Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)

Does anyone have experience with the FLIR system? The web site has a pretty neat little video presentation of what it will do. It looks like it can interface with the OP Technologies EFIS units, or just a panel mounted LCD. I wonder how fluid the movement on the display would be? Since it is basically a camera, I would think it would be pretty smooth. If this is the case, am I wrong in thinking that this could be used as a back up to an EFIS in case of failure? I know the LCD and the FLIR camera would have to be backed up with a battery. On the video download from the website, terrain, runways, paint, buildings, trees, etc. or very easily discernible on the LCD. When flying, the video presentation of the FLIR looks an awful lot like what Chelton & OP Technologies are trying to do on the EFIS. You can definitely distinguish the horizon on the FLIR output as well as everything else. So, backup to the EFIS or NO!

Mark

I think it is the wave of the future. It believe its purpose will be to complement the EFIS. Within 10-15 years if you have a FLIR you will not have any minimums for an instrument approach. If had a an extra $20,000 I would put FLIR on my RV-10. The safety factor it provides is better than the parachute in a Cirrus. It allows you to look through clouds, dark and fog. IF you are serious about it, I think the company is down in Florida and I am sure they have a real demo of it.

So, do it.

A quick google of infrared cameras turned up bunches, most of the portables simply provide NTSC composite video out of them. There are near distance versions and long range versions. LCD monitors in the 5-7" variety are "relatively" cheap. I would expect you could put a solution together for very little cost if you really wanted to. If you didn't have to "pod" mount it, you probably can save bunches of cost.

Am I missing something?

Alan

Gv

The gulf stream biz jets are flying with them. Read and article with pictures of IMC approaches, pretty amazing stuff. G

You're gonna hate me, but I'm not going to be so positive. All the video you see on the net says that a FLIR type device will be great, but that's not the whole story. A FLIR is just a TV camera sensitive to another spectrum, and just like a regular camera there are days of good FLIR visibility & days when its really bad. If you mounted a TV camera in the nose and a small screen in the panel how much use would it be if you could not see out? So that is how much use a FLIR will be on a good day. There are good systems available, but at a price. For reasonable reliability you probably need FLIR & low light TV combined as good conditions for one seem not so good for the other. You probably also need some kind of gyro stabilization, otherwise the picture will bounce all over the place, the camera will have to have good vibration isolation, and be well shileded from radio interference. None of this is impossible, but it puts the price up. Just how much do you want to spend for a useable capability?

Pete

penguin said:

You're gonna hate me, but I'm not going to be so positive. All the video you see on the net says that a FLIR type device will be great, but that's not the whole story. A FLIR is just a TV camera sensitive to another spectrum, and just like a regular camera there are days of good FLIR visibility & days when its really bad. If you mounted a TV camera in the nose and a small screen in the panel how much use would it be if you could not see out? So that is how much use a FLIR will be on a good day. There are good systems available, but at a price. For reasonable reliability you probably need FLIR & low light TV combined as good conditions for one seem not so good for the other. You probably also need some kind of gyro stabilization, otherwise the picture will bounce all over the place, the camera will have to have good vibration isolation, and be well shileded from radio interference. None of this is impossible, but it puts the price up. Just how much do you want to spend for a useable capability?

Pete

Click to expand...

Here's the problem with I/R. It's very low energy light compared to visible (near infrared is somewhere around a 1000-2000 nanometers or more as opposed to about 700 nanometers or so for visible). Pretty much any CCD you get is sensitive to IR including your run of the mill digital camera (try this: point your camera at your TV remote and hit a button. You'll see the IR coming out the front). Detecting it is easy, but gathering enough light to be useful is not.

Now, you CAN get cheapy IR cameras, and you can even get cameras that are digitally stabilized like my old camcorder was. This is not a problem and is not terribly expensive either. The problem is that to gather enought light to be useful in IR, you need long ccd integration times. This is the CCD equivalent of keeping the shutter open longer on a film camera. This gives you a blurry image. Another solution is using a photomultiplier (I've seen a bazzilion different ways of using these....everything from meshes that can detect 2D to using the tube to generate electrons which then slam into a substrate and generate high enery photons that hit a CCD....many different options here). Tubes are notoriously delicate, though, not to mention kinda' costly.

