Current Synthetic Vision - Just how useful is it up close?

Lndwarrior

Lndwarrior

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
1,283
Display Name
Display name:
Gary
Something went wrong
 
Last edited:
1. Who is "Coby"?

2. Why didn't you turn around?

3. I have it in the work airplane. I don't find it to be all that useful, but we don't fly into mountain airports all that often. The terrain map on the EGPWS is pretty useful though.
 
I think the OP meant Kobe Bryant.

I equipped my aircraft with an Aera 660 and GDL 39-3D to have synthetic vision. I Consider it a backup safety item. Is it necessary? No, but it brings peace of mind knowing I have it.
 
In mountains altitude=ground clearance. If you're using syn vis there's no reason to do it 100' AGL.
 
I think they were talking about TAWS in general and not necessarily synthetic vision which is a component of graphical, type "A" TAWS. I also think most of the media is out of its depth in discussing the crash that killed Kobe Bryant.

The spatial resolution of synthetic vision is going to depend a lot on the resolution of the display. Dynon's 4k "HDX" displays are really cool. I'm sure there are other TSO installations out there. But, really close up, you have to consider the granularity of the underlying data (the 1s and 0s) is just not going to be good enough guarantee terrain clearance foot by foot. Plus, you still have to think about those pesky wires that seem to pop up overnight. Synthetic Vision is a "future trend" indicator at best IMHO.
 
I don't think synthetic vision is going to be helpful 100' AGL or 100' from a canyon wall/mountain ridge. It's not like you're flying map of the earth on the screen, as the GPS accuracy and resolution isn't going to provide that ability. However, in the Kobe Bryant case, it may have been useful to avoid having gotten into the situation where they were trying to out-climb the mountain not knowing exactly where it was. The synth vision may have offered a bit more spacial awareness to avoid getting within 1/2 mile of the terrain to begin with, by letting the pilot see where he was in the corridor.
 
It's pretty good, but not something to bet your life on. I have flown full (test) approaches on an iPad with synthetic vision and it does work, but I would never recommend it for obvious reasons. Here's a little sample:

 
Profileclimb said:
I think relying on this high tech stuff can get you killed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps relying on a system that's iPad based. But a decent integrated system would likely enhance safety. As mentioned above, one wouldn't use it for threading between buildings in Manhattan.
 
Last edited:
I’m saying learn old school skills as technology will at some point let you down. There was a case where a 757 crew was approaching a third world airport and the only approach arable was an NDB approach as the ILS was down, they had forgotten the basics and were scrambling to figure out the approach. I pads overheat and shut down, GPS can fail, in fact the military has been known to jam GPS for training exercises, I’m saying don’t forget the basics and rely too much on technology.
 
I regularly fly two airplanes that have G1000s with synthetic vision. I really don’t find it useful. In fact, when I had a database mismatch the system didn’t work. I didn’t even notice it wasn’t working until after I had it fixed.
 
A digital surface database combined with LIDAR/Doppler can enable "visual" approaches to the ground in conditions where there is no out-the-window visibility at all.

Oh, and you need a helicopter...
 
I think synthetic vision is more of a gimmick. I’m sure it’s somewhat useful in an emergency situation but I think I’d rather want TAWS if I’m going to scud run in between mountains.
 
I activated the synthetic vision on my tablet (driven by the AHRS in my GTX 345 transponder over Bluetooth), did a few maneuvers, concluded "yep, this works, and I'll need to remember that it lags by 0.25 to 0.5 seconds", then turned it off and never used it again. I want to fly my airplane, not a computer, and the coloured elevation display on the GPS seems good enough for when I'm near high terrain.
 
I believe NTSB said that FAA didn’t follow their prior recommendation to require it in helicopters. Still seemed like an unfair comment to make at this juncture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I find it useful on approach to see the runway on the SV screen as a means of orientation. ILS can get twitchy close in, strong crosswinds on approach may have a runway out one wing or another. Seeing the runway on the screen helps.
 
FORANE said:
I find it useful on approach to see the runway on the SV screen as a means of orientation. ILS can get twitchy close in, strong crosswinds on approach may have a runway out one wing or another. Seeing the runway on the screen helps.
Click to expand...
Do you have SV tied to a heading source, so that the runway position is the same as it is outside the window?
 
For you guys who say syn vis isn’t useful? I disagree. I’ve had it with Garmin Pilot and a GDL39-3D for many years in my Cessna and now on the G3X in the Cub. It’s amazing to compare to the real view while flying a mountain pass down low. It depicts terrain exceptionally well. Would I fly it IFR down low through a pass? Hell no, but I’d use it as a tool to climb for better lateral clearance from the granite. As it is I use it as support for those legal but fuzzy air days. It validates what my eyes are telling me. It’s a great tool and from my own view in real life Garmin has the best offering, even on an iDevice.
 
