Do night vision equipment have any place in search and rescue? What about specifically in ground search and rescue?
It will when you find a pot o'gold to pay for them!
Cheap they are not!
I used them once and they are great tool. Just expensive. I seen some on E-bay going for under $2,000.00
Quote from: N Harmon on August 22, 2009, 02:23:46 AM
Do night vision equipment have any place in search and rescue? What about specifically in ground search and rescue?
Yes, but CAP has specific regs about the use of them on CAP missions. Check the new 60-3.
hehe I found a pair in a tech magazine for $50 !!! ;D they truly do work but not as well as a pair that costs in the thousands. here is the link of of amazon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00153F5QA/ref=asc_df_B00153F5QA888001?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B00153F5QA
Sorry for the long link
Typically one would want a set that works well enough to be more of a help than a hindrance. The reviews on Amazon suggest the opposite.
I can't list any specific examples, but a buddy of mine used to have a night vision monocular that he got for less than $1000, and it worked pretty well. You just use it once in a while rather than wear it all the time, it allows you to keep a pretty good idea of your surroundings without trashing your night vision (biological) which you'll need if/when the batteries die.
Fun toys to play with. Now if we could get aircrews using them, that would be awesome.
I was just throwing out a suggestion. Just some food for though compared to other $1000 alternatives.
Aircrew quality NVG's are very expensive and require a large amount of initial and recurring training.
Something that is almost unheard of in CAP.
Heck, it's hard to stay "current" on the bloody things if you're in the Guard/Reserve.
Not to mention the major headaches you get the first couple of times you wear them until your brain gets the hang of them. (Pass the Tylonol please.)
Quote from: DC on August 22, 2009, 03:40:34 AMFun toys to play with. Now if we could get aircrews using them, that would be awesome.
Not like they'd be all that usable. Resolution probably wouldn't be all that practical for the kinds of things that we're looking for.
There's also the focus issue. You probably couldn't maintain proper distancing to keep everything in focus.
Quote from: PHall on August 22, 2009, 04:31:20 AM
Aircrew quality NVG's are very expensive and require a large amount of initial and recurring training.
Something that is almost unheard of in CAP.
Heck, it's hard to stay "current" on the bloody things if you're in the Guard/Reserve.
Not to mention the major headaches you get the first couple of times you wear them until your brain gets the hang of them. (Pass the Tylonol please.)
Initial training is a major annoyance. Without major currency on them, they're useless. I had to fly at least every other week in the evenings for a couple days to stay current.
Yeah, got to love those headaches. Especially the ones that make you feel like you're eyeballs will just fall out when you lean over to pick something up.
It would be madness to try to drive or fly with an NVD, but a low cost scope can be handy in certain situations. Looking out over a pitch dark valley for instance, will allow you to spot artificial light signatures ( cellphone screens, PDA's, anything with an lighted LED) pretty easily. A lot of the really cheap gear out there uses 1st Generation Russian tubes, which are bright, have barely adequate resolution, and in some cases spit X-Rays out the eyepiece. A lot of gear sold as new uses "rebuilt" tubes, so caveat emptor. Given a choice, I would rather have a thermal imager than a photomultiplier NVD, but the price difference is like Yugos to Cadillacs!
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on August 22, 2009, 03:33:12 PM
It would be madness to try to drive or fly with an NVD,
Also a violation of 60-3.
Darn you regulatory types, just kidding
Operational use of NVG's requires by FAA regulations logged currency. At work we must have the obligatory 3 takeoffs and landing every 90 days or we must be retrained. CAP doesn't fly at night that often. I will also add that when worn with a Gentex helmet you will end up with a headache. This of course is less painful than CFIT but still a less than positive experience.
Quote from: Rotorhead on August 22, 2009, 11:24:12 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on August 22, 2009, 03:33:12 PM
It would be madness to try to drive or fly with an NVD,
Also a violation of 60-3.
I believe that the use of night vision devices is prohibited only for pilots flying CAP aircraft, and this is in regulation 60-1, not 60-3. You will find night vision equipment listed on the table of advanced equipment. 60-3 does not
prohibit anything as I recall, its just the Aircrew & Flightline Tasks section. I have been out of the SAR field for awhile, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on August 23, 2009, 03:17:42 AM
I believe that the use of night vision devices is prohibited only for pilots flying CAP aircraft, and this is in regulation 60-1, not 60-3. You will find night vision equipment listed on the table of advanced equipment. 60-3 does not prohibit anything as I recall, its just the Aircrew & Flightline Tasks section. I have been out of the SAR field for awhile, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Major Lord
You're correct. 60-3 actually directs one to 60-1 for the restrictions. It has no restrictions on it's own.
