Google Glass in the cockpit?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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/arti...dvisor&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.

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?