Google Glass in the cockpit?

[son_of_flubber]

This is funny, but it gives a good idea of the Google Glass point of view.

http://mashable.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-photographer/

Will we all want to be wearing these in the cockpit three years from now?

Not shown is the ability to interact through voice commands and receive information via a synthetic voice. That seems to have potential above the sunlight readable display angle.

Anyone working on an XCSoar port to Google Glass?

[quietpilot]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:26:10 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> This is funny, but it gives a good idea of the Google Glass point of view.. http://mashable.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-photographer/ Will we all want to be wearing these in the cockpit three years from now? Not shown is the ability to interact through voice commands and receive information via a synthetic voice. That seems to have potential above the sunlight readable display angle. Anyone working on an XCSoar port to Google Glass?

http://xkcd.com/1215/
https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en

as for a port. glass uses android and a companion app. so it may not be difficult to run. but may have some interaction isses. perhaps that bluetooth mouse ring listed before mght help.

QP

[Tobias Bieniek]

the issue with the Google Glass device is that its functions are limited when offline, and in the air you are always more or less offline. for live tracking with xcsoar the connection might just be good enough, but usually not for transmitting voice in either direction. unless the price of the device drops significantly I don't see a benefit in having Glass support in XCSoar. but since it is open source anyone is free to contribute :)

[folken]

Let my mind run free for a minute here:

Since the thing has no headtracker, very little augmented reality is possible.

Which info would i need at my fingertipps most closley?
* Airspeed
* Climb Rate
* Thermal Assitant
* Course to next waypoint
* Airspace alerts

So far pretty standard.

Realistic:

Checklists would also be interesting. Imagine: Glass: Checklist landing
* Wind? Check
* Approach Speed? Check
* Clear Runway? Check
...

Voice Commands,
* glass next waypoint
* glass fly to
* glass abort task
...
So instead of fiddleing with the pda, you could talk to it freeing up your hands, and keeping your vision outside.

With an attached Headtracker that has a relation to the cockpit
* Directional arrow that indicated a flarm/ target
* Collision warning With directional arrow
* Overlay of flarm tracks
* Overlay of your own tracks
* Thermal assistant in a 2d plane in realtion to the glider
* Visualize thermals

Imagine looking at an airport, and seeing the name, runway directions, frequencies floating in midair over it.

Imagine RASP Blipmaps as overlay on the terrain your flying over. Imagine potential lift calculated from sun/wind.

Imagine a distance measuring tool that just by looking at a far away landmark tells you distance, height required etc.


Some things i would be concerned about:
* How much does it impede my view?
* Does it limit peripherial vision?
* Does it destract?
* What does the semi transparent do to the displayed map?
* How is the focus?
* Can i comfortably wear it with my sunglasses?
* Can glass be mounted on the left instead? Right hand flying left hand operate glass.

So much for dreaming.


- Folken

[Darryl Ramm]

Yep so much for dreaming. From some brief playing and knowing several developers playing with these...

The glass display is quite difficult to read in full-daylight. It often works well in a car if you have a roof over your head. In bright direct sunlight it is very washed out.

Battery life can be very limited, very dependent on application/usage. You'd need a power connection or external battery pack for long flights.

The display is far from immersive. It's a small display in the top of your viewing area. See the simulation in the Google promo video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE So kind of big enough to display basic info, not too big to be ultra distracting.

What is interesting is for many different uses how Google and others have condensed information into such as small display and made it very useful.

What could you display for a glider? Vario, STF, L/D required, distance/direction to a turnpoint, (in PDA/PNA parlance you'd probably only display one two or three "nav boxes" of data) look up frequencies for an airport/ATC etc. simple stuff like that.

As pointed others have pointed out without head tracking things like direction to... type information is not that interesting. With head tracking, better daylight visibility (and maybe a larger display) you might potentially be able to do much more interesting things like direction/distance to a collision threat/buddy/turnpoint/airport etc.

Swiping the side of the glass' trackpad sometimes is annoying, requires a few tries. I think its a much worse UI device in a cramped cockpit than buttons/switches/trackball on a joystick.

Voice commands could be interesting but I'd like to see them integrated into the flight computer. Maybe as a thin UI layer to a flight computer/PDA/PNA glass could provide that, but it may be a lot of hassle to go though just to get that. You might as well run that on more modern PNA/PDAs.

