Fix to fix

In UPT now, and should be studying on a Sunday night...Instead, I just blew 2 hours in this thread messing with this way to do a F2F..Thanks Qutch! ;) Sadly, something tells me that if I show up tomorrow morning and tell my IP's that I just kind of "feel" it to get my F2F done, it may not go over very well...

Squawk3274... as a former T-37/T-6 IP myself, I can tell you that is probably the case. The instructor is going to expect you to at least know the "book" procedure, and how to describe it, and to be able to use it. If you don't, he'll accuse you of not studying the assigned material and probably ding your general knowledge grade (if not the fix-to-fix grade itself).

That said, once you are in the SIM doing the actual fix-to-fix, he will be looking at your actual performance and the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak. If you use the book technique, or the technique in this thread, or you come up with some other technique that involves sacrificing a cat to an ancient Peruvian god the night before... well as long as it works for you, the IP probably won't really care. We only critique your "techniques" when the outcomes don't pass muster.

On this particular subject, I wouldn't tell the guy you are using a different technique until AFTER you hit the fix dead on. Nothing convinces people like success.
 
In UPT now, and should be studying on a Sunday night...Instead, I just blew 2 hours in this thread messing with this way to do a F2F..Thanks Qutch! ;) Sadly, something tells me that if I show up tomorrow morning and tell my IP's that I just kind of "feel" it to get my F2F done, it may not go over very well...

You are correct.. It won't go over well.. Listen to Fish, he's dead on. . So don't tell him/her anything other than "the book" method.. Just hit your fix..

While teaching at Moody AFB I once got tapped for a random, Stan Eval, instrument instruction check ride.. Since Stan Eval is short for "Standardization and Evaluation", I knew the Check Pilot wasn't going to be too impressed if I told him I was no longer teaching the pencil-method. . So I challenged him to a series of impossibly short fix-to-fixes, a course that he said "could not be done".. After I smoked him, then I told him how I did it... He was pretty receptive then, and became an advocate. . When you're ready to challenge your IP to a close-quarter fix-to-fix cluster drill in the simulator (Post #85), and he doesn't know how to follow you through multiple back-to-back short fixes, he/she will ask you "how the hell are you doing that?" Then you can "try" to tell him/her.

I'm not sure how easy it is to learn something like this off a forum post.. Sure wish I could take you through it myself. . But Good Luck..

qutch1234567 @hotmail.com

p.s. - I never taught UPT students anything other than what is in Posts #85 and #97. (about a 20 minute process) Then I just guided students thru a 1 hour practice session. .All this other scientific mumbo-jumbo is the stuff we had to explain to experienced IPs to keep them from having a heart attack. . Sorry if you went through all that stuff. . You don't need all the background stuff to use this method. .
 
Squawk3274... as a former T-37/T-6 IP myself, I can tell you that is probably the case. The instructor is going to expect you to at least know the "book" procedure, and how to describe it, and to be able to use it. If you don't, he'll accuse you of not studying the assigned material and probably ding your general knowledge grade (if not the fix-to-fix grade itself).

That said, once you are in the SIM doing the actual fix-to-fix, he will be looking at your actual performance and the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak. If you use the book technique, or the technique in this thread, or you come up with some other technique that involves sacrificing a cat to an ancient Peruvian god the night before... well as long as it works for you, the IP probably won't really care. We only critique your "techniques" when the outcomes don't pass muster.

On this particular subject, I wouldn't tell the guy you are using a different technique until AFTER you hit the fix dead on. Nothing convinces people like success.


Yes. I definitely learned that very quickly here. Luckily, I am in phase 3 now, and don't have to worry TOO much about the F2F's. Coming in with a decent amount of previous time, many of the instrument procedures that I was proficient in, are taught very differently here (as I very much expected). The key to success so far has been just what you said: learn the procedures and be able to spout them out verbatim, then do it whichever way I was comfortable with in the sim or jet. All in all, it just helped my SA learning another way to look at it.
 
(From Post #84 - Temporal Math & Science). So what happened to the hard mathematical data you need to navigate.? The Answer:: It's still there, hidden in the MOTION of the instrument indications.. We don't have the time or the space here for me to provide you with the mathematical conversion analysis.. That would take several pages of trig and calculus.. But here is a plain language summary:: The math is built in and hidden in the motion of the HSI's indicators. Therefore, the HSI's indicators (BP and DME) MOVE at a rate which is commensurate with, and indicative of, the aircraft's Position, Direction, and Velocity thru the polar coordinate grid. . In other words, the needed quantitative math & geometric data is converted to qualitative motion data (Something like converting digital signals to analog signals, or 1s and 0s to wave forms, for those of you familiar with that concept.). So the mathematical data is still there, its just read and processed differently... And since the fix-to-fix navigation math is secretly buried within the BP/DME motion (including winds), its all calculated for you, subconsciously..

