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.
;-)

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. :-)

"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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

"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