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?

Well, sort of. An instrument flight plan only guarantees separation from "participating" traffic. If you're IFR in VMC, you still need to keep your eyes open for other traffic.
 
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.

Once again, I didn't say you have to have an IFR flight plan *at night*. It's when conditions are such that safe flight can only be conducted by reference to instruments, whatever those conditions are. In this case, it's dark night with no horizon to reference, and yes, under those conditions, you can be IFR *even if the WEATHER is VMC.

This has been hashed out about a billion times on these and other forums, or you can go ask any CFII worth their salt.

Or, if you want to fly around on dark, moonless nights over water or terrain with no horizon and no way to tell which way is *up*, and not be on an IFR flight plan (following all the DPs, SIDs, STARs, MEAs and so forth), be my guest. I'll watch for the accident report in the NTSB database.

That said, yes, SV can be a lifesaver. I can imagine someone taking off on a dark night, *not thinking* that they might end up with no horizon to reference, and having to suddenly resort to SV and a moving map to stay upright and away from terrain, and it would then be worth its weight in gold. That was what the OP was asking about, I believe.
 
Once again, I didn't say you have to have an IFR flight plan *at night*. It's when conditions are such that safe flight can only be conducted by reference to instruments, whatever those conditions are. In this case, it's dark night with no horizon to reference, and yes, under those conditions, you can be IFR *even if the WEATHER is VMC.

This has been hashed out about a billion times on these and other forums, or you can go ask any CFII worth their salt.

Or, if you want to fly around on dark, moonless nights over water or terrain with no horizon and no way to tell which way is *up*, and not be on an IFR flight plan (following all the DPs, SIDs, STARs, MEAs and so forth), be my guest. I'll watch for the accident report in the NTSB database.

That said, yes, SV can be a lifesaver. I can imagine someone taking off on a dark night, *not thinking* that they might end up with no horizon to reference, and having to suddenly resort to SV and a moving map to stay upright and away from terrain, and it would then be worth its weight in gold. That was what the OP was asking about, I believe.

Logically this makes no sense. When I (a non-instrument rated private pilot) am flying under the hood with a safety pilot, the safety pilot is there to provide avoidance of traffic, not to "tell which way is *up*". I'm very much flying solely by reference to instruments, and (usually) managing to keep the up end pointed up.

Please reference the regulation that requires a pilot to be instrument rated and on an IFR flight plan when flying solely by reference to instruments, I've not been able to validate that claim.

Also... Saying you'll look for my accident report in the NTSB database is unnecessary and in extremely poor form in my opinion. I'm completely willing to be educated here and am simply asking for verification of something I can't seem to verify on my own...
 
Ok, after a few minutes of research here is what I found.

There is a distinction between actual instrument conditions and instrument meteorological conditions, the two are not the same.

You are required to be on an IFR flight plan if you are in IMC, or rather the weather is below VFR minimums (and to enter class A airspace). You may log "actual" instrument time if you require instruments for “adequate control of the aircraft” which can occur while VFR in VMC on a dark moonless night.

From the 1984 Carr letter, called the "Moonless Night" letter:

"That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions."

So you may log instrument flight time in 3 cases:

1) When you must operate the aircraft solely by reference to instruments.
2) When under actual IMC.
3) When simulating instrument flight conditions.

So yes, it has been asked before and the answer seems clear, and counter, to what was stated earlier in this thread... You are not required to be on an IFR flight plan only because you are required to fly solely by reference to instruments.

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html
https://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/logging-actual-instrument-time.25404/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/logging-ifr-during-moonless-night-vfr.68934/
 
Last edited:
Logically this makes no sense. When I (a non-instrument rated private pilot) am flying under the hood with a safety pilot, the safety pilot is there to provide avoidance of traffic, not to "tell which way is *up*". I'm very much flying solely by reference to instruments, and (usually) managing to keep the up end pointed up.

Please reference the regulation that requires a pilot to be instrument rated and on an IFR flight plan when flying solely by reference to instruments, I've not been able to validate that claim.

