught me, not "Be Afraid." Everyone's definition of "prepared" is different, even for the same situation. Take whatever makes you feel better. My wife packs lots of food, and we always have at least one extra bottle of water.

[romair]

Speaking of PathFinderIR camera, would it be possible to install one of these one the airplane? It definitely is cheaper than the EVS100, and it would just require some creativity as to where to install it...

[AndyFromCB]

Speaking of PathFinderIR camera, would it be possible to install one of these one the airplane? It definitely is cheaper than the EVS100, and it would just require some creativity as to where to install it...

I'm looking into. The EVS100 system actually uses the PathFinderIR camera, installed in what apparently is a $18,000 fiberglass shell ;-) Still, it would be an unapproved mod but then FAA is kind of too busy to deal with little guys like us anyway. I've seen a ton of other cameras hanging of airplanes at airports, I highly doubt JVC has an STC...

You think $18K is bad, buddy of mine just had one put on his Pilatus, essentially the same PathFinderIR system. The tab? Guess? $96K.

[DaV8or]

I'm not sure why flying over mountains in the day time is so safe. I guess in the day time one feels like they have a fighting chance and at night we just have to sit there and take what may come. Mountains are were airplanes go to disappear and not be found.

The EVS-100 is a perfect example of where the FAA and the government could help us. No doubt a significant portion of the $20K price tag goes to pay for certification costs and liability insurance. Certain technologies like this one could be in a special protected category, making them more immune from the usual "sue 'em all" strategy used by gold digging lawyers. In addition, government subsidies could be awarded to the company to offset R&D costs and certification costs with the assurance of fair pricing to the consumer. The point of all this, would be to get cutting edge, new potentially life saving equipment into more cockpits faster.

The way it is now, this tech will be lucky to find it's way into 200 cockpits. We need more like 20,000 cockpits. Maybe that's what EVS-100 stands for, EVentual Sales of 100.

[Z W]

Certain technologies like this one could be in a special protected category, making them more immune from the usual "sue 'em all" strategy used by gold digging lawyers.

There are lawyers who frequent this board. Some of us even represent individuals injured by dangerous products put into the stream of commerce by companies who profit by skipping economically reasonable safety features (ever wonder if it's cheaper to make a chainsaw without a kick guard?).

I don't mean to hijack this and turn it into a thread about tort reform, but disrespectful comments like this are repeated frequently and do a disservice to a lot of lawyers that have helped make your life safer.

I've resisted the urge to make several comments that are probably not tasteful. My larger point is, let's keep the discourse civil and focused on airplanes, so the board can continue to be the great resource that it has been.

To the OP, the old-timers used to just follow roads and railroad tracks so they would always have a place to put it down at night. That approach may work for you. You can set most GPS units to show even small roads and highways, although they are hidden by default. Most highways run between airports too, so you get the added bonus of staying close to a forced landing spot.

Not as fast as GPS direct, but for some, it may be worth the peace of mind.

[sreid]

I think that Dave's point was that lawyers who are "trying to make your life safer" are potentially reducing the ability to make new technologies available that could increase safety.

Nobody forced anyone to buy a chainsaw and use it without a kick guard. The buyer of a product should be the one to determine if the safety feature is "economically reasonable", and if they want it they can buy it. If they didn't buy it, well, you pay your money and you take your chances. If you don't think a product is safe, don't buy it and don't use it. Injuries suck but something bad happening does not equal I won the lottery.

[Z W]

I think I understand Dave's point. Less regulation and limited liability will result in more products hitting the market faster, and when we're talking about safety equipment, that might save lives. That is possibly true, and there is a lot of evidence that the FAA has gone way too far in its certification and regulation process for GA aircraft. I think the experimental market is living, breathing proof of that. However, you may notice that experimental avionics seem very reasonably priced, and I am not aware of any special limited liability statute for them. The only difference is the FAA's red tape.

You may also notice I said all of that without insulting an entire profession of people in a generalized way.

Your argument against safety devices is not new. The free market approach really breaks down when used in this context. Cars would be cheaper without seatbelts and airbags. Highways would be cheaper to build without rail guards and reflective paint. However, in the grand scheme of things, cutting corners on these safety devices results in a net loss, because we as a society end up paying more for the injuries that result. Simply put, a small amount of preventative cost can save us all a whole lot more in the long run.

Now, whether than means the device Dave was talking about should cost $20k is an entirely different question.

[aviatoreb]

I'm looking into. The EVS100 system actually uses the PathFinderIR camera, installed in what apparently is a $18,000 fiberglass shell ;-) Still, it would be an unapproved mod but then FAA is kind of too busy to deal with little guys like us anyway. I've seen a ton of other cameras hanging of airplanes at airports, I highly doubt JVC has an STC...

You think $18K is bad, buddy of mine just had one put on his Pilatus, essentially the same PathFinderIR system. The tab? Guess? $96K.

The FAA has been stating lately that they want to rework their certification system for small airplanes motivated by items just such as this. I hope they are serious and that it does happen. Related, look at how they recently are allowing installation of an angle of attack indicator - essentially uncertified avionics - with just a log book entry. The small aircraft directorate made a blanket statement this year that they would allow AOA installs.

I bet the same could and should be done with these cameras. It is almost an identical scenario in terms of added safety for the minimal airframe mod.

[aviatoreb]

I think I understand Dave's point. Less regulation and limited liability will result in more products hitting the market faster, and when we're talking about safety equipment, that might save lives. That is possibly true, and there is a lot of evidence that the FAA has gone way too far in its certification and regulation process for GA aircraft. I think the experimental market is living, breathing proof of that. However, you may notice that experimental avionics seem very reasonably priced, and I am not aware of any special limited liability statute for them. The only difference is the FAA's red tape.

You may also notice I said all of that without insulting an entire profession of people in a generalized way.

Your argument against safety devices is not new. The free market approach really breaks down when used in this context. Cars would be cheaper without seatbelts and airbags. Highways would be cheaper to build without rail guards and reflective paint. However, in the grand scheme of things, cutting corners on these safety devices results in a net loss, because we as a society end up paying more for the injuries that result. Simply put, a small amount of preventative cost can save us all a whole lot more in the long run.

Now, whether than means the device Dave was talking about should cost $20k is an entirely different question.

Zane, you know it is an American pastime to kick the lawyers. :-) No harm to my many friends who happen to be lawyers, but no matter how many PR guys the bar may hire, and tv ads saying "lawyers make our communities better, safer, and happier," I doubt lawyers will gain the same status as teachers, nurses, firemen, etc in terms of the feel good profession. I am not saying this as a judgement statement on my part - just as an observation as I see it regarding community opinion.

Regarding what you said about seat belts in cars, quite right. And airbags in cars. But remember on the opposite of the coin, it is in part the STC process why airbags are slow to come to the aviation fleet as a whole.

I want an autopilot with auto-land and also a parachute - not because I want it but because my wife would be much more comfortable flying w me. My (optimistic) prediction is that the FAA will have a cleaner STC and certification process in a few years, and auto land autopilots will be available and I will install one and my wife will be a much more happy camper flying w me with a shiny "just in case" button for her to press. (and I don't really want a parachute).