So all in all, I think there really is not something here to excited about, at least for quite a while. There are many more practical/interesting real-world applications for glass.

Darryl

[Bill D]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:15:44 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Yep so much for dreaming. From some brief playing and knowing several developers playing with these...
>
>
>
> The glass display is quite difficult to read in full-daylight. It often works well in a car if you have a roof over your head. In bright direct sunlight it is very washed out.
>
>
>
> Battery life can be very limited, very dependent on application/usage. You'd need a power connection or external battery pack for long flights.
>
>
>
> The display is far from immersive. It's a small display in the top of your viewing area. See the simulation in the Google promo video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE So kind of big enough to display basic info, not too big to be ultra distracting.
>
>
>
> What is interesting is for many different uses how Google and others have condensed information into such as small display and made it very useful.
>
>
>
> What could you display for a glider? Vario, STF, L/D required, distance/direction to a turnpoint, (in PDA/PNA parlance you'd probably only display one two or three "nav boxes" of data) look up frequencies for an airport/ATC etc. simple stuff like that.
>
>
>
> As pointed others have pointed out without head tracking things like direction to... type information is not that interesting. With head tracking, better daylight visibility (and maybe a larger display) you might potentially be able to do much more interesting things like direction/distance to a collision threat/buddy/turnpoint/airport etc.
>
>
>
> Swiping the side of the glass' trackpad sometimes is annoying, requires a few tries. I think its a much worse UI device in a cramped cockpit than buttons/switches/trackball on a joystick.
>
>
>
> Voice commands could be interesting but I'd like to see them integrated into the flight computer. Maybe as a thin UI layer to a flight computer/PDA/PNA glass could provide that, but it may be a lot of hassle to go though just to get that. You might as well run that on more modern PNA/PDAs.
>
>
>
> So all in all, I think there really is not something here to excited about, at least for quite a while. There are many more practical/interesting real-world applications for glass.
>
>
>
> Darryl

Agreed. It's not yet clear what, if any, role Google Glass has in the consumer space much less what it might be adapted to in gliders.

However, it's worth thinking about what more advanced devices might do for us in the future. What I think we want is a true Augmented Reality device which overlay's our visual field with tightly registered and highly pertinent data. That means data about an airport off the left wing wouldn't be visible until we looked at the airport. Voice commands, or stick switches, could further limit and control the data displayed. One switch might display navigation data - where are airports? Airspace? Another switch might display soaring data - Cloudbase? Likely thermal sites? Blipmaps?

A more futuristic aspect ties back to another thread on attitude displays. If VR technology can display a perfect POV replica of the real world, including air traffic, would there be any real difference between flight in VMC and IMC? And, if that distinction goes away, will contest rules have to change?

OTOH, I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-tech crowd. It might be fun to have a low performance contest where no instruments beyond those on the glider's MEL are allowed.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Surely this device should be a complete non-starter in a glider
cockpit as it give a fixed blind spot in the right lateral visual
field.

