NASA's "Vision"

While some may argue that NASA is overly optimistic at times, they
nonetheless do provide some valuable research - even if the value isn't
always apparent in every project they undertake. I was recently invited to
provide my opinion on a new GA-targeted cockpit display system and I must
say that this will be a true revolution in aviation safety - if the FAA ever
certifies the system.

The display is called "synthetic vision system" and it's an amalgam of
several existing technologies. It combines the ubiquitous GPS system with
terrain mapping, 3D rendering, "HUD" symbology and the ever promised
"highway in the sky". The setup was a full-scale, wraparound vision
simulator (no full-motion, to my disappointment) with LCD monitors setup as
a glass cockpit simulating a Cessna 206.

They started me off with training on the simulator and the graphics in the
"out the window" view were rather impressive. Flying around the mountainous
terrain of Reno, Nevada was realistic enough that I could easily discern my
height AGL. Impressive (although a slight visual anomaly in the visual
display system did threaten me with nausea occasionally).

They had three cockpit displays: basic round dials, glass cockpit with
"single cue flight director" and the full-blown SVS. The SCFD system was
easy enough to fly, but I got the impression I was always "chasing the
birdie". Then they turned on the SVS and I started figuring the net worth
of my mortgagable assets.

Compared to a couple of IMC approaches I "flew" using round dials, the SVS
system was almost like sitting back catching up on my aviation reading while
occasionally nudging the flight controls after a quick glance at the panel.
The "highway in the sky" gave a simple visual of my forthcoming flight path
while a flight director "tadpole" provided an aiming point for my plane's
velocity vector icon. Simply overlap the circles and the plane stays
centered on the flyway. There was a corresponding power indicator that took
the guesswork out of figuring the correct power setting for a given
configuration. Simply line up the "throttle" with the velocity vector and
"voila!"

That was cool enough, but you then have to consider the 3D-rendered
landscape. The mountains, hills, roads, rivers, etc. were effectively
rendered on the panel (remember that most of my flying was done "IMC"). On
top of that, "cubes" were drawn to represent obstacles like towers and
buildings. It was quite easy to determine how close the obstacles were to
the plane and whether you were below them.

The system also provided a representation of other traffic in the area.
Instead of a simple vector pointing out the traffic, there were icons that
reflected their relative position and proximity. The closer they were, the
larger the icon. Simple and intuitive.

As I approached the runway, the system faithfully rendered the entire runway
environment. All I saw out the "window" was a solid wall of gray cloud, but
I'm confident I could have landed the plane safely using just the SVS
display. It showed not only the asphalt, but runway markings, as well.
Very impressive technology.

I have no idea when - or even if - this technology will actually make it to
the field, but it is an area of active research. There is an SVS-style
system on the market today, but it is akin to viewing, say, the old
BattleZone arcade game next to FlightSim 2004. The technology is simply not
in the same era.

To get to the simulator, I flew through the remains of what was at one time
Hurricane Ivan. By this point, it was "just" a low pressure system throwing
a bunch of clouds and rain across my route of flight. However, things had
changed a bit by the time I was done playing with the toys. I got out of
the simulator to look at the radar showing a solid wall of Level 3 to 5
thunderstorms from north of Leesburg, VA through Charleston, SC.

I stayed overnight in Newport News.

Later I found out there were several tornados in my home area and Leesburg
itself suffered a lightning strike starting a fire that gutted two condo
hangars and destroyed a Piper Aztec.

[Just a side note: If you ever go through KPHF, I highly recommend Rick
Aviation. Those folks were extremely helpful, friendly and had decently
priced AvGas, to boot.]

Flying home was very cloudy as the low pressure system was now centered just
Southeast of Leesburg. The winds were pretty strong down low and there were
AIRMETs for turbulence, but the flight was glassy smooth at 6000 feet.
Getting down to 4000 feet introduced a fair amount of turbulence, but it was
more "rocking" than "jarring" stuff. I must admit, after flying for nearly
an hour and a half in the clouds on the way home, I was dreaming of that SVS
system...

Coming into Leesburg, the winds were from the north at 15G25, but it was
literally right down runway 35. Landing was actually rather uneventful
considering the gusty conditions. I must've timed it just right as the
mains chirped happily onto the asphalt.

