Special Feature


The question is whether this was a data driven decision or a decision based upon subjective opinion? No one within the FAA denies that subjectivity often drives policy. The policy sur‐ rounding NVG implementation is rid‐ dled with subjective perspectives. What must be remembered is that the subjective opinion of FAA person‐ nel regarding multi‐crew NVG policy is often based on actual NVG experience of crew concept. As an industry, embracing such experience is para‐ mount to safely implementing NVGs into civilian aviation. In many cases, the FAA admittedly defaulted to a more sterile, conservative approach to NVG implementation and policy develop‐ ment.


In 2000, the FAA approached RTCA, Inc. to research appropriate implemen‐ tation options for NVGs into the civilian aviation industry. During these commit‐ tee meetings, debates over pilot‐only versus multi‐crew NVG operations were had. Today we see the compro‐ mise of this debate. The FAA permits pilot‐only NVG flight unrestricted throughout the United States National Airspace System. For NVG flights within 300 feet AGL of the earth’s surface, you will need a second set of eyes on NVGs to do it.


Are Two Heads Better Than One?


Not always! To be an effective NVG crewmember, the individual needs to


have aptitude, attitude, and experi‐ ence. Initially, experience is substituted by training. The quality of an NVG equipped crewmember begins in the classroom. To develop the skills need‐ ed to function as an NVG equipped crewmember, a comprehensive NVG training program is paramount. A poor‐ ly trained NVG crewmember is a liability to safety much like a poorly trained pilot.


If using a second NVG crewmember, a set of requirements that mirror those of their pilot counterparts need to be mandated. These requirements may include 1) a minimum number of NVG flights before acting as second NVG crewmember, 2) a minimum number of NVG flight operations within a specified


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6