Just like the sim....

[172driver]

Being a steam-gauge driver (and never having flown with a G1000 or any other glass cockpit), I must say I like what I see here:

Sporty's Video Tip of the Week

What does everyone out there think of this (please no 'but you have to navigate by looking out' replies - although in a way this is exactly that!).

Disclaimer - I have nothing to do with either Garmin or Sporty's

[LH2]

That's quite neat (although I do hope they're not using Jeppessen's terrain database ).

So what is the regulation status of synthetic vision technology in FAA-land?

[Fuji Abound]

I love it.

In GA terms I have used both the G1000 and Avidyne systems, although not the G1000 with SVT.

Glass presents the pilot with so much more information. The designers have done a pretty good job with the presentation as well so once you are familiar with the system it is simple to access the data without being over loaded.

I guess it makes you lazy. Whether IFR or VFR all the work is done for you, there are very few worries about situational awareness, route planning is instant and, in the IFR enviroment, it is difficult to ever be caught out by a procedure again.

All that said, you still have to fly the aircraft, but you have a great deal more time to attend to other tasks.

I cant think of many, if any reasons why anyone would favour conventional instruments over glass, it is that good. Operationally, cost and reliability may yet prove long term issues and there is a real danger pilots trained on glass will find it very difficult to go back to fly with a map, stopwatch, pen and pencil, but hey how many sailors can still use a sextant.

[Final 3 Greens]

Operationally, cost and reliability may yet prove long term issues and there is a real danger pilots trained on glass will find it very difficult to go back to fly with a map, stopwatch, pen and pencil

Perhaps the government will introduce a scrappage scheme for old bangers?

[Droopystop]

Looks fantastic. Definitely the way forward although I do wonder who this is aimed at. Basically it seems that SVT gives you a sort of EGPWS without the aural warnings (although I suppose that would be easy to integrate) and fancy flight director. To be honest with the latter, you don't need the former when flying IFR. When flying VFR, you want to be looking out the window anyway, so the SVT is of no real benefit over a moving map.

I have to say the screen looks cluttered compared with the glass I fly behind and wonder if now we have too much information presented to us. All we need is the essentials and (this is the real benefit of glass) the ability to have that information presented as clearly as possible.

I hope there is a means of training for the G1000/SVT out with the cockpit, as I found the transition from dials to glass harder than I thought - so much choice, so many more buttons to push. I also wonder how many people would be suckered by the novelty and try flying the screen and not the world outside.

Glass coupled with a good autopilot does much to reduce workload (although there is a transitional phase where the worklaod increases). Does glass without autopilot reduce workload? I would say no initially but yes with practice in ordinary situations, however it might be a distraction when the chips are down. Suitable for a 30 hour per year PPL? Not if they have been brought up on dials. But those who own your own and get plenty of time in, fantastic.

[IO540]

There is no regulatory regime, nor IMHO will there "ever" be, in which synthetic vision will be regarded as VMC. The terrain data comes from the US space shuttle (SRTM) radar imagery, done some years ago, which (in its publicly released version) is accurate to about +/-100ft (though it has been degraded outside the USA - I recall reading the SRTM website mentioning +/-300ft) and I guess that for regions where there is "enough business" (the USA in this case) they supplement it with the obstacle data.

I've got a Garmin 496 yoke-mounted and this has the SRTM database for Europe; this is my poor-man's EGPWS but is actually really effective. It has European obstacle data too, and so far it has been found to work in all tests against terrain. I get the TERRAIN AHEAD PULL UP warnings in the headsets, just like the "certified" version costing thousands.

But when it comes to SVT, having seen some stupidity (like what LH2 refers to; the utterly trash terrain data in Flitestar) in the way some of the data is managed, I would not trust my life with it for casual flight in IMC. The GPWS technology is wonderful as a last-resort lifesaver in cases of a total loss of situational awareness, which is why big jets all have to have it (and it has reduced the CFITs to more or less zero) but that's a different thing to doing a whole flight with it, below the MSA, relying on the database accuracy all the way along. It's a difference between doing an flight from Southend to Trondheim carrying a life raft, and doing the same flight with the spark plugs done up only finger-tight.

