What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Is synthetic vision all that useful, or just hype?

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?
 
Ed, as you recall from our days talking about manuals for Chelton Flight Systems, it was tested and proven in Alaska.
When you fly for a living, have terrible weather and don't have roads.... it becomes quite useful. (lack of IFR infrastructure being key there)
I also got to train pilots in the mountains of Switzerland, Austria and Italy with Chelton. They were air ambulance helo drivers. It proved its value time and again.
So, in the realm of RV planes that are mostly for fun.... I might agree to limited actual utility. But then I am a dinosaur amongst consumers pilots. I don't like to see iPads in a cockpit. I like stuff tested to DO160 and bolted down. And DO178 software for that matter.
But, the big screen TV's will still sell in aviation. Not much point in debating the issue that I can see. AND, they really really look cool.
 
Last edited:
On a recent flight from Hagerstown to Milwaukee, I fount it useful. I’m a VFR Pilot and conditions were low ceilings with patchy limited vis, at time maybe down to 5 miles. Flying over the mountains (well big hills anyway) in southern PA, it was kind of nice to see the antennas on the ridges showing up as yellow or red cones on my efis. Certainly not absolutely necessary for the flight, but I found it comforting. Truth of the matter though, I didn’t make it home that day. After making a couple of pokes at it, I figured I was pushing out where I shouldn’t be so I turned around, back to KHGR and got a room for the night.
 
Last edited:
It depends a lot on where you are and how you fly. FLat country and filing IFR? You won’t even know it is turned on.

If you’re always IFR, even in the mountains? The rules keep you safe (if you follow them), and you don’t need anything but the map.

VFR night in the mountains? Yeah - the extra comfort added by having Syn Vis is well worth it. A valley runwayin the mountains with ridges on each side? Priceless! It’s also very useful in combination with a Velocity Vector to tell if you’re going to clear a ridge up ahead, or if you need to be circling back.

The biggest test of “goodness” is if you miss it when you don’t have it, and since i fly a lot of new-to-me bush planes in the mountains, I can tell you that I really do miss it when it isn;t there.

The truth is, many of the things we have these days aren’t NEEDED....but they can add margin and reduce risk, and that’s a good thing.
 
Last edited:
We had to bail out of Johnson Creek in September of 2016 due to heavy smoke and falling ash from an nearby fire. Visibility was barely 1 mile, less in places. I have flown in and out of Johnson Creek many times before then and know the terrain in the area well. Having synthetic vision on the GRT HX made getting out of there in the smoke a non event. I agree that most of the time SV is just cool to look at and not necessary but in a case like I described it can make the day.

Martin Sutter
Building and flying RV?s since 1988
EAA Technical Councilor
 
I think I remember Gash posting that he found it very useful when his windshield was covered in oil from a failed seal. And there's an ATC clip of a guy who had an engine failure (night IMC over mountains, IIRC; the wisdom of that is another discussion) and used the synvis to deadstick into a runway.
 
It depends a lot on where you are and how you fly. FLat country and filing IFR? You won?t even know it is turned on.

If you?re always IFR, even in the mountains? The rules keep you safe (if you follow them), and you don?t need anything but the map.

VFR night in the mountains? Yeah - the extra comfort added by having Syn Vis is well worth it. A valley runwayin the mountains with ridges on each side? Priceless! It?s also very useful in combination with a Velocity Vector to tell if you?re going to clear a ridge up ahead, or if you need to be circling back.

The biggest test of ?goodness? is if you miss it when you don?t have it, and since i fly a lot of new-to-me bush planes in the mountains, I can tell you that I really do miss it when it isn;t there.

The truth is, many of the things we have these days aren?t NEEDED....but they can add margin and reduce risk, and that?s a good thing.

Nailed it.
 
One night lights did not work at a small county airport. The added tool helped plan the decent and show obstacles on the way down till the airplane lights became useful.
 
