Google Glass in the cockpit?

This whole thread gives me the heebie geebies.

You guys are discussing obstructions to vision as though it were the only pertinent down side here. I think this is secondary. I think a *far* more important issue is the tendency of humans to focus on the attractive nuisance of a display.

T8

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:15:12 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

I know that many airline/military pilots also fly gliders. On a clear day, how does airline/military pilots use of "see and avoid" compare to glider pilots?

From personal experience, "it depends". Fighter/attack/bomber pilots tend to have a disciplined visual lookout because they are trained that way - the threat you don't see is the one that kills you. And a lot of their flying is in a VFR "see and avoid" environment, without ATC or TCAS to help. And not all have radars; A-10s for example.

Transport/airline pilots fly in a different environment. Always IFR, even when in VMC conditions, ATC/TCAS warnings of traffic, reduced visibility from their cockpits, set flight paths. All would tend to reduce the pressure to emphasize "see and avoid". I've had airliners fly through my thermal on approach, had to move out of the way as it cruised by at my altitude, oblivious of my presence. I've also had fighters maneuver aggressively to avoid me, obviously having seen me in their flight path.

As far as the doctor and his lawyer friend in their glass-cockpit Cirrus with a couple of hotties in the back seat - yeah, right, they are looking out the window...

Flying without at least a PCAS, but better yet a PowerFlarm, is foolish, if you ask me.

Kirk
66

Not sold on Google Glass. These however are the bomb... played with them in the field. Can display infomation just like an aircraft HUD that us ex-military used to look through. Used it in a Ground role as a TACP during a demonstration and they work great. Check out the attached video, and you can imagine how they can be used to iterface with FLARM, Navigation, etc as to whatever heads up capability you need. Even watched a movie with them. You can focus on the movie, or actually see through it to know what's going on--that would onstruct vision too much while flying, but that's not what they'd be used for (I hope...). From an email:

"ODG X-5 Biometric Glasses. These are Glasses, not Helmet Mounted Devices, that were designed with the "Every Soldier: A Sensor Concept" in mind for real world ops. However, due to the fact that they have a HD (720P) heads up display built into the glasses, I believe they are well suited for full immersion into Virtual and Augmented Reality/live constructive training environment. Currently our prototypes have the ability to display a virtual 24 inch screen at 18 inches distance in front of the viewer;
-Originally designed to collect voice and facial biometrics data
-They currently have 2x 1.5 Ghz CPU in them.
-The Glasses weigh approx 4 oz.
- the X-5s are bluetooth and Wifi with built-in GPS and AGPS


Our the plan is to reach out to industry partners, to work with them to satisfy customer unique requirements.

This link is a video of my client talking in front of the DARPA director last year. I think you will find it very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrDgFjBSVuE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrDgFjBSVuE "

Just passing it on.

Cheers,
Squeak

My developers have been using google glass for a month or so now. I have tried them for a couple days. Google glass is all about google search services and google application integration. It is nice but has a long way to go. Remember the first Android phones?

The "interface of HUD glasses" would be a great interface for soaring pilots (and power pilots) who are still capable of adapting to new technology (clearly a fraction of the total). HUD is the standard for military pilots and commercial pilots in the most modern aircraft. Pecking at a PDA is, in all honesty, a fairly poor way to go. I personally invision the glasses HUD being an extension of a panel screen system such as LX 9000, SeeYou, XC Soar or even ClearNav. The glasses HUD would compliment the regular display rather than replace it.

It would be fairly easy to write a soaring computer application such as XC soar or even SeeYou into that interface.

And based on the pace of innovation I have seen (little to none in some manufacturers such as Naviteer, tons in XC soar and LX) I am guessing that it will not be long before one of them offers something like Google Glass.

There will be many HUD eyeglass manufacturers if Google Glass is initially successful. And I would say its almost assured that google glasses will be a massive hit for Google.

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:23:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Wrong platform. It will be these. http://www.reconinstruments.com/

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:39:24 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
I think a *far* more important issue is the tendency of humans to focus on the attractive nuisance of a display.


As wrru points out, there are a variety of wearable computers. This one www.reconinstruments.com does not turn the display on until you look at it and the blindspot is lower relative to the horizon on Google Glass.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:16:21 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:23:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Wrong platform. It will be these. http://www.reconinstruments.com/



On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:39:24 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

I think a *far* more important issue is the tendency of humans to focus on the attractive nuisance of a display.





As wrru points out, there are a variety of wearable computers. This one www.reconinstruments.com does not turn the display on until you look at it and the blindspot is lower relative to the horizon on Google Glass.

People have made careers out studying this stuff. It's not a question of lack of "adaptability" (thanks Sean, roll eyes). It's the way our perception, attention and task switching work. We are *really* vulnerable to missing the forested mountain looming outside the window for the attractive little display. Texting while crashing, etc.

It's NOT about the blind spot. That's my point. It's about the fact that your perception is otherwise occupied. As well, the perception that you think you can multi-task is an illusion.

Not sure the military HUD is relevant to soaring. Might be fun for the Labor Day flour bombing contest. Most of the information we need for XC soaring is nav-related and better displayed on a map. I don't think I'd want my view of terrain and sky cluttered up with an information overlay anyway.

T8

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:55:42 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

It's NOT about the blind spot. That's my point. It's about the fact that your perception is otherwise occupied.

I agree that adding a constant stream of "extra information" with a HUD is a very bad idea, but a well-designed HUD interface seems worthy of consideration. For example, having airspeed digits pop up just below the top edge of the glare shield (via HUD), should I get close to stall speed, (because I hit wind shear in the pattern), is something that I would be willing to try. Likewise, a synthetic voice that calmly tells me that my spoilers popped open during takeoff would be worthwhile to consider.

The traditional way of using panel mounted analog instruments is not perfect. Looking down and reading an analog ASI is not a cost-free operation. If HUD allowed us to reduce the size of the traditional instrument panel, say drop the top of the glare shield by six inches, pilots would have a greatly improved field of vision forward.

Likewise down the road, HUD could patch in video images of the blind spots created by the structure of the glider. You could look through your wings to see the glider that is slightly below you in the thermal.

I agree that poorly designed and tested technology (both old and new) makes flying more dangerous for everyone.

Sigh. I find this thread so telling. Inability to change...

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:49:37 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Sigh. I find this thread so telling. Inability to change...

Nah, it's just easier to come up with imaginary reasons why something might not work than to make the effort to really understand the technology and find reasons why it might be a good idea.

Distraction is a red herring. Take a look at the "bells and whistles" in the cockpit of any turbine airplane and then a glider. Yes, there is a pilot training difference. But, no one is saying use new gadgets in a glider without training - even if it's just reading the manual.

Combat pilots use Helmet Mounted Displays (HMD's)and no one has said it's a distraction - in fact, try to take it away from them once they've used one..

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

Nah, it's just easier to come up with imaginary reasons why something might not work than to make the effort to really understand the technology and find reasons why it might be a good idea.

I think that is too harsh. I agree that "change sucks" and even though we might revel in the new possibilities, everyone is naturally stressed by the extremely rapid rate of technological and social change.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, author of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

Every useful technology invented before you turn 20 is absolutely essential to life. Every useful technology invented before you turn 25, will be grudgingly incorporated into your daily life. But one naturally feels that every technology invented after you turn 25, COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE DEVIL!