Posted by John McHale
During interviews for a story I was writing on Army helicopter avionics for our February issue of Military & Aerospace Electronics the topic of synthetic vision came up while speaking with Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix. Both companies are designing synthetic vision systems for commercial aviation.
I didn't use the synthetic vision part in the feature as it is not a requirement for any current Army rotorcraft avionics upgrades, but the Army is exploring the technology according to Rockwell Collins and Honeywell.
For more on Army helicopter avionics upgrades read "Army looks to helicopter avionics upgrades and technology insertion in the absence of new rotorcraft programs."
"We are working on synthetic vision technology" with the Army and how that could be integrated into the Common Avionics Architecture System (CASS) program, says Boe Svatek, programs manager for advanced rotorcraft programs at Rockwell Collins,
For more on the CAAS program read "Army uses open-systems standards for helicopter avionics."
Due to the current funding environment, it is hard for the Army to justify an upgrade to synthetic vision right now, he says.
Rockwell Collins engineers are looking to enhance the image resolution for helicopter operations, Svatek says.
"What's been done in synthetic vision to date has been for fixed wing aircraft," Svatek says. "We want to make it more effective for rotorcraft."
Synthetic vision is still a little bit ahead of its time, he adds.
Honeywell's synthetic vision technology was used in a DARPA program called Sandblaster with Sikorsky in stratford, Conn., as the prime contractor, says Lonny Rakes, director of business development for U.S. Army programs at Honeywell. The system took sensor information from a millimeter wave sensor from Sierra Nevada in Sparks, Nev., and integrated it with a synthetic terrain view, he adds.
The sensor data blended with the synthetic vision enabled pilots to have a view outside the cockpit in degraded visual environments such as those caused by sand or dust, Rakes says.
Sandblaster was completed successfully and Honeywell is involved in a follow-on contract to explore the problem further, Rakes says. He declined to comment on the specifics of the follow-on contract.
Synthetic Vision is a good thing as you know but like all good things, it must be done right as one is aware being a pilot myself.
ReplyDeleteOur company owns the patented 3D method to provide SV to the cockpit of the plane and is why Honeywell along with many others purchased a license from us of U.S. Patents No. 5,566,073 written by the creative mind of Jed Margolin.
Mr Margolin's ideas and methods for real 3D Synthetic Vision for both the cockpit of the plane and for flying UAV's with Synthetic Vision are far ahead of its time and if used across the board would save millions and millions of wasted defense dollars in crashed planes and crashed UAV's, take note General Atomics & U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Honeywell's product works because they follow 5,566,073 correct method in producing real 3D Synthetic Vision, as for Rockwell they have no license of our technology and as your wrote "One can only hope their engineers will be able to enhance the image enough" this method is not true and/or real 3D Synthetic Vision and in my opinion is why Rockwell's direction will fail and could cost many DoD lives. I for one would not care to fly using a Rockwell system that may or may not be able to "enhance the image enough"!
In the end, I agree that the problem is with the cost to the U.S. Army as you said John "it is hard for the U.S. Army to justify an upgrade to synthetic vision right now"
Based on our proven methods at Optima Technology Group and with Paul Mace at Symbolic Flight Inc., this method is being used under license by the likes Cobham plc., Honeywell, L3, Gulfstream, and others.
And the real cost to provide the U.S. Army and/or DoD planes with real 3D Synthetic Vision is about 1/10 or less of what the likes of Honeywell or Rockwell are quoting the U.S. Army and others in DoD.
Makes me wonder why the U.S. Army accepts these overpriced methods, but then again I am told it's not American unless you overcharge your own Government. Dr. Adams