Especially in Europe where the GA scene is much poorer and consequently the database will get so little real testing. It's like flight planning programs - you can have glaring errors in some southern European countries and they stay there for years, because there is almost no GA in these places. So you take your new Cirrus with SVT for a trip down to say Greece and you will probably be the first person ever to be exercising the system down there. Think about that! For flight in IMC below the MSA? Not me - I've been in hardware/software for many years

I often write negatively on new developments in GA avionics but that's because I've seen some of the utter crap that is out there, developed by people who have little experience of developing robust software. Certification (TSO etc) means nothing in GA because the manufacturer simply ticks boxes on the application form and sends it off to FAA or EASA. In the end, the product is only as good as the testing it gets in the market, and only as good as the market feedback gets taken notice of (probably more by Garmin than by e.g. Honeywell), and in "poor Europe" there will be so little feedback that you will be the guinea pig for everything new. The Q is: do you feel lucky?

There is also an ongoing cost. The databases are not cheap. Look at the cost of updating the terrain database in the G496 and multiply it a few times. Add in "nice" stuff like Jeppview approach charts and georeferenced airport diagrams (which is infinitely more useful) and you could easily be looking at £2000 a year in updates, just for Europe.

Nice product though! Long time coming, since MSFS had this for how long? 10 years? You can buy X-Plane with the world's SRTM scenery on half a dozen DVDs for about £50.

[busidriver]

In my career to date, I have had one 'steam driven' instrument failure, and seven glass screen failures (in Boeings, ATRs, and Airbuses).

I think 'reliability' is more of a problem than the manufacturers would have us believe...

[vanHorck]

And when the glass goes, all goes.....

I still prefer the steam gauges combined with a moving map color display, best of both worlds for now...

[soay]

Originally Posted by vanHorck

And when the glass goes, all goes.....

... except for the backup AI, ASI, altimeter and compass. Been there.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

below the MSA, relying on the database accuracy

Surely to goodness nobody would ever think of dreaming of doing that?

[Fuji Abound]

Surely to goodness nobody would ever think of dreaming of doing that?

Hopefully they wouldnt, but how many people have been caught out on botched approaches? How many people fly made up approaches and run into problems? How many people have been caught out scud running? Clearly not something to plan to do, but might be a life saver when unplanned.

I think 'reliability' is more of a problem than the manufacturers would have us believe...

Not sure about that in the GA world, aleit you arent comparing like with like. In the GA world many of the steam guages are very old and the build quality may have not been up to much compared with the commercial stuff. On the other hand anything with glass will probably only be a few years old. That means across the GA fleet glass is likely to prove far more reliable. Compare glass with steam only for aircraft less than two years old and the ratio may change.

Redundancy is also on the manufacturers mind. G1000 has always enabled you to swap the PDF onto the MDF pretty much eliminating the problem of a screen fail. Both Garmin and Avidyne claim they are no longer daisy chaining critical components in their current offerings. Both Garmin and Avidyne now also include a backup solid state gyro as a standard feature significantly reducing the risk of losing a critical component.

I suspect glass will become increasingly reliable.

In the same way I guess we should expect costs to fall as this type of kit becomes standard and more people are paying for the databases etc. Certainly in terms of manufacturing a new aircraft there is a significant saving in installing glass compared with conventional instruments.

The time will come when you will not be readily able to sell an aircraft without glass unless you advertise it as a vintage or quaint and pilots will require special training on six packs - certainly for IFR ops. It will take about 10 years I reckon.

[Mike Parsons]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanHorck
And when the glass goes, all goes.....

Quote:
Originally Posted By soay

... except for the backup AI, ASI, altimeter and compass. Been there.





