FLIR for the Common Man

[wabower]

The EVS systems have been installed on heavier bizjets since the '90's, and are nice to have. Like all other gee-whiz devices they come with some operational limitations.

 

[denverpilot]

The EVS systems have been installed on heavier bizjets since the '90's, and are nice to have. Like all other gee-whiz devices they come with some operational limitations.

What's it look like when bugs are splattered all over the lens? Heh.

 

[darrell]

What's it look like when bugs are splattered all over the lens? Heh.

We've been using Max-Viz for years now and bugs on the lens don't appear to degrade the image at all. Of course the lens is only about an inch around, so it's not very big, and rarely gets more than a bug or two on it before it gets cleaned...

 

[PilotAlan]

Ever taken a look at "clear" plexiglass with an IR camera?

Ever try to get 3D awareness from any camera?

Jay is saying technology is magic, nothing more nor less.

No, it's never going to be a meaningful Android app either.

You can either fantasize about nonexistent X-ray vision, or you can fly a plane that really exists. Guess which I choose.

OK, are you trolling now?

Your comments have no relation to what he or I said. So either you are incapable of understanding, choosing not to understand, or intentionally trolling.
In any case, I'll not respond to any further posts from you in this thread.

 

[flyingron]

The SVT is great when the destination is the airport (or the obstacle is in the database). I actually flew an SVT down to the runway under the hood in another guy's Navion. It's pretty impressive.

 

[Henning]

Not long ago, I started a thread about wanting to put an infrared camera in our RV-8 -- basically a poor man's FLIR. Aside from just being neat, it's hard to imagine a better aircraft safety enhancement than an instrument that can turn night into day.

As always, the usual group of naysayers came off their rockers to dispel the notion as "too expensive", "not effective", or (my favorite) another "toy in the cockpit to substitute for flying skill".

And now...here it is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...7860?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Amazingly, the technology is now being demonstrated in a cell phone camera! It certainly can't be long before some intrepid homebuilder adapts this technology to the cockpit, bringing true FLIR capabilities to the common man.

We live in amazing times. Just three years ago, the tablet I use in the cockpit every day was Star Trek stuff...

Years ago I saw an ad featuring a G-IV with a PFD that back grounded with a FLIR forward looking view. Windshield was 0/0, PFD was a clear view of the runway. Having my own experience with FLIR, I understand some of the range and temp gradient limitations involved, but would still love to be able to flip it on the right side of my G-500 on short final for night and IMC approaches and landings.

One of the disconcerting limitations is when the ambient temps and living creature temps are about equal, they do not show up. In Indonesia I had a FLIR on the boat where the water was 90+ at the surface and there were thousands of Indo fishermen paddling their wooden canoes around in the middle of the night. Luckily they all smoke because they wouldn't appear on the screen until about 1/4 mile away, and all you could see was the cherry of their cig glowing a hot spot. It wasn't until they were within 100' that I could define the person and canoe.

 

[Henning]

I had one of these systems in my 2008 mercedes. It was a fun gimmick but it did absolutely nothing to make driving safer. In the future these systems I think will have some application, but I think it may be on the order of the SVT for the G1000 for some considerable amount of time. Nice to have but I have much better things to blow $10,000(or whatever 1000's of dollars) on.

No, SVT is about the best flying dollar you can spend if you fly night/IMC in and around inhospitable terrain or when another emergency is going on in IMC. There is nothing I have seen that is better for situational awareness with minimal thought and distraction from other unfolding events required.

 

[wabower]

Was it truly a synthetic (data-base) system or from real-time sensors?

The SVT is great when the destination is the airport (or the obstacle is in the database). I actually flew an SVT down to the runway under the hood in another guy's Navion. It's pretty impressive.

 

[Henning]

Got it, use it, love it.

I'm thinking about having to differentiate between open ground and a pine forrest in dark night conditions. Or avoid a power line, or ???? That's where I see the benefit of FLIR vs. SVT. Synthetic vision does depict water and over certain terrain like heavy tall forrest I've considered using water in an emergency vs. something worse. With FLIR you might have even better options like a field.

I just had an oil pressure control spring go out on me. It happened in daylight, but suddenly having low oil pressure over a very unpopulated area was un-nerving. If it was night... well that would really get your attention.

Not really, by the time you can pick out the difference between a field and trees on FLIR, you're pretty much committed to landing ahead. There needs to be a rather distinct thermal gradient for FLIR to have a good picture.

 

[wabower]

Years ago I saw an ad featuring a G-IV with a PFD that back grounded with a FLIR forward looking view. Windshield was 0/0, PFD was a clear view of the runway. Having my own experience with FLIR, I understand some of the range and temp gradient limitations involved, but would still love to be able to flip it on the right side of my G-500 on short final for night and IMC approaches and landings..

The system in the G-V was designed/calibrated based on the reflectivity of a cold wet concrete runway. Not surprisingly, most of our practice approaches were done with the sim programmed for Anchorage.

 

[Alexb2000]

Not really, by the time you can pick out the difference between a field and trees on FLIR, you're pretty much committed to landing ahead. There needs to be a rather distinct thermal gradient for FLIR to have a good picture.

That video in the link looked like it would be easy to differentiate. I've never used it in person, but it looked interesting.

 

[Henning]

The system in the G-V was designed/calibrated based on the reflectivity of a cold wet concrete runway. Not surprisingly, most of our practice approaches were done with the sim programmed for Anchorage.

That would make the runway lighting environment stand out nicely.

 

[Henning]

That video in the link looked like it would be easy to differentiate. I've never used it in person, but it looked interesting.

Again, climate can play a large role in how the picture comes across. For that application I would prefer really bright landing lights over FLIR.