My ex-partner in our C206 really wanted a G500 and synthetic vision (which he paid for) and it's "cute" but almost worthless in VMC and actually very annoying at times. Flying through BC and Alaska the aural alerts were frequent and very annoying, especially to a passenger who has to listen to what sounds like frantic yelling at the pilot to do something or you'll all die. You can inhibit that, but not in flight, and you would inhibit the graphical description as well, not just the annoying aural warning. For a Kobe like helicopter that frequently flew at a low altitude, I'm guessing that it would be shut off 99% of the time anyway.

One situation that it might be critical in is with an engine failure in IMC with low ceilings and visibility below you. If nothing else it could guide you to a valley where your crash might afford less head-on impact, and I suspect it would do a good job at that.
 
Ok, the guy knew that terrain was around him. He had over 8,000 hrs and by the sound of it, most in the LA Basin. You don’t need SVT or HTAWS to get around there VFR.

Say he had HTAWS and SVT. It would have been silent up until that last pass along 101. Then it would have been chirping “terrain...terrain.” Who cares? He can see the terrain at that point. The STC for HTAWS would most likely have a statement like ours that says for a caution, as long as you’re complying with the regs, no action is necessary. Once it goes to a warning, pilot action is necessary. But, there isn’t anything requiring a specific action for a warning so the whole statement is ambiguous. His SVT would have put a color code (yellow /red) on those two hills left and right as well. Who cares? He can see the hills left and right. The thing about SVT is, it’s only showing what’s immediately in front of you. The obstacle feature is somewhat nice down low but in this case, not a factor.

Now, once they got thru that pass and most likely went IIMC, non of that stuff matters because if he just would’ve leveled the wings and pulled torque, he would’ve easily topped any surrounding terrain and all his alerts would’ve ceased. If he were in serious high mountains and went IIMC that tech would be of help because you might not have enough power to get over the surrounding peaks.

I don’t mind HTAWS and SVT, but they induce alerts for 90 % of the time, are obvious to the pilot. Just yesterday I was landing at the hospital and it’s giving me a warning (red) “obstacle...obstacle.” Yeah, I’m landing on that obstacle! :D I could inhibit the warning, but then, what’s the point of having HTAWS then? Even the RADALT which I’m not sure they had one, isn’t all that helpful. It’s telling me what I’m seeing with my eyes. It might give me a good cutoff for our Part 135 min altitude (300 ft) but it’s not going to keep me from plowing into the ground if I go IIMC.

Let’s face it, the guy had 8,200 hrs and from reports, most likely had no actual. That’s not a good background to prepare someone for an IIMC episode. I don’t care about annual foggle training, that doesn’t cut it.
 
Last edited:
I'm betting an iPad with Foreflight synthetic vision would have saved lives in this situation. FAA said the Kobe copter flight dropped below radar coverage for flight following and was squawking 1200. Very sad and likely avoidable.
 
NordicDave said:
I'm betting an iPad with Foreflight synthetic vision would have saved lives in this situation. FAA said the Kobe copter flight dropped below radar coverage for flight following and was squawking 1200. Very sad and likely avoidable.
Click to expand...

I think in this kind of situation if you're going to use synthetic vision it needs to be on the PFD. You shouldn't be switching attention between PFD with attitude indicator, an iPad, and the outside view. On the PFD the attitude indicator overlies the synthetic vision, and I would think in a helicopter it would at least cause the pilot to slow way down, even just hover, and re-assess the options, including rotating into the direction he just came from.
 
I read a report that the helicopter was traveling 184mph and in a 4000fpm descent when it crashed. That sounds like more than a weather problem. I'll wait for the final report.
 
Stewartb said:
I read a report that the helicopter was traveling 184mph and in a 4000fpm descent when it crashed. That sounds like more than a weather problem. I'll wait for the final report.
Click to expand...

I think that was the impact speed after it apparently lost control, but the speed prior to the sudden climb was also pretty high, i.e. near its normal cruise speed, which also supports weather as the precipitating event.
 
Stewartb said:
I read a report that the helicopter was traveling 184mph and in a 4000fpm descent when it crashed. That sounds like more than a weather problem. I'll wait for the final report.
Click to expand...

And I read a report it was 2,000 FPM. Either way, those descent rates have nothing to with mechanical if that’s what you’re implying. The aircraft can easily hit 4,000 FPM and stay intact.
 
Velocity173 said:
Let’s face it, the guy had 8,200 hrs and from reports, most likely had no actual. That’s not a good background to prepare someone for an IIMC episode. I don’t care about annual foggle training, that doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...

He was a CFII with a current certificate. That said, IIMC can kill a current, proficient IFR pilot in the wrong circumstances. That the helicopter company did not allow IFR flight is absolutely absurd - especially in their area of operation.
 
Velocity173 said:
Let’s face it, the guy had 8,200 hrs and from reports, most likely had no actual. That’s not a good background to prepare someone for an IIMC episode. I don’t care about annual foggle training, that doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...

