will there be an affordable vision system for aircraft?

[Exhaustgases]

A multi system synthetic vision system that is affordable for all aircraft, that also enhances TCAS, to double check the controllers.
A question do all planes now have altitude encoding transponders? Hope so.

 

[TCL]

Speaking of "vision" systems....I always wondered why there was no cameras outside of the plane looking at wings and tail to give the pilots a visual clue when something wrong was happening like a motor fire, landing gear stuck, rudder jam etc.. so they know what is really going on when they have a problem and can react accordingly.

 

[Astro14]

Not any time soon. The sensors are very expensive, so, cheap for the military and airlines, but not “affordable” in your sense. The sensor fusion to create the synthetic vision is also expensive.

So, sure, on a $75 million Gulfstream, you can get it, but retrofitting it to a $100,000 Cessna? Not for a long time to come.

Not all planes have altitude encoding transponders or ADS-B. It’s not required for all aircraft, just for those that fly into certain airspace.

So, the “synthetic vision” won’t see them. They will be visible to a naked eye and they will only be flying in good weather.

So, even the presence of a synthetic vision system will not obviate the need for pilots or for those pilots to be looking outside.

 

[Astro14]

Speaking of "vision" systems....I always wondered why there was no cameras outside of the plane looking at wings and tail to give the pilots a visual clue when something wrong was happening like a motor fire, landing gear stuck, rudder jam etc.. so they know what is really going on when they have a problem and can react accordingly.

1. How much would that cost?
2. Who is paying for it?
3. What is the actual (not hypothetical) impact on safety?

I’ve never needed that capability. It would be nice to have, but adding it to existing airplanes at millions of dollars per airplane isn’t going to happen in a competitive environment.

Some bigger airplanes (A-380 and 777-300) have external cameras that enable safer taxiing. Not as comprehensive as you suggest, but the OEMs included it to allay customer concerns about 80M long airplanes.

 

[Cujet]

Not any time soon. The sensors are very expensive,,,

So, sure, on a $75 million Gulfstream, you can get it, but retrofitting it to a $100,000 Cessna? Not for a long time to come.

The EVS (enhanced vision system) we used our our Gulfstream fleet was a million dollar option on earlier jets. Standard equipment on later jets. The concave "bare sensor" has no lenses so it's not a camera, was initially a high fail item costing about $60K plus labor to install it. It could not be replaced in the field, so the entire camera needed to be sent in. Later versions lasted longer. But the thermal stresses took their toll, and it was smart to have that million dollar system on a maintenance plan.

It is not the FLIR from a police helicopter or the hand held devices that we are familiar with. It is tuned to pick up very cold temps such as the temperature differential of a snow covered mountain top in a snow storm. In the past, I recall the spec being 1/10th of a Deg F sensitivity. It was way better than that.

Here you can see the sensor behind the sapphire glass plate. The sensor looks like a concave piece of brass.

Here is a good example of what it looks like through the Head's up Display. They do a good job making sure all the images overlay correctly. The artificial horizon, the EVS and the Synthetic Vision.

 

[Astro14]

And retrofitting that into your Skylane would cost how much?

What’s the power consumption?

Cooling requirements?

Weight?

Space?

It’s cool, but in answer to the OP, buying something that costs several times the value of the airplane just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Cujet]

And retrofitting that into your Skylane would cost how much?

What’s the power consumption?

Cooling requirements?

Weight?

Space?

It’s cool, but in answer to the OP, buying something that costs several times the value of the airplane just doesn’t make sense.

A far less capable system could be employed on a Cessna piston single. As nobody in their right mind is flying one in utterly terrible weather.

Maybe a microbolometer (a type of thermal camera) simply displayed on a screen. Could even use a common night capable video camera and/or blend the image with the microbolometer, in the way those hand held infra red units do.

 

[Exhaustgases]

With the inexpensive technology nowadays, there is no excuse. Think of lives that could have been saved.

 

[Astro14]

With the inexpensive technology nowadays, there is no excuse. Think of lives that could have been saved.

OK, I’ll bite.

How many lives would’ve been saved by synthetic vision?.

Be specific.

Name the accidents in which people lost their lives, where synthetic vision would’ve made any difference.

No handwaving, no supposition.