Also... Saying you'll look for my accident report in the NTSB database is unnecessary and in extremely poor form in my opinion. I'm completely willing to be educated here and am simply asking for verification of something I can't seem to verify on my own...

So if you're under the hood and get the plane into an unusual attitude, the safety pilot should do nothing? Sometimes, yeah, so that you'll learn, but should they just let it develop into a dangerous situation?

Besides, we're not talking about practicing IFR procedures in VMC with a safety pilot.

A decent summary of this somewhat unusual situation is here:

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html

I don't understand the issue here...if one accepts the hypothetical, that conditions require flight by reference to instruments, then doesn't that mean that one is, in fact, "flying IFR"? And doesn't that mean that within the NAS, an instrument clearance is required? IANAL, but I'd not want to be on the receiving end of a certificate action should something go wrong, and I told the investigators I was flying solely by reference to instruments but had no clearance from ATC to do so. YMMV.

ETA: I think what you're looking for is this:

91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
 
Last edited:
So if you're under the hood and get the plane into an unusual attitude, the safety pilot should do nothing? Sometimes, yeah, so that you'll learn, but should they just let it develop into a dangerous situation?

Besides, we're not talking about practicing IFR procedures in VMC with a safety pilot.

A decent summary of this somewhat unusual situation is here:

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html

I don't understand the issue here...if one accepts the hypothetical, that conditions require flight by reference to instruments, then doesn't that mean that one is, in fact, "flying IFR"? And doesn't that mean that within the NAS, an instrument clearance is required? IANAL, but I'd not want to be on the receiving end of a certificate action should something go wrong, and I told the investigators I was flying solely by reference to instruments but had no clearance from ATC to do so. YMMV.

ETA: I think what you're looking for is this:

91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

You apparently read the same article I did and missed this entire section. I'll copy and bold the relevant parts here:

"Instrument Rating Required?
Currency in 61.57 isn’t the only instrument flight time requirement. Notably 61.65 requires 40 hours instrument flight time for the airplane instrument rating, only 20 of which must be dual with a CFII. Some of those are commonly flown under simulated conditions. Could our student forego the hood, find a desolate area on a moonless VFR night with high overcast, and build some of that time solo? Visibility might even be excellent, with another aircraft’s navigation and anticollision lights clearly visible 20 miles away. Putting the wisdom of that aside, the Moonless Night Letter presumes visual conditions qualifying for VFR, and there is nothing to suggest our student couldn’t log that."

You also seem to be missing the point that flight by reference to instruments has nothing to do with requirements to be on an IFR flight plan. But this has been hashed out a billion times...
 
Last edited:
You apparently read the same article I did and missed this entire section. I'll copy and bold the relevant parts here:

"Instrument Rating Required?
Currency in 61.57 isn?t the only instrument flight time requirement. Notably 61.65 requires 40 hours instrument flight time for the airplane instrument rating, only 20 of which must be dual with a CFII. Some of those are commonly flown under simulated conditions. Could our student forego the hood, find a desolate area on a moonless VFR night with high overcast, and build some of that time solo? Visibility might even be excellent, with another aircraft?s navigation and anticollision lights clearly visible 20 miles away. Putting the wisdom of that aside, the Moonless Night Letter presumes visual conditions qualifying for VFR, and there is nothing to suggest our student couldn?t log that."

You also seem to be missing the point that flight by reference to instruments has nothing to do with requirements to be on an IFR flight plan. But this has been hashed out a billion times...

So a non-instrument-rated pilot, flying alone at night with no outside references and *flying solely by reference to instruments* need not file IFR and receive a clearance?
 
I interpret the critical sentence differently than you. I don't see three cases; I see one ("...operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments"), with two descriptions of how that can happen (actual or simulated conditions). I would have phrased it as follows

From the 1984 Carr letter, called the "Moonless Night" letter:

"That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, [which may occur] under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions.


...


So you may log instrument flight time in 3 cases:

1) When you must operate the aircraft solely by reference to instruments[, whether:}
a) When under actual IMC.
b) When simulating instrument flight conditions.

