Garmin 1000 3d

[dont overfil]

Been reading about the 3D add on for the Garmin I000 and was wondering who this is aimed at? No doubt it's a wonderful piece of technology but not necessary for IFR, in fact it will clutter the screen, and for VFR you look out the window.
What do you think? Is this going to encourage scud running?
DO

[soay]

I think the Garmin SVS depends on the availability of WAAS, so I don't suppose it'll be cluttering our screens anytime soon.

[PlasticPilot]

Many apparently useless things contribute to situation awareness, and this is exactly what SVT will do. As an example, it's true that when ATC gives vectors to a pilot, it takes responsibility of terrain separation. We can crosscheck that with MSA and MORA, but the SVT will make it feel more comfortable.

The list of things that are not "needed" include HSI, RMI, TCAS, and to some extent GPS and autopilot. Would you fly without them ?

[IO540]

SV has been possible for years, since NASA allowed access to its space shuttle radar imagery. You could run it on a tablet PC.

Now it comes in a certified product.

It's handy but I would not spend money on it over and above the really useful thing which I already have: GPWS.

[PlasticPilot]

As far as I understood it, aural warnings already existed for terrain with the non-svt version of the G1000... despite I never tested them by myself ;-)

It's may be not worth an EGPWS with prediction and all the stuff, but it's a step in that direction.

[IanSeager]

Garmin's SVT is a huge step forwards IMHO, (WAAS is not necessary BTW). Quite apart from any increased situational awareness the 'Highway in the Sky' combined with an on screen Velocity Vector make flying approaches very easy indeed.

Ian

[Rod1]

Interestingly the non-certified world has been fitting Highway in the Sky for years. I designed my panel in 03 with a HIS capable horizon (never needed the feature though). It is possible to get a very similar 3d display on non certified glass for under £2000 all in!

Rod1

[drambuster]

A key point to note is that with this 'terrain' database derived from Nasa, it has missing data and so cannot be deemed reliable for flying in low visibility below MSA (even if you have a very accurate position derived from EGNOS, the EU equivalent of WAAS which is fully deployed but not yet certified for use with safety-of-life operations - see www.esa.int/esaNA/SEMKMQWO4HD_egnos_0.html )

On various trips around Scotland, for example, I have found the following very substantial islands/hills missing (i.e showing clear blue water :eek:) :

Scarba (1500' island just north of Jura)
Muck (450' island south of Rum and Eigg)
Scalpay (1300' island NW of Isle of Skye, Broadford airfield)

Then on another recent trip I departed on a leg from Dresden to Hungary which took us south into the Czech Republic. We were VFR as we headed over ground rising from about 1000' to 3000', but with plenty of steep valleys. Prague Information were keeping us very low and I observed there were several substantial hills up to 2800' or so that the Garmin 496 and 530 'terrain' functions were indicating as part of the valleys - i.e absolutely no indication of these massive obstructions.

I did contact Garmin and asked them about the fact that Scarba, for example, was missing off the terrain and map pages even though it was a pretty impressive rock rising steeply out of the water to 1500'. They pointed out that the GPS units are for VFR use only and to read the warnings carefully (see below) (and they suggested updating to the latest database, which I did but this didn't sort the problem)

So in my view the terrain function is fine to use as a elevation 'trend' indicator but stick to VFR navigation for vertical separation. If you're IMC then MSA is the only way to do it. If you're flying IFR then I don't really see what the use of synthetic terrain is . . . at least until they can guarantee it is 100% correct. But it does look very pretty !! :}

Garmin warnings:

"For VFR use only as an aid to prudent navigation. All information is presented for reference only. You assume total responsibility and risk associated with using this device. Terrain and obstacle data are provided only as an aid to situational awareness"

"Terrain data MUST NOT be used as the sole basis for decisions or maneuvres to avoid terrain or obstacles. Terrain data MUST NOT be used for navigation"


Drambuster

[IO540]

Interesting post drambuster.

One thing is that the NASA data is crippled in accuracy outside the USA. I recall reading something on the website more or less saying this... 300ft accuracy outside, 100ft accuracy inside or something like that.

There were many complaints from many countries about NASA publishing data enabling the countries to be attacked by their usual enemies (in the 3rd world this fear is pretty standard). The visual imagery (initially made available widely on NASA World Wind) shows loads of "top secret" military installations in the 3rd world etc etc. We will never know how much data has been crippled. But the public imagery is definitely for the most part years old. Of course this time delay doesn't explain missing terrain!

However, the more basic thing is that only a fool would rely on these terrain depictions to fly in IMC close to terrain. [E]GPWS is a last resort lifesaver only - coming into action if the normal situational awareness picture has come apart due to some major pilot errors - and nobody I know of pretends otherwise.

