Spatial awereness

[autogyro]

"J.A.W."]The brain allows for overlapping sensory inputs,
& under blind flying conditions trusting instrumentation has shown its value.

But if the human senses are less efficient than modern sensors, surely it is better to rely on computer controlled sensors?

However, the visual field, whereby correctly predicting likely manoeuvres & effectively countering them,
via expert control inputs - is what sorts the aces from the also rans..

The visual field or as we used to call it in military flying 'the number one eyeball', has been overtaken by modern digital optics in all areas.
Computer systems should be able to at least match human decision making and work much faster.
True, it all depends on what they are programmed to achieve but in most vehicle and aircraft applications the operating envelope is much less than the human range of knowledge, life experience and decision making.
Surely this means that the human overlap of senses with all its unneeded information for the application will always throw up more mistakes?

[J.A.W.]

A-G, AFAIK, the machines have not been given autonomous fire control authority.. yet..

The "Singularity" approaches inexorably, even so..

[autogyro]

A-G, AFAIK, the machines have not been given autonomous fire control authority.. yet..

The "Singularity" approaches inexorably, even so..

The 'need' for autonomous fire control is indeed one of my primary questions.
The decision to task the aircraft/vehicle remains a human decision of course?
For car racing at least one autonomous formula would look promising.
Unless we are content with the solely programming development available from virtual racing.

I often feel that computer specialists have reduced the capability of 'true' engineers.

[Gatecrasher]

I often feel that computer specialists have reduced the capability of 'true' engineers.

Great “True” engineers today working on complex tasks need to have both a core knowledge of the subject matter as well as great computational skills, or work with people who do.

From an outsiders viewpoint: Adrian Newey is old school, he knows his subject matter, can logically solve complex problems and is innovative in his solutions. To get the best result he still needs the engineering team including software engineers and statisticians to help turn his ideas into reality.

Universities can only teach history (exclude Phd/Postdoc) and try to grow skills, it is how much people develop their problem solving thought process that make certain engineers excel.

It might have taken only a couple of engineers to design a F1 car in the 60's, today people like Adrian set direction but have to backed up by a very large team to be able to have the attention to detail required in a very short development timespan.

Computer specialists have not reduced capability, just the exact opposite, cars are more complex than ever. The skillset required to be at the top is however slowly changing.

[autogyro]

Everything in the design and prototyping stages being completely reliant on computer skills has taken away the capability to try many ideas that cannot be confirmed as viable at the first stages without huge investment.
Many military projects with obvious overlap into F1 technology have budgets that use the most amount of investment for the computer aspects of the projects.
Sometimes these computer costs are in billions.
As has been said, universities teach history these days not innovation.
Try working too far outside the box and you will soon find yourself in a little wooden shed on an airfield all alone, as did my late friend Alec Stokes.
He could still come out with better ideas on a drawing board, as could many other old school guys and Adrian of course.
There needs to be more grass roots training.

[Gatecrasher]

The computer is still only a tool that takes inputs, garbage in - garbage out mantra holds true. When working on any engineering solution there are typically no more than 10 ways to "skin the cat". Knowing which are the best solutions is an instinctive call based on your previous experience, rarely does the computer stipulate the only way to solve the problem. Computer simulation is best utilized in helping direct, refine and improve.

I have limited experience with military projects, from what I have seen they were typically late, over budget and over engineered due to bureaucracy rather than poor skills. In commercial projects there is always a customer that has multiple options to buy from, that drives innovation, schedule and cost control.

I totally agree with you on the grass roots training. The real issue is that there is no easy way for universities to try to teach these skills. University only gives people a piece of paper that lets them have the opportunity for a specific job interview. As an employer the type of degree, GPA and where it was achieved give you a little insight as to whether the person is teachable or self guided. The grass roots training has to happen in the workforce.

[riff_raff]

With drivers of F1 or Indy cars, "spatial awareness" is not the most important skill. What is more critical is the driver's ability to predict the effect of wake turbulence from the car ahead of them on the downforce of their car as they attempt to pass. You can see the cars around you, but you can't see the wake air turbulence they produce.

[J.A.W.]

You can.. ..if its dusty, sandy, smoky, wet, or even just humid.. .when vortices are visible..

[autogyro]

You can.. ..if its dusty, sandy, smoky, wet, or even just humid.. .when vortices are visible..