I've used it a couple of times. First, I was scud running in unfamiliar territory and it showed me the towers. When I arrived at my destination, visibility was poor and at first I lined up on a frontage road. Synthetic Vision showed me where the runway was and I sidestepped over there.

The second time I was flying VFR on top of a solid layer over the mountains. Should the engine have quit, I would have been in a real pickle. The Synthetic Vision showed me where the mountains, valleys, roads, and runways were. I might have had a chance of finding a good landing spot under that layer.
 
The second time I was flying VFR on top of a solid layer over the mountains. Should the engine have quit, I would have been in a real pickle. The Synthetic Vision showed me where the mountains, valleys, roads, and runways were. I might have had a chance of finding a good landing spot under that layer.

I don't have synthetic vision installed, but this case raises an interesting question: would you have even made this flight without SV?
 
If you have an EFIS that does SV it's low hanging fruit ... why not have it in your tool bag?

Could be wrong as I didn't take the college course on the Garmin subscription plans but it seems like it was included with my terrain data so it didn't cost any extra.

At very least, it's cool ;)
 
I have my turned on, but as a flatlander and predominantly IFR flyer, I tend to ignore it even if I happen to be flying around higher terrain. It's just not particularly useful where I do most of my flying, although I do use it on occasion to help me visually acquire unfamiliar airports from the surrounding area when VFR. However, I'd rather have it than not.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read every post in the 11 pages of that thread, but the emergency in question seems to me to be more of an affirmation of a good GPS moving map than SV. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd choose the moving map every time.

If this had happened in the mountains, then I would want both.
 
Absoutly it is worth it to me.

On one trip to Vans Homecoming, the weather started dropping and I had to divert from my intended course to find lower terrain------luckily I knew the area enough to know the Willamette Valley was off to my left-----but which side drainage was going to get us there?? SV to the rescue.

Here is a shot before the weather dropped, just to give folks an idea of what the SV can show you.

-OBkqBgTNiWfpr3x5eCTUJx3MBCIdP8fzL4Lst4o6e28-IozgJ2y4fA1xlxQSBgpNFmOcfls4XWHm_LE4cIjnKQsDf-K4ONkQlXKtTP1UgQ7k_TOtoMThp3nkgCIeFzI69AScKhM_ZwB-yf-4TdkWoL-tVJjv5rQYHEn0G-6XCrF5tUPhFo_Q78Z4bFieGDEtqkVPr5oSt52_Im32ACg70We7gMidxKpbpPq8wHF4XF1l-Zblr7lGV4vpNUa2QujINUJqlemw1x8cbnTV5GkdRstHCdPBbEFHCwHJl0b9Jcwgkeh6f92qUPxoSIdJoYRMSNY8nRUtIMim7ZwvMXa3WTC0Uw_D92VmLnbqJslK4fA_XYhNjEUiLySP-04XA7N-OmvVpNxvObRiCLVaJA2WZudYJbkch0kt55mdTYFPzXf-ibKVoR1DADcDNPZ8h5QRbOVqGhtgyLU0XVmz2Fob-_gDYYjEmD-HfntD_vqABjI3qTX4W1Iu5FU5YDwnroGNkwuAoX97mYEFfhoYtdR_9Bduj7LmzGIcobTSKmBNRpde5nkxvH_aUk9NO1JCJ_yFzLnYsiiUTS6UBuXuYFCi6n3Cgc7kt6ehTA36QM=w1179-h884-no
 
It's another valuable tool to have in the box. Especially when you're doing the "Zippedydoodah" in restricted viz in the hills.

During my training in the last century, I learned how to find the average bisector, perform a lost orientation, successfully execute an aural null time, distance, homing procedure, and follow that up with an aural null let down.

You can just imagine what I think of synthetic vision...

:D
 
I think I remember Gash posting that he found it very useful when his windshield was covered in oil from a failed seal. And there's an ATC clip of a guy who had an engine failure (night IMC over mountains, IIRC; the wisdom of that is another discussion) and used the synvis to deadstick into a runway.

