FLIR?

[SarDragon]

IR expands our vision, and lets us see more things.

I'm not saying equip every lane with it, because of expense, but those planes that have it are improved tools for some of the things we might be tasked to do.

[lordmonar]

Not to mention IR gives us the ability to operate more at night.

[Flying Pig]

I would think that a really good camera lens (manual focus/zoom) would be as or more important to most of what we do, than IR.

Eeeeehhhhhh.... not really.  FLIR is a great tool during the day also.   We continually use it for searches.  A couple times I've done a day search for some dirtbag visually with the MK1 Eyeball and before we clear, give the FLIR a few sweeps back and forth and whattayaknow... there he is.  Crashed airplane where the engine may still have residual heat, or an area where there may have been a fire and the ground is still hot.  It will light up like a road flare.  The biggest thing people neglect with the FLIR is the reverse polarity.  Black Hot vs White Hot.  You will see things in black hot that don't stand out in white hot.  I tend to do the majority of my FLIR searches in black hot, not white hot.     Heck.... being a FLIR instructor would be something that could entice me to carve time out of my day to get back into CAP

Im not a big supporter of searching with daytime optics.  Ive done it, tried it, played with it.. once I missed the freakin' RIOT that was happening just outside the edge of the screen when all I had to do was look out the window.  Night time you have no choice.  Day time, search with your eyes and use the optic to zoom in if you cant get low enough to ID something but don't search with it. 

[coudano]

I was thinking more of AP than searches.
Pointing a Nikon with an inappropriate lens out the window is pretty janky, when we clearly have the alternative to hang a pod with potentially telephoto in it, outside.

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

[coudano]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

is the pod gyro stabalized?  will it do a ground lock? will it automatically track a mover?  will it cue to a poi (coordinates)?
or is it manual steer only?
is the laser a rangefinder?

[lordmonar]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

Being a GFSO instructor (that the surrogate predator to everyone else) we have to pull the back seat to get all the equipment in.   But we don't have to do it that way in every platform.  The comparison to ARCHER is not really a good one.....the ARCHER system was mismanaged.  There should be no reason why a C-182 or C-206 with a pod on it can't be used for other tasks.   

[lordmonar]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

Being a maintenance guy......this is a bad idea.  Make it permanent.  Spend the money to get a pod that has all the do-dads that you want.

[PHall]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

[PHall]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

You ever fly in one?

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

You ever fly in one?

Yes.

[Flying Pig]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

is the pod gyro stabalized?  will it do a ground lock? will it automatically track a mover?  will it cue to a poi (coordinates)?
or is it manual steer only?
is the laser a rangefinder?

The FLIR 8500 will do all of that but you need a mapping system to interface with it.  Aero Computers, Meta Map, etc.  Thats about another $120K

[blackrain]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

[THRAWN]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

Probably reassigned to a high priority tasking like the NCO project....

[JeffDG]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

Being a maintenance guy......this is a bad idea.  Make it permanent.  Spend the money to get a pod that has all the do-dads that you want.

For insert/remove, do you need to do a 337 for the plane?  The gear would impact W&B...can it be done by an A&P, or do you need signoff by an IA?

I'm just a pilot, don't understand the Part 43 stuff at all.

[lordmonar]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

[JeffDG]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

At each removal/insertion?

[a2capt]

I used to fly a C172 with a sky sign on it. If the sign/computer were installed, the aircraft was certified for the utility category only. If the stuff was not installed, it was back to normal.

[JeffDG]

I used to fly a C172 with a sky sign on it. If the sign/computer were installed, the aircraft was certified for the utility category only. If the stuff was not installed, it was back to normal.

Really?  Isn't Utility is less restrictive than Normal?