At 14:07 27 May 2013, Bill D wrote:
>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:15:44 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm
wrote:
>> Yep so much for dreaming. From some brief playing and
knowing several
>dev=
>elopers playing with these...
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The glass display is quite difficult to read in full-daylight. It
often
>w=
>orks well in a car if you have a roof over your head. In bright
direct
>sunl=
>ight it is very washed out.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Battery life can be very limited, very dependent on
application/usage.
>Yo=
>u'd need a power connection or external battery pack for long
flights.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The display is far from immersive. It's a small display in the
top of
>you=
>r viewing area. See the simulation in the Google promo video
here
>http://ww=
>w.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dv1uyQZNg2vE So kind of big
enough to display basic
>=
>info, not too big to be ultra distracting.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> What is interesting is for many different uses how Google
and others
>have=
> condensed information into such as small display and made it
very useful.=
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> What could you display for a glider? Vario, STF, L/D
required,
>distance/d=
>irection to a turnpoint, (in PDA/PNA parlance you'd probably
only display
>o=
>ne two or three "nav boxes" of data) look up frequencies for
an
>airport/ATC=
> etc. simple stuff like that.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> As pointed others have pointed out without head tracking
things like
>dire=
>ction to... type information is not that interesting. With head
tracking,
>b=
>etter daylight visibility (and maybe a larger display) you might
>potentiall=
>y be able to do much more interesting things like
direction/distance to a
>c=
>ollision threat/buddy/turnpoint/airport etc.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Swiping the side of the glass' trackpad sometimes is
annoying, requires
>a=
> few tries. I think its a much worse UI device in a cramped
cockpit than
>bu=
>ttons/switches/trackball on a joystick.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Voice commands could be interesting but I'd like to see
them integrated
>i=
>nto the flight computer. Maybe as a thin UI layer to a flight
>computer/PDA/=
>PNA glass could provide that, but it may be a lot of hassle to
go though
>ju=
>st to get that. You might as well run that on more modern
PNA/PDAs.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So all in all, I think there really is not something here to
excited
>abou=
>t, at least for quite a while. There are many more
practical/interesting
>re=
>al-world applications for glass.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Darryl
>
>Agreed. It's not yet clear what, if any, role Google Glass has
in the
>cons=
>umer space much less what it might be adapted to in gliders.
>
>However, it's worth thinking about what more advanced
devices might do for
>=
>us in the future. What I think we want is a true Augmented
Reality device
>=
>which overlay's our visual field with tightly registered and
highly
>pertine=
>nt data. That means data about an airport off the left wing
wouldn't be
>vi=
>sible until we looked at the airport. Voice commands, or stick
switches,
>c=
>ould further limit and control the data displayed. One switch
might
>displa=
>y navigation data - where are airports? Airspace? Another
switch might
>di=
>splay soaring data - Cloudbase? Likely thermal sites?
Blipmaps?
>
>A more futuristic aspect ties back to another thread on
attitude displays.
>=
> If VR technology can display a perfect POV replica of the real
world,
>incl=
>uding air traffic, would there be any real difference between
flight in
>VMC=
> and IMC? And, if that distinction goes away, will contest rules
have to
>c=
>hange?
>
>OTOH, I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-tech crowd.
It might be
>f=
>un to have a low performance contest where no instruments
beyond those on
>t=
>he glider's MEL are allowed.
>

[Bill D]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 8:23:07 AM UTC-6, John Galloway wrote:
> Surely this device should be a complete non-starter in a glider
>
> cockpit as it give a fixed blind spot in the right lateral visual
>
> field.
>
>

Nope, It's a "see-through" display.

[son_of_flubber]

> Checklists would also be interesting. Imagine: Glass: Checklist landing
>
> * Wind? Check
>
> * Approach Speed? Check
>
> * Clear Runway? Check


I would use a smart phone app today that allowed me to customize a set of checklists and interact with them through voice and synthesized speech. This would be a win because it could eliminate visually distracting checklists.. I know that a lot of pilots follow checklists "from memory" but many feel that a checklist should be "written down" to compensate for memory errors.. An app like this would increase my use of checklists when my hands and eyes were busy.

I'd like to see an AI co-pilot that would have awareness of flight parameters, be able to do simple rule based reasoning and pattern recognition, and give verbal suggestions to the pilot. Kinda like having a CFI in the backseat. For example an AI co-pilot might be able to recognize wind shear, detect that the glider was in the pattern, and give the pilot a heads up "Possible Wind Shear".

It would be interesting to have a AI watch my flying, detect that I was having a bad day and flying poorly and tell me to land ASAP.

I think I would keep my Google Glass display to a minimum and display only airspeed, altitude, vario and perhaps pattern arrival altitude. AI co-pilot would have some override privilege, so that if I were approaching stall speed it would display only airspeed, large and in red. I'd like the App to let the user customize the AI rules so that the AI would behave to the taste and experience of the pilot. I'd rather see these parameters projected on the canopy, the Google Glass blocks part of my vision of one eye and that is a drawback.

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 10:37:32 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2013 8:23:07 AM UTC-6, John Galloway wrote:
>
> > Surely this device should be a complete non-starter in a glider
>
> >
>
> > cockpit as it give a fixed blind spot in the right lateral visual
>
> >
>
> > field.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nope, It's a "see-through" display.

The solid bar that supports the 'see through display' blocks some peripheral vision.