You're exactly right. I blew out a front crankshaft seal on my RV-8 a few years ago and visibility went to zero with an oil covered canopy. I used my Dynon Skyview synthetic vision to line up on and land on Runway 21 at Kingman, Arizona. The terrain and runway depiction was spot on. I would have been in a world of hurt without synthetic vision.
 
Ed, as you recall from our days talking about manuals for Chelton Flight Systems, it was tested and proven in Alaska.
When you fly for a living, have terrible weather and don't have roads.... it becomes quite useful. (lack of IFR infrastructure being key there)
I also got to train pilots in the mountains of Switzerland, Austria and Italy with Chelton. They were air ambulance helo drivers. It proved its value time and again.
So, in the realm of RV planes that are mostly for fun.... I might agree to limited actual utility. But then I am a dinosaur amongst consumers pilots. I don't like to see iPads in a cockpit. I like stuff tested to DO160 and bolted down. And DO178 software for that matter.
But, the big screen TV's will still sell in aviation. Not much point in debating the issue that I can see. AND, they really really look cool.

There is a wealth of information regarding the Alaska Capstone project and the positive impact on safety that the SV and ADS-B installations provided.

My son had a summer job between college semesters flying C-207's and Caravans for a small Part 135 carrier out of Juneau. He had a close call in the one Caravan not Chelton equipped during an inadvertent VMC to IMC encounter. Fortunately his training kicked in and he turned away from the known terrain and descended back into VMC, then diverted back to JNU. I know he is a believer in the technologies that have found their way onto our panels.

Yes, it is "gee-whiz" and most of us will never fly in Alaska "VMC" (I use that term loosely), but I appreciate the vast improvements in SA that SV and ADS-B provide.
 
It's another valuable tool to have in the box. Especially when you're doing the "Zippedydoodah" in restricted viz in the hills.

During my training in the last century, I learned how to find the average bisector, perform a lost orientation, successfully execute an aural null time, distance, homing procedure, and follow that up with an aural null let down.

You can just imagine what I think of synthetic vision...

:D

Grandpa used to tell me stories about bringing his B-25 back to Okinawa on fumes after a bombing mission. The field would be socked in, and he would have to find his way down on the LFR four-course radio range. I think listening to all that "dit-dah" and "dah-dit" would drive me bonkers. I will never be half the pilot that man was!
 
For me, now flying mostly flat land it is more hype than substance. Used to fly east of the Mississippi every week on business, always on a IFR flight plan. Flying these mountains, generally it is either VFR weather or clouds to the ground. I can't see the synvis benefit.
Last year a friend installed a G500 in his Bonanza. Garmin wants $4000 for the synvis upgrade. He couldn't rationalize that either.
 
techniques and tools

There is an often overlooked tool on moving maps. Terrain depiction looking down. If a pilot did not have SV, looking at the page on the map with color coding of hazards, one can "turn to the black". While climbing of course, and watch the black get bigger and the yellow get smaller.
Since I was chief pilot for Chelton, someone paid the gas bills and expenses all over the world. The only place it was useless was Singapore. I flew the Air Force their in a helo and couldn't find a darn hill anywhere in the country.
 
There are those who would maintain night flight is better suited for twins. When I have crashed, I could always see where to put it....
 
I was always told that if a forced landing was to occur at night, and you didnt like what you saw ahead of you for a landing area, to just turn off your landing light!
 
It is also important to realize that all SV systems are not created equal. Some have higher resolution and more contrast than others. Right or wrong the Garmin approach seems to lean on the less is more side of things.
 
I think there are times where it increases margins and other times where people rely on it too much and get themselves into weather situations they wouldn't have gone near without the SV. And perhaps go below minimums when they don't have the visual cues.

The other clue is in the name. It is sinthetic. So doesn't show wires and such like.

But as a safety tool it surely has to be a plus.
 