 

[97prizm]

Not any time soon. The sensors are very expensive, so, cheap for the military and airlines, but not “affordable” in your sense. The sensor fusion to create the synthetic vision is also expensive.

So, sure, on a $75 million Gulfstream, you can get it, but retrofitting it to a $100,000 Cessna? Not for a long time to come.

Not all planes have altitude encoding transponders or ADS-B. It’s not required for all aircraft, just for those that fly into certain airspace.

So, the “synthetic vision” won’t see them. They will be visible to a naked eye and they will only be flying in good weather.

So, even the presence of a synthetic vision system will not obviate the need for pilots or for those pilots to be looking outside.

Certified aircraft typically take much much longer to get new technology due to the lengthy certification process. Cessna has just now issued a type certificate for Swift 100 unleaded but only for the 172 R and S models.

 

[SaberOne]

I’m retired military, though not from aviation. I did get to ride in the gunner seat using the heads-up gunner controls of a Cobra S1 model during a demo once, and it was an absolute blast. A friend of mine had a Cessna 150, and we flew around San Diego County—I even got to take the stick for a bit.
As a troop, I flew in UH-1s more times than I can count, but that’s about the extent of it. Still, I enjoy browsing aircraft websites—it never gets old.

 

[wings&wheels]

Also, in addition to the equipment cost, the install, certifications and approvals, etc. as noted, there is the financial reality of the potential liability attached to any new technology or product. And this cost is spread out over relatively small production numbers. Effectively any aircraft part is 'bonded' in a financial sense....this adds immensely to the costs of anything aviation.

 

[edyvw]

With the inexpensive technology nowadays, there is no excuse. Think of lives that could have been saved.

Since you are an expert, tell us how many lives? We are trying to think, but clearly not as capable as you are.

In real world, after you got FACTS, as usual you still need to argue, so what is it? Fridge broke? Washing machine? Try workout before posts like this.

 

[edyvw]

Also, in addition to the equipment cost, the install, certifications and approvals, etc. as noted, there is the financial reality of the potential liability attached to any new technology or product. And this cost is spread out over relatively small production numbers. Effectively any aircraft part is 'bonded' in a financial sense....this adds immensely to the costs of anything aviation.

I bet there is somewhere data how many people die falling off the ladder compared to aircraft accident deaths.
Yet, no “sensors “ on ladder to warn you not to climb and put Christmas lights at 80mph wind gusts.

 

[wings&wheels]

The EVS (enhanced vision system) we used our our Gulfstream fleet was a million dollar option on earlier jets. Standard equipment on later jets. The concave "bare sensor" has no lenses so it's not a camera, was initially a high fail item costing about $60K plus labor to install it. It could not be replaced in the field, so the entire camera needed to be sent in. Later versions lasted longer. But the thermal stresses took their toll, and it was smart to have that million dollar system on a maintenance plan.

It is not the FLIR from a police helicopter or the hand held devices that we are familiar with. It is tuned to pick up very cold temps such as the temperature differential of a snow covered mountain top in a snow storm. In the past, I recall the spec being 1/10th of a Deg F sensitivity. It was way better than that.

Here you can see the sensor behind the sapphire glass plate. The sensor looks like a concave piece of brass.

Here is a good example of what it looks like through the Head's up Display. They do a good job making sure all the images overlay correctly. The artificial horizon, the EVS and the Synthetic Vision.

As a young Finance pup I was involved with buying our Company's first Gulfstream in '98 or so, a GIV SP (I actually had the signature authority.... ). Gulfstream had a prototype of an early version of this system installed on Ross Perot's aircraft and was using it as a demonstrator. They brought it up to us and we got to take a ride and play up front....yup from a Pa38 to this! Amazing system. IIRC the version installed used a supercooled sensor and was described as a bit 'needy'.

Cujet, is that Pitkin County?? Exciting airport even in a 172...

 

[RooflessVW]

With the inexpensive technology nowadays, there is no excuse. Think of lives that could have been saved.

Can you give specific examples of lives that would have been saved?

You have no understanding of the costs of aviation. Want to see $6k?

 

[Exhaustgases]

Can you give specific examples of lives that would have been saved?

You have no understanding of the costs of aviation. Want to see $6k?

