[Ironflight]

I have had the opportunity to fly a number of developmental Synthetic Vision (SV) systems in simulators over the years, and haven often written that while they are really cool, and give an interesting safety enhancement in jets and other aircraft in certain operations, I wasn?t sure how necessary the capability would be in a light, single engine aircraft. In essence, my argument has been that I am not going to be flying an IFR approach into Aspen in a single, so what it s the point?

Well, now that I have had the opportunity to fly the GRT HX with Synthetic Vision on a trip, I have learned a few things. IFR? Hey, follow the approach plate, stay on course, and don?t descend below minimums until the runway environment is in sight?.who needs SV? But what I never really thought about (probably because I grew up in the middle of the country, where everything is pretty flat) is the benefit of SV in the mountains when you are VFR, but they weather is, shall we say?.crappy VFR? I had the experience to use the system in just these conditions yesterday on the way home from LOE, and WOW ? what a difference the display can make!

I am not going to claim to be a mountain pilot ? I have mostly flown over the top of them along the southern US route, and while that is plenty rugged, it isn?t hard to stay well above the terrain. But yesterday, we were flying from El Paso over to the Guadalupe pass, and the XM was showing light green precipitation for the last 30 miles towards the Guads. Cloud bases were around 8,000?, visibilities were about 10 miles, and we were flying between 6500? and 7000? as we came up on the Salt Flat VOR, headed to the pass. If you look at the map, you?ll realize that you have to be higher than that to clear the Guads ? or make dang sure that you are south of El Capitan in order to miss the terrain at that altitude.

With the rain on the windshield, the view forward was pretty gray. (I remarked to my passenger that yup, we were legal VFR, but really ? that was out to the sides!). I knew that there were mountains ahead, but had to rely on faith and four GPS?s to tell me that they were not a factor. (BTW, we had a weather rabbit out ahead ? local pilot Larry Pardue, who knows the area intimately - and he was radioing back reports as he headed for Carlsbad. Without him, we would have set back down for a few hours, but with his reports, we knew that the path ahead was fine.) Faith is one thing ? but Synthetic Vision is another! I looked down from my gray windshield to the bright display, and there, in all their glory, were the Guadalupe Mountains, spread out before me! It was easy to see that they were miles ahead, and that it was going to be easy to miss them, even if they never appeared for real.

In order to stay out of the major precipitation, and remain VFR, we had deviated to the north, which pointed us straight at the mountains. I was having some XM problems, but Louise, on my wing, had a great view of the weather on her Garmin, and with my view of the ?terrain?, it made it a piece of cake to swing around as we approached the high rocks, and head for the pass. Sure enough, as we cleared the rain, the mountains appeared ? shrouded in cloud with the pass in sunshine ? a welcome sight, and totally what I was expecting, based on what I saw on my display.

Now all the usual safety caveats apply here. Technology can fail , you need to have a backup plan (ours was to set down at Dell City and wait it out), and you need to stay legal! Many pilots have never actually flown in VFR minimum conditions, and I?ll tell you ? it is not a place for the faint of heart without an instrument rating!). I am still not convinced that it will make a difference for me in instrument flying (maintain course and altitude, and don?t descend below minimums until?..yada, yada, yada?), but it can sure add to your comfort level in VFR conditions when Cumulo-Granite is anywhere in the vicinity! Essential? Not at all! Nice to have? You bet ? any tool that can help me to be better informed is welcome in my cockpit. Most of the newer generation, high-end EFIS?s are providing , promoting, or at least talking about SV ? and while I still am happy to fly without it, I was very impressed with the stress reduction factor it gave on this mission.

For a very poor resolution video of what it is like to fly the GRT HX up the Guadalupe Mountains, check here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCWf8-rhfzU

Paul

 

[L.Adamson]

I think SV is going to be great! The accident list involving IFR flight into terrain is still high. I have a "thing" about keeping track of them all.

A few years back, we had a pilot who flew across several states under an IFR flight plan. As he approached his home airport in darkness, he cancelled IFR to land at his un-controlled field.
Between a combination of a dark night, and some low-lying clouds, he lost view of the lights below, became disoriented and flew right over several foothill subdivisions before hitting a mountain. This and many other cases around here, are good reasons for synthetic vision.