If SV is to be used for actually flying an approach, some serious database supplementary work will need doing for the immediate area. An ILS or some other precision approach with a DH of 200ft takes you within a mere 200ft of the ground :)

Even the Shoreham 20 NDB/DME approach, when plotted onto a 1:25k O/S chart, takes you within a few hundred feet of the terrain a few miles out (this is obvious when you fly the GPS track and the vertical profile precisely, autopilot-coupled, and look out of the window). Only the "mandatory DME" stepdown stops you flying into the hill if you suffer a fairly normal NDB lateral error.

I have tested my Garmin 496 based "EGPWS" setup and found the warnings to be fairly accurate in all cases. But I accept there are major errors. American pilots have already reported totally spurious warnings.

[drambuster]

IO540:only a fool would rely on these terrain depictions to fly in IMC close to terrain

IO540 . . . I couldn't agree with you more. The worrying aspect is that the technology is being presented in the aviation press as virtually being a new method of flight operation. A few quotes from Flyer, for example, although I have to say they're all the same :

The Cirrus Perspective "gives unrivalled situational awareness"

"The terrain changes colour depending on your height. The Flight Path Marker will tell you exactly where you'll crash if you do nothing" (well whoopee for the FPM because it ain't going to warn you about the 1500' Scarba or the 5% of other obstructions missing off the database)

"In addition to natural terrain, the system will also warn of man-made obstacles that are in its database. Again the FPM points to the scene of the accident if no action is taken"

This all creates the impression, by implication but not direct statement, that the "Perspective by Garmin" is providing an 'accurate perspective' . . when it certainly does not. If you're IMC you should be above MSA and so you won't see all this pretty stuff. If you're VMC and down low in the valleys then why not just look out the window?:hmm:

The reality is that most of us have looked at this great technology and thought "wow . . that would be dead handy for making it back in the clag", and this impression is actively reinforced by the press because there is a notable lack of critical assessment.

I am all for GPS technology and I believe Garmin does a great job pushing the boundaries. However, I do think the G1000 'Perspective' advertorial hype is a case of unbridled enthusiasm driven by the techies in their marketing department. The downside, IMHO, should be a little more than just a legal statement on screen "that terrain data MUST NOT be used for navigation"

Hopefully Richard Collins of Flying magazine will get his hands on this kit soon and we can get straight to the bottom line !

Drambuster

[IanSeager]

Drambuster

I wrote those words, and certainly didn't (and don't) want to give the impression that Garmin's SVT would be good for scud running or home grown IAPs.

We all know that there are many CFIT accidents. There was one during the departure phase in the US not long ago that would not have happened with SVT or TAWS for that matter (what do you think about fitting TAWS in aircraft BTW?). It wouldn't take a lot of searching to find CFIT accident reports where the aircraft was flying IFR.

well whoopee for the FPM because it ain't going to warn you about the 1500' Scarba or the 5% of other obstructions missing off the database

If Scarba isn't in the database then you are of course right, but that's not (IMHO) justification enough to damn the entire system. I'll email Garmin and Jeppesen to ask why it isn't there and what can be done.

One further point, I can guarantee that the article wasn't an advertorial. I haven't flown anything with better situational awareness. The HITS and Velocity Vector make flying an instrument approach/transition/hold accurately very easy.

Ian

[Fuji Abound]

I think the smart pilot uses this technology with one eye on its shortcomings and one eye on the aspects from which he can benefit.

None available within the GA market is yet perfect.

For example. I am very impressed with the electronic approach charts that Avidyne provided as part of their Integra system. The charts enable the pilot to combine the best of the paper world with the best of the virtual world on the same screen. Garmin's approach technology is not as good in that it does not interpolate the plate with the approach as well as Avidyne. Combine the moving map with the plate and terrain awareness and the pilot not only has the ability to verify that he is where he intends to be in the procedure but also to avoid potential hazards when he departs from the procedure for some reason.

Why anyone would feel the need to rely on TAWS outside a published procedure escapes me unless it was part of a home made procedure in which you had personally surveyed the entire area whilst in VMC to ensure your procedure and the terrain correlated with the real world!

Was TAWS designed to provide en route terrain clearance whilst scud running - I dont think that charge sits well at Garmin's door. After all if you are in VMC you going to be looking out the window, if you are en route in IMC you are presumably ignoring every shred of your training if you rely on TAWS to keep you clear of the ground. The vast majority of FITs involving IMC qualified pilots occur during the approach procedure usually because of a loss of situational awareness or control during the approach phase or on the go around. Whilst I suppose it is possible TAWS is also inaccurate in the area surrounding a published approach couple TAWS as I indicated above with the published procedure and you are going to have to get some aspect of the approach or go around horribly wrong if you end up colliding with the terrain for no other reason than a loss of situational awareness.