(from post #86)...I think I have used this w/o ever really thinking about it consciously..... I think the "gaming it" part is pretty much what you are putting into words here.

In UPT now.....Sadly, something tells me that if I show up tomorrow morning and tell my IP's that I just kind of "feel" it to get my F2F done, it may not go over very well...



Math & Science Explained - (part 1)

I've received 4 private messages asking for more information about the mathematical conversion analysis, and 3 emails seeking a more western thought process (math & science) way to explain this technique to skeptics.. The "feel your way to the fix", 'Zen Master', "yin yang" type explanations are a little hard for some to swallow until they've seen it demo'd and gone thru the math themselves.. Of course you should never drag a UPT student thru this explanation (we're trying to relieve them of information overload, not increase it).. A pilot does not need to know exactly how any of this works, any more than a person needs to know how his/her brain wired itself to balance a bicycle, or how it tracks a ping pong ball during a game of table tennis.. It just does it, and most of us never ask how or why.. However, at the IP level, knowing more is part of the job description..

So for those of you who just have to know more about how this method calculates out, I'll post a few math and science breakdowns to get you started forming a more western thought process type of explanation.. When you navigate Temporally (posts 85 & 97), you are working a math/geometry problem.. It's not voodoo.. It's digital to analog conversion.. And that can be written and explained on a piece of paper.

qutch @hotmail.com

Advance to:: Math & Science Explained - (part 2)
 
Actually, the 'Zen Master' type explanations are what intrigued me to begin with. Otherwise it would have just looked like another techni-dure...keep it coming!

edit: shared this thread with another prior CFI stud in the flight room today...he didn't believe me until he saw for himself
 
Actually, the 'Zen Master' type explanations are what intrigued me to begin with. Otherwise it would have just looked like another techni-dure...keep it coming!

edit: shared this thread with another prior CFI stud in the flight room today...he didn't believe me until he saw for himself

O.K. then.. I think all the sane pilots have fled this thread by now.. We can move on to the fun maneuvers now without being detected.. Tune in for next week's exercise..

"Inverted flight fix-to-fix, wearing blindfold." (requires a deep state of meditation and seating in the lotus position)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo
 
Math & Science Explained - (part 2) continued from Post # 106

(not for UPT students - IP eyes only)

Teaching Temporal flight techniques (like fix-to-fix) at Moody UPT, or at Mather AFB Navigator training, meant getting challenged by critics from time to time.. Students didn't care how it worked, but instructors did, and some seemed offended at the ridiculous suggestion that navigation could be performed without math.. Some instructors felt that even if the technique did somehow voodoo mystically work, it had to include math or it just wasn't respectable.. So, for the math addicts, I tried explaining it something like this........

Digital to Analog Conversion (Math meets Zen) - Your telephone takes an analog signal (your voice), converts it to digital information, and then transmits it to another telephone.. Since the person holding the receiver of that phone can't understand digital, his/her phone converts the digital signal back into analog information (your voice).. Neither of you care how its done, you just want it to work.. But if you did care, that's how its done.. Radio, your laptop, and lots of other devices we take for granted work the same way, by converting one type of information into another, processing it, and converting it back again.. Well, that's what Temporal/Time processing does.. We're taking the mathematical/geometric (digital) information from the fix-to-fix problem, converting it into an analog form (time), and processing it in analog form.. (Note: during the 60s and part of the 70s they didn't have electronic digital processor controlled simulators.. They were run by analog computers, using a labyrinth of motors, wheels, discs, shafts and gears to process and transmit data... http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~hsauro/Analog.htm )

Using Temporal flight techniques (like fix-to-fix) involves converting digital to analog.. The math & geometric information is still there, and the pilot still calculates using that information.. However, the form of that data is converted (digital to analog) so that the information can be processed by a different processor (that part of our brain that tracks and analyzes Time related data,) It's all very similar to the kinds of functions your laptop can do.. Whether its photos, videos, audio, Skype communications, or just keeping track of time, conversions are taking place and useful information appears where and when you need it.. Digital to analog and back to digital.. You don't care how it works, as long as it works..