Video and pics (of the flight, not the toys, unfortunately) are online, if
anybody's interested:
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/Flights.asp#040918

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message om...
While some may argue that NASA is overly optimistic at times, they
nonetheless do provide some valuable research - even if the value isn't
always apparent in every project they undertake. I was recently invited to
provide my opinion on a new GA-targeted cockpit display system and I must
say that this will be a true revolution in aviation safety - if the FAA ever
certifies the system.

The display is called "synthetic vision system" and it's an amalgam of
several existing technologies. It combines the ubiquitous GPS system with
terrain mapping, 3D rendering, "HUD" symbology and the ever promised
"highway in the sky". The setup was a full-scale, wraparound vision
simulator (no full-motion, to my disappointment) with LCD monitors setup as
a glass cockpit simulating a Cessna 206.

They started me off with training on the simulator and the graphics in the
"out the window" view were rather impressive. Flying around the mountainous
terrain of Reno, Nevada was realistic enough that I could easily discern my
height AGL. Impressive (although a slight visual anomaly in the visual
display system did threaten me with nausea occasionally).

They had three cockpit displays: basic round dials, glass cockpit with
"single cue flight director" and the full-blown SVS. The SCFD system was
easy enough to fly, but I got the impression I was always "chasing the
birdie". Then they turned on the SVS and I started figuring the net worth
of my mortgagable assets.

Compared to a couple of IMC approaches I "flew" using round dials, the SVS
system was almost like sitting back catching up on my aviation reading while
occasionally nudging the flight controls after a quick glance at the panel.
The "highway in the sky" gave a simple visual of my forthcoming flight path
while a flight director "tadpole" provided an aiming point for my plane's
velocity vector icon. Simply overlap the circles and the plane stays
centered on the flyway. There was a corresponding power indicator that took
the guesswork out of figuring the correct power setting for a given
configuration. Simply line up the "throttle" with the velocity vector and
"voila!"

That was cool enough, but you then have to consider the 3D-rendered
landscape. The mountains, hills, roads, rivers, etc. were effectively
rendered on the panel (remember that most of my flying was done "IMC"). On
top of that, "cubes" were drawn to represent obstacles like towers and
buildings. It was quite easy to determine how close the obstacles were to
the plane and whether you were below them.

The system also provided a representation of other traffic in the area.
Instead of a simple vector pointing out the traffic, there were icons that
reflected their relative position and proximity. The closer they were, the
larger the icon. Simple and intuitive.

As I approached the runway, the system faithfully rendered the entire runway
environment. All I saw out the "window" was a solid wall of gray cloud, but
I'm confident I could have landed the plane safely using just the SVS
display. It showed not only the asphalt, but runway markings, as well.
Very impressive technology.

I have no idea when - or even if - this technology will actually make it to
the field, but it is an area of active research. There is an SVS-style
system on the market today, but it is akin to viewing, say, the old
BattleZone arcade game next to FlightSim 2004. The technology is simply not
in the same era.

To get to the simulator, I flew through the remains of what was at one time
Hurricane Ivan. By this point, it was "just" a low pressure system throwing
a bunch of clouds and rain across my route of flight. However, things had
changed a bit by the time I was done playing with the toys. I got out of
the simulator to look at the radar showing a solid wall of Level 3 to 5
thunderstorms from north of Leesburg, VA through Charleston, SC.

I stayed overnight in Newport News.

Later I found out there were several tornados in my home area and Leesburg
itself suffered a lightning strike starting a fire that gutted two condo
hangars and destroyed a Piper Aztec.

[Just a side note: If you ever go through KPHF, I highly recommend Rick
Aviation. Those folks were extremely helpful, friendly and had decently
priced AvGas, to boot.]

Flying home was very cloudy as the low pressure system was now centered just
Southeast of Leesburg. The winds were pretty strong down low and there were
AIRMETs for turbulence, but the flight was glassy smooth at 6000 feet.
Getting down to 4000 feet introduced a fair amount of turbulence, but it was
more "rocking" than "jarring" stuff. I must admit, after flying for nearly
an hour and a half in the clouds on the way home, I was dreaming of that SVS
system...

Coming into Leesburg, the winds were from the north at 15G25, but it was
literally right down runway 35. Landing was actually rather uneventful
considering the gusty conditions. I must've timed it just right as the
mains chirped happily onto the asphalt.

Video and pics (of the flight, not the toys, unfortunately) are online, if
anybody's interested:
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/Flights.asp#040918

Only a fool would fly by gps vision. And independent radar
vision will actually backup gps.