L.Adamson

 

[Geico266]

It is nice to know where the big rocks are, especially the ones higher than you are. Even a Garmin 396 / 496 gives you terrain warnings that can save your bacon. I recently discovered you can plug in the portable into your intercom and have the verbal warnings in your head set. Very cool on CC trips, but a PITA on local trips when I rarely get 1,000' AGL. SV / terrain warnings are the only way to fly near big rocks.

 

[Rainier Lamers]

There was a well published incident here not very long ago.
A small domestic charter flew into a mountain.
They ignored the "terrain, terrain pull up" warnings from the TAWS as they where convinced they where over the sea.

My take on SV (which is really just an extention of TAWS) is that it is extremely valuable not just in mountains but over flat country as well. Fully implemented SV gives you more than just the shape of the terrain ahead. It should also show you important features like towns, roads and airports with runways. It's a 3D version of a moving map. Not in exacting detail like a flightsim but rather with the clutter removed to show only valuable items.

It's pretty good as far as establishing a general confirmation of my navigation even in VFR. If the picture out of my window matches that on my EFIS I know I am where I think I am.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[RV10inOz]

For the extra cost I am not fitting it. Also because the map data for outside the USA I think is limited. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are right marginal VFR as you describe it is not for the faint at heart, and you must love instrument flying.

I prefer the conventional EFIS display myself. If IFR....fine. If VFR, BE in VMC!

I do worry it would encourage some folk to attempt things that they should not ever do.


DB

PS...... needs some right rudder trim too!

 

[keithschult]

Very interesting, Paul

After reading the posts yesterday where everybody but my group seemed to make it through the Guadalupe area on Sunday morning I had to laughingly ask one of my fellow pilots if we were "stumble bums" for setting down in Dell City (he is IFR rated, but elected to stay with us for comradeship). I was comfortable with our decision, have made numerous VFR trips all over the country in all kinds of weather, but was curious that we were the only ones in Dell City at that time. We even heard Paul and Louise pass overhead on our handhelds. Paul's post explains a lot to me.

In that area, our visual experience and altitude were identical to Paul's and Louise's.

But yesterday, we were flying from El Paso over to the Guadalupe pass, and the XM was showing light green precipitation for the last 30 miles towards the Guads. Cloud bases were around 8,000?, visibilities were about 10 miles, and we were flying between 6500? and 7000? as we came up on the Salt Flat VOR, headed to the pass. If you look at the map, you?ll realize that you have to be higher than that to clear the Guads ? or make dang sure that you are south of El Capitan in order to miss the terrain at that altitude.

With the rain on the windshield, the view forward was pretty gray. (I remarked to my passenger that yup, we were legal VFR, but really ? that was out to the sides!).

We could barely see forward, everything was shrouded and the low areas to the north and south were barely visible from up close. Even though our lead ship had the XM weather also, with six airplanes flying together and not being intimately familiar with the area we set down. I'm glad we did, we didn't have SV.

Thanks for the report, Paul, very interesting to see the capabilities.

 

[breister]

For the extra cost I am not fitting it. Also because the map data for outside the USA I think is limited. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are right marginal VFR as you describe it is not for the faint at heart, and you must love instrument flying.

I prefer the conventional EFIS display myself. If IFR....fine. If VFR, BE in VMC!

I do worry it would encourage some folk to attempt things that they should not ever do.


DB

PS...... needs some right rudder trim too!

The global terrain maps are now pretty much accurate anywhere. "Resolution" might not be quite as good in some developing nations (such as Great Brittain?); but the difference is between 1 meter resolution and a few meters resolution - irrelevant to us flyers.

What may or may not be up to date would be notifications of obstructions (towers, power lines). Again, it depends on the data set and how up to date it is. 20 years ago our FAC squadron reported a tower which was 200 meters away from where the map said it was every month for 3 years, and they never updated the maps in that time. We always used it as a trick on the newbies - "find the tower..."

Still, if everything else in your cabin suddenly went dark, your odds would be quite good in navigating to a landing under the assumption that a straight-in to a runway at 4 degrees ought to be safe - and SV would make that a piece of cake.

 

[n5lp]

...We could barely see forward, everything was shrouded and the low areas to the north and south were barely visible from up close. Even though our lead ship had the XM weather also, with six airplanes flying together and not being intimately familiar with the area we set down. I'm glad we did, we didn't have SV...