I would also add that it should be possible to program the responses required into an autonomous F1 car fitted with the right sensors.

[autogyro]

"Gatecrasher"]The computer is still only a tool that takes inputs, garbage in - garbage out mantra holds true. When working on any engineering solution there are typically no more than 10 ways to "skin the cat". Knowing which are the best solutions is an instinctive call based on your previous experience, rarely does the computer stipulate the only way to solve the problem. Computer simulation is best utilized in helping direct, refine and improve.

Garbage in garbage out, exactly.
So how does a computer specialist gain experience? From failure or history?

I have limited experience with military projects, from what I have seen they were typically late, over budget and over engineered due to bureaucracy rather than poor skills. In commercial projects there is always a customer that has multiple options to buy from, that drives innovation, schedule and cost control.

Today military budgets are IMO at a terrible level of over cost over time and inefficiency.
Those who decide on procurement are in almost every case technically deficient.

I totally agree with you on the grass roots training. The real issue is that there is no easy way for universities to try to teach these skills. University only gives people a piece of paper that lets them have the opportunity for a specific job interview. As an employer the type of degree, GPA and where it was achieved give you a little insight as to whether the person is teachable or self guided. The grass roots training has to happen in the workforce.

Competition is the historical area for grass roots training and the promotion of innovation.
Motor sport now gives little as it is mostly spec formula and the military, or at least military aviation AFAIK stopped any worthwhile competition at a technical level in the 1930s and to a lesser degree after the quest to beat the sound barrier.
Without increased technical competition all these areas will remain years behind the potential out there.
Military aviation is nearly 50 years behind as it is.
Stealth and electronics can be fitted to a brick toilet if you give it enough thrust.

[Tommy Cookers]

a well-known car equipment maker has been touting an intelligent steering system to help the driver
eg it will take out (by offsetting) the continuous steering input often needed eg driving straight in a significant crosswind
it seems this 'help' could be unhelpful, ie offsetting would make it harder to maintain the correct line when passing a large truck
because this involves passing through great variations in side force and yawing moment in the lee and wakes of the truck
perhaps the designers are as unqualified by experience of the task they are 'helping' as designers computerising the flying of aircraft

the AF 447 crash was primarily caused by the retention for economic reasons of ASI/altimetry equipment likely to be defective
and anyway in cruise the autopilot will always trip out in turbulence because it is not authorised to contain an overspeed
in such a tripout event allowing an accidental descent a fatal overspeed can develop in seconds
fatal as uncontainable downwards pitching moment occurs at about 70 mph above cruise speed due to Mach effects
(a DC-8 was taken under ideal test conditions to M1.02 and was about 5 seconds from disaster, current aircraft have less margin)
so the pilot's job is to guard against these events eg by promptly applying an upwards-tending control input
on 447 without any information except that the computor generated data was initially and wrongly showing a descent
due to the 'non-ideal' functionality of the software

these systems eg the THY crash are all faulty in design and concept to an extent (as are pilots, of course, and managers etc)
the A320 halved its roll sensitivity after a single wheel contact because computer geeks made it so (this fault was found the hard way)
as predecessors did, programming uncommanded approach pitch control reversal into the early Tornado system (wrecking planes)

commercial factors are the driver (by this artificial standardisation pilots are qualified/required to fly 4 types of aircraft, not 1)
commercial factors are also a driver eg why ATC refused Air Asia permission to divert around the worst of the storm

in our field of interest we remember and applaud the work and judgement of the Chapmans, Uhlenhauts, Duckworths, Neweys etc
not that of those apparently well qualified who didn't really appreciate and engage in the field they got assigned to
eg the Millenium bridge, the Space Shuttle failures, even Chernobyl

[autogyro]

In our field of interest we remember and applaud the work and judgement of the Chapmans, Uhlenhauts, Duckworths, Neweys etc
not that of those apparently well qualified who didn't really appreciate and engage in the field they got assigned to
eg the Millenium bridge, the Space Shuttle failures, even Chernobyl

Exactly TC.
Where are the modern innovators?
Still playing computer games I suppose.

[trinidefender]

a well-known car equipment maker has been touting an intelligent steering system to help the driver
eg it will take out (by offsetting) the continuous steering input often needed eg driving straight in a significant crosswind
it seems this 'help' could be unhelpful, ie offsetting would make it harder to maintain the correct line when passing a large truck
because this involves passing through great variations in side force and yawing moment in the lee and wakes of the truck
perhaps the designers are as unqualified by experience of the task they are 'helping' as designers computerising the flying of aircraft

the AF 447 crash was primarily caused by the retention for economic reasons of ASI/altimetry equipment likely to be defective
and anyway in cruise the autopilot will always trip out in turbulence because it is not authorised to contain an overspeed
in such a tripout event allowing an accidental descent a fatal overspeed can develop in seconds
fatal as uncontainable downwards pitching moment occurs at about 70 mph above cruise speed due to Mach effects
(a DC-8 was taken under ideal test conditions to M1.02 and was about 5 seconds from disaster, current aircraft have less margin)
so the pilot's job is to guard against these events eg by promptly applying an upwards-tending control input
on 447 without any information except that the computor generated data was initially and wrongly showing a descent
due to the 'non-ideal' functionality of the software

these systems eg the THY crash are all faulty in design and concept to an extent (as are pilots, of course, and managers etc)
the A320 halved its roll sensitivity after a single wheel contact because computer geeks made it so (this fault was found the hard way)
as predecessors did, programming uncommanded approach pitch control reversal into the early Tornado system (wrecking planes)

commercial factors are the driver (by this artificial standardisation pilots are qualified/required to fly 4 types of aircraft, not 1)
commercial factors are also a driver eg why ATC refused Air Asia permission to divert around the worst of the storm

in our field of interest we remember and applaud the work and judgement of the Chapmans, Uhlenhauts, Duckworths, Neweys etc
not that of those apparently well qualified who didn't really appreciate and engage in the field they got assigned to
eg the Millenium bridge, the Space Shuttle failures, even Chernobyl

The crew in the air Asia crash requested to climb to go above the storm. ATC denied their request due to traffic above them. A few minutes after the plane disappeared off of radar. To me with what I know so far it seems to be pilot error that they simply waited to late to ask to either climb above or divert around the storm. Our radar on our S76 C++ can show weather/rain/storm cells out to 50 NM (nautical miles). Their radar is many times more powerful and as such they probably had knowledge of the cell here from far away. So frankly I don't see this so much as an economic reason but instead, a decision by the crew to take unnecessary risks. Of course the post flight crash information has not been released so I cannot say for certain but this is just what I see from my point of view.

This relates to F1 in the aspect of decision making. Everything in F1 is risk management, drivers will move into an overtaking spot or move up close to somebody once they feel the risk is low enough that nothing will happen and ruin the race. Their judgement of other drivers and cars is based on their spatial awareness. So in a way their judgement of a risk of a situation and if it is worth taking factors in how good their spatial awareness is.

[Gatecrasher]

Exactly TC.
Where are the modern innovators?
Still playing computer games I suppose.

Fortunately I get to work in a field which has enough $ that hires some of the best minds out there. It blows me away what we build. The general public don't get to see the innovation only a product that they take for granted will get better every year. If you tied to explain to someone the technical details of a F1 car, 787, space shuttle, Web search engine, a PC or even a smartphone they would be lost. That does not mean it did not take a huge team of highly dedicated and bright engineers to make it.

Modern innovators are typically following the money to who pays the most or where they think it will be cool to work.

[autogyro]

Exactly TC.
Where are the modern innovators?
Still playing computer games I suppose.

Fortunately I get to work in a field which has enough $ that hires some of the best minds out there. It blows me away what we build. The general public don't get to see the innovation only a product that they take for granted will get better every year. If you tied to explain to someone the technical details of a F1 car, 787, space shuttle, Web search engine, a PC or even a smartphone they would be lost. That does not mean it did not take a huge team of highly dedicated and bright engineers to make it.

Modern innovators are typically following the money to who pays the most or where they think it will be cool to work.

I do not agree that most people would not understand the technical details.
IMO the technology is fairly easy for people to understand.
It is the reliance on high powered computers to be able to do the actual job in hand that prevents all but a few from doing anything practical.
This focuses development on narrow progress.

Following the money (who pays the most) and basing your life on how cool it is to work somewhere is a shallow ideology.
Where are the modern engineers and technicians who want to achieve something new to benefit the world rather than just line their pockets and look good?
Most great men and women do not die rich or even famous.
Unfortunately the modern world recognises mostly self opinionated seekers of fame, not real people.
There are very few I respect.