Interesting data

It?s interesting to look at the data for general aviation accidents as it relates to controlled flight into terrain. The amateur-built aircraft are a small percentage of the total. Hard to say for sure, but i think it could be related to the fact that this group that has had synthetic vision and moving maps with terrain for a much longer time than the rest of general aviation.

Vic
 
Analogy:
I built my airplane using exclusively an Avery C-frame hammer dimpler
And a Cleveland Tool hand squeezer. It was noisy using the dimpler so required always having ear protection. I had opportunity to have metal chips fly off the end of the dimpler "punch" when the hammer struck it. So I also had to make sure I had good eye protection. The hand squeezer required some pretty good Popeye forearms to sqeeze it sometimes. Ultimately though I was succsessful in completing construction of my airframe using these tools.

Had I used a DRD2 dimpler and a pneumatic sqeezer I am pretty sure the build would have gone much smoother.

I don't believe devaluing any one given tool over another will change flying capabilities of an airplane (or instrument) any differently than doing so with construction tools would change construction capabilities of a builder. A good pilot should utilize all available tools whenever available just as a good builder should do when building.

I could argue I did not NEED a DRD2 or pneumatic squeezer to build my plane. Obviously I did not. Had I had access to them however I would have not refused to use them. A tool is a tool is a tool. Use every one to your advantage whenever possible.
 
It’s interesting to look at the data for general aviation accidents as it relates to controlled flight into terrain. The amateur-built aircraft are a small percentage of the total. Hard to say for sure, but i think it could be related to the fact that this group that has had synthetic vision and moving maps with terrain for a much longer time than the rest of general aviation.

Homebuilts (in general) probably don't fly as much IFR as certified aircraft. I know it's possible to have CFIT in VMC, too, but I'd expect most CFIT accidents to happen in IMC and/or night conditions. That might account for some of the differences.


I still find it amazing how much capability we have in the little EFIS units on the homebuilt market today. When I started my first rotation as an engineering intern, my job basically entailed writing test scripts to check out new software loads of an advanced integrated business jet cockpit, and then testing those scripts in the engineering sim. That system was cutting-edge at the time, and synthetic vision was one of those "we're thinking about trying it out in the lab soon".

Ten years later we had most of the relevant capabilities of that business jet (plus synthetic vision and ADS-B) available for homebuilts, at surprisingly affordable prices.
 
Last edited:
The terrain database is invaluable, but I prefer 2D display black-amber-red moving map to 3D vision to interpret that data. Find it much easier and clearer to quickly assimilate the lay of the land.
 
Depth perception is one of the problems. Software can only do so much with showing relative distance to terrain ahead. 3D glasses might work, but I don't see that happening.
The 2D "Gods Eye" view downward, will both alert to terrain at any map scale range, and allow for a bailout heading while climbing.
I lost a whole plane load of friends on Thanksgiving eve. one year. Commander flew straight into night time terrain. Even a portable Garmin 496 could have saved them all.
That and a higher class B floor east of Phoenix.

Another friend, a CFI flew right smack into a high rise in New York City.
So, all available technology to reduce risk is of benefit.
As I heard the AOPA safety foundation director once say, "we may be on software rev. 4.6 BUT we are still on HUMAN ver. 1.0
 
The 2D "Gods Eye" view downward, will both alert to terrain at any map scale range, and allow for a bailout heading while climbing.

Which is why I kept my second screen in that mode.

Best of both worlds, and allows for cross check of info presented.

If I had to fly with a single screen, would most likely stay in Gods Eye view most of the time. Use ADI for pitch/roll info.