Bottom line is that if you want a really sharp image with little motion blur, it's still a bit costly but the price is plummeting every year. If you can live with a little bluring and just want the FLIR for enhanced situational awareness (i.e. you don't intend to land with the thing in 0 visibility...unless you're an airline, you don't have the equipment to do this legally anyhow) you can set yourself up with a decent system for WAY under $20,000. A camera off e-bay, a screen and some elbow grease can get you something under $5000 that would be quite usable.

my $.02

Flir

Greetings,
I am an RV-8 builder, but my other job involves looking through a FLIR in an F-15E. I would agree with the earlier post that FLIR has good and bad days. If you want to primarily fly at night, IR is a good way to see. Transmissivity (ability to see) drops quickly when the air has other things in it like smoke, humidity and dust. So the times when you are unable to see through the weather or dust, the FLIR is of little value. Also remember that FLIR has a limited field of view is can be described as looking through a soda straw - ok if it is looking where you want, but likely not into a turn or some other item of interest. If you want to see at night, use NVGs. I can look anywhere I please on a night sortie with NVGs including straight ahead. You can get some reallly good ones for the money you would spend on a FLIR.

My 2 cents....

Cheers
FM

FM,

I would not encourage folks who are not properly trained to fly with NVG's unless they have a qualified safety pilot in the aircraft. And even then I would be VERY cautious.

I've spent a bit of time behind quality NVG's on the ground courtesy of the USMC. It's hard enough to get used to the depth perception issues and lack of peripheral vision when you're moving slowly and can stop and regain your bearings at any time. While I've never flown with NVG's, I imagine it takes quite a bit of training to be able to fly behind them safely.

YMMV,
PJ
RV-10 #40032

In a previous professional life I worked on some IR camera certification projects in fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and I've also spent several hours bouncing through low-level routes in FLIR-equipped B52s. I'm gonna chime in with another note of caution on using an IR camera to replace a view of the outside world.

IMHO, IR camera manufacturers tend to oversell their devices. The ad pictures look great, but put them in real-world environment of rain, snow, fog, humidity, and aerosols (dust, smoke, etc), and their performance deteriorates. That's the nature of IR. Even the expensive bizjet systems mentioned in another post don't buy a lot of extra capability...they don't replace traditional navaids like ILSs, etc, but only allow slightly lower minimums on an approach and in some situations, provide some extra situational awareness.

I wouldn't bet my keester - or yours either - one one as a backup.

Dave

Flir

PJSeipel said:

FM,

I would not encourage folks who are not properly trained to fly with NVG's unless they have a qualified safety pilot in the aircraft. And even then I would be VERY cautious.

PJ,
I wholeheartedly agree, I think that flying with NVG's is risky solution to a military unique problem. I was trying to add some perspective to the discussion. I would not want to bet my life on an untested FLIR or NVGs in an aircraft. The NVG procedures, training and checkout are very strict and only after multiple rides with an instructor can someone be considered safe.
For pure novelty, NVGs may be of more use than a FLIR.
Thanks for keeping me straight.

Cheers
FM

Click to expand...

Synthetic Vision Systems

All of the limitaitons of straight FLIR systems that are talked about above are why NASA Langley is working on advanced Sytntheic Vision Systems that combine IR sensors with accurate terrain database maps and GPS positon to generate a fairly accurate HUD picture of what is out the window when you can't actually see. It is a very ambitious project that works pretty well in the demos I have flown, but is far from ready for real-world use. Pretty neat technology though!

If it was easy,we'd all be flying it by now....

Paul

NVG "Camera"

Has anyone seen a NVG "Camera" that can feed a cockpit video screen?

Langley are not the only ones developing synthetic vision systems - it does take a leap of faith to go hurtling around at low level with a blackout cover on your visor with just the synthetic picture for guidance, even if there is a safety pilot in the front seat!

NVGs are only low light TVs, sometimes called image intensifiers. They make use of the ambient light available at night. As mentioned earlier, one problem is the narrow field of view. Unless you're pointing directly at something you won't see it, and if you don't see what you're looking for (for example the runway) it might be difficult to figure out where it is.

Pete