Reaction Time

This reaction time study is interesting from several perspectives; it relates to the drift to infotainment systems in cars where we are giving up some of the old familiar knobs where we could switch a rado on, and adjust the volume or select a station by feel compared to having to look down to ensure your finger is precisely on the tiny space reserved for a command, or where our original well spaced steering wheel controls have given way to multiple controls put where each different manufacturer thinks is best.

 

However it relates very well to aircraft panels in recreational aircraft where individual builders use different layouts, large vacuum controlled instruments are replaced by tiny electronic alternatives, and EFIS panels in a strange aircraft could be showing you anything. I can remember a few frustrating days in Jabirus where the last student had customised the layout to his own preferences and one week you might need to look to one side, another week two dials over, or another week having to change page.

 

One significant thing is their quoting of 1 second as the current average reaction time compared to half a second (50/100) sixty years ago. Why are we slowing down?

 

In cases like an EFATO where we need to have the nose going down as the engine is dying these things are concerning.

 

Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when driving

The one thing I notice in RA/VH experimental A/C is the panel layouts go from well thought out organised Std set up's to a real dogs breakfast! (the latter mostly the case) Whilst it's all about choice the worrying offshoot to all the unesesary fancy gizmos is who's looking out the window anymore?

A recent flight in well equiped experimental that had all the bells & whistles showed that the driver was heads down for a lot of the flight even in the circuit!

We will never really know how many inflight close calls we actually have cause nobody is looking out the window anymore! All this stuff interferes with reaction time and we ha e seen no doubt a lot of auto accidents attributed to the fancy techno crap!.

I don't know about others, but my two analog gauges (ASI/ALT) seem to register in my brain faster than the same displays in the Dynon screen.

As you've said, it takes about second to read, analyse and understand a reading on the screen as opposed to virtually instant with the analog. I don't know why.

Quiz time:

Tower says: ABC, you are number three following a Cessna on downwind, expect your base turn on my call.

What do you read back? And why.

(Just going to get some popcorn.)

Ten four, copy that.

OOPS. Somehow this ended up in the wrong thread - was meant to be in the readbacks thread..... MOVED.

(don't reply here, ignore it/me/whatever.)

Just testing your reaction time.

I don't know about others, but my two analog gauges (ASI/ALT) seem to register in my brain faster than the same displays in the Dynon screen.

As you've said, it takes about second to read, analyse and understand a reading on the screen as opposed to virtually instant with the analog. I don't know why.

 

It's well recognised that a typical dial indication works better for the brain to register what it's displaying as against a 'tape' style indicator displaying numbers.

Wth a dial type display your eyes/brain recognises the needle position as its actually just a position, like a familiar picture, something your brain is used to recognising where as a tape display parameter is usually just a number and when flying in a busy environment numbers take longer for the rain to compute. Take a car engine temp guage old style dial indication for Eg, for many years it sits in the same position doesn't need to display an actual number but one day it's in a different position, that's easy to detect rather than a different numerical value.

I used to jump from screens to dials all the time when driving larger planes, you get used to it but the old "6 pack" was more natural for me, Old codger?

Digital with JUST numbers takes time to interpret. This as been common knowledge from day one of the discussion in aviation circles. A reaction and a decision are different things A decision may require the consideration ,"weighing" of many interacting factors. and takes whatever time it reasonably takes..

The rotten old 3 needle altimeter has caused a few prangs but it gives rate of closure and a distance to a target position, something a bit more elusive to a digital readout.. Coloured columns or arcs work OK.

V1 or decision speed when calculated, is a straight forward proposition. BELOW it you are stopping and above it you are going. Calculations have already been done . You don't have to think. Nev

Look at your digital wristwatch. It shows 2:47.

When you learned how to tell time you didn't consider what 47 minutes after two o'clock meant, but you sure knew that 2:47 was about a quarter of an hour til school finished.

I doubt a digitally programmed person would make the transition to 1/4 hour before from 2.47 whereas you look at the little hand and say (to yourself) "it's getting close to 3 0clock yippee ! Should be 1500 hours anyhow NOT Am and Pm. With One you have a kind of picture , the other you have NUMBERS often rapidly changing which you must translate to make sense of. THAT extra process takes time when we are considering reaction times. Nev

My EIS digital display engine information system has programmable limits and a flashing alarm light. The light continues to flash until you acknowledge it and then remains steadily illuminated until readings return to below set limit.

I don't know about others, but my two analog gauges (ASI/ALT) seem to register in my brain faster than the same displays in the Dynon screen.