[drambuster]

Ian

First of all it's not just Scarba missing off the terrain database (if you read my earlier post). If the data cannot be certified as complete and accurate then it cannot be relied upon (as Garmin are the first to point out!).

So what is synthetic terrain for? I don't get it. All your screen shots are taken at low level (presumably press release shots). If you were to climb to MSA or above there would be nothing to see. And if I was at 1,000' AGL in VMC then I would rather be looking out at the view - not heads down.

It does provide a trend indicator for terrain - but so does the standard terrain page on a 296/496 or 530 etc.

The only real use I can see was if you had engine failure in a SEP in IMC with a 500' cloud base and had an unplanned arrival over rough terrain. The 'Perspective' kit would definitely give you a better chance than not having this capability (so long as you're not ditching just north of Jura .. . or a few other places !)

I'm not damning the system - I just think we should discuss the applications because it is not as straight forward as it may at first appear.

Drambuster

[IanSeager]

So what is synthetic terrain for? I don't get it. All your screen shots are taken at low level (presumably press release shots). If you were to climb to MSA or above there would be nothing to see. And if I was at 1,000' AGL in VMC then I would rather be looking out at the view - not heads down.

The screen shots in the magazine were press shots. I flew the aeroplane in Minnesota and you have to go a long way to find decent hills. Some of the other shots were taken by me.

In an ideal world we'd look out of the window all of the time when flying VFR, and be perfectly safe when flying IFR either enroute or during approach/departure because we'd always be where we should be. The trouble is, CFIT is a big killer and it happens to when VFR and IFR, even being an ATPL operating a commercial flight doesn't provided immunity. The terrain part of SVT is just one more bit of easily understood information that adds to situational awarness.

Here's an extract from a recent NTSB accident report

On March 14, 2008, at 2350 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, N141SR, was destroyed when it impacted mountainous terrain shortly after takeoff from Front Royal-Warren County Airport (FRR), Front Royal, Virginia. The certificated private pilot and a passenger were fatally injured. Night marginal visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the planned flight to Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), Baltimore, Maryland. An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Although it is only a preliminary report it seems likely that the pilot got it wrong and did not fly an instrument departure. He made a mistake and he paid for it with his life and that of his son. I believe that he would be living today if he had been flying an SVT equipped aeroplane.

SVT comes with another significant feature - Highway in the sky - that, combined with the velocity vector make flying an instrument approach/transition/hold etc. very easy indeed. In my opinion, the change is as significant as the step from steam to glass.

Ian

[Fuji Abound]

Ian

I dont know on what point you two are disagreeing?

TAWS is of no use en route.

TAWS may be very useful in avoiding flight into terrain during an approach or go around.

Its that simple really - isnt it?

[IO540]

The more pretinent Q, for any CFIT accident, is whether EGPWS would not have prevented it, but SV would have done.

I would be really suprised if anybody can find any such instance.

But we must distinguish between using the terrain depiction for regular flying (in virtual VMC), and using it for emergency terrain avoidance. For the latter, it's bound to add value, but I wouldn't pay extra for it because I already get GPWS via the G496 in the yoke, wired into the intercom. For the former, would pilots elect to fly and land "visually" using SV, while in solid IMC, rather than flying standard IFR procedures?? That is certainly a tempting thing to do, but if you are going to do that you need a 100% good database!!!

It's a bit of a philosophical debate. I can run Jepp FliteDeck on my tablet computer. This shows the Jepp approach plate and shows the aircraft positioned over it. So, it should be impossible to fly an approach incorrectly!

Well, that is quite true, but let's say you are flying an ILS or VOR approach; what will be your primary guidance? You could just "use everything you have" but life soon gets too cluttered. (It is great fun for a co-pilot to keep an eye on it though).

People tend to use the best single source available, with cross-checks if they are smart.

So, if flying an NDB approach, most smart pilots use the GPS as primary (either tracking the overlay depiction in the database, or simply using the OBS mode and tracking the magenta line), while checking the ADF at the FAF only. This is actually a SOP of one airline I know about, except they use the FMS not a GPS; they don't fly an NDB approach the way it is taught in the IR where you are supposed to track the thing no matter how wildly it deviates.

The above is done because the NDB system is so crappy that if you did fly the NDB track you might have to do a 30 degree dogleg just a few miles out - this is very much the case at Shoreham and Lydd for example.

But with better navaid based systems e.g. VOR LOC or ILS, what is the best way to fly these?

I fly VOR approaches as per my NDB approach description above (using the OBS mode). That avoids the dead zone issues etc if one was to go missed for example and end up close to the VOR. It also facilitates accurate autopilot tracking.

But an ILS is flown using the standard ILS kit - the most reliable and accurate way available.

So, given that IAPs are not going to disappear because future SV-equipped pilots could always land visually :) I see the use of SV for a landing being limited to fields without an IAP, and for that one would need a really solid database...