Keith, congratulations. It sounds like your group made an excellent decision and everything turned out well.

And now you are one of the select few who has experienced the wonders of Dell City

 

[ArVeeNiner]

Poor man's SV using Google Earth?

Now, I'm not computer whiz at all but it occured to me that there might be a way to rig up a poor man's SV.

I think, but I'm not sure, that Google Earth can take a GPS input. Now, if you can load Google Earth on some sort of hand held computer that you can dash mount, and feed your GPS input into it, you might have yourself a nifty little SV. I'm telling you, the 3D renditions of the hills around my area look pretty much perfect to the real thing to me. The terrain is very very accurate!

Now, I don't know if GE can be loaded on anything but a person computer so that would have to be figured out. Also, I think that you have to have an Internet connection in order for GE to work. I'm not sure if there is some way to work around this.

Hopefully some computer literate RVer will figure out how to make this work someday.

 

[Mike S]

Already done.

Now, I'm not computer whiz at all but it occured to me that there might be a way to rig up a poor man's SV.

I think, but I'm not sure, that Google Earth can take a GPS input. Now, if you can load Google Earth on some sort of hand held computer that you can dash mount, and feed your GPS input into it, you might have yourself a nifty little SV. I'm telling you, the 3D renditions of the hills around my area look pretty much perfect to the real thing to me. The terrain is very very accurate!

Now, I don't know if GE can be loaded on anything but a person computer so that would have to be figured out. Also, I think that you have to have an Internet connection in order for GE to work. I'm not sure if there is some way to work around this.

Hopefully some computer literate RVer will figure out how to make this work someday.

Take a look at MountainScope.

 

[ArVeeNiner]

Choke!

That Mountainscope software is pretty cool but pricey! I guess I was thinking that the price of Google Earth (free) makes it very attractive. Turns out, it costs $20 a year to make GE take GPS inputs. Still pretty cheap.

I forgot about the Pocket PC. That would be perfect.

 

[Dynon]

As of 2006, Google Earth's database was about 70 TB. 1 TB hard drives are about $150 and weigh 1 lb. So poor man's "SV" using Google Earth would weigh over 70 lbs and would cost at least $10,000 And this is assuming Google would give you the database for free, given that they are advertiser supported when you use them on the internet.

Anyway, there are lots of other ways to do synthetic vision that don't need such huge and expensive databases, which is the way everyone in aviation does it.

 

[aeropunk]

YouTube's Poor Resolution

For a very poor resolution video of what it is like to fly the GRT HX up the Guadalupe Mountains, check here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCWf8-rhfzU

That display looks amazing! I agree with your criticism of YouTube's video resolution. I've started using Vimeo for that very reason. Their embedded players look way better than YouTube, and they even have an HD upload option with really sick-looking results.

Check out this side-by-side comparison of the two embedded players, YouTube vs. Vimeo, on BackcountryPilot.org.

 

[petercavallo]

Flying in the rain

Hi
I have noticed that when flying in other than a light rain in my RV6 visibility out the front windshield is almost none (sides OK) I thought it was just me.
Is this common to all RV's

Thanks

PEter

 

[bigbill25]

For the extra cost I am not fitting it. Also because the map data for outside the USA I think is limited. Correct me if I am wrong.

The American taxpayer made a pretty good data set of most of the world available:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/

--Bill

 

[Ironflight]

The American taxpayer made a pretty good data set of most of the world available:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/

--Bill

That's probably one reason I trust the database - I know how the data was collected and processed. It's really good stuff! For instance, out in the middle of the Antelope Valley of California, there is a long straight line that shows up in the data. Everyone looking at it thought it was a data drop-out, or anomaly. Turns out to be a long line of telephone poles....now THAT is good data!

 

[RV10inOz]

What may or may not be up to date would be notifications of obstructions (towers, power lines). Again, it depends on the data set and how up to date it is. 20 years ago our FAC squadron reported a tower which was 200 meters away from where the map said it was every month for 3 years, and they never updated the maps in that time. We always used it as a trick on the newbies - "find the tower..."

If the weather is that bad that you can not maintain 500 feet AGL and see, then its IMC and you should be on the ground or above LSALT. That simple.

