Motion Induced Blindness Test

[Thruster87]

Have a look at this

 

Blindness for objects induced by lack of relative motion (pilots and drivers too) [and sailors!]

 

 

 

Good info and demo. Lack of motion Induced Blindness was presented as a flying issue, but one can also miss things (pedestrians, motorcycles, other cars) while driving, so, keep your heads and eyes moving. The below link is a great illustration of what was taught about scanning outside the cockpit when military pilots went through training they were told to scan the horizon for a short distance, stop momentarily, and repeat the process.

 

 

 

This was the most effective technique to locate other aircraft. It was emphasized repeatedly to not fix one's gaze for more than a couple of seconds on any single object. The instructors, some of whom were combat veterans with years of experience, instructed pilots to continually "keep your eyes moving and head on a swivel" because this was the best way to survive, not only in combat, but from peacetime hazards (like a mid-air collision) as well.

 

 

 

The most dangerous target is the one that has NO apparent motion. This is the one you will hit without evasive action and also the one you will NOT see as presented below.

 

 

 

This advice had to be taken on faith until technology produced the display linked below.

 

http://www.msf-usa.org/motion.html

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

http://www.msf-usa.org/motion.html

 

Thanks for this link, Thruster. Amazing what our eyes can- and cannot - see. Perhaps resources like this could be collected and added to a special web site for training pilots. I know from training in aerial search techniques that there is an awful lot more to vision than we think. All pilots (and perhaps road users as well) should be made aware of the limitation of their eyesight, especially when distracted by other tasks such as using a phone.

 

 

[sfGnome]

That's *really* scary. It's not like the other dots fade or blink a bit - they just disappear entirely, just like an oncoming plane...

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

That's all well and good and I fully understand the implications, but when you look at a vista or panorama, be it a painting or out the window, your eyes naturally dart all around looking at various aspects. If you just let your eyes do their natural movements and keep moving as per the fighter pilots instructions (head on a swivel) you shouldn't have any problems.

 

The real problem is focussing on objects inside the aircraft (heads down), causing you to have these blind spots outside the aircraft.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It is easy, however, to be distracted into a fixed gaze by circumstances.

 

Have you ever been watching another aircraft at a distance of , say two to four miles, then you turn away and straight away look back directly where the aircraft was a second ago... nothing! Start a scan. It is much more likely you will spot it again very soon.

 

Take this scenario. Flying in formation as a diamond, both elements break in opposite directions and turn to approach each other, at a distance of between one and one and a half miles, for a head-on pass. On completing the turn onto the other element's heading... they have disappeared. You know that you are both flying at one another at very close to the same altitude. There's a big temptation to fix a stare straight ahead, particularly if you think they are among the ground clutter, just below the horizon, but you are better to scan and continually change focal length.... Look inside for a second, then outside again. It may take a few scans, to pick them up, but staring could be fatal.

 

Thruster87 has implied the danger of an unmoving target, but I'll be explicit. If you are on a collision course with something, it will appear to be in a fixed (non-moving) position in the windscreen, thus his topic is very pertinent.

 

Blank field blindness is another related issue. If there is insufficient sharp edge detail for the eye to focus on, it will tend to relax and focus will be at about a metre in front of you (actual distance varies with the individual), meaning approaching objects will be out of focus and less likely to be seen until they get much, much closer.

 

I've done a lot of reading of articles on eyesight and display flying safety. It's all good stuff, for anyone.

 

 

[RickH]

what does this imply for painting aircraft yellow or does the colour of the dots not matter.

 

Just wondering.

 

RickH

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

what does this imply for painting aircraft yellow or does the colour of the dots not matter.Just wondering.

RickH

The phenomenon described does not depend on any particular colour. They just make them high contrast so as the test is believable. Obviously if the colour does not contrast with the background, then they will be harder to see, but then people would say, "but if the dots were brighter and higher contrast..".

There has been discussion before on what colour to paint wings to be most easily spotted.