Let's Visualize the Conversion from Digital (math/geometric) into Analog (speed and motion) -

1) Place the drawing of a polar coordinate grid, and the photo of an HSI, side by side..
2) Draw an aircraft on the 160@20, heading due North/360.. Place an X on the target fix at 030@20..
3) Draw (or visualize) a series of aircraft symbols flying north. (You'll be cutting through a lot of radials and arcs on the way to this fix.)



4) Visualize the BP in the top half of your HSI, pointing at the TACAN/VOR.. Now visualize the BP Falling towards the wingtip as you fly north.

Digital Perspective (quantitative, spatial, mathematical/geometric) - As the aircraft flies closer and closer to the station, the TACAN/VOR radials converge.. As the radials get closer and closer together, the aircraft crosses a greater and greater number of radials.. Thus the BP registers a greater and greater number of new bearings to the station... That bearing data will be plugged in to fix-to-fix update calculations.

Analog Conversion Perspective (qualitative, temporal) - As the aircraft flies closer and closer to the station, the BP falls faster and faster as we cut through radials faster and faster. . By observing the relative speed of BP fall, we will compare that with our observations of the relative speed of DME change.

The math is built in and hidden in the motion of the HSI's indicators. Therefore, the HSI's indicators (BP and DME) MOVE at a rate which is commensurate with, and indicative of, the aircraft's Position, Direction, and Velocity thru the polar coordinate grid. . In other words, the needed quantitative math & geometric data is converted to qualitative motion information.




5) Now visualize the BP in the bottom half of your HSI, pointing at the TACAN/VOR.. Visualize the BP Falling towards the tail of the aircraft as the aircraft flies past the TACAN/VOR, approaching the fix.

Digital Perspective (quantitative, spatial, mathematical/geometric) - As the aircraft flies further and further away from the station, the TACAN/VOR radials spread out.. As the radials undergo further and further separation, the aircraft crosses a fewer and fewer number of radials.. Thus the BP registers a fewer and fewer number of new bearings to the station.. All that bearing data will be used in fix-to-fix updates.

Analog Conversion Perspective (qualitative, temporal) - As the aircraft flies further and further away from the station, the BP falls slower and slower as we cut through radials slower and slower . . By observing the relative speed of BP fall, we will compare that with our observations of the relative speed of DME change.

The math is built in and hidden in the motion of the HSI's indicators.. Therefore, the HSI's indicators (BP and DME) MOVE at a rate which is commensurate with, and indicative of, the aircraft's Position, Direction, and Velocity thru the polar coordinate grid. . In other words, the needed quantitative math & geometric data is converted to qualitative motion information.




6) Now take yourself through the rest of this mental exercise.. Run through the same fix-to-fix again, but this time compare the number of arcs you cut through with the speed of the DME movement.. Ask yourself why the DME slows, and then comes to a full stop as the BP falls to and reaches the wingtip. . When you are done visualizing this fix-to-fix, fly other routes in the grid and take note of changes in BP and DME speed as your location and headings change.. You will note that there are always predictable consequences to location and heading changes, consequences that show up in BP and DME speed.. Let me repeat that:: predictable consequences.. The mind of "experienced" pilots eventually records those predictable consequences and learns to make subconscious use of them..

The math is built in and hidden in the motion of the HSI's indicators.. Therefore, the HSI's indicators (BP and DME) MOVE at a rate which is commensurate with, and indicative of, the aircraft's Position, Direction, and Velocity thru the polar coordinate grid. . In other words, the needed quantitative math & geometric data is converted to qualitative motion information.

Conclusion - So the first time you are called on the carpet, criticized for utilizing a fix-to-fix method that isn't 'math and sciencey' enough for a respectable military pilot to be using, take your critic through this explanation. . Temporal navigation is all about math.. But the digital math data is converted into analog motion information before it is calculated in the brain.. That data is then fed to different portion of the brain (as it would be in a dual core Intel chip) where temporal data is processed.. After you have mastered the Zen-like experience of navigating on nothing but analog motion information (which takes Sim practice to master), you can go back and double-check/verify your Zen-Temporal senses by using your other brain section to run a math/geometry calculation.. (this is right-brain vs left-brain stuff) A totally new concept in navigation?. Not in my opinion. . The Moody AFB T-38 IPs (and the never published laboratory study that verified their theory) came to the conclusion that the predictable consequences of HSI behavior within a polar coordinate grid is what "experienced" pilots call "experience", but can't figure out how to explain to their math-saturated, information overloaded, struggling students.. The Moody IPs found they could pack a year or two of HSI pattern recognition "experience" into the brain of a T-38 UPT student, in about an Hour. (see Post #85 and #97) Then they found that by perfecting these principles of "HSI predictable pattern recognition", and consciously practicing Temporal Only navigation, they could perform highly complex instrument maneuvers previously believed to be impossible.. Maneuvers never before contemplated.. Hyperbole? No.. Just never before published..