4BIEbWzeAhqJzpt7F2XBqjQ9a05WeQKiTgJ8EjLSQz0BBMgUMHLucteyKO1_jEhn62-GUO4BQZZ65LS_A_9GmMMDy084fofU2IoyI-giU9xW2hwAsZBdcmOdQr0G7ihm1rfAibhMiNJIYstEDcDI9bo03oyTqVoETH1oSu3zbqDBDr2f-_OhJgEF3o6k6qAyjL1jbpQD6iZv7nXfLgjZw8xduiLjLYOtfAY5_4zlsfYijGGD0eXWlVi3Ye3mNNqHNyYV3PS2qCwGPpkJPu0aIszzAPMVyNc68jQjCY-8_HejyuLnNRusTr4rKsOcWMMqKwRgGxAVrEeJUFKP_mnhfrQdLkzIo5k_SR1wQQQAhWtDLOiTG39md4mr9yOzPsdmIrhik_iXOTMmv9oVL8VV13OHzgn0IsVSKByEtHZghdLY1VF-rfeXthIyqZIUTCE7SMQTqrPhZPnNFm1r-qajiQZVwR5P_bVJtKfWcbp8MAC3MG8-bu7HSrb8wBt5Wwb11R9eAeGGzQJGjo0l-VnOH_p0lO20vuG6Ua90TXD6l6fGMGiCY5Q7b7mdww=s1179-w1179-h884-no


In the end, it all boils down to individual preference .......
 
Last edited:
Showing the destination runway on the SV is reassuring, especially with the flight path marker over the end of the runway, ?

I think you may have inadvertently answered your own question. "Reassuring" can be translated as "stress reducing" and I've never known that to be a bad thing to have available. There are many other instances where it can have the same effect, (in my case: limited visibility in smoke over mountains) but everyone will be different in terms of what stresses them and even, for the same person it can change with circumstances.

I know of only one downside and that is if there is a disconnect between what the SV is showing you and what the certified data is showing you, but that will only be a problem IFR and you should be using the certified data and be current. I have only heard of one instance of this happening and we seldom hear of the untold number of times it has helped reduce the stress. It doesn't take a heroic "save" to justify the usefulness.

Sometimes it is a matter of answering the question "why do I NEED that?" and the best answer I've come up with is "why do you NEED an airplane? You don't, but you WANT one!"

If having synthetic vision turned on would somehow diminish the experience of flying for you, don't turn it on. If you are neutral about it, I really don't see a downside and everything else is just gravy!
 
1. Helps somewhat with the leans in IMC being a little more immersed in the environment. It not a game changer
2. Helps a lot night VMC
3. Would be much better SA builder if flight path ribbon were displayed on synthetic vision much like Avidyne now has for IFD displays
 
On my Garmin non touch G3X, I notice that the pitch ladder on the synthetic vision is much larger, making for more accurate pitch info than the standard PFD AI. I prefer it for that reason, among others.
 
On my G1000 (G900), I once used to to find a runway during a pretty heavy rainstorm.

I was VFR...in that I could see the ground, and I knew I was on about a 2 mile final.

So, yeah, synth-vis held my hand until visual contact with the runway.

Not proud of it....prolly wouldn't repeat....but, it definitely helped.
 
Good to have the option!

I’ve become so impressed with the ever-improving ForeFlight App that I decided NOT to upgrade from the perfectly adequate and highly functional Dynon D100/ D120 combo already installed in my 7A. Fortunately these are both mounted on the pilot side, leaving enough blank panel space to ram-mount an iPad 10.5” Pro in landscape mode on the right side, canted directly toward the pilot’s face.

The10.5 Pro has a lot more screen real estate than the 9.7 without being much larger physically but is brighter and has twice the refresh rate. It displays both SV and GPS map quite adequately side by side, but most of the time I revel in the luxury of letting the map fill the entire screen. During cross country flight, I zoom to see a 30-50NM radius, with a Scout displaying ADSB traffic very clearly.

That said, I also fly often enough with SV active to be very comfortable with using it, and could imaginenumerous scenarios in which I’d be deeply grateful to have it available.