I really do see this promoting some to fly along in cr@ppy weather af FL_Treetops and finding a new cell phone antenna or powerline.

I have had enough low vis & light rain VFR to really know where the limit is and if I had to use SV to do it I would most certainly be on the ground.

If you want to play SV in IMC join the airforce!

DB

 

[Captain Avgas]

For the extra cost I am not fitting it. Also because the map data for outside the USA I think is limited. Correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding is that GRT's SV data for the entire world (60 degrees north to 60 degrees south) is at 6 arc-seconds resolution (180 metres)...and that includes the USA and everwhere else (Australia too).

SV is about situational awareness. And situational awareness is like money....you just can't have enough of it.

Within 5 years you will not be able to buy a PFD that does not have SV.

 

[L.Adamson]

If you want to play SV in IMC join the airforce!

As I stated previously; I have a large database of flight into terrain accidents. This includes military, commercial, and GA. While modern "big picture" GPS's could have prevented quite a number of these accidents, SV is just that much better.

I get so serious about this technology (and for good reason), that the term "play" just gets to me a bit..

For me, it all started many years ago, when a DC-8 flew right into a mountain, very close to home.

L.Adamson

 

[f1rocket]

I really do see this promoting some to fly along in cr@ppy weather af FL_Treetops and finding a new cell phone antenna or powerline.
DB

I think the same argument could be made regarding the use of GPS units. I'm old enough to have flown before GPS, when you kept a paper map open and on your lap at all times. I can't even imagine making a cross-country flight into unfamiliar territory with any type of weather in the area the old way. It would be too easy to get lost. Now, we launch without giving it a second thought. When's the last time you got lost in the air? Anyone want to go back to the old way?

There will always be a tendency to use new technology to push one's personal envelope. I agree with other posters that more information is better than less. I just need to be smart enough to not use this information to exceed my personal limits.

 

[breister]

If the weather is that bad that you can not maintain 500 feet AGL and see, then its IMC and you should be on the ground or above LSALT. That simple.

Absolutely agree. However, I was responding to your complaint that the terrain might not be up to date in Australia (sorry for mixing up the flag in my poke...) and also discussing the value if you happened to be IFR and everything else took a nap. Many of the EFIS units have battery backup, could save your life if a) everything else goes dark or b) weather moves in unexpectedly in bad terrain and you HAVE to get down. For those reasons I personally think SV will be a great safety net.

I really do see this promoting some to fly along in cr@ppy weather af FL_Treetops and finding a new cell phone antenna or powerline.

I have had enough low vis & light rain VFR to really know where the limit is and if I had to use SV to do it I would most certainly be on the ground.

Not from me. I've been a bold pilot, now I'm working on old.

If you want to play SV in IMC join the airforce!

Uh, you did read my post? Been there, done that...

Anyway, it is certainly a personal choice. You don't like it, don't ever fly in anything but CLR/CLR - save yourself the $$$.

 

[RV10inOz]

F1rocket thats precisely what my concern is. The technology promotes the unwise to do what they otherwise might not.

I agree, a VFR pilot gets into IMC and he has a 3 minute life span, with SV he may save his backside, assuming he can fly well on that.

Nice thing to have for IFR pilots, sure no arguement, however a Dynon D100 would do just fine. The problem is VFR only guys will be top guns in an instant and thats where I see the problem.

More cowboys = more bent metal.

DB

 

[RichB]

Absolutely agree. However, I was responding to your complaint that the terrain might not be up to date in Australia (sorry for mixing up the flag in my poke...) and also discussing the value if you happened to be IFR and everything else took a nap. Many of the EFIS units have battery backup, could save your life if a) everything else goes dark or b) weather moves in unexpectedly in bad terrain and you HAVE to get down. For those reasons I personally think SV will be a great safety net.

Any thoughts on low-end FLIR setups for GA, like the Forward Vision system? Looks like a useful compliment to SV EFIS if you're not 100% sure of the terrain data accuracy in your region.

 

[breister]

Any thoughts on low-end FLIR setups for GA, like the Forward Vision system? Looks like a useful compliment to SV EFIS if you're not 100% sure of the terrain data accuracy in your region.

