A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 12th 06, 07:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

Ernest Christley wrote:

A flag on the part of the protagonist moves the responsibility from
the antagonist seeing to the protagonist being seen (any time you
move your vehicle, you're the antagonist, the mover, the doer, the
responsible party). If the Avenger's co-pilot couldn't ride or walk
a wing to the run-up area, stick a bug-eye mirror on a stick or out
on a wing (temporarily). The solutions are simple, abundant, and in
use all around us every day.


With the price and availability of tiny little video cameras and LCD
displays, I can't imagine why anyone who could afford to fly a
warbird couldn't afford to put a forward-looking video system in
place (even if it's only a temporary installtion used for crowded
events). It would cost what - $100? - to prevent blind taxiing.

Mark Hickey


This "solution" requires too much "head buried in the cockpit" to be
practical.


Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.

If the pilot is looking at the screen, he is not paying
attention to other things of equal or greater importance happening
around him.

I like the idea of spotters better.


This solution requires too much "staring at the spotter" to be practical.
;-)
  #2  
Old August 12th 06, 08:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Jim Logajan wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:


Ernest Christley wrote:


A flag on the part of the protagonist moves the responsibility from
the antagonist seeing to the protagonist being seen (any time you
move your vehicle, you're the antagonist, the mover, the doer, the
responsible party). If the Avenger's co-pilot couldn't ride or walk
a wing to the run-up area, stick a bug-eye mirror on a stick or out
on a wing (temporarily). The solutions are simple, abundant, and in
use all around us every day.

With the price and availability of tiny little video cameras and LCD
displays, I can't imagine why anyone who could afford to fly a
warbird couldn't afford to put a forward-looking video system in
place (even if it's only a temporary installtion used for crowded
events). It would cost what - $100? - to prevent blind taxiing.

Mark Hickey


This "solution" requires too much "head buried in the cockpit" to be
practical.



Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.


If the pilot is looking at the screen, he is not paying
attention to other things of equal or greater importance happening
around him.

I like the idea of spotters better.



This solution requires too much "staring at the spotter" to be practical.
;-)


Plus it is really fun to leave the canopy cover on and taxi around the
airport. :-)

  #3  
Old August 12th 06, 08:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 135
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.


One more objection to the objection is :-)

At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason. If you
hit something while taxiing a tailwheel prop fighter because you didn't see
it, you have taxied the airplane in conditions that are in direct violation
of this cardinal safety rule.
Now, as for your TV screen on the panel; it's no good for several reasons.
First of all, even if simply included in your taxi scan, it takes the scan
inside the cockpit then outside again which is bad, since a great deal of
the visual cues involved in taxiing these airplanes are based on a visual
cue received during a horizontal movement of the nose projecting a safe path
for a projected FUTURE TIME LINE, and not where the nose is pointed NOW!.
Secondly, any screen small enough to be placed in a fighter panel would not
be projecting an image in life size, and that alone brings an additional
mental calculation into the futures equation as to exactly how far ahead of
the airplane any viewed image in the screen might be.
Tools are wonderful, and in many instances that can be of great help, but
when it comes to taxiing a tailwheel fighter plane or a tailwheel torpedo
bomber, there is absolutely nothing that can replace the rule, "if you
haven't cleared it with your eyes, it hasn't been cleared"
Dudley Henriques


  #4  
Old August 12th 06, 09:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

I agree that video's the wrong technology. Would an audible proximity
warning like they have for backing up big pickup trucks help?

Don.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:58:00 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.


One more objection to the objection is :-)

At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason. If you
hit something while taxiing a tailwheel prop fighter because you didn't see
it, you have taxied the airplane in conditions that are in direct violation
of this cardinal safety rule.
Now, as for your TV screen on the panel; it's no good for several reasons.
First of all, even if simply included in your taxi scan, it takes the scan
inside the cockpit then outside again which is bad, since a great deal of
the visual cues involved in taxiing these airplanes are based on a visual
cue received during a horizontal movement of the nose projecting a safe path
for a projected FUTURE TIME LINE, and not where the nose is pointed NOW!.
Secondly, any screen small enough to be placed in a fighter panel would not
be projecting an image in life size, and that alone brings an additional
mental calculation into the futures equation as to exactly how far ahead of
the airplane any viewed image in the screen might be.
Tools are wonderful, and in many instances that can be of great help, but
when it comes to taxiing a tailwheel fighter plane or a tailwheel torpedo
bomber, there is absolutely nothing that can replace the rule, "if you
haven't cleared it with your eyes, it hasn't been cleared"
Dudley Henriques


  #5  
Old August 12th 06, 11:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 135
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:36:36 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:

I agree that video's the wrong technology. Would an audible proximity
warning like they have for backing up big pickup trucks help?