NVG's in CAP?
Hasn't this been talked about before?
Training requirements are pretty straight forward in the military, LE, and SOME firefighting helo ops.
CAP meeting NVG requirements?? Pretty doubtful unless CAP has some FULL TIME DEDICATED instructors for this mission...
Hey, how about some Gentex SPH-4, 4B's, SPH-5, or some HGU-56 helmets for you CAP C182 drivers, huh?? >:D >:D >:D
NVG's? Better have some reason, dinero, and a staff that can take care of ALLLL that
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 23, 2009, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on August 23, 2009, 03:17:42 AM
I believe that the use of night vision devices is prohibited only for pilots flying CAP aircraft, and this is in regulation 60-1, not 60-3. You will find night vision equipment listed on the table of advanced equipment. 60-3 does not prohibit anything as I recall, its just the Aircrew & Flightline Tasks section. I have been out of the SAR field for awhile, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Major Lord
You're correct. 60-3 actually directs one to 60-1 for the restrictions. It has no restrictions on it's own.
Partially correct:
"
1-30. Prohibited Equipment. CAP is often offered equipment that is not appropriate to our mission or is not reasonable for our personnel to use because of the training time required for personnel to remain proficient.
a. Restrictions for the use of night vision devices by CAP personnel during any flight operations can be found in CAPR 60-1. Representatives of other agencies may use their own equipment. CAP ground resources may use night vision devices in support of SAR/DR operations while on foot or as passengers in vehicles.
Use of night vision devices by drivers during motor vehicle operations is prohibited.."
Quote from: coolkites on August 22, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
hehe I found a pair in a tech magazine for $50 !!! ;D they truly do work but not as well as a pair that costs in the thousands. here is the link of of amazon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00153F5QA/ref=asc_df_B00153F5QA888001?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B00153F5QA
Sorry for the long link
Those would probably be Gen 1, (Vietnam tech,) and they are pretty much useless as anything but toys nowadays. A good Gen 3 night vision monocular, such as a PVS-14, costs around $4,000.
Quote from: CAP.is.1337 on August 24, 2009, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: coolkites on August 22, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
hehe I found a pair in a tech magazine for $50 !!! ;D they truly do work but not as well as a pair that costs in the thousands. here is the link of of amazon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00153F5QA/ref=asc_df_B00153F5QA888001?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B00153F5QA
Sorry for the long link
Those would probably be Gen 1, (Vietnam tech,) and they are pretty much useless as anything but toys nowadays. A good Gen 3 night vision monocular, such as a PVS-14, costs around $4,000.
Note that they are in the "Toys and Games" section at Amazon.
Quote from: Rotorhead on August 24, 2009, 05:32:11 PM
Quote from: CAP.is.1337 on August 24, 2009, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: coolkites on August 22, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
hehe I found a pair in a tech magazine for $50 !!! ;D they truly do work but not as well as a pair that costs in the thousands. here is the link of of amazon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00153F5QA/ref=asc_df_B00153F5QA888001?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B00153F5QA
Sorry for the long link
Those would probably be Gen 1, (Vietnam tech,) and they are pretty much useless as anything but toys nowadays. A good Gen 3 night vision monocular, such as a PVS-14, costs around $4,000.
Note that they are in the "Toys and Games" section at Amazon.
To all I do realize that these do not work as well a a pair of Gen 3s costing thousands of dollars but if they help you see at nigh by maybe 25% then they are worth the $50. No need to dis the product just because it does not fit our needs.
Quote from: coolkites on August 24, 2009, 05:36:37 PMNo need to dis the product just because it does not fit our needs.
The key is right there. If it doesn't fit our needs, no reason to consider it. In vehicles, that toy would probably be worthless. In an aircraft, it's dead weight. In our mission, they are completely unnecessary.
If we end up doing anything at night, there is a far cheaper item that we need instead: a flashlight. On a night mission, we need all the light, and to be making all the noise (noise discipline is actually
undesirable) we can. You can find someone a lot easier when they know we're coming.
Quote from: coolkites on August 24, 2009, 05:36:37 PM
To all I do realize that these do not work as well a a pair of Gen 3s costing thousands of dollars but if they help you see at nigh by maybe 25% then they are worth the $50. No need to dis the product just because it does not fit our needs.
Not only no, but hell no.
