This would be magic for situational awareness in IMC, and for a helping hand in IMC emergency ops.

But what I fear, is this will become just another reason for VFR pilots to keep eyes inside the cockpit, following laser beam tight lines to and from wherever they're going. Flying what amounts to actual IMC without the benefit of being in the system is asking for nothing but trouble. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

When GPS found it's way to our work airplanes far north, it was frightening at times because everybody quit flying their own routes and started going GPS direct. It went from almost never seeing another airplane in the air, to guys directly above/below passing each other, just a hair's difference in course centerline. Most of us wised up and went back to wandering a bit, and we developed a more regimented bush ATC on the area frequencies to let everyone know what you were gonna do.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:But what I fear, is this will become just another reason for VFR pilots to keep eyes inside the cockpit, following laser beam tight lines to and from wherever they're going. Flying what amounts to actual IMC without the benefit of being in the system is asking for nothing but trouble. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Amen

GumpAir wrote:This would be magic for situational awareness in IMC, and for a helping hand in IMC emergency ops.

But what I fear, is this will become just another reason for VFR pilots to keep eyes inside the cockpit, following laser beam tight lines to and from wherever they're going. Flying what amounts to actual IMC without the benefit of being in the system is asking for nothing but trouble. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

When GPS found it's way to our work airplanes far north, it was frightening at times because everybody quit flying their own routes and started going GPS direct. It went from almost never seeing another airplane in the air, to guys directly above/below passing each other, just a hair's difference in course centerline. Most of us wised up and went back to wandering a bit, and we developed a more regimented bush ATC on the area frequencies to let everyone know what you were gonna do.

Gump

Wasn't it a guy named Darwin who called this a sorting process??

MTV

Call me crazy but I'd rather have this in my panel:


Than this....


Don't worry I won't forget to look out the window.

Yeah, you'll look out the window because you're down on the deck doing fun stuff, and smart enough not to run into shit!

But there's lots of guys out there who are gonna look at nothing but that screen. Damn, that's a cool looking screen though. Some of us on here have spent a whole lotta hours looking at those old steam gauges, and were really glad to have had them.

Gump

That would be cool at night. Daylight, for single pilot cockpits, that much detail would be hard to flesh out while watching out for others. I suppose when we all have ads-b, we'll be looking inside more than out anyway.

I must be missing something… but what attracted me to flying was what you could see out the window.
The responsibility of not "Fucking" up!
Dealing with folk that were a "Cut Above".
Folks that understood the consequences of "Stupidity".
I guess things have changed.
Please keep in mind that I'm still trying to make a living plying the skies… but I'd rather meet you on the ramp instead of one of your quasi-direct routes boring holes through airways while consumed by the awesomeness of technology forgetting there is a world outside that conveniently placed window.
Don't worry though… I'll be looking out for YOU!
Probably the scariest thing is, folks willingness to blow off the advice of aviators that have been doing this shit longer than most of you have been pumping air!
Remember, sadly, you "will" get what you wish for.

Merry Christmas

robw56 wrote:Call me crazy but I'd rather have this in my panel:


Than this....


Don't worry I won't forget to look out the window.

This literally made me laugh out loud.

I'm sure the "old guys" have been saying the same things about new technology throughout the history of aviation. Just look at the VOR, can you imagine all these pilots flying around looking at their VORs tracking to the same point in the sky! Converging from all directions! It's a mid air collision waiting to happen!

robw56 wrote:I'm sure the "old guys" have been saying the same things about new technology throughout the history of aviation. Just look at the VOR, can you imagine all these pilots flying around looking at their VORs tracking to the same point in the sky! Converging from all directions! It's a mid air collision waiting to happen!

That might just qualify as one of the most uninformed comments made on this forum this year.

Ever meet an "old guy" who actually flew mostly NDB approaches? How about one of those "old guys" who actually flew four course ranges??? Those were the "tools" before VOR came along.

I've flown with and known and drank beer with a lot of those "old guys', and I've never heard a single one of them argue that the new technology--ie: VOR is anything but a super improvement in safety. And, GPS??? Holy shit!! That stuff is pure magic.

I flew an airplane with one of the first panel mounted GPS unit, in northern Alaska. I never looked back. Magic, pure magic, and I'll adopt new technology in a heartbeat, assuming it's beneficial and helps me fly more safely.

I suggest you try to find some "old guy" who actually flew a four course range.....not many still around, but they're out there......buy him a beer and ask him if he thought the VOR system was a really dumb ass idea.