And before that you have the backup override which moves the PFD on the MFD

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Surely to goodness nobody would ever think of dreaming of doing that?

Hopefully they wouldnt, but how many people have been caught out on botched approaches? How many people fly made up approaches and run into problems? How many people have been caught out scud running? Clearly not something to plan to do, but might be a life saver when unplanned.

On a botched approach there is a published go-around procedure, which is on the plates. Hardly a problem if properly trained and prepared.

I don't fly made-up approaches. Maybe I might if I had had appropriate training in designing approaches, and could be absolutely certain that I had designed myself a totally foolproof missed approach procedure.

I once, and only once, found myself in weather significantly worse than forecast and unable to get to my destination without scud running. So I scrapped the rest of the planned trip, got a radar service, did a 180 and went home. Otherwise I avoid scud running by choosing to stay on the ground.

Yes I know other people make other choices, that's up to them I suppose. But if they want to play video games, safer to do it in the arcade, no?

Anyway, none of the above seem to me to relate to deliberately choosing to cruise in IMC below MSA because of the presence of the terrain model, which is what this subthread is about.

[172driver]

Anyway, none of the above seem to me to relate to deliberately choosing to cruise in IMC below MSA because of the presence of the terrain model, which is what this subthread is about.

Actually you might be surprised that in some countries this is perfectly acceptable. E.g. crossing the Alps via one of the 'valley routes', a technique employed to be able to fly in VMC if the mountain tops are obscured, same in the western US. In this scenario, SVT would come in VERY handy, as the danger of turning into a dead-end valley (or a box canyon, as they would say in the US) is high. I would, however, stick to the 'official' routes, as I don't think I'd trust the database with cablecars and power lines

[Fuji Abound]

On a botched approach there is a published go-around procedure, which is on the plates. Hardly a problem if properly trained and prepared.

Hmmm, perhaps you should remind some of those pilots with ATPLs and 10s of 000s of hours that if only they had followed the go around procedure all would have been well. Botched go arounds happen even by those you would have thought were properly trained and prepared.

[IO540]

Surely to goodness nobody would ever think of dreaming of doing that?

This philosophical debate pops up every so often

"Officially", if you are not VMC then you are IFR.

And if you are IFR then you are "officially" supposed to fly IFR procedures ONLY.

Which, in turn, makes all this new fangled stuff "officially completely useless".

QED.

So......... what shall we do about the hundreds of "professional" pilots, flying 2-crew airliners, with fantastic currency, supposedly fantastic official training, gold plated ATPLs, who sure enough knew about approach plates, missed approaches, and all the decades-old IFR paraphenalia, and who still somehow managed to fcuk up big time and splattered their jets and the contents of xxx passengers into some mountainside?

That is why GPWS has been mandatory for many years, but it did not really work until a GPS-assisted EGPWS version (with a terrain database) came along because terrain clearance in the old GPWS was really just based on a radar altimeter, which is not much good if you are flying towards a mountain. Read that famous Mr Erebus one, 1980s sometime, for one of many examples.

So, terrain awareness based on a terrain database and an electronically derived position+altitude, is absolutely not just recognised but is mandatory in big PT stuff - but only as a last resort. To use it to fly what will - in most airspaces - be illegal IFR (VFR in IMC) is not legal and never will be. Let's face it, most places do not even support or allow IFR OCAS, etc.

I suppose one could use it legally for night VFR in mountains, because a pitch black night is not "legally IMC" - believe it or not

Scud running is perfectly safe until the pilot enters IMC and either loses control or does a CFIT, or ends up boxed in by terrain and hits something when trying to turn around. (A bit like flying is 100% safe; it's only a crash that is a problem). I don't see how SV would help there, other than facilitating illegal VFR in IMC.

Now, VFR flight in IMC is common all around the world, because most pilots (even in the USA) have only got a bare PPL. I suppose that, in years to come, SV will make this an accepted way to fly around, enabling the pilot to ignore the concept of MSA to the same extent that real-VFR pilots routinely ignore it right now.