So yes, it has been asked before and the answer seems clear, and counter, to what was stated earlier in this thread... You are not required to be on an IFR flight plan only because you are required to fly solely by reference to instruments.

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html
https://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/logging-actual-instrument-time.25404/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/logging-ifr-during-moonless-night-vfr.68934/


Note that IFR magazine proposes this as a valid potential interpretation a few paragraphs after your excerpted section. The Jet Careers thread beat me to the JFK, Jr. reference, a non-instrument-rated pilot operating in the proverbial black hole. Would he be alive today if he'd been instrument rated? We'll never know for sure, but I can't help thinking he would have had a much better chance if he'd been trained and skilled in operating "solely by reference to instruments," and had filed (and flown) IFR that night.
 
So a non-instrument-rated pilot, flying alone at night with no outside references and *flying solely by reference to instruments* need not file IFR and receive a clearance?

I don't know the answer to this, but another aspect is that if you are "on the instruments" in VFR, how can you perform "see and avoid"?
Not sure what's legal, it's pretty obvious what's prudent and safe.
 
I have been flying with my Dual AFS 5600 setup now for nearly a year and I think it's terrific.
The amount of information available is truly amazing. I cannot see a detriment to SVS whether VFR or IFR, use it or don't, but it's always available if you need it. The only downside is of course the cost, if your checkbook can swing it, go for it! You won't regret it.
 
So a non-instrument-rated pilot, flying alone at night with no outside references and *flying solely by reference to instruments* need not file IFR and receive a clearance?

If the flight is conducted in VMC, correct. The only requirement to be on an IFR flight plan is when the flight is conducted in conditions below VFR weather minimums or is in class A airspace. Again, it has nothing to do with whether you must fly by sole reference to instruments.

Since it appears you haven't read the threads I've referenced I'll repost this here as a good summary of the issue:

"I would say that this discussion points out the important semantic differences between several terms often jumbled by pilots:

IFR/VFR - the flight rules under which you are operating
IMC/VMC - cloud clearance and visibility requirements you need to operate VFR legally, and without which the regs require you operate IFR.
Actual instrument conditions - conditions which make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft
As noted above, these are independent issues, and one can legally be:

VFR in VMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in VMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in IMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in actual instrument conditions (regardless of IMC or VMC)
IFR not in instrument conditions (regardless of IMC or VMC)
VFR in actual instrument conditions (as long as you're in VMC)"

There is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night. It is a topic that has been discussed and settled that, indeed, there is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night. Any CFII worth their salt should know the correct interpretation of the regs.

Prudent and safe? Completely different issue. But it is legal.

I interpret the critical sentence differently than you. I don't see three cases; I see one ("...operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments"), with two descriptions of how that can happen (actual or simulated conditions). I would have phrased it as follows

Note that IFR magazine proposes this as a valid potential interpretation a few paragraphs after your excerpted section. The Jet Careers thread beat me to the JFK, Jr. reference, a non-instrument-rated pilot operating in the proverbial black hole. Would he be alive today if he'd been instrument rated? We'll never know for sure, but I can't help thinking he would have had a much better chance if he'd been trained and skilled in operating "solely by reference to instruments," and had filed (and flown) IFR that night.

I can see that interpretation, but it is clearly a separation of clauses. If the comma weren't there you would be correct.
 
Last edited:
If the flight is conducted in VMC, correct. The only requirement to be on an IFR flight plan is when the flight is conducted in conditions below VFR weather minimums or is in class A airspace. Again, it has nothing to do with whether you must fly by sole reference to instruments.

Since it appears you haven't read the threads I've referenced I'll repost this here as a good summary of the issue:

Yes, I read them all, thank you very much.

