Virtual Reality glasses for instrument flying

Cool! Another potentially huge market is RC models.

Everything's 'doable'.....

Be interested to hear Lou's thoughts. (Or anyone's come to that )

Cheers,
Iam

 

How would a helmet like that work if you have instrument failure in IFR? I would have to be feed information from someplace.... I.e. How does it know where it is without the instruments?

To a certain extent this already exists with the HUD on many planes. Some new fighters like F-35 have an augmented reality helmet but I suspect it's a costly solution for the needs of the commercial market.

 

Why only in case of failure? Glass panels already have synthetic vision capabilities which increase perception a gazillion % better than a standard artificial horizon. The limitation is that you have to be looking at it as with any typical instrument flying. 3D glasses would allow the pilot to move his head and provide same perception as if VFR. If equipped with goggles and BRS (chute) there could be a waiver for an instrument rating. If the goggles fail just pull the chute. Isn't that what Cirrus pilots do anyway?

 

The biggest hurdle I see is getting all the FAA certifications and such..

PS Peter you up for meeting up for some Mexican food

 

I like the idea, but I think it has a couple of hurdles to clear (in my humble opinion as ATC):
1. Realtime data feed--you can't use images from a database due to a variety of modifying factors. Having another aircraft ahead, possible debris on runway, etc. I fear it would give a big sense of false confidence.
2. Correlating with AC--factors due to wind, temperature, wind shear et al would mean that the eyeset would have to update a lot of parameters at once, especially in critical flight phases. Not sure that is possible with current aircraft sensor technology.

Those are issues I can envision in an international airport environment such as the one I work in. Simple (relatively) low-fidelity IFR vision capability would be much simpler.

 

Well...I like the idea very much.

I actually think it would be far easier than others here are saying, because in reality you wouldn't need any large database at all. No reason to use real imagery like google does. A database of runway parameters such as length, width, slope, markings/thresholds, geophysical position, and lighting with possibly some other aspects that allow a processor to gonculate an image, just as a sim or computer game does, then manipulates that image based on your flight parameters and GPS position so it can feed your eyes everything you need to land just as you do in VMC. Sure ATC has to be responsible for separation, but they are anyway when IFR. One caveat is that one can hamfist a $h!t approach in VMC and nobody cares so long as he doesn't hit houses, powerlines, etc. But in this case you would need to have some feedback when Walleye gets low or wide from glidepath and course (like a red box).

Go do it. You don't need anyones permission to develop and perfect this kind of thing so long as you've got a safety pilot when you flight test it. Get it right, flight test the heck out of it and I can see it getting you down under zero/zero. After all, we land sims all the time right?

When I was at AFRL we would fly some of the most sophisticated F-16 sims in the world. They were so good, I suggested just taking guys out of the real jets and letting us fly them from the sim cockpits with data link to the real deal. I was not popular with my bros the day I made the pitch. 6 months later we started work on it and it's now been years since proof of concept completed.

It all starts with an idea like yours. First, check around because it's likely been done, but hash it out anyway and if it's not been done, or what you come up with is better, just do it!

 

Not doable, as you've described it. The VR glasses have to get their position, attitude, and other dynamic inputs from somewhere so those instrument sensors have to be duplicated or the existing instruments have to somehow report that into the VR system. Next your supposition is that you've got "instrument failure", that means you have no confidence in some subset of attitude, altitude, airspeed, etc inputs. If those are unreliable, your VR presentation is unreliable.

When confronted with instrument failure a pilot has to identify what instruments can be trusted and then exclude unreliable indications from their instrument scan. If your VR system could synthesize that inclusion/exclusion decision process accurately and reliably, and then present a location/attitude/airspeed picture based only on reliable indications, that would be a plus; but how would you go about it in real time? Part of how a pilot tests the instruments is seeing how they respond based on inputs into the airplane. For example, put a slight bank on the controls, then do the Turn/Bank indicator and Attitude Indicator track, or do they disagree? Increase throttle, does the airspeed increase and does that match the Attitude Indicator? The pilot is testing these in real time and the VR system would have to somehow guess what the pilot is trying to do and reach conclusions based on those guesses. Very difficult.

Also remember that IMC requires IFR rules. VR glasses would not allow VFR pilots to fly in IMC, because failure of the VR system would require fall back to IFR skills and competency. A VFR pilot would have to be able to communicate with ATC, fly holds and approaches as if they didn't have the VR system. Having a VFR pilot using the VR system in IMC would be a disaster if they didn't understand IFR flight plans, rules and procedures.

As it stands today, instrument flying is already 2D VR, using HSI and GPS map displays with instrument approach overlays. I can see some value to a 3D VR that projects the airways and instruments approaches to the pilot as a 3D view to help increase situational awareness, but the pilot still has to be able to scan the rest of the instrument panel (engine and airplane status) while also scanning what is in the VR projection. That means the rest of the airplane panel has to be somehow mapped into the VR system too, either by projection or optically. Getting pretty complicated.

 

May be best to stick with RC models......

Cheers,
Ian

 

Old news. Couldn't get it to embed but awesome tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0UZWn4bnGY

 

Yep, all of the above. Current synthetic vision in glass cockpits is all based on computer generated imagery, right down to the runways with numbers and centerlines depicted. As noted when IFR ATC is responsible for separation. First thing an IFR pilot says when they are advised of traffic is "NXXXXX is IMC". However, current TAS and ADS-B technology already have traffic symbols overlayed on glass cockpit screens. ADS-B/Mode S would even allow depiction of actual aircraft type rather than just a symbol. One caveat, just like flying instrument approaches I think there would have to be limits. I would not do a zero/zero landing except in an emergency.

 

These are all really good points. I had to reread the OPs scenario and somehow missed that he intended his VR device in a setting of instrument failure. I agree that that would be a prohibitively complex design goal because you would essentially need to have a duplicate of the instrument systems in your device, or at least be able to get the required instrument data from somewhere.

The emergency that I had understood, incorrectly, was where a VFR pilot finds himself in IMC with little or no ability to fly safely in the environment. These could be useful for pilots flying at night as well to enhance SA and minimize SDO risk. VR goggles would fare just fine for that and could be fairly simple. They would need a head tracker, which is simple, and need to be some short distance from the face so the pilot could look beneath them to reference panel instruments. The goal should be to project a virtual look outside the direction that the pilot is looking, with display enhancements for safety (flight path info for example) and no embelishments (rivers and $h!t).

 

Aero Glass is on the right track...but I'd rather look cool violating some obscure piece of airspace than get caught dead wearing a butt fugly piece of kit like Aero Glass...sorry!