[Fuji Abound]

Well, that is quite true, but let's say you are flying an ILS or VOR approach; what will be your primary guidance? You could just "use everything you have" but life soon gets too cluttered.

I am not sure that is completely true with glass - if that is the point you were seeking to make.

With both the G1000 and Avidyne clearly you will be closely monitoring the PFD during the approach - whatever type it is.

Both work in much the same way, except with the Avidyne the plate is painted underneath the rose on the PFD which is a very good idea.

In both cases you are going to have the procedure painted on the moving map on the MFD. Combine this with terrain and not only can you ensure the approach is proceeding in accordance with the procedure but as you descend below then some of the surrounding terrain will be painted in yellow and then red on the PFD.

I think it is possible for the pilot to monitor both screens.

[drambuster]

Ian,

Rather than asking Garmin to explain why Scarba (and the rest) are missing (as I have already asked them and they disclaim all responsibility for the accuracy of the data), why not ask them to outline where they see 'synthetic vision' development going in the future ? Let's assume the database is developed to a 100% certified status for the purposes of this enquiry.

Do they share IO540's comment?:

I see the use of SV for a landing being limited to fields without an IAP,

Or is it purely for situational awareness ?

I would be interested to know where they hope to take this 'vision thing' :)

[dont overfil]

Just checked my Bendix King Skymap which uses a jepp (out of date) database. According to this there is no ground above 2000 ft on Mull. CAA chart says 3171ft. I know it's different technology but getting the basics right would be a start.
DO

[Rod1]

The uncertified kit I have been looking at comes with a database and an editor. You can literally produce your own “scenery” for your own strip and get every tree, hedge and taxiway spot on. I assume the G1000 will not let you insert something into a database that is missing?

Rod1

[IO540]

Just checked my Bendix King Skymap which uses a jepp (out of date) database. According to this there is no ground above 2000 ft on Mull. CAA chart says 3171ft. I know it's different technology but getting the basics right would be a start.

This has been known in some circles for years.

The Jeppesen data used in all GPS units has the elevations wildly wrong. On my KMD550, there are mountains whose heights are thousands of feet out, usually in the UNsafe direction.

More recently it was discovered (I have the details) that the elevation data in Jepp Flitestar is thousands of feet out too, usually also in the UNsafe direction. This came to light after map data analysis after the crash of N2195B in France in Feb 07 although nobody suggests Jepp data elevation errors were the cause of that. Jepp were notified of this at the time but TMK did not comment.

It appears very likely that the Jepp elevation data comes from a particular source and was processed (downsampled, to reduce the size) by averaging adjacent spot elevations (instead of taking the highest spot in the group which is the obviously correct way).

This sort of thing should not bother most people because somebody flying IFR would be flying at airway MEAs, somebody flying VFR should plan the MSA according to either the SSA or the elevations shown on printed charts, and somebody flying IFR but off airways will either be flying under radar control and thus implicitly be above the MVA, and somebody flying IFR and not under radar control better be damn careful about his data sources..............!!!!

It's a difficult topic to pontificate on. I would like to think that no smart pilot would trust the Jepp electronic elevation data (Flitestar, etc) for primary MSA planning purposes for flight in potential IMC, and I never did trust it even before the KMD550/Flitestar stuff I refer to above came to light a few years ago, and I would have never used the terrain colour coding on the KMD550 for terrain avoidance in IMC, but if you take a pilot who is new to this game, isn't he entitled to expect stuff to be right? If something is not right and safe, it should not be provided at all. If you give somebody a bike, he has a reasonable expectation that the wheels will not come off in the first five minutes. But the Jepp elevation data (which you find in the normal GPS) never had any wheels in the first place.

But the "certified" terrain data discussed in this thread is something else - it supposedly comes from the Space Shuttle radar imagery, was generated using a uniform and automated process, and "cannot" be wrong unless somebody has dropped the ball in processing it... This is the data which you get in the GNSx30 with TAWS, and in the Garmin 496. If this data has major missing bits that is interesting...

[M609]

I know parts of Scandinavia is a "black hole" in Jeppesen terms when it comes to airspace etc, but I find the terrain database in 296 shockingly poor.

Major islands on the coast of Norway are missing (So bad that it made me second guess my chart navigation skills on one flight this winter, until I decided to ignore the GPS) , and as IO540 points out, the max elevation on hills are off by quite a few hundred feet in the unsafe direction.

The theory about averaging spot elevations seems plausible, because from what I've seen the error is greatest on mountains that are "pointy". More accurate for gentle sloping hills.

The terrain feature on the 296 is a great last ditch terrain avoidance thingy (that is, better than nothing) but I allso fear that it (and similar products) can lull fellow aviatiors that are mesmerized by shiny gadgets in the cockpit, into a false sense of safety. :oh: