Can't find any original post of the accident, but here's the TSB report
https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... P0112.html
TSB report Seair C-GURL
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Re: TSB report Seair C-GURL
It appears to be another case of a west coast commercial seaplane flying into terrain in poor vis in mountainous/hilly terrain.
In this case, it was a 6 km wide sound with occasional islands in it.The aircraft was overflying water near the west side of the sound on a north track along the shoreline but a company aircraft was approaching in the opposite direction leading to the accident aircraft moving to the right in order to be clear of the opposite direction traffic. According to the report, the accident pilot was familiar with the area but obviously not to the extent that he was aware of the terrain/island which he flew toward and then into as he deviated to the right.
There is some interesting info in the report about the avionics. The aircraft had dual Garmin G1000 displays which can give a nice, large moving map plan view presentation. Moving map displays have been around for quite a while and in my experience, seem to be fairly accurate in giving an overhead view of where the aircraft is relative to landmass and bodies of water.
This aircraft also had a Synthetic Vision System(SVS) on the G1000 and it was being displayed at the time of the accident. SVS is something that I have noticed is more and more common on rental aircraft as well. The SVS systems seem quite accurate when taxiing out for takeoff, showing the aircraft on or almost on the runway centerline as one lines up for takeoff. I haven't used them much when airborne, preferring the traditional overhead view, but it appears that the SVS may not be as good as one might think it could be, at least for smaller aircraft(not sure about bizjet types certified for approaches).
According to the report.......
"During testing, it was noted that the display of the synthetic vision technology depicts the Addenbroke Island landmass as a small portion of the actual landscape because the ocean blends partially into the island (green area circled in the left-hand images of Figure 4 and Figure 5). The investigation determined that approximately 6% of the island is represented as land on the PFD when comparing the geometry of the surface texture. The remainder of the island is depicted as ocean."
"Analysis of the image that would have been displayed on the pilot’s primary flight display (PFD) determined that the colouration of the Addenbroke Island landmass was only approximately 6% of the actual size of the island. The colouration of the remaining 94% was blue, indicating ocean."
Meanwhile, for the more traditional overhead display.......
"A similar comparison was performed for the MFD screen’s pixel-based area of the landmass representation based on the database SD card onboard the occurrence aircraft. The investigation determined that the representation of Addenbroke Island that could be displayed on the MFD (as shown by the overlay in Figure 6) depicted approximately 86% of the actual landmass."
While the MFD screen traditional overhead moving map display isn't 100% accurate on the G1000, it sure seems to have given a much more accurate presentation of the island to the pilot than the synthetic vision did. While one obviously has to not be trusting of any of these displays, I think that for now, synthetic vision should be thought of as less reliable in terms of accurate terrain presentation, at least on the G1000.
In this case, it was a 6 km wide sound with occasional islands in it.The aircraft was overflying water near the west side of the sound on a north track along the shoreline but a company aircraft was approaching in the opposite direction leading to the accident aircraft moving to the right in order to be clear of the opposite direction traffic. According to the report, the accident pilot was familiar with the area but obviously not to the extent that he was aware of the terrain/island which he flew toward and then into as he deviated to the right.
There is some interesting info in the report about the avionics. The aircraft had dual Garmin G1000 displays which can give a nice, large moving map plan view presentation. Moving map displays have been around for quite a while and in my experience, seem to be fairly accurate in giving an overhead view of where the aircraft is relative to landmass and bodies of water.
This aircraft also had a Synthetic Vision System(SVS) on the G1000 and it was being displayed at the time of the accident. SVS is something that I have noticed is more and more common on rental aircraft as well. The SVS systems seem quite accurate when taxiing out for takeoff, showing the aircraft on or almost on the runway centerline as one lines up for takeoff. I haven't used them much when airborne, preferring the traditional overhead view, but it appears that the SVS may not be as good as one might think it could be, at least for smaller aircraft(not sure about bizjet types certified for approaches).
According to the report.......
"During testing, it was noted that the display of the synthetic vision technology depicts the Addenbroke Island landmass as a small portion of the actual landscape because the ocean blends partially into the island (green area circled in the left-hand images of Figure 4 and Figure 5). The investigation determined that approximately 6% of the island is represented as land on the PFD when comparing the geometry of the surface texture. The remainder of the island is depicted as ocean."
"Analysis of the image that would have been displayed on the pilot’s primary flight display (PFD) determined that the colouration of the Addenbroke Island landmass was only approximately 6% of the actual size of the island. The colouration of the remaining 94% was blue, indicating ocean."
Meanwhile, for the more traditional overhead display.......
"A similar comparison was performed for the MFD screen’s pixel-based area of the landmass representation based on the database SD card onboard the occurrence aircraft. The investigation determined that the representation of Addenbroke Island that could be displayed on the MFD (as shown by the overlay in Figure 6) depicted approximately 86% of the actual landmass."
While the MFD screen traditional overhead moving map display isn't 100% accurate on the G1000, it sure seems to have given a much more accurate presentation of the island to the pilot than the synthetic vision did. While one obviously has to not be trusting of any of these displays, I think that for now, synthetic vision should be thought of as less reliable in terms of accurate terrain presentation, at least on the G1000.
