Ed_Wischmeyer
Well Known Member
In past lives, I?ve worked around synthetic vision displays and considered them more hype than substance. After this last trip in the RV-9A, flying over the mountains with synthetic vision, my opinion is unchanged.
Who has actually used synthetic vision in flight, and to what benefit? Not theoretical benefits, or oh it?s nice to look at, or here?s what the marketing hype says are the benefits, but what useful information did it provide to help you make decisions and take actions?
On this last flight, I was flying northbound over the Smokey Mountains, just to the east of Asheville, NC. It was hazy with clouds ahead almost down to the mountains, and as I wrote earlier, this was a good time to go IFR and get some good terrain clearance.
On the synthetic vision display, I could see the ridges ahead, but if there were any distance markers to the ridges, I didn?t know how to read them. And if there had been a terrain threat, the same database that fed the synthetic vision would have warned me of a potential terrain encounter. I could see from the synthetic vision that I would clear all the ridges ahead at present altitude (if some monster downdraft didn?t suddenly decide to ruin my entire day), but the terrain screen would have told me much the same thing, only with lower resolution.
There may have been times when my synthetic vision system has shown towers and such in a useful format, but I don?t recall. Again, the Garmin G3X system gives aural warnings of obstacles.
Showing the destination runway on the SV is reassuring, especially with the flight path marker over the end of the runway, but that?s inadequate guidance IFR and if you have to use it VFR, you may already be in trouble.
One real annoyance of synthetic vision is that the depicted horizon is some amount below the white line level flight depiction.
So does SV provide any advantages in making decisions and in taking actions? Or only in special cases like the hypothetical engine failure over mountains in IMC or at night? Or is it just personal preference?
I?m inclined to leave it turned off?
Who has actually used synthetic vision in flight, and to what benefit? Not theoretical benefits, or oh it?s nice to look at, or here?s what the marketing hype says are the benefits, but what useful information did it provide to help you make decisions and take actions?
On this last flight, I was flying northbound over the Smokey Mountains, just to the east of Asheville, NC. It was hazy with clouds ahead almost down to the mountains, and as I wrote earlier, this was a good time to go IFR and get some good terrain clearance.
On the synthetic vision display, I could see the ridges ahead, but if there were any distance markers to the ridges, I didn?t know how to read them. And if there had been a terrain threat, the same database that fed the synthetic vision would have warned me of a potential terrain encounter. I could see from the synthetic vision that I would clear all the ridges ahead at present altitude (if some monster downdraft didn?t suddenly decide to ruin my entire day), but the terrain screen would have told me much the same thing, only with lower resolution.
There may have been times when my synthetic vision system has shown towers and such in a useful format, but I don?t recall. Again, the Garmin G3X system gives aural warnings of obstacles.
Showing the destination runway on the SV is reassuring, especially with the flight path marker over the end of the runway, but that?s inadequate guidance IFR and if you have to use it VFR, you may already be in trouble.
One real annoyance of synthetic vision is that the depicted horizon is some amount below the white line level flight depiction.
So does SV provide any advantages in making decisions and in taking actions? Or only in special cases like the hypothetical engine failure over mountains in IMC or at night? Or is it just personal preference?
I?m inclined to leave it turned off?