"I would say that this discussion points out the important semantic differences between several terms often jumbled by pilots:

IFR/VFR - the flight rules under which you are operating
IMC/VMC - cloud clearance and visibility requirements you need to operate VFR legally, and without which the regs require you operate IFR.
Actual instrument conditions - conditions which make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft
As noted above, these are independent issues, and one can legally be:

VFR in VMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in VMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in IMC (regardless of actual instrument conditions)
IFR in actual instrument conditions (regardless of IMC or VMC)
IFR not in instrument conditions (regardless of IMC or VMC)
VFR in actual instrument conditions (as long as you're in VMC)"

There is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night. It is a topic that has been discussed and settled that, indeed, there is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night. Any CFII worth their salt should know the correct interpretation of the regs.

It's the last one, and only the last one, that is in question throughout all fo this.

ETA: It's not the "moonless night" that is at question here...it's the *necessity* of flight by reference to instruments, which can be caused by several things. Moonless nights over dark terrain are just the easiest example to think of (one of the links actually talks about flight directly into the sun, causing the necessity of reverting to flight solely by reference to instruments). (I'm surprised we haven't gone down the legalities of *logging* instrument flight time and approaches, given that the original FAA OGC opinion really was discussing *that*, as do most of the articles and discussions; quite separate from conducting the flight itself and whether a clearance is required or not).

Let's suppose that is what the pilot is doing, and he picks up a violation for something. The investigator determines that the pilot was conducting the flight solely by reference to instruments, but without being on an IFR clearance, and the pilot's response is "it was VMC but actual instrument conditions".

If I were an FAA lawyer, my first question would be "what was the flight visibility?", and the second question, regardless of answer, would be "given that you were conducting flight by reference to instruments in actual instrument conditions, how can you know *what* the flight visibility was?"

Prudent and safe? Completely different issue. But it is legal.

I can see that interpretation, but it is clearly a separation of clauses. If the comma weren't there you would be correct.
 
Last edited:
Let's suppose...

If I were an FAA lawyer...

Supposition and hypothetical scenarios, I prefer to base my opinions on verifiable information.

I've asked several times for you to reference the regulation that requires and IFR flight plan solely as a result of the necessity to fly by reference to instruments. You cannot because that requirement doesn't exist.

You claimed this has "been hashed out a billion times... in other forums" and indeed it has, to the consensus that there is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night (or when flight by reference to instruments is required).

IFR/=IMC/=Actual instrument conditions. These are all separate things.

If you are in VMC you may fly VFR, period.

Provide evidence to support your claim to the contrary or stop arguing about this.
 
Supposition and hypothetical scenarios, I prefer to base my opinions on verifiable information.

I've asked several times for you to reference the regulation that requires and IFR flight plan solely as a result of the necessity to fly by reference to instruments. You cannot because that requirement doesn't exist.

You claimed this has "been hashed out a billion times... in other forums" and indeed it has, to the consensus that there is no requirement to be on an IFR flight plan on a moonless night (or when flight by reference to instruments is required).

IFR/=IMC/=Actual instrument conditions. These are all separate things.

If you are in VMC you may fly VFR, period.

Provide evidence to support your claim to the contrary or stop arguing about this.

OK, you win. There's no regulation that explicitly says that.

I'd still not want to be the hapless pilot explaining myself to the FAA under such circumstances, but that's just me.
 
OK, you win. There's no regulation that explicitly says that.

I'd still not want to be the hapless pilot explaining myself to the FAA under such circumstances, but that's just me.

So your initial indignation and subsequent assertions of incorrect information were all for naught. You also seem to imply that a pilot that is not instrument rated is incapable of safely operating an aircraft solely by reference to instruments, this is also incorrect. It depends on the pilot's experience, skill, and ADM.

We should endeavor to provide accurate information when possible...

Anyway, SV is a great tool that increases SA in situations that would otherwise be potentially hazardous. Like moonless nights with featureless terrain.
 
