I have often said (and got beaten up for it elsewhere by the SD programmer and his fanboy club) that the product is too complex. It lacks a really simple mode on which it can just be left for the whole flight and which can’t be accidentally messed up.
Good point @Peter
This is probably why the info grade displayed on airliner ND‘s is made on purpose to look quite bland and „boring“ whereas any recent garming/aspen etc.. looks flashy, fancy and colorful with loads of settings and overlays.
Too much stuff going on for a human to process.
Foreflight/skydemon are indeed complex with their myriad of settings and preferences.
Compare to JeppFD, which is straight forward and doesn’t offer any major mess up possibilities.
Peter wrote:
I have often said (and got beaten up for it elsewhere by the SD programmer and his fanboy club) that the product is too complex. It lacks a really simple mode on which it can just be left for the whole flight and which can’t be accidentally messed up. Unfortunately you cannot sell these products without packing them with features. The thing is always flashing up warnings and people just ignore them.
To a certain extent I agree with you, but in my view this and other tablet based systems are the best thing since GPS and the idea with Skydemon is that you set up the level of detail (clutter) you want before flying and use that all the time, which, if you understand the system, is genius. wrt warnings, I have actually found that contrary to “just clicking OK” if I dont recognise the airspace/terrain warning and therefore expect it, I could get distracted trying to find out if it is relevant. Luckily I rarely fly anywhere I dont “know like the back of my hand” alone and so can delegate “fly straight & level while I check this out”. I can see that flying alone this may be an issue though.
Regards, SD..
boscomantico wrote:
I just laugh about these desk heroes disqualifying pilots for using GPS for primary navigation…
That’s not at all how I understood that part of the report. The comment was about simply following a straight magenta line because that’s what the GPS give you, without giving consideration to whether or not it is a suitable route. I don’t know if that’s a fair assessment or not, but it is a flight planning issue rather than a navigation issue and thus quite different from “disqualifying pilots for using GPS for primary navigation”. Personally I wouldn’t dream of just entering a DCT to the destination in my GPS without carefully checking what’s actually along that route.
Also, you don’t really know anything about what flight experience the so-called “desk heroes” have, do you?
Yes I have looked at, 2D surface views on FF/SD, they are just worthless for the purpose of looking what is ahead and planing (I find them hard to use even for vertical airspace), I tried colors but really does not work for a route apart from getting swamped in red or green, the 2D vertical profile view is way better when flying/planing as it telle me what is ahead airspace/terrain but I can’t judge angles as the aspect ratio is well distorted…
SV 3D views, I find it really good for anything way bellow the horizon (spotting runway when it is right bellow 
) but anything around horizon seems just exaggerated to make a judgement (I assume anything 5deg away from horizon is a smash, so it feels like I will be hitting everything) but surely SV view would have helped as reminder to climb above MSA and terrain awareness (in this accident there was no attempt to climb or turn unfortunately)
Ibra wrote:
Anyone has an idea how Terrain Awareness can be used tactically: what to look at? at and what to do?
I have no idea about SD (never used it), but in ForeFlight, the ‘profile’ feature is certainly useful and the synth viz screen would also certainly have helped in a situation like this. Can be brought up with one click. In any case, a quick look at the chart (if they had one….) would have told them where the cumulgranitus was.
Maybe encountered or avoid icing? that would have lead IFR/VFR to go down bellow MSA?
A hard choice: VFR in IMC bellow MSA (with terrain) vs IFR in IMC above MSA (even in icing)? but I still can’t understand why many pilots even IFR experienced go for the former?
Peter wrote:
As regards using Skydemon, unfortunately it is a fact that everybody I have flown with who had Skydemon didn’t really know how it works.
SD/TAWS/SV don’t work for tactical terrain, I switch all warnings off when bellow MSA doing low VFR flying (you have to fly the aircraft and fly the map), I am not sure why one would think these can be of any use apart from showing route MSA number?
Anyone has an idea how Terrain Awareness can be used tactically: what to look at? at and what to do?
Well, yes, the report drops in the usual “old aviation establishment fart” bit
but the inescapable fact is that they hit the ground because they were flying too low…
So why were they flying too low?
Two pilots with “gold plated UK CAA CPLs”. With all those exams, you are supposed to know how to plan a flight to the moon with all that theoretical knowledge, with fuel calculations to 1%.
They were not off some sort of reasonable lateral track. I simply don’t think they had any real navigation showing them the terrain. It’s all been done before – look at this one and as it happens I have met one (non-survivor) from each of these.
As regards using Skydemon, unfortunately it is a fact that everybody I have flown with who had Skydemon didn’t really know how it works. Sure it has the capability to display terrain but I reckon most users don’t even know how to configure the airspace declutter on it. We have some past threads here inadvertently demonstrating that. Here on EuroGA we have a predominance of people with a good grip on technology, but your average pilot is just out of his depth. I have often said (and got beaten up for it elsewhere by the SD programmer and his fanboy club) that the product is too complex. It lacks a really simple mode on which it can just be left for the whole flight and which can’t be accidentally messed up. Unfortunately you cannot sell these products without packing them with features. The thing is always flashing up warnings and people just ignore them.
boscomantico wrote:
I just laugh about these desk heroes disqualifying pilots for using GPS for primary navigation…
They were on a VFR flight whilst flying in IFR as they approached the destination. Everyone knows, or should know that San Sebastian is surrounded by mountainous terrain. Nothing more, nothing less classic CFIT. Flew into the hill ridge in dense cloud. That was the witness account.
Nothing wrong with magenta line, but better be sure that you are above the MSA for the sector.These ridge lines certainly can ruin your day. Such a waste of an aeroplane and two pretty experienced guys.
I agree the report is – yet again – a case of wild speculations.
And then:
In light of its path and altitudes, the flight does not seem to be consistent with one that was planned beforehand from an operational standpoint. Instead, it has characteristics typical of a flight in which only the route was planned, with this route being followed during the flight possibly on GPS. The altitude is selected during the flight itself on the basis of guaranteeing suitable separation with the terrain.
I just laugh about these desk heroes disqualifying pilots for using GPS for primary navigation…
loco wrote:
I see VFR into IMC as the cause of accident.
Agree, that’s pretty obvious. Also really bad luck – on the pics it looks like they would have cleared the mountain ridge if they only had been 50-100 ft higher.
That said, the investigators have a point wrt flight planning. Portugal requires you to enter/exit their airspace at designated waypoints, so you would normally have that in your FPL (I have flown between the two countries several times). They should also have been aware of the adverse conditions at their destination.