As you've said, it takes about second to read, analyse and understand a reading on the screen as opposed to virtually instant with the analog. I don't know why.

During the last 50 years of my career I programmed control systems and display systems. Most displays used digital systems for the process variables. I became very used to reading numbers rather than reading analogue systems. So my cars display digital number. I installed a digital EFIS system, I love it and read it very easily, everything in one place so no need to scan like we used to do. A mate of mine absolutely hates the number system. I guess it depends upon what you get used to.

Digital with JUST numbers takes time to interpret. This as been common knowledge from day one of the discussion in aviation circles. A reaction and a decision are different things A decision may require the consideration ,"weighing" of many interacting factors. and takes whatever time it reasonably takes..

The rotten old 3 needle altimeter has caused a few prangs but it gives rate of closure and a distance to a target position, something a bit more elusive to a digital readout.. Coloured columns or arcs work OK.

V1 or decision speed when calculated, is a straight forward proposition. BELOW it you are stopping and above it you are going. Calculations have already been done . You don't have to think. Nev

On an RFID the speed indication changes colour with speed according to what you should be doing

you don't even have to read the number just look for the colour. I love EFIS

With One you have a kind of picture , the other you have NUMBERS often rapidly changing which you must translate to make sense of. THAT extra process takes time when we are considering reaction times. Nev

I agree. I've spent over 50 years working with computers, but still reckon that for things like speed etc a needle on a dial is better. As you say, it's a PICTURE, and that seems to be what most human brains like to work with. The brain can perceive a few degrees of difference in the angle of a needle (and the significance thereof) without even thinking, but to work that out from a number is quite a different exercise, requiring a bit more processing time. Changing the colour of the number would definitely improve that - it sort of turns the number into a picture too, to some degree. But having said that, if I were ever to own an aircraft again and I had the choice, I'd probably go for a digital EFIS, maybe one that could represent things as dials. Just simpler (and lighter?) without all the plumbing that goes with mechanical gauges, I think. But I'd probably also have backup airspeed and altimeter.

The rising column seems to work well with multi engine power checks. With speed "BUGS" on the rim of the airspeed you get the "picture" of approaching and exceeding each one as you go through a flap speed schedule . THAT and an AOA indicator cover the margins over stall well. At about 4.30 in the morning the least mental gymnastics you do the better. Nev

The rising column seems to work well with multi engine power checks. With speed "BUGS" on the rim of the airspeed you get the "picture" of approaching and exceeding each one as you go through a flap speed schedule . THAT and an AOA indicator cover the margins over stall well. At about 4.30 in the morning the least mental gymnastics you do the better. Nev

My thinking is the same as yours on this, and I was going to mention that maybe the old "Idiot Lights" weren't so bad after all, when I remember a story from my days in the Bus Industry.

At a Bus Maintenance Conference (their equivalent of the Oscars) the question of overheating of a certain coach engine was being discussed, and the drivers were blamed for not paying attention to the tenp gauge. A guy from Leyland got up and told us a story from his time in South Africa. "We brought out a bus chassis called the Kudu, which had a bigger radiator than normal, but the buses used to overheat. The drivers only had a basic education to we decided to fit red lights as well, but they still couldn't equate a red light to an engine about to blow up, so we put a big red tail light directly in the drivers' vision, but the drivers resolved the problem of the big lights coming on by smashing them. Having noticed that they all drove in bare feet, I routed a pipe from the radiator overflow into the body ending just above the accelerator pedal. That stopped the blown engines.

Best thing I ever did to my plane, is to remove the 3 dial steam driven altimeter (which about 80% of students mis-interpreted) and replaced it with a digital altimeter. What a beauty!

Not a single person has mis-read it or got it wrong. There is no need to interpret the thing. If it says, lets say: 3750, then that is what it is. Can’t get it wrong.

Quick glance, get the info you need in an instant and eyes back out side!

What's it say in a steep dive? Game over or a blur? Anyhow it's still 3750 in relation to WHAT? It doesn't give you distance to the bottom edge of the sky .Nev

The one thing I notice in RA/VH experimental A/C is the panel layouts go from well thought out organised Std set up's to a real dogs breakfast! (the latter mostly the case) Whilst it's all about choice the worrying offshoot to all the unesesary fancy gizmos is who's looking out the window anymore?

A recent flight in well equiped experimental that had all the bells & whistles showed that the driver was heads down for a lot of the flight even in the circuit!