It's not sunny all the time in SoCal. Marine fog is common. I would be very surprised if he didn't have hundreds of hours of actual IFR time.

I read an article, whose source I don't recall, that stated the pilot was a CFI and CFII. It was the same article that related how he took a Grand Canyon tour ride, and shortly thereafter began taking lessons. The school source related his long journey, working multiple jobs and taking years to get enough hours to be hired as a commercial pilot.

In that scenario, not uncommon in aviation, I would be surprised if he didn't hold a CFI ticket. The CFII, not so sure.
 
3393RP said:
I read an article, whose source I don't recall, that stated the pilot was a CFI and CFII. It was the same article that related how he took a Grand Canyon tour ride, and shortly thereafter began taking lessons. The school source related his long journey, working multiple jobs and taking years to get enough hours to be hired as a commercial pilot.

In that scenario, not uncommon in aviation, I would be surprised if he didn't hold a CFI ticket. The CFII, not so sure.
Click to expand...

His certificate shows he was a CFII. There is only one pilot on the registry with his name.
 
I seriously doubt the guy didn't have significant time in IMC. In addition to his instructor rating, he was the senior pilot for the charter operater. Considering the common presence, especially in the coastal area north of the LA basin, of marine fog, his utility as a charter pilot to destinations from Santa Monica to Malibu would have been negligible. That doesn't seem to have been the case, he logged hundreds of hours per year after receiving his commercial license.
 
3393RP said:
I seriously doubt the guy didn't have significant time in IMC. In addition to his instructor rating, he was the senior pilot for the charter operater. Considering the common presence, especially in the coastal area north of the LA basin, of marine fog, his utility as a charter pilot to destinations from Santa Monica to Malibu would have been negligible. That doesn't seem to have been the case.
Click to expand...

The operator had an express policy against flying IFR, apparently due to the cost of 135 helicopter IFR compliance.
 
3393RP said:
It's not sunny all the time in SoCal. Marine fog is common. I would be very surprised if he didn't have hundreds of hours of actual IFR time.

I read an article, whose source I don't recall, that stated the pilot was a CFI and CFII. It was the same article that related how he took a Grand Canyon tour ride, and shortly thereafter began taking lessons. The school source related his long journey, working multiple jobs and taking years to get enough hours to be hired as a commercial pilot.

In that scenario, not uncommon in aviation, I would be surprised if he didn't hold a CFI ticket. The CFII, not so sure.
Click to expand...

I’m going by the statement a fellow pilot of his said in the Forbes article. Based on the accident pilot’s ratings, He’s most likely right.

Even if he had a CFII, in the helicopter world that means nothing. The vast majority of Part 91 and Part 135 helicopters are VFR only for a couple of reasons. First, most of your SE helos aren’t certified for IFR. Doesn’t matter that our 407 is better equipped than most SE piston IFR airplanes. Part 27 requirements trump 91.205 equipment. Second, unless the 135 operator has serious cash to maintain their Part 29 twin to IFR standards (autopilot / SAS, etc) and the increased insurance associated with that, they’re going with a VFR restriction. Not saying in this case they’re cheap, but for whatever reason, they chose to take an aircraft that could be operated SPIFR but decided not to.

On the civilian side of the house, the FAA restrictions don’t allow for most helo pilots to work up the ranks and fly actual wx. It’s all foggles. Military is essentially the only way you’re going to get actual in training. Actual after training is far more the norm in the military vs the civilian side as well. So yeah, basically I’m saying, the way an instrument ticket is obtained in a helo is pretty weak and the restrictions the FAA has on IMC in helos is very restrictive. Put those two together and you have people who spend a career without filing and flying IFR.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
He was a CFII with a current certificate. That said, IIMC can kill a current, proficient IFR pilot in the wrong circumstances. That the helicopter company did not allow IFR flight is absolutely absurd - especially in their area of operation.
Click to expand...

So how many turn downs has this company had due to weather? I’ll wager not many.

It’s very expensive to maintain an IFR Part 135 helicopter certificate. It boils down to economics.

As far as IFR and this operation? It wouldn’t had helped. IFR is only good airport to airport, or areas that a let down to VFR can be accomplished. Had the flight in question filed IFR he would have been unable to get to his destination.

Helicopters are a specialty operation and their use to do what fixed wing cannot. The large majority of Part 135 helicopter operations are VFR only.

The problem with this accident wasn’t their certification. It was a PIC who decided to continue flight into deteriorating weather in terrain, against their GOM, training and OpSpecs.
 
Last edited:
It’s cool, but use it as a crutch and you’ll likely go crunch

25% situational aid 75% panel candy, best I see it anyways.
 
My observations are obviously incorrect, as I didn't know the operater wasn't authorized to conduct IFR flights.

Thanks to those that provided better information than that which I used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top