Hehe - reminds me of TISIO on the late model Phantoms (a camera in the wing leading edge which could be locked straight ahead, slaved to the radar, or used with a passive lock-on to a target), or the view from the Maverick missile. They gave a pretty good picture in low light.

I don't know - I'm more torn about gadgets like that. The synthetic vision is nice to get you lined up or to help you understand when you should be seeing the runway, but except for taxiing in the dark I don't think I want to be flying from a camera view. Maybe some day when light-weigh glasses with head-mounted motion trackers slave a camera to your head for a HUD overlaying your natural vision.

 

[L.Adamson]

Any thoughts on low-end FLIR setups for GA, like the Forward Vision system? Looks like a useful compliment to SV EFIS if you're not 100% sure of the terrain data accuracy in your region.

GulfStream uses a combo of infrared and SV for some of their bizjets.

L.Adamson

 

[Kahuna]

Paul,
On the conversion to the HX screen, can you confirm that you used the backup/restore function to get old setting on the new box.
Im installing mine tomorrow and I want to make sure this works before I cut bait.
THanks

 

[scard]

Paul,
On the conversion to the HX screen, can you confirm that you used the backup/restore function to get old setting on the new box.
Im installing mine tomorrow and I want to make sure this works before I cut bait.
THanks

Yep, just that easy. I did mine a few days ago. No problems.

 

[BlackRV7]

Paul,
On the conversion to the HX screen, can you confirm that you used the backup/restore function to get old setting on the new box.
Im installing mine tomorrow and I want to make sure this works before I cut bait.
THanks

Mike, same as Scott here. The only thing I had to do after restoring was go the main menu and turn on the Synthetic Vision. You and Dogg should enjoy the seamless characteristics on your flight to TX later this week...........

Enjoy,

 

[Ironflight]

Paul,
On the conversion to the HX screen, can you confirm that you used the backup/restore function to get old setting on the new box.
Im installing mine tomorrow and I want to make sure this works before I cut bait.
THanks

Absolutely! Installing my HX would have been only a two minute job, but I had to swap the GPS module, so it took an additional five....

(Of course, I DO wory about software stuff, so I have a spreadsheet of all my serial settigns, just in case I have to rebuild from scratch....)

Paul

 

[ncol]

GE 70 TB

Although it may be 70 TB, that may be for the whole planet. Even an RV flight is pushed to need that much data at once. So how about just downloading the 1 TB (or less) that you actually need. Say, just a few states in the USA, or Aus or NZ, or a country or 2 in the EU. It can't be that difficult to have a rough idea about where you are & where you're going before you start the engine that day.

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Although it may be 70 TB, that may be for the whole planet. Even an RV flight is pushed to need that much data at once. So how about just downloading the 1 TB (or less) that you actually need. Say, just a few states in the USA, or Aus or NZ, or a country or 2 in the EU. It can't be that difficult to have a rough idea about where you are & where you're going before you start the engine that day.

Many customized terrain databases (like one we are working on now) use both low and high resolution data. It just does not make sense to map vast areas of the planet where the highest elevation is a termite nest in super high resolution. High resolution is only of benifit with terrain that has a high dynamic content (i.e. mountains). If this is taken into account, the size of the databases, while still quite large, becomes much more palatable and it is in fact quite reasonable to store a continent or even the planet on the EFIS itself. You don't want to be bothered having to load terrain for a given flight or mission.
It's just got to be there and working.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Kahuna]

Absolutely! Installing my HX would have been only a two minute job, but I had to swap the GPS module, so it took an additional five....

Paul

So you had no panel cutting to do on the swap?
Man I do. Cut off wheel time in the cockpit. Its going to be a mess.
As I understand it, the bottom 2 screws are the same relative spot, the top 2 are up a half inch or so and the panel cutout is taller by about that much.
I had the panel cutting template out last night ready to cut, but then chickened out instead to wait and make dang sure what the size is then the new one arrives today.

 

[Ironflight]

So you had no panel cutting to do on the swap?
Man I do. Cut off wheel time in the cockpit. Its going to be a mess.
As I understand it, the bottom 2 screws are the same relative spot, the top 2 are up a half inch or so and the panel cutout is taller by about that much.
I had the panel cutting template out last night ready to cut, but then chickened out instead to wait and make dang sure what the size is then the new one arrives today.