qutch1234567 @hotmail.com


Advance to Math & Science Explained - (part 3)
 
Math & Science Explained - (part 3) continued from Post # 109

(not for UPT students - IP eyes only)

The ability to convert geometric patterns into recognizable patterns of motion, time, musical notes, dates, and other information (or vise versa) is a scientific curiosity to doctors and research psychologists. . Insight into this ability has been gained by observing people with brain damage. . (I recommend the movies Phenomenon and Rain Man.) . For those of you who have emailed me asking for more info on this subject, below are some links you might find interesting. . After you've trained yourself to rely solely on Temporal perception, you can flip (your mind) back and forth between Temporal/Time processing, and math solutions if you desire (pencil method, rule of 5s, rule of 7s, pinch-pencil method, degrees-per-mile method, etc.). . But first you must break free of the need to double-check your heading with math, by forcing yourself to navigate solely with Time/Motion processing. . To do that, you either have to have a flight instructor who knows how to teach it (about a 20 minute process for the fix-to-fix application), or force yourself through the Exercise at Post #85. . The Post 85 exercise makes it pretty difficult to work a math problem, so TIME & MOTION is your only choice, forcing you to use BP and DME motion. . After you feel yourself breaking free, you can move to Exercise #97. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCvYKiNW4vQ go to 2:25 Min on tape (Acquired Savant - Jason Pagett hear 2:25 Min on this tape - Padgett describes Motion in a geometric pattern)

http://www.quantonics.com/Einstein_Minkowski_Space_Time_Diagram.html (Mathematicians have attempted to marry geometry with their theories to explain Time and Space.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQ4wrZvGlI&feature=related (Einstein also sought to answer complex questions by equating Time with Space and Mathematics. . Time meets geometry in this clip, in an attempt to explain travel in space.) . . .



These relationships between Time and Space/Geometry are difficult for some to see.. It can be learned.. For others it takes a bump on the head (theorized to damage a portion of the brain currently interfering with the ability to "see" the Time/Geometric relationship.)

http://www.vidsurf.org/watch/-o7RBjrkb0A/Savant__Matt_Savage.html (Savant conversion - Math ability translates/converts into musical notes/piano keys)

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_articles/acquired_savant (Acquired Savant Syndrome)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGqZOU6iz7A&feature=related (Scientists attempt to trigger Savant Syndrome by turning off part of the brain temporarily. Temporal Navigation students must temporarily TURN OFF the left-brain math in order to "see" the right-brain Motion.) . . . .

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/split.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome (wiki - Savant may be triggered)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy (Acquired Savant Syndrome thru involvement or injury to the Temporal Lobe of the Brain. Artistic abilities acquired.)


qutch1234567 @hotmail.com
 
While I'm not Mil or allowed to do much F2F due to FAA & Opsecs, this method is very intriguing to me. The concept is very sound, I have only read how to accomplish the pencil method, it made sense, moved on. The Temporal method is awe inspiring from a Civvie standpoint. There are three basic concepts that are a must besides the HSI/DME basics. First, a DME is a must and an RMI/Bearing Pointer is almost a must. While it doesn't have to be attached to an HSI, you need to see the change in radials/bearings, and while this is possible on a traditional VOR receiver, it is much more difficult. Then again this leads me to the second requirement, this method is going to be preferred for a faster moving aircraft as opposed to a slower one. That is just due to it's ability to process the change in BP as well as DME distance. It works well for closer range <20NM but anything further, the ability to be blown off course could possibly outweigh the benefit, however, it at least would allow the pilot the ability to get headed in the correct direction as opposed to the need to push the 'Devils Key' (aka Direct To) button first. Third, while this does work, ever over great distances, and the ability to "game" the approach to the fix will probably require you to complete more course corrections close in to the actual fix/waypoint. So expect to maneuver in some fashion prior to the fix unless you have "gamed" the approach through "experience" correctly.

