Synthetic Vision, in Two Pictures

[kgruber]

To call this anything but revolutionary is bizarre. To those of us who 1/2 learned to fly B.G. (Before GPS), it's nothing short of a miracle.

Unless it were 1941 and the ILS was invented.....which will still get you to 200 1/2 all day long and 0/0 since about 1960. ........Ho Hum.........

 

[Silvaire]

Time to take this into the Spin Zone. If SV had been around in 1999 JFK Jr would still be alive.

 

[MAKG1]

Time to take this into the Spin Zone. If SV had been around in 1999 JFK Jr would still be alive.

No way. He had an AI, which is equivalent to what you're going to get for a horizon in SV.

He died 'cause he did stupid stuff, not the least of which was flying when he wasn't fit to fly in conditions that were over his head.

 

[narchee]

If it truly replicated the real world you would never need to get in an airplane, at least not for the entertainment factor. You could sit in a sim on the ground.

I thought SV was to help people with navigation and terrain avoidance, although I am perfectly happy with a plan view, three color (green/yellow/red) display for that.

I've flown a lot in the mountains (mostly Colorado) with a G1000. By far the most useful feature is the map on the MFD with the yellow and red shading and also some G1000 implementations have the profile view that is excellent. The actual terrain rendering is really lacking because of the lack of realistic lighting and shading and the total lack of any kind of visual feedback of distance. Besides the lack of any kind of shader, the polygons are flat rendered as well. I'm not asking for photo realistic rendering of the landscape, what I'm asking for is enough functional realism to make it useful.

On the G1000 when you upgrade to the SVT feature you get traffic targets in the PFD 3D View (very useful), the runway (very useful) and obstacles too (very useful). It is probably worth it for that if you don't mind parting with an extra $10k or so. The terrain rendering is a joke in my opinion and as someone who is involved in 3D graphics applications I find it amazing that this was considered acceptable. Maybe it is deliberate... At the moment you can't really navigate only looking at the terrain rendering seeing it is so crude whereas if you could maybe people out there would be tempted to do that (illegally).

 

[Velocity173]

Time to take this into the Spin Zone. If SV had been around in 1999 JFK Jr would still be alive.

Wasn't he pretty much over water? So you'd have blue on top with blue on bottom? Not sure how SVT would help. I would actually prefer a PFD AI or an old school gyro AI with blue on top and orange on bottom.

Then again, I've been so disoriented (Coriolis Illusion)before during an IAP that I had to keep telling myself "blue is on top, blue is on top...do I want blue on top????" That's how jacked up one can be under in IMC with little experience suffering from SD. I always tell people, it's not always about trusting your instruments. I trusted what my instrument was telling me, I just couldn't comprehend what it ment. My brain went from panic mode, to don't touch anything mode, to ok, I'm starting to come back mode. Took maybe 30 secs to push my way thru all that.

Glass with orientation arrows when you get into an unusual attitude? I think that helps. If course a good AP helps as well.

 

[olasek]

The actual terrain rendering is really lacking because of the lack of realistic lighting and shading

Wrong, the shading is pretty good.

and the total lack of any kind of visual feedback of distance

Again, wrong, it has grid pattern that gives excellent idea of distance.

the polygons are flat rendered

I don't see any flat polygons, even in mountainous terrain, no sharp contours that would stare at you, smoothing is very satisfying.


I have serious suspicion about your claims that you ever flew behind the G1000.

 

[Jay Honeck]

On the G1000 when you upgrade to the SVT feature you get traffic targets in the PFD 3D View (very useful), the runway (very useful) and obstacles too (very useful). It is probably worth it for that if you don't mind parting with an extra $10k or so. The terrain rendering is a joke in my opinion and as someone who is involved in 3D graphics applications I find it amazing that this was considered acceptable. Maybe it is deliberate... At the moment you can't really navigate only looking at the terrain rendering seeing it is so crude whereas if you could maybe people out there would be tempted to do that (illegally).

Ah, we FINALLY got to the crux of your issue. I agree, paying $10,000 extra for SV in a certificated Garmin box would be stupid.

The FAA has made certain that this amazing safety feature is unaffordable for most GA pilots. Those of us in the experimental world, however, can reap the benefits of synthetic vision, HITS approaches, terrain, traffic, etc, for a tiny fraction of what you paid for the SV upgrade alone.

My entire panel cost $11,000. That's for EVERYTHING, installed. To put the same (actually less capable) type of panel in my Pathfinder was last estimated to cost $50K+.

 

[MAKG1]

Glass with orientation arrows when you get into an unusual attitude? I think that helps. If course a good AP helps as well.

An AP doesn't do anything for unusual attitudes. It will disengage above a given pitch or roll angle.

It does help with lowering workload at critical times, if nothing goes wrong.

 

[Velocity173]

An AP doesn't do anything for unusual attitudes. It will disengage above a given pitch or roll angle.

It does help with lowering workload at critical times, if nothing goes wrong.

MOST APs help in keeping the pilot from getting into an unusual attitude. SOME, like the one I fly, have a sub mode (stability augmentation) to level the aircraft in an unusual attitude at the press of a button.

Edit: and just to clarify, I don't consider SAS an AP by the traditional sense. It provides dynamic stability. However, the current aircraft I fly, SAS not only provides stability but it maintains a level attitude and heading when engaged. It acts as a "panic button."