So, the FAA needs to promote the radar technology for real
and not play with gps anymore. GPS is perfect for running
a cdi at most.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:19:36 -0400, "John T" wrote in
::


I have no idea when - or even if - this technology will actually make it to
the field, but it is an area of active research. There is an SVS-style
system on the market today, but it is akin to viewing, say, the old
BattleZone arcade game next to FlightSim 2004. The technology is simply not
in the same era.

Thank you for the report.

From the SATS information I have seen on the web, NASA intends for
non-certificated aviation passengers to rent aircraft after arrival
equipped with a system similar to that which you describe, and use it
for transport from the airline hub to a municipal airport destination.
While that scenario seems wildly optimistic to one who appreciates all
that is involved in aerial navigation, it appears that progress is
proceeding.

More information he

http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/av/s...e=0301sats.htm
SATS proposes to fully leverage new cockpit and aircraft
technology to develop aircraft and to fully exploit digital
information and communication technologies to develop the airspace
infrastructure. The ultimate result would be that aircraft and the
airspace could be used with the same ease as automobiles and
highways are used today.

The skill sets mandatory for today’s GA pilots would no longer be
required. Burley, who is also a pilot, says the person flying a
SATS aircraft will more appropriately be called an "aircraft
operator," because only minimal training will be required. A
real-world example is a modern subway system, which is run
primarily by computer, with oversight by an operator who no longer
requires the skills of a locomotive engineer.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/AGATE.html
http://lava.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/agate.html
http://homepages.ius.edu/GSLOSS/socprobhome/id293.htm

NASA intends for
non-certificated aviation passengers to rent aircraft after arrival
equipped with a system similar to that which you describe, and use it
for transport from the airline hub to a municipal airport destination.


Nary a word about weather. So long as aircraft fly by virtue of airfoils,
weather will always be an issue, and not because of visibility either.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

NASA intends for
non-certificated aviation passengers to rent aircraft after arrival
equipped with a system similar to that which you describe, and use it
for transport from the airline hub to a municipal airport destination.


Nary a word about weather. So long as aircraft fly by virtue of airfoils,
weather will always be an issue, and not because of visibility either.

My guess is the wild-eyed vision NASA espouses is 100% marketing, in order
to get a bunch of non-aviation people excited enough to provide some measure
of funding. They know full well this will never happen but the research
involved will generate plenty of useful spinoffs into the real world, which
they will be able to use to prove the funding was well spent.

The kind of aviation we're talking about here--fast, all-weather, xc
ops--will simply never be a game for duffers. Serious hobbyists, yes.

What I'd like to see NASA work on with the FAA is to revise certification
standards so we can get promising technologies into the fleet more
efficiently. I can imagine a portable ADS-B type unit that requires only
limited installation (say an antenna mount). After all, we're only talking
about a transponder and a GPS receiver, right?

Now imagine creating a general-purpose specification that manufacturers
could simply prove their units adhere to, rather than requiring a full
certification regime for each one, and also developing a standardized
testing approach that makes installation certification fairly simple and
thus low-cost. Within a couple years you'll see every avionics mfr. building
a unit, thus driving down prices, possibly to less than $5,000 installed,
perhaps even less in high volumes. Before you know it, you get well over 50%
of the GA fleet covered with the equivalent of RNAV, TCAS, EGPWS, and Mode
S, enhancing utility and safety for absolutely everybody. Simplified
installation and low-cost instruments means upgrade cycles will shorten to
3-5 years rather than the 10-20 seen today.

Odds of this happening? Goose Egg.

Best,
-cwk.

wrote:



Only a fool would fly by gps vision. And independent radar
vision will actually backup gps.

So, the FAA needs to promote the radar technology for real
and not play with gps anymore. GPS is perfect for running
a cdi at most.

Where ya been? Haven't seen one of your incoherent 32 page posts about
nothing in quite a while now.

Newps wrote in message ...
wrote:



Only a fool would fly by gps vision. And independent radar
vision will actually backup gps.

So, the FAA needs to promote the radar technology for real
and not play with gps anymore. GPS is perfect for running
a cdi at most.

Where ya been? Haven't seen one of your incoherent 32 page posts about
nothing in quite a while now.

I lurk here all the time. 32 pages is a very rare discourse.

Why don't you try to post something for real and not whine.