I don't think that this will stop everyone from using it because some people already fly with big vision blocking hat brims. A hat brim would probably help keep the screen from "washing out" in direct sunlight.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 15:06 27 May 2013, son_of_flubber wrote:
>On Monday, May 27, 2013 10:37:32 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 8:23:07 AM UTC-6, John
Galloway wrote:
>>
>> > Surely this device should be a complete non-starter in a
glider
>>
>> >
>>
>> > cockpit as it give a fixed blind spot in the right lateral
visual
>>
>> >
>>
>> > field.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, It's a "see-through" display.
>
>The solid bar that supports the 'see through display' blocks
some
>peripheral vision.
>
>I don't think that this will stop everyone from using it because
some
>people already fly with big vision blocking hat brims. A hat
brim would
>probably help keep the screen from "washing out" in direct
sunlight.

Unlike a hat brim the obstruction from the support bar is directly
at pupil level and the closeness to the eye means that even a
narrow obstruction will subtend an angle large enough to cause
a significant lateral blind spot. Most gliders on a collision
course are most likely to be level with oneself. This is a crazy
idea and to allow pilots to use it would be similar to allowing
flying with visual field defects.

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10:54 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:

> Unlike a hat brim the obstruction from the support bar is directly
>
> at pupil level and the closeness to the eye means that even a
>
> narrow obstruction will subtend an angle large enough to cause
>
> a significant lateral blind spot. Most gliders on a collision
>
> course are most likely to be level with oneself.

Excellent point.

>This is a crazy
>
> idea and to allow pilots to use it would be similar to allowing
>
> flying with visual field defects.

M

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:25:59 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10:54 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:

> >This is a crazy
> > idea and to allow pilots to use it would be similar to allowing
> > flying with visual field defects.

My point is that it is hard to stop pilots from doing stupid things, like wearing an excessive hat brim (or wearing Google glass).

[Dan Marotta]

....And just think - with the optimum soaring path now displayed to the
pilot, you can guarantee yourself a World Championship, simply by buying the
best sailplane. Who needs talent any more when you have the money?

I think I'll apply for a government grant!


"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...

> Checklists would also be interesting. Imagine: Glass: Checklist landing
>
> * Wind? Check
>
> * Approach Speed? Check
>
> * Clear Runway? Check


I would use a smart phone app today that allowed me to customize a set of
checklists and interact with them through voice and synthesized speech.
This would be a win because it could eliminate visually distracting
checklists. I know that a lot of pilots follow checklists "from memory" but
many feel that a checklist should be "written down" to compensate for memory
errors. An app like this would increase my use of checklists when my hands
and eyes were busy.

I'd like to see an AI co-pilot that would have awareness of flight
parameters, be able to do simple rule based reasoning and pattern
recognition, and give verbal suggestions to the pilot. Kinda like having a
CFI in the backseat. For example an AI co-pilot might be able to recognize
wind shear, detect that the glider was in the pattern, and give the pilot a
heads up "Possible Wind Shear".

It would be interesting to have a AI watch my flying, detect that I was
having a bad day and flying poorly and tell me to land ASAP.

I think I would keep my Google Glass display to a minimum and display only
airspeed, altitude, vario and perhaps pattern arrival altitude. AI co-pilot
would have some override privilege, so that if I were approaching stall
speed it would display only airspeed, large and in red. I'd like the App to
let the user customize the AI rules so that the AI would behave to the taste
and experience of the pilot. I'd rather see these parameters projected on
the canopy, the Google Glass blocks part of my vision of one eye and that is
a drawback.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 16:30 27 May 2013, son_of_flubber wrote:
>On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:25:59 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber
wrote:
>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10:54 PM UTC-4, John Galloway
wrote:
>
>> >This is a crazy
>> > idea and to allow pilots to use it would be similar to
allowing
>> > flying with visual field defects.
>
>My point is that it is hard to stop pilots from doing stupid things,
like
>wearing an excessive hat brim (or wearing Google glass).
>

Peer pressure means that you never see glider pilots wearing
baseball caps in the UK for exactly this reason.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:26:10 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> This is funny, but it gives a good idea of the Google Glass point of view.
>
>
>
> http://mashable.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-photographer/
>
>
>
> Will we all want to be wearing these in the cockpit three years from now?
>
>
>
> Not shown is the ability to interact through voice commands and receive information via a synthetic voice. That seems to have potential above the sunlight readable display angle.
>
>
>
> Anyone working on an XCSoar port to Google Glass?

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

[Glenn Fisher]

> Unlike a hat brim the obstruction from the support bar is directly
>
> at pupil level and the closeness to the eye means that even a
>
> narrow obstruction will subtend an angle large enough to cause
>
> a significant lateral blind spot. Most gliders on a collision
>
> course are most likely to be level with oneself. This is a crazy
>
> idea and to allow pilots to use it would be similar to allowing
>
> flying with visual field defects.


I have not played with Google Glass and I understand the mount may restrict vision. However, AH-64 and F-35 pilot fly with helmet mounted HUDs, so there must be some way to mount this technology that doesn't restrict vision.

Also, There are airline pilots in the US with 1st class medicals who only have vision in 1 eye.

http://www.aopa.org/careerpilot/articles/showarticle.cfm?section=CareerAdvisor&id=6343

"There are many cases involving loss of vision in one eye. Unilateral vision or visual field defects are waiverable for pilots, but typically not for controllers. Over 200 airmen with first class medical certificates and over 2,000 airmen overall hold a statement of demonstrated ability (SODA) for effective vision in only one eye.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:35:17 AM UTC-4, Glenn Fisher wrote:

> Also, There are airline pilots in the US with 1st class medicals who only have vision in 1 eye.

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?

Are there any "single vision" glider pilots out there?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 5/28/2013 9:15 AM:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:35:17 AM UTC-4, Glenn Fisher wrote:
>
>> Also, There are airline pilots in the US with 1st class medicals
>> who only have vision in 1 eye.
>
> 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?
>
> Are there any "single vision" glider pilots out there?

I know two of them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 01:57 29 May 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>son_of_flubber wrote, On 5/28/2013 9:15 AM:
>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:35:17 AM UTC-4, Glenn Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> Also, There are airline pilots in the US with 1st class medicals
>>> who only have vision in 1 eye.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Are there any "single vision" glider pilots out there?
>
>I know two of them.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

A monocular pilot's visual field towards the bad side is wider than you
might
think - try it - and he will have adapted in daily life to paying attention
to the
affected side. Hopefully he will also have adapted his scanning technique.
I
know an effectively monocular glider pilot and and was happy to share the
sky with him for many years until he moved to another part of the UK.

A pilot who is used to binocular vision but flying with a close and out of
focus
lateral blind spot that extends well round towards the central visual would
be
a menace IMHO.

John Galloway

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

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

[kirk.stant]

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

[Squeaky]

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

[Sean F (F2)]

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.

[son_of_flubber]

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.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

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

[son_of_flubber]

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.

[Sean F (F2)]

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

[Bill D]

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..

[son_of_flubber]

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!

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:14:28 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> 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!

Speak for yourself. At 72 I'm still ****ed I don't have a flying car.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

> > 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!
>
>
>
> Speak for yourself. At 72 I'm still ****ed I don't have a flying car.

Given that the aero-car concept vehicles were being invented, developed and flown when you were a kid, you haven't exactly disproved DA's assertion :-).

T8

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:37:47 PM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
>
>
>
> > > 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!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Speak for yourself. At 72 I'm still ****ed I don't have a flying car.
>
>
>
> Given that the aero-car concept vehicles were being invented, developed and flown when you were a kid, you haven't exactly disproved DA's assertion :-).
>
>
>
> T8

Those were "road capable airplanes" not flying cars like Jetsons.

Back to the OP subject. HMD's are a solution, not a problem. Good ones will display only the information the pilot needs and only when they need it while keeping eyes out of the cockpit. An advantage for aging eyes in that information will be seen at infinity focus not 2 feet in front of the pilot like steam gauges. Collision risks hidden behind aircraft structure will also be visible.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 5/29/2013 9:43 AM:
> Likewise, a synthetic voice that calmly tells me that my spoilers
> popped open during takeoff would be worthwhile to consider.

Your vario may already be able to warn you of spoilers open on takeoff.
My Cambridge 302 warns me, though not with a voice.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Sean F (F2)]

Guys and Gals,

At the end of the day it really does not matter that much. Having XC soar crash a couple days in a contest recently, I flew the task with a stopwatch, a map and a iPhone 5 running iGlide of the internal GPS. I did fine in the task.

That said, as glider pilots are often in close proximity to numerous close proximity traffic and have trouble reading digital displays due to vision issues or screen brightness issues, having a glasses HUD like display makes sense in several obvious ways. Adopting this new tech certainly won't be necessary, KS still flies an SN10 with no moving map for example. But it certainly has the potential to be a better way to display key data in exactly the same way military & commercial pilots, soldiers, etc are doing so today.

The only difference is that very soon HUD or smart glasses "hardware" cost is going to come way down, performance and application range is going to go way up. Development is going to explode. Common folk will be able to afford them. In 10 years, perhaps 5 (mark my words), the smart phone will be a relic. Watches, glasses and voice activated micro devices (earpieces) will become the way we communicate and access information. The smart phone will be as outdated as the "workstation or desktop" was last decade.

Some visionary glider pilots may not even have (wait for it...) any steam gauges in their gliders at all...it would cost far less to have a digital box output flight data to glasses and have a small backup screen on the panel..

As always, I embrace the new tech and enjoy learning (imagining) what it can offer. I do not fear change or learning new ways to do things. In fact, I love witnessing change and watching the naysayers squirm. I love shaking up the status quo. Trying to find ways to attack new tech before it has even arrived is humorous frankly. As with all of the past "discussions" here on related topics, by the time you learn of it, it's already here. Banning it is impossible, unnecessary and in most cases completely unenforceable.. Yet, I do fear the RC is probably already in discussions about drafting a new ban on HUD glasses. :-).

Here is to Google glass and the other competitors that are today working feverishly to catch the latest wave... And here is to the pilots that embrace it without fear of change.

Sean
F2

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:12:06 AM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Guys and Gals,
>
>
>
> At the end of the day it really does not matter that much. Having XC soar crash a couple days in a contest recently, I flew the task with a stopwatch, a map and a iPhone 5 running iGlide of the internal GPS. I did fine in the task.
>
>
>
> That said, as glider pilots are often in close proximity to numerous close proximity traffic and have trouble reading digital displays due to vision issues or screen brightness issues, having a glasses HUD like display makes sense in several obvious ways. Adopting this new tech certainly won't be necessary, KS still flies an SN10 with no moving map for example. But it certainly has the potential to be a better way to display key data in exactly the same way military & commercial pilots, soldiers, etc are doing so today.
>
>
>
> The only difference is that very soon HUD or smart glasses "hardware" cost is going to come way down, performance and application range is going to go way up. Development is going to explode. Common folk will be able to afford them. In 10 years, perhaps 5 (mark my words), the smart phone will be a relic. Watches, glasses and voice activated micro devices (earpieces) will become the way we communicate and access information. The smart phone will be as outdated as the "workstation or desktop" was last decade.
>
>
>
> Some visionary glider pilots may not even have (wait for it...) any steam gauges in their gliders at all...it would cost far less to have a digital box output flight data to glasses and have a small backup screen on the panel.
>
>
>
> As always, I embrace the new tech and enjoy learning (imagining) what it can offer. I do not fear change or learning new ways to do things. In fact, I love witnessing change and watching the naysayers squirm. I love shaking up the status quo. Trying to find ways to attack new tech before it has even arrived is humorous frankly. As with all of the past "discussions" here on related topics, by the time you learn of it, it's already here. Banning it is impossible, unnecessary and in most cases completely unenforceable. Yet, I do fear the RC is probably already in discussions about drafting a new ban on HUD glasses. :-).
>
>
>
> Here is to Google glass and the other competitors that are today working feverishly to catch the latest wave... And here is to the pilots that embrace it without fear of change.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

You are simply looking for windmills to tilt at.

Presenting yourself as some sort of visionary in a throng of fearful, vengeful luddites is, shall we say, a little clownish.

T8

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:26:10 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> This is funny, but it gives a good idea of the Google Glass point of view.
>
>
>
> http://mashable.com/2013/05/25/google-glass-photographer/
>
>
>
> Will we all want to be wearing these in the cockpit three years from now?
>
>
>
> Not shown is the ability to interact through voice commands and receive information via a synthetic voice. That seems to have potential above the sunlight readable display angle.
>
>
>
> Anyone working on an XCSoar port to Google Glass?

It looks like HUDs are here for sport aviation.
http://www.patavionics.com/index.php/en/

As for Google Glass, here's an article about learning the fly the Apache helicopter which has a monocle for one of the pilot's eyes. http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2012/02/hardest-to-fly/
Suffering with headaches while trying to integrate information from multiple sources simultaneously doesn't sound like a fun way to fly.

Craig