 

The answer would be to paint them with "Cuttlefish skin", as they can then be constantly changed to contrast with the terrain you are flying over.

 

Seriously; As it does depend on the background, as long as they aren't painted in camouflage colours, it probably does not matter a lot.

 

 

[RickH]

Interesting Stuff david your reference to cuttle fish skin makes me think of some of the automotive paints which appear to be different colours depending on the angle from which they are viewed.

 

Rick

 

 

[Planechaser]

Looking for livestock from the air poses the same problems; If the engine noise doesn't get them moving, they can be all but invisible, and sometimes you will find that you have flown over quite large mobs two or three times(or hours!!) before their nerve breake and they move, or you get lucky and spot them from a different angle.

 

Doing passes at different hights helps, but is hardly applicable to object avoidence in general flying.

 

Head on a swivel however, is, because you are always moving in relation to the object, even if it isn't, so every time you look over the spot where the invisible sheep( or plane!) is hiding, the angle is different.

 

Interestingly, the scan-and-stop-and-scan-again thing is also the most efective way to serch for something through binoculars. Must be something in the way our eyes interface with our brains.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Wig Wag lights seem to be a great help in making planes more visible. They were initially installed on planes to scare birds away but it is evident that the planes themselves are more visible to other pilots.

 

Here's an example on youtube:

 

 

 

[Planechaser]

Wig Wag lights seem to be a great help in making planes more visible. They were initially installed on planes to scare birds away but it is evident that the planes themselves are more visible to other pilots.Here's an example on youtube:

 

They sort of look like strobes that don't strobe....... Bizzare! But certainly visible.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I've seen "wig wags" on one aircraft that landed locally. It used the wing (inside leading edge) mounted landing lights and blinked them alternately. Certainly draws your attention. It wasn't a terribly small aircraft either, so that helped too.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I've seen "wig wags" on one aircraft that landed locally. It used the wing (inside leading edge) mounted landing lights and blinked them alternately. Certainly draws your attention. It wasn't a terribly small aircraft either, so that helped too.

This arrangement only costs $USD39.00 and appears to be good value for money and following that is a short promo video of them in use:

 

 

 

It could save lives and bent aircraft.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

The issue with the "demonstration" is that the aircraft is on the ground and the camera only a couple of metres away. If they were fair dinkum, they would have a video of the aircraft flying at a good distance, say three miles, and coming in to land.

 

The "wig wags" I've seen are slower and alternate and are further apart so that one is not obscured by the fuselage when sighted from an angle.

 

These just look like poor substitutes for wing tip strobes, which should cover the required angle of viewing (180 degrees).

 

 

[eightyknots]

The issue with the "demonstration" is that the aircraft is on the ground and the camera only a couple of metres away. If they were fair dinkum, they would have a video of the aircraft flying at a good distance, say three miles, and coming in to land.The "wig wags" I've seen are slower and alternate and are further apart so that one is not obscured by the fuselage when sighted from an angle.

 

These just look like poor substitutes for wing tip strobes, which should cover the required angle of viewing (180 degrees).

The point I am making is that It could save lives and bent aircraft, so that a $USD39.00 investment for a quasi-wig wag system is a lot better than having no lights at all.

 

 

[Sapphire]

This arrangement only costs $USD39.00 and appears to be good value for money and following that is a short promo video of them in use:[ATTACH=full]16718[/ATTACH]

 

I'am getting one for my next a/c. I always get white a/c and against a white sky you are invisible [no, I don't get a commission]

 

 

[eightyknots]

I'am getting one for my next a/c. I always get white a/c and against a white sky you are invisible [no, I don't get a commission]

....of course not! ....you're not a 'crazed pilot' .

[Sapphire]

Who says?

 

 

[eightyknots]

Who says?

The website says this:

 

If you were selling this product on commision you'd be one of the crazed pilots. You disclosed you weren't selling these on commission so you aren't one of the crazed pilots.

 

 

[Sapphire]

Not good-I am now getting reputation as a sane careful pilot.