View attachment 254434

Ha ha ha, I worked my first 13 years in the aviation industry. I worked on a much smaller part than those, it was priced at 20K and that was in the 90's. Kobe Bryant one example.

 

[Astro14]

Ha ha ha, I worked my first 13 years in the aviation industry. I worked on a much smaller part than those, it was priced at 20K and that was in the 90's. Kobe Bryant one example.

I could have saved his life for ZERO DOLLARS.

Don’t fly in bad weather, when you’re not instrument rated.

Spending millions on systems to make up for bad judgment isn’t saving money or lives.

Since the synthetic vision works on approach, in close proximity to the ground, and Kobe’s helicopter crashed while flying between airports, there is no evidence to suggest that synthetic vision would have made any difference.

It wouldn’t have saved JFK jr, either.

Instead of spending millions on systems that might not work, how about spending thousands on training so that pilots don't do things that require this system?

Cheaper, more effective, safer.

 

[Exhaustgases]

I was working towards that I rating, most all non I rated private pilots trained in the early 70's should have no problem flying in IMC, we had to learn to use the instruments. (Its not the instruments that are the issue its the radio work.) Besides IMC can sneak up on you in some instances. I could in the day use a VOR to locate my position I used it many times at night, having 2 VOR's in the plane would even be nicer. But wow synthetic vision is a game changer.
Evidence that it would have made a difference ?, it would unless the pilot had a heart attack. It makes night and fog and clouds look like a clear day how can that not make a difference? The only thing that raises the cost of any such system is because they can.
Synthetic vision is just a fancy GPS with terrain mapping. Radar and infrared is installed on cars now isn't it?

And if you ever watched air disasters you would see plenty of instrument rated commercial pilots that had thousands of dollars of training crash into mountains they could not see. I really don't understand the argument against a great live saving device, that is almost like poo pooing the TCAS system.

 

[Astro14]

I was working towards that I rating, most all non I rated private pilots trained in the early 70's should have no problem flying in IMC, we had to learn to use the instruments. (Its not the instruments that are the issue its the radio work.) Besides IMC can sneak up on you in some instances. I could in the day use a VOR to locate my position I used it many times at night, having 2 VOR's in the plane would even be nicer. But wow synthetic vision is a game changer.
Evidence that it would have made a difference ?, it would unless the pilot had a heart attack. It makes night and fog and clouds look like a clear day how can that not make a difference? The only thing that raises the cost of any such system is because they can.
Synthetic vision is just a fancy GPS with terrain mapping. Radar and infrared is installed on cars now isn't it?

And if you ever watched air disasters you would see plenty of instrument rated commercial pilots that had thousands of dollars of training crash into mountains they could not see. I really don't understand the argument against a great live saving device, that is almost like poo pooing the TCAS system.

“If you ever watched air disasters”…really? I have done the investigation on air disasters. I have done several crash investigations. As military pilot, and an airline pilot, I have studied air disasters, through analysis of the actual reports, not via some media generated sensationalism on television. I bring that analysis into the training environment. I have been a pilot for 38 years. I have landed in dense fog. I have flown in all kids of weather.

I understand what works.

And what doesn’t.

I am not poo pooing the system - I am poo pooing the silly idea that adding a $1,000,000 system to a $100,000 airplane would make it safer. What would make that airplane safer is a few thousand in better pilot training.

Synthetic vision is not the game changer you imagine. Night and fog and clouds don’t look like clear day, except through the HUD, when close to the ground. Somatogravic illusions are just as powerful no matter the display in front of you. Synthetic vision doesn’t work at cruise, only on approach.

So, the only accidents that you have been pointed out would not have been helped by this system. The system does not work the way you think it does and the HUD is both expensive and limited in field of view. If you lose control with a functioning gyro, then synthetic vision would not have helped.

Those accidents would have been prevented by smarter, more responsible pilots.

So, forcing millions of dollars in upgrades onto every airplane, destroying private aviation, seems like a waste of money when it would not have prevented an accident.

Far more effective to spend a few thousand dollars on pilot training instead of wasting enormous sums of money on this idea.

Instead of one airplane equipped with synthetic vision, that would not have helped, through training, you could equip thousands of pilots to avoid those situations that caused the Kobe Bryant crash.

You get a lot more result out of pilot training.