Preparing a presentation for coming week at EASA | European Aviation Safety Agency about the role of Synthetic Vision and Enhanced Vision Systems in “low-visibility operations (LVOs).How many of you (pilots) use one or both techniques already? And who is using a Synthetic System solution on the iPad (or other tablet) to enhance his situational awareness? If you use it, do you think that it helps you in low-visibility operations? Thanks for replying.
I will be, as soon as I get air under the wings of my Onex. Synthetic vision is the default artificial horizon, and “brick in the sky” is the default “magenta line”. Something called GLS is the default ILS-ish approach aid (and extension of the brick in the sky thing), only it works everywhere. I don’t know exactly how I will use it, but I guess it will in most circumstances take over for moving map on a pad for general purpose nav (VFR).
The Onex is also aerobatic, and the synthetic vision includes special aids for positioning the plane at correct attitudes in full 3D. I’m more uncertain how that will be used, if at all, but I sure will try it out.
I have installed the SV this year, and I feel like being in a transition phase at the moment. I do normaly switch it on as well during approaches in low vis situation as when flying at night or in clouds. But up to now I can’t say that it makes a real difference compared to the times before I added the system.
eddsPeter wrote:
I have installed the SV this year, and I feel like being in a transition phase at the moment. I do normaly switch it on as well during approaches in low vis situation as when flying at night or in clouds. But up to now I can’t say that it makes a real difference compared to the times before I added the system.
Why would you ever switch it off?
How about infrared cameras? Would you guys think these aids (synthetic vision and EVS systems) would help you in low visibility procedures? Or are they sitting in the way? What about the iPad apps like Garmin Pilot or Xavion? Do they add value? Does it bother you if the app as such is not a certified and installed app when flying low visibility approaches or departures? Thanks for all the comments.
iPad apps yes, the lack of certification aids innovation and so long as used appropriately and not to replace certified equipment it is fine.
Synthetic vision is an excellent aid to IMC flight as an additional confirmation that path and aiming points are correct. In particular for NPAs.
IR cameras i think are far less useful. To be honest i think they will only encourage low visibility operations in circumstances when they shouldn’t be done. Technically interesting and they appeal to the tech side in me but in day to day flying why do i need it?
Different if you are in the military doing low altituude night ops for example.
JasonC wrote:
IR cameras i think are far less useful. To be honest i think they will only encourage low visibility operations in circumstances when they shouldn’t be done. Technically interesting and they appeal to the tech side in me but in day to day flying why do i need it?
I see it the opposite way. There is a good reason why infrared based enhanced vision systems are approved for operating to lower minima and synthetic vision systems are not. The display is generated from real world measurements, there is no latency and no possible software error which could generate a false picture at the wrong time. There is no need for integrity monitoring either. It works during taxi and shows other aircraft and ground vehicles. The only problem is that approved installations are very expensive and therefore found only on high-end bizjets and some airliners.
And regarding personal experience (we have some Garmin equipped aircraft in the training fleet): This is rather to the negative because it makes the students lazy. Where it matters most – close to the minimum – instead of doing an even better instrument scan between ILS crosspointer, heading, altimter, ASI and VSI, all they do is aligning their little flight path marker with the synthetic runway. Maybe in 10 years time this is all that will be required, but right now one is still supposed to fly an NPA down do minima on 1950ies instrumentation alone.
Sorry to ask: what does this little flight path marker look like? I might have it but don’t use it I think.
I know from the EASA meeting, that the big airliners are focusing on EVS systems to be allowed to land with lower minima. I personally find it hard to have the EVS system showing on my MFD and the SynVis on the PFD as at that moment I do not see my geo-referenced approach chart, which I prefer to see above the EVS infrared camera. I know of some that don’t use the approach charts in the MFD but use one on the iPad which is then also geo-referenced. How would you approach a low visibility approach and which information would you want to show?
AeroPlus wrote:
Sorry to ask: what does this little flight path marker look like? I might have it but don’t use it I think.
That’s the green circle to the left of the monkey bars in this picture from the Garmin manual. They sometimes also call it “projected velocity vector” or similiar:
AeroPlus wrote:
I personally find it hard to have the EVS system showing on my MFD and the SynVis on the PFD…
The approved EVS systems don’t allow this anyway. AFAIK they all come with a head-up display which shows an overlay of a very basic PFD image with the infrared picture. The pilot fling is not supposed to look anywhere but out of his front window through the HUD during the apprach.
what_next wrote:
The approved EVS systems don’t allow this anyway. AFAIK they all come with a head-up display which shows an overlay of a very basic PFD image with the infrared picture. The pilot fling is not supposed to look anywhere but out of his front window through the HUD during the apprach.
OK EVS on a HUD I get because you have it in you approach scan (which in this case is through the HUD). But on your MFD a la Cirrus I don’t see the point.
I gues SynVis can make you lazybut it is another bit of confirmatory information. I fly based on the GS and LOC but it is nice to see the FPM on the threshold as well.
I have never seen a SynVis error so far. Of course one is possible.
