Synthetic vision uses a higher resolution terrain database than Garmin TAWS (9-arc-second vs 30-arc-second). Garmin Pilot will have SynVis on a tablet.
Synthetic vision on a G1000 is driven by the terrain database.
By the way, does this kind of synthetic vision (i.e. terrain only) have any clear benefit over conventional instruments for an instrument-rated pilot? My concern is that SV may be needlessly littering the display while not supplying any information beyond what’s already available. Or is it really so clearly superior?
My concern is that SV may be needlessly littering the display while not supplying any information beyond what’s already available. Or is it really so clearly superior?
My personal take is the former. I rarely ever turn it on. I would probably use it for landing in IMC in Iceland, just as an additional confirmation but I only turn it on to impress my copilots 
There is certainly a separate argument about how (or even whether) SV should be combined into IFR procedures.
I have come across some really fierce debates on this in the past.
There is no obvious way to combine the two, in a single pilot environment. Obviously SV will give you extra reassurance – the Q is when and how to incorporate it into one’s scan. or indeed if there is much of a scan, when flying a procedure wholly with the autopilot.
I know one SR22 pilot who uses SV to do zero-zero approaches into grass strips, but I wouldn’t go that far unless I had previously designed the procedure and the missed approach 
I personally think it is a significant additional tool. Flying an ILS in bad weather or even more importantly an NPA, seeing a flight path marker and a runway is a great help. YMMV. For me so far, it is very accurate and very useful. If I was flying in areas with significant terrain in IMC, it would be even more valuable.
As far as incorporating into a scan, that is easy if it is on a PFD. Obviously much more problematic if on an iPad.
As far as incorporating into a scan, that is easy if it is on a PFD. Obviously much more problematic if on an iPad.
True. It’s much more distracting to look at an iPad (or any other device that is not within your primary field of vision) in the final stages of an instrument approach than useful. I know from experience.
I know one SR22 pilot who uses SV to do zero-zero approaches into grass strips,…
Would you allow members of your family to fly with this guy? One of the many problems here is the transition from synthetic to real vision during the last few seconds. In poor visibility, any runway, especially a grass runway, will always look very much different from the synthetic image.
I think the top end SR22 has the night vision + IR camera.
Not what I would do … just stating what you can have.
In a two pilot environment there is no issue anyway.
In a two pilot environment there is no issue anyway.
How’s that? No number of pilots and no equipment make selfmade zero/zero approaches safe or legal…
Yes, I do believe that, in an emergency, syn vis could be sufficient to get you into a VFR field in a very low cloudbase/fog or to deal with the scenario Peter often focuses on ie an engine failure above an overcast over the alps. To plan to do it however is quite astonishing.
At the less extreme end, a self made IFR letdown through cloud to a known field is made substantially easier in that you can fly effectively a long straight in approach with some confirmation that your glidepath is appropriate. To use it ‘as if’ you are visual is however a very different thing – and 0/0 to a grass strip, really?.
No number of pilots and no equipment make selfmade zero/zero approaches safe or legal…
Amen. One of the latest examples is a Citation at EDRT.
