Tear apart my concept: A wearable for Spatial Disorientation

[TCABM]

Way back in some dusty neurons I have a vague recollection of a prioreceptor stimulation system that underwent testing in a T-34 that was nicknamed "magic fingers," but the memory is dim and unreliable. I definitely recall NASA getting good results from a projected horizon line in the cockpit that essentially went canopy rail to canopy rail that worked the 80% side above.

I wouldn't touch a COTS system without a thorough understanding of the system and it's failure modes and effects and system validation and verification. I feel the same way about COTS synthetic vision, but I sometimes think I'm in the minority.

Nauga,
and DO-254

I wouldn't touch a COTS system without a thorough understanding of the system and it's failure modes and effects and system validation and verification. I feel the same way about COTS synthetic vision, but I sometimes think I'm in the minority.

Nauga,
and DO-254

COTS is one thing and COTS from TSO sources is another. I don’t think there’s a TSO for SV, but Part 125 HUDs projected canopy wide is something different.

The whole SD thing, to me, is a red herring. To prevent SD in 100% of cases one has to remove the pilot from the equation as an active participant. In short, the pilot has to turn into the dog.

 

[Salty]

COTS is one thing and COTS from TSO sources is another. I don’t think there’s a TSO for SV, but Part 125 HUDs projected canopy wide is something different.

The whole SD thing, to me, is a red herring. To prevent SD in 100% of cases one has to remove the pilot from the equation as an active participant. In short, the pilot has to turn into the dog.

Avionics can get SD also with certain failure modes. Less likely than humans absolutely, but I’ve had both vacuum and solid state equipment lie to me about which way is up.

 

[murphey]

Oh, there're many brutal advice, but i like it!
You all were right to push back on the last post. It forced me to go back and rebuild my core assumptions from scratch. Here is where I landed—and I’d value you tearing this version apart, too.

1. The phone-as-sensor idea is dead.I tried detecting attitude from a rigidly mounted phone. Built a demo, flew it, and it failed miserably—gyro drift accumulated even with GPS and filtering. Lesson learned; a phone can't do it. I’m now looking at pulling attitude data directly from a dedicated source like a Stratus or Dynon D3.

2. It's a risk flag, not a mind-reader.You were right that aircraft attitude alone can’t tell you if a pilot is disoriented. I’ve dropped the claim that this "detects SD."

Instead, the device will flag when the aircraft enters a high-risk flight regime (based on US Army angular-velocity data). To add a layer of human telemetry, I'm looking at adding a small sensor to the headset to track head movement—the idea being that erratic or sudden head movements during high angular velocity might hint that a pilot is losing the picture.

The harder point you raised—that recognizing trouble isn't the same as overcoming it—is the one I'm still honestly wrestling with.
That brings me to where I actually need your judgment now:

• If not a wrist buzz, what actually gets through? When you are completely saturated and entering a graveyard spiral, what cue breaks the spell? Would a peripheral visual cue (like a light inside your headset/visor) land better than a haptic buzz, or just add to the sensory overload?
• How do you feel about a headset sensor? Does putting a tiny sensor on your headset sound acceptable, or is it an immediate dealbreaker for comfort/utility?
• For the steam-gauge flyers: For those flying older panels without a modern autopilot or glass, is an unrecognized-attitude warning something you’d actually find useful, or do you feel your instrument scan already covers it?

Genuinely grateful—your roast on the last thread changed this project more than months of my own work did. Tear away.

Isn't what you're proposing the classic angle of attack indicator?

 

[TCABM]

Avionics can get SD also with certain failure modes. Less likely than humans absolutely, but I’ve had both vacuum and solid state equipment lie to me about which way is up.

And that’s the rub with safety. One can get close to zero errors, but it will always be some non-zero number.

 

[AvNavCom]

Have your people call my people, I think we've got some synergistic opportunities. I was going to post in the heart rate thread that I'm looking for volunteers to flight test a supplemental biometric transducer. I was thinking of converting a trailer hitch ball into a body core temp sensor, once implemented it seems trivial to add a little high voltage "pop" to get the pilot's attention. As a bonus it also doubles (triples?) as a negative g restraint which improves under stress.

Masterful! I'm looking forward to having my team interface with your team to explore synergistic methods to optimize outcomes. As a sneak preview of future efforts, we've also been developing a navigation and runway centerline assist module which may work well as a further attachment to your device. A small dual-chamber ComfortBag(TM) would sit slightly forward of your device. Deviations left and right of course result in the corresponding chamber applying a clamping force of a magnitude corresponding to the deviation. Early testing of the BallBearing(TM) showed 98% faster recognition of course deviations and 95% faster initial correction rate. Encouraging early PIREPS included "This crosswind is killing me", "Please release me; I just want to see my wife", and one outlier of "Yeah baby, I'm so off-course. Tell Papa how bad of a pilot he is."

 

[Bill]

Masterful! I'm looking forward to having my team interface with your team to explore synergistic methods to optimize outcomes. As a sneak preview of future efforts, we've also been developing a navigation and runway centerline assist module which may work well as a further attachment to your device. A small dual-chamber ComfortBag(TM) would sit slightly forward of your device. Deviations left and right of course result in the corresponding chamber applying a clamping force of a magnitude corresponding to the deviation. Early testing of the BallBearing(TM) showed 98% faster recognition of course deviations and 95% faster initial correction rate. Encouraging early PIREPS included "This crosswind is killing me", "Please release me; I just want to see my wife", and one outlier of "Yeah baby, I'm so off-course. Tell Papa how bad of a pilot he is."

There’s this guy in Sacramento (and North Carolina) who would be a perfect test pilot for your program.

 

[Palmpilot]

One thing I've noticed about the vibration alert in my Apple watch is that it's so subtle that I fail to notice it more often than not.

 

[Ted]

And that’s the rub with safety. One can get close to zero errors, but it will always be some non-zero number.

The probability of a dual engine failure on a Part 25 aircraft has to be less than 10^-9. We take for granted that it will effectively never happen. And really, even a single engine failure is very unlikely to be something that most people will ever experience as a passenger (or even as a pilot) in such an aircraft. Even if you wanted to write off the "Miracle on the Hudson" situation since it was caused by the massive bird flock, the Hop-A-Jet Challenger was an example off a true 10^-9 dual engine failure, the sort of thing that we talked about multiple times per week when I was working those exact engines at the Meatball Engine Factory. Like you said, it will always be some non-zero number.

 

[nauga]

COTS is one thing and COTS from TSO sources is another.

Agreed - design to a TSO at least gives a basis for (and some hope of) "a thorough understanding of the system and it's failure modes and effects and system validation and verification."

Crowdsourced code on a personal device or *cough* Arduino/Raspi not so much, at least for the amount of effort I'm willing to put into someone else's device.

Nauga,
and augmented surreality

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Why not just working on something more basic like a metal landing calculator?

 

[bflynn]

Haptics followed by audio are the best for me. That would be a smack to the back of the head and my flight instructor saying "fly the instruments, not your brain".