In the proper context, synthetic vision is a fantastic tool. But, that context, at least in my opinion, is in a two pilot cockpit, operating under IFR. Alaska Airlines has been using it for several years, and it's allowed them to safely complete tough approaches in difficult conditions.

And, nobody here was saying anything against glass cockpits......they too are magic. Same goes for some of the newer radios, like the Garmin 430/530, 6xx and 7xx. The way those things cycle you through an instrument approach is purely cool.

But, in VFR, where is the benefit to synthetic vision? A way to sneak in after dark? Or, to slog through shitty weather while low level? Those are simply ways to thin out the gene pool, Dude.

I'd love to have a glass cockpit, a good GPS, etc. Guess I'm not one of those "old guys".....Oh, wait, I don't have an electrical system.



MTV

robw56 wrote:Call me crazy but I'd rather have this in my panel:


Than this....


Don't worry I won't forget to look out the window.

Note the syn-vis screen shows exactly what I was talking about--a couple of data base located towers just to the right of the projected path. Who's to say if they're really there, or not on the left--or perhaps smack dab in the middle?

I can see the benefit of syn-vis as an adjunct to appropriate instruments to an IR pilot--anything to improve situational awareness--but I share the concern that a VFR only pilot, or a very rusty and not current IR pilot, might rely on it. Darwin at work.

Cary

Sorry if you took offense to me referring to "old guys" MTV. I respect your opinions as well as Gumps and others who have decades more experience than I do. I have no idea if any pilots were against VORs, I just said that to make a point. My whole point is that sometimes people are reluctant to embrace new technology or see its benefits. Of course a pilot could use synthetic vision to do something dumb and possibly end up killing themselves. What's the big deal? There's already plenty of ways to do that in an airplane if you aren't careful with what you're doing. But that's not to say synthetic vision has no benifits even in VFR. It adds a tremendous amount of situational awareness and in my opinion that's never a bad thing.

Rob, guys who fly like you aren't the problem. You "get it" and you'll embrace new technology for all it's worth, and use it as a tool like it's supposed to be used.

It's the folk who need this as a crutch who worry me. Auto-pilot dependence in high performance turbine aircraft, moving map technology doing all the NAV work, etc, etc..... Think Cirrus pilot stereotype. Glass panel full bright, eyes inside, and chute handle to pull when they f**k it all up. (And nothing against Cirrus aircraft or pilots, it's the same label the poor Bonanza got unfairly stuck with) It's a shit mind-set by poorly trained, weak skilled pilots. Not the technology. Those guys are flat out dangerous in an airplane regardless of equipment.

I was one of those "old guys" who used nothing but antique technology. When I first started flying for a living in AK I used pilotage only the majority of the time, and really thought I was living uptown if I had a working ADF and could do bootleg NDB approaches into my villages. Barrow or Kotzebue Alaska is not the place for weak pilot skills. Not now, and even more so 40+ years ago.

When GPS came out we cheered, life suddenly got easy, and I don't know anyone who would want to fly without it. Synthetic Vision... Even more magic, and who wouldn't want to fly with it. I know I do. I don't know any old timers who haven't looked forward to new technology. I think part of being a pilot and driving airplanes is a desire to have cool new toys to use.

Gump

I really like the idea of syn vis. My 796 has it, and I've turned it on on the ground a few times, but I can honestly say I've never turned it on in the air. Not sure why, i guess when I'm flying I'm low enough or in a river valley where I need to be looking outside. At night I'm looking for other stuff. I'm a young guy, and embrace the technology, but I guess maybe I just don't know where to apply the technology in a way I can actually use it. In advertant IFR while turning I could see it being useful, but VFR I have yet to see ita use. Again, thats very possibly just the user not knowing how to apply the technology.

David

Hey Rob,
Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
Best just keep on having fun, being safe, and always learning. That's my plan.

denalipilot wrote:Hey Rob,
Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
Best just keep on having fun, being safe, and always learning. That's my plan.

Great advice Denali.
I'm not judging Rob, I'm sure we fly in very similar ways. Like I said, I'm sure its the user of my 796 that hasn't figured out how to apply the great technology yet. I'm trying to work on it though! And having tons of fun in the process.

David

robw56 wrote:Call me crazy but I'd rather have this in my panel:


Than this....


Don't worry I won't forget to look out the window.

Nice one Rob!