Sure. Just make sure that it's louder than an idling Merlin engine,
cause those are easy to miss.


There was a time when among my ground crew I was affectionately known as
"Captain WHAT."
(To my wife simply as "Baron Von Leftover :-)
If someone had forgotten to tell me something after I had fired up the
Mustang, they would climb up the side of the airplane, stand on wing and
lean in to the cockpit shouting whatever it was they wanted to tell me.
My answer invariably, even at idle, was to turn around, help them hold
whatever was in their hand and shout, "WHAT!!!"
:-))
Dudley Henriques


  #6  
Old August 13th 06, 03:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.


One more objection to the objection is :-)

At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason.

snip

I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.

Obviously most of your visual input is going to come from direct
observation "around the nose" of the aircraft - if someone's taxiing
in from the right, you want to see them before they're directly in
front of you. But if you're keeping your eyes open, there's no reason
to suspect that something's going to just appear in front of your
airplane unspotted - so there's no reason to spend a huge amount of
time fixated on the "straight ahead video view" - you'd use that like
you would a rear-view mirror. It sure beats stopping the airplane
every time you lose track of what might be directly ahead of you,
IMHO.

Mark Hickey
  #7  
Old August 13th 06, 04:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Convair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Problem is, when you are taxiing in front of one of those big blind
warbirds, how would you know if they have the camera? I'd rather just
make my plane more visible to them and not trust them to see me by
other means. And the idea of stopping the warbird if unsure of being
in the clear, if all the areas the warbird pilot can see are clear,
he'll keep going. Wing walkers are mostly for taxiing in the
showgrounds, once on the taxiway, they are rarely used. Then it's up
to the aircraft to see and aviod each other. Which obviously has
serious flaws.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:25:15 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques made the same objection when I suggested the same idea on
rec.aviation.piloting. The most significant problem with the objection is
that no one is proposing that the pilot stare at the screen - simply add
an
occasional glance at the screen to the pilot's normal visual scan. Such a
device should be no more objectional than the rearview mirrors in an
automobile - devices that add more to safe driving than they detract.


One more objection to the objection is :-)

At first glance, you might think that what you are proposing is safe and
workable, but it isn't in my opinion, and for several reasons. First of all,
nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, can take the place of a basic eyeball scan
OUTSIDE the cockpit when taxiing an aircraft in the WW2 tailwheel fighter
category. The entire concept of ground safety when taxiing these airplanes
is based on the simple premise that "if you can't clear or haven't cleared
the path in front of the nose for the linear distance the airplane will
travel before you can clear it again, YOU STOP THE AIRPLANE! This is a
cardinal rule when taxiing these airplanes and for very good reason.

snip

I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.

Obviously most of your visual input is going to come from direct
observation "around the nose" of the aircraft - if someone's taxiing
in from the right, you want to see them before they're directly in
front of you. But if you're keeping your eyes open, there's no reason
to suspect that something's going to just appear in front of your
airplane unspotted - so there's no reason to spend a huge amount of
time fixated on the "straight ahead video view" - you'd use that like
you would a rear-view mirror. It sure beats stopping the airplane
every time you lose track of what might be directly ahead of you,
IMHO.

Mark Hickey


  #8  
Old August 13th 06, 04:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Mark Hickey wrote
I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.


Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
with an in-dash GPS. :-)

Bob Moore
  #9  
Old August 13th 06, 10:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 135
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh


"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
Mark Hickey wrote
I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.


Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
with an in-dash GPS. :-)

Bob Moore


Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)

DH


  #10  
Old August 13th 06, 11:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Cockpit video displays. Was: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
.121...
Mark Hickey wrote
I suspect you're picturing the pilot staring continually at the video
screen while taxiing... that's not at all what I'd imagine.


Doesn't sound as if Dudley has spent much time driving an automobile
with an in-dash GPS. :-)


Nope, not much I'm afraid; but on the other hand, a bit more than a few
hours in tailwheel fighter planes if that counts for anything :-)


Heh heh heh... if you want to see what's (unadvisedly...) possible,
watch the morons driving down busy highways watching dashboard-mounted
video screens, texting with their cell phone, or my personal favorite,
reading. Makes taxiing a warbird seem safe in comparison. ;-)

Mark Hickey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oshkosh Reflections Jay Honeck Home Built 54 August 16th 05 09:24 PM
Oshkosh Reflections Jay Honeck Owning 44 August 7th 05 02:31 PM
Disappointing Oshkosh 2004 Video on Wings Jay Honeck Piloting 22 September 28th 04 02:36 PM
Oshkosh EAA Warbirds ??? Paul Restoration 0 July 11th 04 04:17 AM
Real World Specs for FS 2004 Paul H. Simulators 16 August 18th 03 09:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.