We will never really know how many inflight close calls we actually have cause nobody is looking out the window anymore! All this stuff interferes with reaction time and we ha e seen no doubt a lot of auto accidents attributed to the fancy techno crap!.

 

For a long time, even though I had a Skydemon (something like OzRunways), I still marked up the map, manually entered the PLOG (using a beauty of a whizzwheel I got from LaTrobe Valley Aero Club), marked everything off as I went, did in-flight calcs, etc.. On one occasion though, I was running a tad late, so skipped the manual bit, punched the plan into Skydemon on my phone, checked wx, enroute NOTAMs, etc.. All good to go... jumped in and away we went.

 

Normally, I try and familiarise myself wioth landmarks, but thought follow the magenta line - she'll be right. Had the map, not marked up.. No PLOG (which I hand write enroute checks in mnemonics).. just the phone.. And some old GPS unit of which the database wasn't updated since the day it was fitted. What could possibly go wrong?

 

I made sure the iphone batter was fully charged, took off and as I knew the area well, headed west along a railway line past Farnborough. Sometime after, the landscape wasn't quite familiar. No worries (or wuckers if you are from my generation).. With flight mode on, the yellow plane was faithfully following the magenta line.. Problem was, I stoopidly (spelling error intentional) followed the magenta line with my eyeball. Hardly looked out until we got visual with the Severn river as I knew that area well (we - I had my son! - routed slightly out of our way as the inlaws live near there). While I was doing my best to follow the magental line, the actual track oscillated either side of it in a sort of random pattern.

 

I flew IFR (I follow Roads) from the Severn Bridge to Clearwell, a small village in the Forest of Dean where the in-laws live, after which we turned left a bit to head north of Cardiff. I didn't even know what heading to take, I just followed the magenta line again.After passing Cardiff, we lost GPS.. from the phone - and the isntalled GPS unit. There was no NOTAM warning of GPS jamming, and my first response was (embarresingly) to almost panic. I sort of know where I am - but no idea where I am supposed to go. After about a second, I worked out I was roughly heading in the right direction - and we were flying direct to Haverfordwest.. Finally, I took note of the bearing, picked a landmark in the distance and headed for it.

 

For the FIRST time since I left familiar territory, I recall looking out of the aircraft.. The little yellow plane sprung back to life after a few minutes, but I thought stuff that, I am going back to visual outside the cockpit.. And the plane followed the magenta line with very little deviation.

 

It does suck you in... That flight taught me a lesson.. about why I love flying. Although the latest tech is a godsend, I like the challenge of getting everything right using my own noggin... I would write more, but my mate wolfie is banging on the door!

Edit, the red circle in the picture below shows roughly where I lost GPS...

This reaction time study is interesting from several perspectives; it relates to the drift to infotainment systems in cars where we are giving up some of the old familiar knobs where we could switch a rado on, and adjust the volume or select a station by feel compared to having to look down to ensure your finger is precisely on the tiny space reserved for a command, or where our original well spaced steering wheel controls have given way to multiple controls put where each different manufacturer thinks is best.

 

However it relates very well to aircraft panels in recreational aircraft where individual builders use different layouts, large vacuum controlled instruments are replaced by tiny electronic alternatives, and EFIS panels in a strange aircraft could be showing you anything. I can remember a few frustrating days in Jabirus where the last student had customised the layout to his own preferences and one week you might need to look to one side, another week two dials over, or another week having to change page.

 

One significant thing is their quoting of 1 second as the current average reaction time compared to half a second (50/100) sixty years ago. Why are we slowing down?

 

In cases like an EFATO where we need to have the nose going down as the engine is dying these things are concerning.

 

Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when driving

Not really surprising unfortunately. I wonder if the difference in reaction time might be an unfamiliar simulator or just a difference in how it was measured between now and then.

Mythbusters did a segment on this some time ago. While driving they would ask them a series of questions that they had to think a bout and make decisions. Even when using a hands free drivers weren't focused on driving.

I hate touchscreens because you have to look at what you are pressing, I like different shaped tactile buttons, like military aircraft use so that once you are familiar they can be operated without looking away.

I noticed yesterday driving on the Warrego with the sun at the right angle, you could see clearly every driver that went past in the opposite direction. More than 50% were doing something other than driving, including looking at phones, talking to passengers while looking directly at them, having big swigs out of bottles and generally just looking really bored with their head resting on their hand with the elbow propped.

 

Note the buttons on the collective and cyclic in this image....No two the same, you can tell what's what by feel.