Last edited:
I think you guys are arguing over something that's not relevant to the discussion... It's exceedingly rare that there would be a situation when you're required to fly solely on instruments and be in VMC. (my interpretation of the regs would be that if you were to find these conditions you would be technically legal, but it is also my opinion if the FAA wanted to violate any pilot on any flight they would likely be able to find something. so again, it doesn't seem like an important nit to pick)

what is relevant is the "moonless night": Pilot can see lights on the ground and stars in the sky, so keeping the right side up is not a problem. I can see navigational lights of other planes for miles and miles, traffic avoidance is not a problem. What I can't see is any terrain as the ground lights and stars are not bright enough to illuminate the mountains, terrain avoidance is a problem. This is one situation where SV is very helpful, whether it's prudent to rely on SV for terrain avoidance is a personal decision. Everyone's personal limits are different and they will range from absolutely no night flying to scud running at night; and that's their prerogative whether you agree or not...

The question posed was is SV useful. My opinion is it can be in very limited situations, mostly it's just another neat feature to have on a box that was purchased for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
Figure I'll jump in on the fun before it fizzles out. In answer to RV7's original reply....no I was not on an IFR clearance in that example. I was VMC with near unlimited vis. I had done the planning (req. climb, performance, headings, etc) for the runway, length, and altitude. Also my path followed a road. This could have all been executed with ease, safely, and legally without SV, however.....the SV gave me significant added comfort and situational awareness, as well as an additional layer of safety in case of an unexpected emergency.

As someone who is comfortable flying his RV at night and does it often, SV is a nice tool to have if for anything but added SA and safety in an emergency. That being said, many do not fly their RVs at night or IMC, in which case I would say you'd probably be spending money on something you wont use much...if ever. I never have my SV pulled up when I am day VMC as I prefer to have the entire screen my moving map. So is SV useful/worth it?? I would say it all comes down to the type of flying you do. For some it may be a resounding "YES", others it may be a "not worth the extra $$". I do believe it will be standard on most units in the near future however, if not eventually mandated.

It's nice to live in a hypothetical world of black and white where pilots never make bad ADM or find themselves in unexpected weather conditions, but unfortunately this isn't the case. I can see SV being a life-saver in these situations (think of all the CFIT fatalities from people pushing low vis or inadvertent IMC). Obviously we do not want the reason for finding themselves in these situations due to the fact they have SV in the first place, but mitigating that comes with solid ADM instruction, specifically how to use and not to use such tools in the first place.

As to the argument of VFR vs IFR vs IMC etc......while not legally required, whether or not it is prudent or a good decision is all circumstantial IMHO. In my specific example, it wouldn't have bought me much as I was already flying the SID, meeting the wickets and wouldn't have been in radar contact until well clear anyway. I was fully able to see and avoid other aircraft. Do you accept a higher level of risk than if I had done it in the daytime? Sure, especially in the case of survivability with something like an engine failure. But this is the sliding level of acceptable risk that we operate within the SAFE zone every flight. There's the legal SAFE zone, and then (what should be) the more conservative safety zone we set personally based off of our experience, proficiency, capabilities, equipment, and a host of other factors. An aspect of bad ADM is when the sliding scale we choose to operate in exceeds our personal safety zone for that particular flight.

I do believe that was my very first engagement into a VAF rant!
 
Last edited:
I'm not engaging in the VFR/VMC/IFR/IMC discussion, however I would like to respond to the OP.

This past weekend I was forced by ATC to divert under their airspace, day, VFR/VMC. This diversion was conducted just below their Class C which extends down to 2000'AGL. Local terrain/hills exceed 1000' AGL. I was busy navigating a new route, steering clear of a control zone, AND trying to keep away from communications towers, power lines and terrain.

Synthetic vision was a huge help in speeding up my ability to visually locate threats ahead of me. Glance at the screen, see the tower depicted in synthetic vision, look out the windshield and know almost exactly where to look to find the tower in the real world.

In this instance synthetic vision proved to be an excellent aid to situational awareness and a clear benefit to safety of flight.
 
Figure I'll jump in on the fun before it fizzles out. In answer to RV7's original reply....no I was not on an IFR clearance in that example. I was VMC with near unlimited vis. I had done the planning (req. climb, performance, headings, etc) for the runway, length, and altitude. Also my path followed a road. This could have all been executed with ease, safely, and legally without SV, however.....the SV gave me significant added comfort and situational awareness, as well as an additional layer of safety in case of an unexpected emergency.

