Interesting that you posted in this thread, and after so long, H&H. Really a subject worthy of it's own topic. And of course a subject that has been discussed a very great deal in this forum.
Why can't Johnny read instruments? Why can't Johnny trust instruments? Why can't Johnny ignore his vestibular system?
Very much in the "for what it's worth" department, as a VFR only rated pilot with just the tiny bit of FAA mandated hood time, I actually prefer, am more comfortable with, the basic instruments by themselves. Synthetic vision does nothing for me. Perhaps it is the lack of three dimensional information. I love my tablet. I have weather and traffic on it. I use it preferentially for horizontal navigation. But when it comes to keeping the whirly bits on top it does nothing for me that way.
The other week I was flying a long, daytime cross country in very hazy conditions. Legal, but not an easy day for VFR flying. You might have called it a very UK sort of weather day
. It even had a short water crossing where the angle of the opposite shoreline was perfect for inducing leans. Just exactly the kind of conditions that, had it been night, did kill JFK, Jr. All instruments were ready, AH horizon line adjusted just so, in case a rogue cloud should reach through the haze to engulf me (none did, planned and flew with plenty of margin to the actual ceiling), but I never once thought to bring up the synthetic vision display (and it probably would have been a bad sign if I had!)
I am curious: do any "real" IFR pilots, meaning those who fly in actual IFR in actual IFR capable helicopters, not with some Foggles in training helicopter because I know you all dismiss such flying as not "real", find synthetic vision to have any value? Not just attitude information on the EFIS, which certainly does have value, but a synthetic display of the terrain ahead? Except on approach or departure one should be very far from terrain and obstacles when IFR, correct? Doesn't that make the synthetic details superfluous and distracting?