Wanna experience what they're like without having to buy them? Do this:
find a really dim flashlight. As in "about to go completely out in 10 seconds" dim.
position your dim flashlight in the corner of a windowless room such as your bathroom, turn it on and turn out the lights.
With your left hand, cover your left eye.
With your right hand, make an aperture the size of a nickel with your thumb and forefinger. Kind of like an "ok" sign, only way smaller. Now put that over your right eye.
Behold this very accurate simulation.
For extra fun, do this in a dark hallway, with stairs. Now walk.
As an aside, TinyURL (http://tinyurl.com/) and bit.ly (http://bit.ly/) are your friends.
A couple of months back I got a cheap night vision monocular as a gift:
(http://www.onlinesports.com/images/owl-nonexgen-w.gif)
I was fairly skeptical about them since I knew likely cost less than $200. But I have tried them out at night and they don't seem all that bad. I can distinguish objects out to about 200 feet.
It seems they would be handy for scanning open areas at night. With a 200 feet radius, that is almost 3 acres of area you could scan.
Or you could light up the area with flashlights. You could scan the area, and then wait a while for your eyes to readjust to the dark. Or else leave the flashlights on all of the time and forget about it.
And your POD would likely be higher with flashlights too.
There seems to be a definite trade off.
Quote from: coolkites on August 22, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
hehe I found a pair in a tech magazine for $50 !!! ;D they truly do work but not as well as a pair that costs in the thousands. here is the link of of amazon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00153F5QA/ref=asc_df_B00153F5QA888001?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B00153F5QA
Sorry for the long link
Night vision that is not. What that is is hobo-vision. Its a black and white camera with the IR filters removed, a green filter overlayed, and a snot load of infrared LED's surrounding the camera. There is no image intensifier tube in the unit. So yes, it does help to see in the dark, but its not night vision in the common sense of the term.
Here's the $160 generation 1 device I picked up a little while ago. It works nicely, and I'll be using some uber-powered IR LEDs to make an IR flashlight for it.
(http://images1.opticsplanet.com/750-500-ffffff/opplanet-atnamtnig1st.jpg)
http://www.opticsplanet.net/atnamtnig1st.html
Useless from the air, and on the rare occasion we're doing a night search, those lost generally want to be found and you'd be much better off with a really bright flashlight.
Nightvision gear is really only useful when you're trying to stay hidden but still see everything around you
(or for searches where you can't get light on the target).
All this stuff is fine for paintball and laser tag, not much use in SAR.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2009, 02:28:52 AMAll this stuff is fine for paintball and laser tag, not much use in SAR.
Never played laser tag; as far as paintball goes, I wouldn't use it anyway. It may have been fifteen years since I played, but I've never played night games, and never had any plan to start. Not much point in playing in the dark, it's not particularly safe.
Speedball arenas would probably have almost stadium type lighting (lights covering the whole field), and night vision wouldn't be needed. So, all things considered, those things wouldn't even be useful then.
Agreed on SAR use.
As I said on the other thread. NVG's require FAA currency - 3 take offs and landings in 90 days. CAP doesn't do enough night work to justify the expense. FAA also requires two crew members to be under goggles at all times. The purpose of NVG use in ES is to keep aircraft from CFIT incidents. It is not to enhance search.
Quite frankly NVG's in CAP would help crew pick up campfires. That's about it. The less expensive NVG's on sportsman sites do not do the job of military or Helicopter EMS goggles.
This is what we use at work:
http://www.nightvis.com/night_vision_goggles/Dual_tube_ANAVS9_Type_Goggle.html (http://www.nightvis.com/night_vision_goggles/Dual_tube_ANAVS9_Type_Goggle.html)
At almost $11,000 a set do we really think CAP can afford something that we won't be able to remain current to use?
Quote from: flyerthom on August 26, 2009, 09:55:00 PM
As I said on the other thread. NVG's require FAA currency - 3 take offs and landings in 90 days.
CAP doesn't do enough night work to justify the expense. FAA also requires two crew members to be under goggles at all times. The purpose of NVG use in ES is to keep aircraft from CFIT incidents. It is not to enhance search.
Perhaps for the flight-deck operators, but the FAA couldn't care less about the MO or MS using them. Since the pilots aren't allowed (by CAP) to use them, there's no FAA applicability or comment either way.
This isn't about CAP funding night vision gear for regular use, but more about them
not being prohibited for the GIB in the rare case someone gets their hands on something usable, or the (sadly) less-rare case of a member with more dollars than sense who goes out and buys something.