As someone who is comfortable flying his RV at night and does it often, SV is a nice tool to have if for anything but added SA and safety in an emergency. That being said, many do not fly their RVs at night or IMC, in which case I would say you'd probably be spending money on something you wont use much...if ever. I never have my SV pulled up when I am day VMC as I prefer to have the entire screen my moving map. So is SV useful/worth it?? I would say it all comes down to the type of flying you do. For some it may be a resounding "YES", others it may be a "not worth the extra $$". I do believe it will be standard on most units in the near future however, if not eventually mandated.

It's nice to live in a hypothetical world of black and white where pilots never make bad ADM or find themselves in unexpected weather conditions, but unfortunately this isn't the case. I can see SV being a life-saver in these situations (think of all the CFIT fatalities from people pushing low vis or inadvertent IMC). Obviously we do not want the reason for finding themselves in these situations due to the fact they have SV in the first place, but mitigating that comes with solid ADM instruction, specifically how to use and not to use such tools in the first place.

As to the argument of VFR vs IFR vs IMC etc......while not legally required, whether or not it is prudent or a good decision is all circumstantial IMHO. In my specific example, it wouldn't have bought me much as I was already flying the SID, meeting the wickets and wouldn't have been in radar contact until well clear anyway. I was fully able to see and avoid other aircraft. Do you accept a higher level of risk than if I had done it in the daytime? Sure, especially in the case of survivability with something like an engine failure. But this is the sliding level of acceptable risk that we operate within the SAFE zone every flight. There's the legal SAFE zone, and then (what should be) the more conservative safety zone we set personally based off of our experience, proficiency, capabilities, equipment, and a host of other factors. An aspect of bad ADM is when the sliding scale we choose to operate in exceeds our personal safety zone for that particular flight. Illegal decision making is when it exceeds those dictated by the regulations.

I do believe that was my very first engagement into a VAF rant!

Thanks for a well-reasoned response to my original (somewhat terse) question. I'll admit I was wrong about needing to file IFR in this case, and I agree with all you've said about added safety of SV. I firmly believe that SV will save lives in some circumstances, as you've noted.
 
Synthetic Vision

First define what you mean by synthetic vision. I worked in a human factors cockpit development lab for several years, and have seen everything from a bad wire terrain outline laid upon a 2D map called synthetic vision to a large panel screen that looks like you are looking at the ground through a window, with a heads up display on it. The later was generated by draping a terrain photograph over a 3d terrain construct, then generating a heads up display overlay. The first probably helps situational awareness somewhat, but the second allows someone with only vfr flying experience to interpret the display without having to train to relate the data on various multiple display instruments to the actual flight situation, that is he essentially can use the synthetic display to fly vfr under VMC or canopy obscured conditions. This of course ignores the legality of doing this under actual in-flight conditions. The question then becomes how accurate and up to date is the "synthetic VMC" display and how effectively can you translate between normal vfr flying and flying with this "synthetic VMC" display. If good enough, instrument flying then becomes a natural extension of normal vfr experience.
 
Not always a dark moonless night

A few years ago, flying t Oshkosh I was crossing Lake Michigan, midday, at 10,500 feet. In the 182 I was flying I was typically out of gliding distance of land for about 15 min. On this particular day the sky was hazy well past 10,500. At about the time the eastern shore disappeared into the haze behind me, the water and sky slowly blended into a uniform hazy blue. I immediately went on instruments. I was VFR in IMC conditions with easy 10 miles or better visibility.
I could still see the water if I looked straight down, but could not hold the plane level while doing so. In about 15 minutes I picked up the line of the west lake shore and started a slow decent with no issues.
Not having an IFR rating at the time, SV would have made holding level and on course a no brainer. Round gauges did the same, but with a much higher mental focus and concentration.
The new plane will have a G3X, so SV is part of my future. :D
 
On this particular day the sky was hazy well past 10,500. At about the time the eastern shore disappeared into the haze behind me, the water and sky slowly blended into a uniform hazy blue. I immediately went on instruments. I was VFR in IMC conditions with easy 10 miles or better visibility.
I could still see the water if I looked straight down, but could not hold the plane level while doing so.