This might not be unsafe if one is doing it in one's regular neck of the woods, where the terrain database has been tested in VMC on previous flights.

Technically, IF the terrain database has been verified, such VFR-in-IMC flight won't be any less safe than flying any instrument approach (all the way to the DH/MDH i.e. below MSA) in IMC, be it based on navaids or GPS/WAAS/EGNOS.

As regards a failure of a big LCD panel, yes this is probably much more likely than losing half a dozen individual instruments (be they steam gauges, or electronic "EFIS" versions) but what would concern me more is the difficulty of getting this stuff sorted by your friendly little local avionics man, or even by yourself (and signed off by somebody). I have a huge collection of avionics installation manuals but have never even seen anything on the Garmin glass stuff which is obviously tightly held and only made available to Garmin dealers who are authorised to work on the specified products. Aircraft ownership is peppered with barrels (for you to bend over) and a glass cockpit in the biggest barrel of them all. It's OK if you are based at Bournemouth/Cranfield/Cambridge/Southend/Biggin/Booker where the dealers are...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Which, in turn, makes all this new fangled stuff "officially completely useless".

Oh, I didn't go that far, I can see that it could be quite useful on legal, but barely legal, VFR days with low vis and a low clould base such that all you can see of the ground is a couple of miles of wiggly little roads and villages that looks like everywhere else

[IO540]

Wot you are saying, if I may paraphrase, is that to fly to the legal limits of JAA VFR (3km) you need to be instrument capable.

Never mind flying to the limits of ICAO VFR: 1.5km.

And I agree

It's a fine line.

If flying was invented today, I doubt we would have the rather artificial distinction between VFR and IFR - because technology makes it so blurred. Of course, if flying was invented today, the H&S crowd would instantly ban it...

I think SV is wonderful for IFR, for a pilot/passenger (PNF) monitoring when you are flying your IAP into say Sion. But... you can achieve this using say X-Plane with NMEA input, running on any old windoze box with a bluetooth GPS. For £ 3 figures. And it will be just as accurate, though probably without obstacle data.

[bjornhall]

<cynical> Let's recall that the main purpose and design goal of SV is to make money. It would exist no matter how useless it is, provided one could convince people to buy it... It's main selling point is to look cool on the instrument panel.</cynical>

However, in addition to its main characteristics, could it also be of any use for flying?

For IFR, what is needed to help preventing CFIT is TAWS. Far as I understand, you look at your guidance information (OBI, HSI etc) to ensure you're on the desired track, you look at your moving map while setting up the guidance systems to ensure you're setting up the correct desired track, and you are alerted by TAWS if for whatever reason you're still headed to where you shouldn't be. What does SV add to that scenario, other than a distraction?

For VFR in VMC, you look outside, right? What important things can you see with SV that you can't see out your window? What can you tell about the terrain ahead that the moving map can't tell you better (e.g., look-ahead to identify box canyons)?

For VFR in IMC, well, I'm convinced there will be many people who will attempt that with SV who wouldn't have done so without it. I'm not convinced it will be any help in exiting inadvertently entered IMC... It might help prevent CFIT in that scenario, but not loss of control.

Night VFR in mountains... No comments...

For tactical flying, military style, I'm sure it must be great. Other than that, as you can tell, I'm not sold on the idea!

[IO540]

I think SV is brilliant for VFR flight in IMC, and flying DIY instrument approaches.

I'd make sure I flew the route in VMC first though...

The hard thing to accept is that IFR "should" be flown using conventional IFR procedures, and there should be no VFR / IFR halfway house. Yet SV is all about creating a halfway house - merging the two concepts.

That IMHO is the objective way of looking at SV.

Commercially, it will sell planes, and will get criticised by various people in the same way they slag off the BRS chute for causing pilots to undertake risky flights.