If I'm completely off kilter please let me know, I wish I could use this while flying freight in my 210/Baron. This would make life SOOOO much easier. Thank you for taking the time to lay this out. I just wish didn't stay up so late learning. My brain won't shut off now, I'm going to be thinking about other applications to this the rest of the night. Thank you, Qutch! (Seriously)

(While I understand that this is a mute point in the Mil world, I still fly aircraft, on a daily basis without DME/HSI/RMI and wish I could use this to my advantage.)
 
Qutch needs to just go ahead and write a book...I'd buy it!


Thanks Squawk (and braunpilot). . I appreciate that. . Actually the only thing I ever really loved doing was teaching UPT students at Moody AFB. . I developed new techniques so we could radically accelerate instrument training. . UPT students are motivated, open minded and they learn fast (much faster, as a rule, than the average experienced pilot learns new "conceptual methodologies"). They make great test subjects. . They were just what we needed to test the limits of human ability.....pilot ability. . One of our goals was to demonstrate that military pilots didn't need the installation of computer crutches in the cockpit, just optimally designed instrumentation to supply sensory input.. . Computers would just slow us down. . Pilot brains were faster. . The fix-to-fix Cluster (with 3D altitude changes) was designed to demonstrate that. . Aerobatics on instruments. . It's perfectly possible with the right instrumentation. . If pilots can do that on an HSI that was not designed with temporal processing in mind, just imagine what pilots could do with instrumentation designed to optimimize temporal inputs. . I wanted to stay with UPT students, but ATC/Randolph moved it (and me) into the laboratory. . So what I'd rather now do is to pitch a tent outside the main gate at SUPT and resume what I started, which was teaching UPT students (and open-minded IPs) temporal techniques..


Some of my work is briefly referenced in Aviation Books, including the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. . It's dry reading for pilots I think, and not explained in sufficient detail to help UPT students or IPs. . . But its around. . You can find similar academic discussions regarding the enhancement and radical acceleration of human abilities in that book (Part III- See links below for examples). . Fellow Moody AFB IP, Colonel Dave Pohlman (also an advocate of Human Factors research) wrote some of the selections in this book, and his Human Factors research work can be found on the web.


"distinguish average from exceptional pilots" + "develop individual situation awareness skill and instrumentation intended to enhance it." http://books.google.com/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA13-PA16&dq=%22distinguish+average+from+exceptional+pilots%22&hl=en&ei=tfjVTYrbH4a6sQO1pcS-Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22distinguish%20average%20from%20exceptional%20pilots%22&f=false


"Strict logical" vs "internal mediating processes"
http://books.google.com/books?id=nr...l positivism" +"cognitive psychology"&f=false


Memory & "pattern recognition capabilities"
http://books.google.com/books?id=nr..." +"pattern recognition capabilities"&f=false


qutch1234567@hotmail.com
 
It works well for closer range <20NM but anything further, the ability to be blown off course could possibly outweigh the benefit …... while this does work, ever over great distances, and the ability to "game" the approach to the fix will probably require you to complete more course corrections close in to the actual fix/waypoint. . So expect to maneuver in some fashion prior to the fix unless you have "gamed" the approach through "experience" correctly. . If I'm completely off kilter please let me know……


Braunpilot - These are all correct observations . . I can see you did some serious thinking about this. . Other forum readers that emailed me directly are wondering the same thing, although they have trouble expressing it as clearly as you did. . I'm going to use your question's wording in an attempt to clarify this for everyone who's currently wondering about this. .

(Note:: Establishing wind direction and speed using conventional methods is, at best a guess. . Plugging that wind information into mathematical models is part of the reason pilots seek to avoid fix-to-fix assignments, not a bonus, since it adds another step, making an already difficult math calculation even harder. . So I begin this discussion with the assertion that wind correction, using the pencil method, is hardly a sure thing itself. . In contrast, refering to the geometric/temporal, digital/analog conversion explanation I provided in Post #109, winds are built-in to the temporal method. . In theory, no correction factor is required. . . http://books.google.com/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA13-PA15&dq=%22real+bonus%22+%2B%22automatically+accounted+for+wind%22&hl=en&ei=X_zWTdjcCI7msQPW47CxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22real%20bonus%22%20%2B%22automatically%20accounted%20for%20wind%22&f=false)