It's a tool. Just a tool, use it improperly and it will hurt you.
But it could be a life saver if you screw up and go inadvertent IMC.

As for the obstacle alert, look outside an pull up there is a good chance there is a tower out there. Yes it could be plotted incorrectly. I work at low levels and it's been very helpful to know there is a tower that I would have otherwise not know about.

Fly safe, I want an iPad in my VFR panel.

I have about 20 hours or so behind a syn vision unit. Honestly, FOR ME, it is distracting as all get-out. I liken it to the swimsuit issue of SI...just can't stop looking! Everyone has a different level of self-control however, so it isn't fair to generalize.

Luckily, we have a "six-pack" mode that turns off the movie screen. I find myself in that mode most of the time. If I think I NEED syn vis for some reason, it's a button-push away.

As for reliability, I am not super stoked to go fly PVFR with it. We've had a ADAHRS failure, fuel flow transducer failure, and a system-wide blackout (failure to boot-up) thus far. And it isn't an installation problem either.

The Foreflight seems to be a popular setup. Sorry to add to the further thread derailment.

Derailing (or re-railing, whichever) back to the old guy issue, when I learned to fly in Alaska in the winter of 72-73, our airplanes at the Aeroclub were very minimally equipped--most had only one 90 channel nav/com. One of the 172s had a more "complete" panel which included an ADF and a transponder, so for one whole lesson, I learned what those boxes did. There was still an active 4-course range, I'm thinking it was co-located with the Big Lake VOR, but I could be mis-remembering, but anyway my instructor demo'd it for me for the purpose of showing how much better VORs are--I remember that it was very hard to differentiate the A-N sounds over the ADF, but that's about it.

Fast forward to about 16 years ago. I installed a new GPS in my boat in preparation for a trip to the San Juan Islands in the PNW. That was very basic--had to plug in the lat/long way points manually. I still have it in the boat, if no reason other than I don't need better. But compared to modern WAAS GPS's, it's both an antique and extremely inaccurate--follow the breadcrumbs on returning through any relatively narrow passage is a great way to end up in the rocks.

So when people started touting navigating airplanes by GPS, I was one of those "old guys" who really was reluctant to convert from the tried and true VORs. But things have come a long way. It's still best to have back up navigation capabilities--the gummit is monkeying around a lot these days with the GPS signals for whatever reason, especially in the southwest, so it's not unusual for them to be inaccurate or shut off altogether for indeterminate times. But when they're working, modern WAAS GPSs are incredible. The whole idea that I can make an accurate instrument approach to the equivalent of ILS minimums while relying on signals from satellites orbiting almost 13,000 miles out in space is truly mind-boggling.

I do believe that less qualified pilots are relying too much on GPS navigation, so that they're "stuck" if it doesn't work--they've forgotten or really never knew how to use pilotage, ded reckoning, and VORs. I think it's in man's nature to seek the easiest way to do something, and that includes navigating. To me, that's misusing GPS technology. The whiz-bang methods aren't always better, if they result in loss of skills.

If syn-vis is misused similarly, relied on instead of building and using skills, then I think that's a mistake, and people will die. I can imagine someone flying in after dark, and instead of planning the flight to clear terrain and avoid obstacles, relying on syn-vis to allow him/her to thread around them.

With technology comes responsibility, which is going to put a greater burden on flight instructors to make sure their students don't always take the easy way out.

Just my 2c (or maybe 3c )

Cary

Another thing to consider... (Sorry TxKiger for f**king up your thread )

Look how easy to use this new cool stuff is, and how it's taken the brainwork out of NAV and airspace. That makes a guy brave, and willing to go where the box is pointing without really understanding anything.

In the old days of using a bubble sextant to shoot the sun or stars, or radio range, or even the VOR system, there was a pretty steep learning curve and a guy would have to be pretty stupid, not to mention having great big balls, trying to cheat his way over his head and into territory he didn't belong. Some people were brave and tried it, but not as many as will now.

This...



Does not give up it's information easily, and to make it work, you had to know the principles behind it. The new technology is the reason why the Regionals were able to stick FO's in co-pilot seats with 250 hours total flight time. That would have been completely insane 30 years ago (and was now too it seems).

I think synthetic vision is cooler than shit, and I can't wait to try it, especially at night and/or in IMC. So maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon worrying about it, and only the dumb ones will get weeded out, which is fine. It'll be interesting to see it all unfold.

Gump