I test drove the Ifly 700 and just sent it back. They have a way to go, and maybe in their new 6.0 update will clear up some issues. .....There is an issue in regards to removing the TFR on the screen after it has been downloaded and expires. They state work is in progress on this issue.
Will might be a nice unit if they can get the bugs out!
Out of honesty, I should mention that I called Ed in customer service and was told I would get a call back in 5 minutes due to a walk-in customer. I left my name and cell #, as of today... I've never heard from Ed.
Excellent detailed info... Yep wait and see. I heard about glare and low visibility in daylight. New screen or antiglare, software upgrades... the price stay the same... sounds like it would be a winner.
There will certainly be that question. On the other hand, I have lots of examples, of where it would have made a difference.
The first officer noticed the depiction of rising terrain ahead........on the Garmin 396 portable GPS. He mentioned this to the captain, but the captain didn't respond.
That is a good point. It sounds like more of a CRM issue than Nav (crew resource management). May be a 3D "synthetic" picture would have convinced the Captain, but the Garmin 396 was telling them the INFO. They or the Captain ignored it. They did not discuss it? Just disregarded it. I hate talking about dead pilots... because I could have done somethings like that.... The F/O should have pressed the captain. I suppose the FO was new may be, assumed the captain knew. Still GPS or not they were VFR into IFR. Too bad. I think I remember that accident... P2 and hit a hill... there was a picture of it on the web.
CRM training came about because of accidents like this. The dynamics of the captain/FO was different in the past, the FO was just a monkey to raise and lower the gear to some captains, not part of the team and a valuable resource.
CFIT accidents. Also the "black hole" effect, which is from a total absence of ground lighting.
I hear you. If the 3D synthetic display can keep VFR (or IFR) pilots upright better than a AI/DG presentation it will be good. However I don't see it being superior in normal flight when you have wide terrain clearance. The AI and DG are still pretty much the standard. The improvements like EFIS that allows more info on one instrument is a bonus (but can overwhelm pilots). Same with NAV displays, too busy they can distract. Also in VFR pilots should LOOK outside not stare at the PFD EFIS.
As you say, you get into situations where even a diligent VFR or IFR pilot gets SURPRISED by "IFR" conditions, even in VFR weather. Taking off from Sedona Arizona (the one on the mountain plateau) in my old RV-4, clear moonless night, pitch dark, no city lights, I was a startled on takeoff how little (no) visual clues I had. My vacuum AI and DG were out of the plane at the time. An T&B is pathetic in a RV if there is turbulence. Long story short I survived. Same with Lake Front Airport in New Orleans. Take off night over big lake Pontratrain, no moon, might as well be IFR. Lots of accidents over the years with that scenario.
I hear you. Even Pvt pilots get a handful of instrument time... of course they get rusty, don't use it. 3D EFIS or basic 6-Pack or needle-ball-airspeed it will not help, if you lose control or fly into something. Technology can only go so far.
Anyway, I just have case after case, of where terrain depiction, and especially synthetic vision would have made the difference. There are many airliners that hit the terrain around here in the 1930's through 40's, as well as a DC-8 in the 70's. Those captains would have loved this "new stuff"! L.Adamson -- Garmin 696
All the Air transport planes for decades have had GPWS (Ground Prox Warning Systems). At first they were crude. They were based on airspeed, altitude, VSI, radar altimeter, plane configuration... They often gave false alarms. In one case in south America the crew got a warning and the voice recorder recorded, "shut up gringo" and they hit the cumulus granite cloud. It would have saved an accident like the Eastern L1011 in the Everglades, which was CFIT, descended while the crew was distracted. (I think this is the accident that motivated GPWS). Then GPS became common, now there is Advanced GPWS, which does
predictive terrain avoidance, based on GPS and terrain data. Most jets don't show you this data on the PFD, but you get a big old aural warning, PULL UP TERRAIN! Jets have color radar (doppler so it can see wind shear), which can be used to paint terrain. All these would have saved many accidents like you are thinking of. So it's good that GA is getting better technology.
However my point is the PILOT, training, currency, decision making is probably more critical than the best GPS you can buy.
It's like airbags in cars save lives, but if you drive drunk or stupid you still get killed or kill others. The human factor is there with flying and technology will not save us alone.
TCAS.. traffic collision avoidance system, came about because of the Cerritos Ca, midair between a Air Mexican airliner and a Piper, I believe. I am sure it has saved lives.... HOWEVER it has caused accidents. In South America a fancy Business Jet and Boeing hit. The Boeing went down. It was in part ATC's fault but the business jet crew forgot or was confused about how to turn on the TCAS. In another case, over Europe, a DHL 757 freighter and Russian passenger Airliner hit midair and both crashed, due to the Russian crew initially responding improperly to their TCAS commands. It is possible the TCAS systems of the planes gave improper or conflicting commands. TCAS commands climb or descend. TCAS is assuming the conflict aircraft is going to stay on the current vector. If it does something radically different (responding to it's own TCAS warning) there could be a problem. ATC was at fault as well.... TCAS software and training was updated.
A lot of the JET accidents of the 60's and 70's was from training, the fact they did not have flight simulators... plus they did not know what they were doing... You do stuff in simulators you would be crazy to do intentionally in the plane... It's like Single Engine work in Twins... there were lots of accidents from "simulated engine failures"... Same with SPINS in single engine planes... thus the Pvt Pilot syllabus makes it optional. They were killing more people practicing spins than in normal flying. The emphasis is stall awareness and spin avoidance. I still took students up in an acrobat with chutes if they wanted to. They all did it.
Many FAR's, rules and aviation technologies we have and use were born from accidents. It's too bad they don't lower the price. Regardless if you do any flying, not having a good GPS with at least some basic airspace and terrain warning info is silly... the price of the older Gramins are cheap. Even my 195 gets the job done with obstacle and airspace warnings. It saved me once or twice from flying into restricted areas. Now with TFR's it's even easier to "make the news"...
"An amateur built plane called an "R Vee" was forced to land by military jets when it wandered too close to the golf course the President was playing at. The pilot is now being questioned by CIA. Sources say the pilot is talking, said something about not buying latest GPS or Nav update for his old GPS... It could be code for something or the pilot is a dumb*** cheapskate for not buying the newest GPS technology with current nav data." Ha ha.
How are the Garmins for TFR updates? Just do it the old fashion way, check before flying on the web and make a note.