This should take you to a couple of pics:

https://public.fotki.com/Hartstoc/foreflight/
 
Last edited:
I like it

With how good ForeFlight's Synthetic Vision is with a Stratus I hard mounded an iPad behind my dash as my "primary" flight instrument/moving map. I have a Garmin G5 and Nav/Comm as well to accompany the setup. I absolutely love it. While I normally just have it in moving map mode, there have been a couple times...one in particular, a pitch dark night taking off out of Mammoth where you are surrounded by massive terrain and couldn't see a thing comes to mind. While I had done the climb out planning and knew where I was, it wasn't comfortable AT ALL....except for the fact that I had the synthetic vision up and the color changing of the terrain to indicate height in relation to my own altitude provided significant peace of mind.

I also think of how helpful it could be in a pinch/emergency at night or in the weather. I think it is a significant safety tool and will only continue to get better. I say, why not have it if even just for that!
 
With how good ForeFlight's Synthetic Vision is with a Stratus I hard mounded an iPad behind my dash as my "primary" flight instrument/moving map. I have a Garmin G5 and Nav/Comm as well to accompany the setup. I absolutely love it. While I normally just have it in moving map mode, there have been a couple times...one in particular, a pitch dark night taking off out of Mammoth where you are surrounded by massive terrain and couldn't see a thing comes to mind. While I had done the climb out planning and knew where I was, it wasn't comfortable AT ALL....except for the fact that I had the synthetic vision up and the color changing of the terrain to indicate height in relation to my own altitude provided significant peace of mind.

You were on an IFR flight plan and clearance, right?

I worry that people will start to use SV as a substitute for staying VFR when they should, instead of filing and flying IFR. I do think SV can and will (and likely has) saved lives in an emergency, and it's way useful when visibility is kinda crappy (marginal VFR). But I'd hate to see people start using it incorrectly (much like the "pseudo-approaches" that some folks gin up using GPS to create something that looks like an ILS, but without any sort of guaranteed terrain or obstacle clearance...and then they fly them in darkness or weather anyway).
 
You were on an IFR flight plan and clearance, right?

I worry that people will start to use SV as a substitute for staying VFR when they should, instead of filing and flying IFR. I do think SV can and will (and likely has) saved lives in an emergency, and it's way useful when visibility is kinda crappy (marginal VFR). But I'd hate to see people start using it incorrectly (much like the "pseudo-approaches" that some folks gin up using GPS to create something that looks like an ILS, but without any sort of guaranteed terrain or obstacle clearance...and then they fly them in darkness or weather anyway).

Didn't know night flying required an IFR flight plan.

SV will never be a substitute for good ADM. We all know the rules and risks associated with pushing the envelope...
 
IFR and ATC do little for terrain threat until you are up, in radar contact and under some form of positive control- a vector, cleared via/direct, etc.

Until you are up and safe you are on your own. Fly the DP /SiID you are still on your own to make any climb gradients.

SV is a cool tool, used with a good understanding.
 
Didn't know night flying required an IFR flight plan.

SV will never be a substitute for good ADM. We all know the rules and risks associated with pushing the envelope...

It doesn't. Flight by references to instruments does. Dark, moonless nights with no lights, or over water, etc., where one "couldn't see a thing" qualify.

I believe, but haven't verified yet, that this is a quote from the FAA OGC from 1984 or so:

"actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft."

I'm guess dark, moonless night over empty terrain might also qualify.
 
It doesn't. Flight by references to instruments does. Dark, moonless nights with no lights, or over water, etc., where one "couldn't see a thing" qualify.

I believe, but haven't verified yet, that this is a quote from the FAA OGC from 1984 or so:

"actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft."

I'm guess dark, moonless night over empty terrain might also qualify.

Can you please point to the regulation that requires an IFR flight plan at night, even when by reference solely to instruments? This is completely new to me and something people should really be made aware of if it is true.

We should strive to provide the most accurate information we can here.
 
Any flight with reference solely to instruments either requires a safety pilot to see and avoid or an IFR flight clearance. If you are solely referencing instruments, you are not seeing and avoiding, which is required when VFR.
 
Back
Top