Not really surprising unfortunately. I wonder if the difference in reaction time might be an unfamiliar simulator or just a difference in how it was measured between now and then.

Possibly, the difference might have been a red light coming on and foot touching a brake pedal vs a red light on a screen and a mouse click. The difference in Formula 1 drivers averaging 20/100 second today is about the same (Jack Brabham in the early 1960s 18/100 sec. At 1 second slower you are moving well away from expected subconscious action towards trying to think what to do.

 

Mythbusters did a segment on this some time ago. While driving they would ask them a series of questions that they had to think a bout and make decisions. Even when using a hands free drivers weren't focused on driving.

Yes, this study shows that hand free isn't safe. I've actually driven through a red traffic light while focused on giving and answer and these days don't use a phone while driving. The business advantages are so small vs calling someone back, or stopping for a few minutes that it's not worth using the phone.

 

I hate touchscreens because you have to look at what you are pressing, I like different shaped tactile buttons, like military aircraft use so that once you are familiar they can be operated without looking away.

Yes not only do infotainment centres require you to look down to hit the right spot, but the senstive field can be so small on a GPS section that you keep inputting errors, multiplying the problem.

 

I noticed yesterday driving on the Warrego with the sun at the right angle, you could see clearly every driver that went past in the opposite direction. More than 50% were doing something other than driving, including looking at phones, talking to passengers while looking directly at them, having big swigs out of bottles and generally just looking really bored with their head resting on their hand with the elbow propped.

In doing that they lose most of their reaction time which could have been used to swerve out of the way.

 

Note the buttons on the collective and cyclic in this image....No two the same, you can tell what's what by feel.

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Tiger cockpit.jpg]54743[/ATTACH]

The car equivalent of this is the old radio where you reached to a certain position, turned the knob a certain way and got variations in sound or stations.

A few years ago we started putting a couple of controls on the steering wheel, so you could work by feel, but these days, with several phone controls, even more radio controls and a few other additions you often have to look down anyway. My wife's car has a CVT transmission which is programmable, so you can click another switch and use F1 type paddles to make rapid gear changes if you feel like Lewis Hamilton. If she's left the radio on or the volume's too high it takes me 20 km to work out how to turn it off stabbing at the bristling array of switches in heavy traffic.

 

 

The good news about reflexes is that as you get older you don't seem to lose much reflex time; just get into bad habits like letting your foot slide out to the right when touching the brake pedal.

 

 

 

Anyone who wants to test their reaction time: F1 Test: Test your reaction time at the start of the F1 race

 

The time is in seconds so the F1 driver standard at 20/100 sec would be 0.2

Before you post fatastic times I got a .05, but I was anticipating the lights and had a lucky break.

 

For someone who just drives cars the study is saying reaction time is around 1.0

However, if you've previously raced cars bikes boats or flown aircraft your inbuilt senses should be a lot better than that, down into the .2s

Also there will be a difference between someone who hasn't used a mouse very often, and someone who works several hours a day with a mouse, or plays solitaire.

Gamers should be right up with F1 drivers.

The good news about reflexes is that as you get older you don't seem to lose much reflex time; just get into bad habits like letting your foot slide out to the right when touching the brake pedal.

I would suggest that's the case only if you maintain currency. Don't know what the studies say about that, but I regularly see elderly drivers around here that have extremely poor reaction times. I suspect the only time they are behind the wheel is once a week to is to doddle on down to the shop.

I used to ride 6 to 7 days a week and could pick the deterioration after not riding for a week. Now I ride maybe once a month and the deterioration does not feel so obvious. Doesn't mean it's not there, just less obvious, which would make it more dangerous.

My friend bought an aircraft off someone who had done maybe 60 hours in 14 years. My friend and I fly several times a week and scared to hell out of the owner during a test flight by approaching a stall at a reasonable altitude.

I think currency is important, but you have to current at the right thing.

I doubt that increasing BFR requirements for example would help at all, but would likely exacerbate the issue and make it even longer between flights.

 

Edit: tried your test...consistently below 0.25 sec. not sure if clicking a mouse translates to real world though.

Edited July 17, 2020 by M61A1

...The good news about reflexes is that as you get older you don't seem to lose much reflex time;

You sure about this? My reaction time on the bike slowed enough for me to give it up.

 

...just get into bad habits like letting your foot slide out to the right when touching the brake pedal...

This might explain why so many elderly drivers accelerate their car in reverse onto the footpath.