I had a very similar experience, in an airplane with minimum day-VFR instrumentation (and no attitude indicator).
 
A few years ago, flying t Oshkosh I was crossing Lake Michigan, midday, at 10,500 feet. In the 182 I was flying I was typically out of gliding distance of land for about 15 min. On this particular day the sky was hazy well past 10,500. At about the time the eastern shore disappeared into the haze behind me, the water and sky slowly blended into a uniform hazy blue. I immediately went on instruments. I was VFR in IMC conditions with easy 10 miles or better visibility.
I could still see the water if I looked straight down, but could not hold the plane level while doing so. In about 15 minutes I picked up the line of the west lake shore and started a slow decent with no issues.
Not having an IFR rating at the time, SV would have made holding level and on course a no brainer. Round gauges did the same, but with a much higher mental focus and concentration.
The new plane will have a G3X, so SV is part of my future. :D

I don't wish to sound discouraging, especially since I am a fan of the additional situational awareness afforded by Synthetic Vision. Unfortunatelhy I have to say the situation you describe is one of those where the synthetic vision available to us in most "experimental" EFIS equipment likely would not have helped a great deal. In featureless terrain (is anything more featureless than a large body of water?) the SV would not have been able to provide any visual clues that would be more meaningful than an artificial horizon display, simply because there were no visual clues out there to be displayed.

On the flip side, trying to gain situational awareness by looking at a 6-pack really seems like hard work once one becomes accustomed to having all that info presented on an EFIS. Many "experienced" pilots shy away from putting glass in their new airplanes, based on having flown 6-packs all their lives. Some of them are amazed by how quickly they are able to assimilate the info provided on modern EFIS devices.
 
immediately went on instruments. I was VFR in IMC conditions with easy 10 miles or better visibility.

Not to nit-pick too much-we all know what you meant-but technically you were in VMC, not IMC, since there weren?t any cloud considerations and you had 3 or more miles of visibility. The fact that there wasn?t anything useful to be seen has been left, by the faa, to the pilot?s discretion. The not-so-great fatality rate for night flying shows that these considerations should not be taken lightly.
 
Night IMC

Other countries require an IFR rating to fly at night. Probably not a bad idea.
 
In response to leok's post above. I feel what he describes is a perfect example of the benefits of this kind of technology. I was high in the haze over the panhandle of Florida a few years back. I lost site of the horizon. The only thing I could see was straight down. I felt like I was sitting on the top of a cone. Stations ahead were reporting VFR. By the FAA rules, I was legal but none the less not in a comfortable situation for me, (I'm not IFR rated). I didn't have and still don't have synthetic vision, (except on the ifly 740 but no way would I trust my life on it), so it seemed my only choice was to continue on with the autopilot flying the plane or descend to an altitude where I could actually visualize some landscape in front of the aircraft and not just below it. I decided to descend. Here's why. I was thinking if the only thing I can see was the ground directly below me... that ground could quickly and easily disappear. Then I would be illegal and in true IFR conditions.
If I had my plane to build over again. I would make sure I had SV available in the panel! Those bells and whistles came out not long after I purchased my avionics. Wish I had been just a year later! :-/

Edited: The point of my post is simply this. I don't know if guys really use SV to fly IFR but if a VFR guy like me somehow ends up in IFR conditions, then ANYTHING from an autopilot, SV or a monkey in the cockpit that could help would be welcomed! :)
 
Last edited:
"Other countries require an IFR rating to fly at night. Probably not a bad idea."


Not required. Overkill. To attain the night rating, an individual must acquire ten hours of night flying and ten hours of instrument time. That's enough to develop the basic skills required to undertake flight on the dark side.


Night flight is only scary for those that don't do it. :D
 
Back
Top