Practiced Quarterbacks vs You and Me - In practice however, the limitation questions you raise are real and insightful. . What is the practical range capability of Temporal perception fix-to-fix? . And won't crosswinds mess up that perception? . Answer :: The limitations regarding how far out you can use this method, and how much effect crosswinds will have on you, are dependent on 1) your native Temporal Instincts (some people are better than others) and 2) the amount you have practiced temporal navigation. . Think of it like this:: You and I can throw a football to a receiver, gauging his speed and our necessary "lead", to some extent. . But if the pass required is too far, and/or we are confronted with wind, we will exceed our mental capability to gauge the proper lead, causing us to either overthrow or underthrow the ball. . This miscalculation will require the receiver to do some "gaming it" adjustments at pass completion in order to catch the football.. So our pass won't look too pretty, but the receiver will still probably intercept/catch the ball. . However, a practiced NFL quarterback can gauge accurately over much longer distances and compensate for greater winds than you and I can, making for a better timed and prettier pass. . The receiver probably won't have to make as large a last minute adjustment in order to catch the ball, thanks to the practiced skill of the quarterback.

Practice turned the "Impossible" into Child's Play, a simple Video Game - During the 70s when this instrument flight methodology caught the attention of Mather Navigator Training and Randolph HQ, I was used as the demonstration pilot during exhibitions and research. . In my mid 20s I think my Temporal Instincts were sharper than they are now. . I taught Temporal techniques to my own students during the day at Moody. . Other IPs' students were sneaking over to me for lessons, after hours and on weekends. . Plus I enjoyed practicing this, and I practiced alone for fun, regularly. .(Similar to the Post #85 and #97 exercises I put up on this forum). . As a result of all that practice time, I could "see" Temporally 60 miles out. . In addition, our simulators made it possible to input extreme winds. . During simulator demonstrations I requested that observers use those winds to blow me off course . . Using Temporal Navigation I could "see" the winds, and I was not deterred by this. . When this became too easy, I began doing the extreme short-range, clustered, turning, back-to-back fix-to-fixes (which required me to also gauge the speed of the rotating compass bezel in order to complete each fix in a turn as the BP and DME reached their objectives). . When I mastered these spiraling fix clusters, I began the 3D fix-to-fixes, calling for fixes at different altitudes (which required setting up a rate-of-climb and watching the speed of the altimeter's indicator). . I kept looking for new instrument indicators that spun, rotated, moved and changed, to add to the mix. . I worked to master the art of bringing them all home simultaneously just to see if it was possible. . It became, as you put it, "awe inspiring" . . But was it the most amazing demonstration of T-38 navigation ever performed, or merely a simple video game?. Although my SA was keen, I sometimes viewed it as merely a kind of Game. . To me, it should have been seen by observers as no more impressive than watching a child who'd mastered a simple arcade game (the predecessors of today's home video games) in which various moving objects must be manipulated in order to score points. . In fact, it would have been easier to teach this technique to a child than it was to most IPs, who like myself, had been trained to believe that math and geometry (processed on the left side of the brain) was the only possible way to interpret HSI indicators. .

A Savant, or merely a Video Game Wizard? - That child's play aspect of this technique is what made students so much easier to teach than experienced IPs and fighter pilots. . Pilot observers were mistakenly impressed (or bewildered) with my "navigation" abilities. . Randolph HQ suspected, at first, that my demonstration for them could only be explained by some type of Savant ability. . A Savant with a unique extraordinary gift to process incredible amounts of mathematical data in my head, using formulas beyond their comprehension. . But in my mind, during the mid 70s, I was playing a simple game.. A navigation game no more complex than the type of arcade games being played then, and the computer games that children would be playing in the year 2000. . And yet, while observers marvel today at our "advancements" in computerized avionics, we still fail to appreciate and compare those advancements to what a child's mind can accomplish playing a simple video game. . So, looking back at the valuable time I spent with UPT students in the mid 70s (all of whom have since retired), and watching children play today, I wonder how far we have really advanced in aviation if our major focus has been to invent gadgets designed to deprive and relieve pilots of using their amazing cognitive abilities. . http://www.insidermedicine.com/arch...tWallander_University_of_Washington_4804.aspx

http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/18/what-are-cognitive-abilities/

So braunpilot, you are correct. . There are theoretical limitations. . But the limits are not fixed. . The limits are wherever the pilot decides to establish them. . For those who set the bar high, the results can be "awe inspiring".


qutch1234567 @hotmail.com
 
Back
Top