Well, no...and yes! I went from the WS to the HS last winter, so I spent a day doing the panel cuts and relocating rivnuts then. Going from the HS to the HX is just a drop-in job. I thougt that's what you were doign this time - sorry!

 

[flydoc]

Runways on displays?

Hey Paul,
I have never seen a graphical representaion of how the actual runways are displayed on the new HX units. Do they have a little more detail than the older models, such as runway numbers?
Thanks,
Mark
DNA

 

[Ironflight]

Hey Paul,
I have never seen a graphical representaion of how the actual runways are displayed on the new HX units. Do they have a little more detail than the older models, such as runway numbers?
Thanks,
Mark
DNA

I haven't seen it either Mark - Todd told me that he wasn't quite happy with them yet, so they are disabled for now. I'm guessing "next software drop" - I remember how rapidly features showed up in every drop on the original WS software, so I figure that the additions will be rapid.

Paul

 

[flydoc]

Runways

I haven't seen it either Mark - Todd told me that he wasn't quite happy with them yet, so they are disabled for now. I'm guessing "next software drop" - I remember how rapidly features showed up in every drop on the original WS software, so I figure that the additions will be rapid.

Paul

Thanks, Paul. I was an SNF in Lakeland and saw the new synthetic vision runways for the big Garmins and thought that would be nice for the GRT's. The rest of the graphics and detail is every bit as impressive as the Garmins. (IMVHO). Great video by the way!
Mark

 

[Nomex Maximus]

No mountains here...

In my flying, I am rarely more than 200 miles from home. And there are no mountains here to avoid. What I would need SV for is night flight. If the engine goes out I'd like more options than just trying to make it to the next airport.

I was just up last night on a 2.8 hour CAP proficiency flight - GRR to DET and back. On the way out I made a point to plan the flight overfly as many airports as possible, so I was always within about 10 miles of an airport. On the way back though I was a little sloppy and had a stretch without enough options. I found that I was constantly trying to identify airports in sight and then to keep track of them once identified. That's a lot of cockpit workload. The reason I felt I needed to do this was to keep prepared, since of course I can't see what is on the ground like I can during the day. During the day, I can pick any open field and land, but at night I can't.

As far as I can see, current SV wouldn't help me here - the resolution is not good enough to tell me that an open patch is clear of fences, trees, buildings, ditches, whatever. But the current trend in online mappings is to augment the satellite imagery with photos taken by aircraft. Take a look at my office at ITT in Fort Wayne:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...&scene=13331232&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

(choose "Bird's Eye View" if it doesn't come up as a photo. My desk is next to the exit door by the cafeteria courtyard)

Now, if my engine goes out in flight at night and I am not within range of an airport, I'd really like to have a system where I can look at a daytime image of an area, zoom in on a likely landing area, looking at a daytime high detail picture of the spot and then... (OK, I am dreaming now) transfer the lat/lon of the approach end of the site to the flight display that would then guide me down a Highway In The Sky approach to the off-airport landing.

I wouldn't think that the technology to do this would be that hard to do. You need to either carry the photo database of the area you fly over with you, OR have a high bandwidth datalink between the airplane and the internet. And having a flight computer that can guide you from where you are to where you need to be in an unpowered glide is no big deal... and displaying it as a HITS display also no big deal.

It would be a valuable system not only for night flight but for instrument flight as well.

--Nomex

 

[Sticky1]

Hummm

Now that would be nice...!! Imaging.......

??.....10 miles from airport, avg 3,500 ft, glide 1,000 ft/ mile...........

 

[L.Adamson]

As far as I can see, current SV wouldn't help me here - the resolution is not good enough to tell me that an open patch is clear of fences, trees, buildings, ditches, whatever. But the current trend in online mappings is to augment the satellite imagery with photos taken by aircraft. Take a look at my office at ITT in Fort Wayne:

Combinations of elevation data, satellite photos, and aerial photo's are becoming common place for flight simulation. As previously stated, the date the photo images were taken, resolution, data storage capacity, and CPU power, are all important factors. The following pics are from flight sims using aerial photo & topigraphical data, as well as Google. I believe that in a few short years, that night or IMC conditions will be close to a daytime photo on our PFD/MFD's...

L.Adamson