Fix to fix

Nor can I. Not like am a expert on the inner workings of our host, though. I do seem to remember several threads about "alternate" forms of navigation that got grew to be fairly large. People eat that junk up. I understand about 1/3 of it but it still rocks my face. I say post it in public.

Well, that is certainly a first. Dunno why a technique of finding a fix on a radio NAVAID would ever fall within the realm of information that needed to be protected by classification, especially in the 1970s and after when combat aircraft would be navigating 'across the fence' without the use of radio NAVAIDs (with INSs and the like).[/QUOTE]


Yep. I thought it was overly dramatic too. But what the Human Resources Lab was interested in wasn't solving fix-to-fix problems. I don't think they cared at all about fix-to-fix. They were interested in how the brain efficiently processed the data that the Moody IP eyes were focused on. They wanted to know how those IPs were processing info so quickly, and how they could spin their T-38s around to hit a nearby fix while still in a turn. They studied pilot perception and information processing, leading to the development of things like heads-up displays. They were interested in the potential of reducing pilot overload in fighter aircraft with new ways of processing more and more information, and tracking incoming threats, etc. This fix-to-fix method used something called "temporal perception" (time processing) to navigate instead of math and geometry. I think their concern was they didn't know for sure what they had, or how they might use it, and they wanted to control it. Their work went beyond fix-to-fix (which as you say was hardly a security issue). The concept had implications for future instrument and cockpit design, among other things. That was one of the reasons they routinely locked things up for a while. Since you asked, below is an example- an NIH Pub Med data base link referencing a study performed by the Human Resource Lab on .... "T-37 Advanced Simulator for Undergraduate Pilot Training and its later transition to the A-10 and F-16........efforts include the development of a measurement test bed facility for the Simulator for Air-to-Air Combat and the Air Combat Maneuvering instrumentation and the extension of such work into the low-level surface attack domain."

The HRL lab at Williams AFB was a Think Tank, a Disneyland for people with new ideas. Not exactly Area 51, but a little reluctant to share information nontheless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3202804

You'll need something to practice on. Here is an on-line simulator that might be helpful to anybody who wants to practice fix-to-fix (pencil method or the Temporal Method). The pencil method can be taught on a static piece of paper since it uses only math and geometry. But the "Temporal Method" taught at Moody and studied by the AF requires a dynamic display with MOVING instrument indicators (bearing pointer and DME) to practice. If anybody has a better simulation program to recommend, please let me know.

http://wantscheck.com/UPTPrep/CourseInterceptTAid/tabid/380/Default.aspx

Most of us commenting in this thread have regular access to military TOFT/OFT's.....would it work on a digital moving map/HSI combo?

If it was that secret, the Air Force wouldn't have told me

AMG - My 70s experience was limited to teaching the Temporal Perception/Processing technique (time-data processing) in the applications of fix-to-fix (and all HSI related interpretation), ILS, and VFR landings. But if I understand what you're asking, I'm going to say Yes to your question. Both sound good for training purposes. As soon as you're ready, drop the map and rely on the HSI. Once your mind makes the switch, the HSI becomes your map, and you can visualize everything you need on the HSI, processing the data and turning towards your fix faster than you could program a computer with the coordinates.

Tip: When I taught the Temporal technique in T-38 simulators I would freeze the altimeter and airspeed indicator to relieve my UPT students of that distraction. If you can do that in your situation, I recommend it. All we wanted students to do was to concentrate on the MOVEMENT of the bearing pointer/CDI and DME. Nothing else. The goal was to unhook the student from the traditional idea of using numbers, math, geometry and procedures in order to navigate (a difficult sell in a military training environment - kinda of violated the syllabus). We wanted the student to relax and fall into synchronization with the MOTION of the instrument indicators (DME and BP). It took about 20 minutes in the hands of an experienced IP to indoctrinate an inexperienced student to the technique, and about 1 hour to perfect it. Very easy on a student without too much navigation training. So a simulation tool that allows you to eliminate aircraft control chores (and all other distractions), and concentrate solely on the MOVEMENT of the DME/BP will accelerate training.

Tip: We found UPT students and Human Resource Lab guys (neither of which were very proficient on the HSI) very easy to train, but we had a very difficult time training many experienced IPs and fighter pilots who were already profficient with the pencil-method and other math/geometric fix-to-fix solutions, and did not need this training themselves to fly ordinary (20-40NM long) fix-to-fixes. The more their experience, the more difficult the training chore. Some IPs we gave up on. Their greater experience did not seem to permit them to completely let go of the numbers, the math, and the need to find a compass heading, so they kept an eye on the numbers as we were trying to de-program them. They still hit their fix. But we could not use them as instructors because they never grasped the beauty of the MOTION itself, so they could not convey it to students. The other limitation that experienced navigators had was that we could not train them to do the extremely short range, back-to-back, fix-to-fix obstacle courses we set up, which required the fix to be crossed during the arc of the turn. In the Sim, we had their students pulling Gs in 60degree+ banked turns thru a course of 10 randomly issued fixes (each just a few miles apart from one another.) 3D fix-to-fixes involved fixes at different altitudes, requiring a climb or descent while in the turn enroute to the fix. Because the experienced navigators were still clinging partly to numbers, and had never seen the necessity to (or become comfortable with) relying solely on MOVING INDICATORS, they couldn't process the data quickly enough to spin the aircraft around and hit a fix located right off their wingtip (and 2000 ft above their FL). We sometimes even moved the fix assignment while students were enroute, just to rattle them and test their proficiency. Inexperienced UPT students with about 2 hours of practice could deal with all this. Their IPs could not. So again, if you can set up a practice environment that allows you to concentrate solely on MOVING BP/DME indicators for a while, and forget any thought process with a number assigned to it, you'll get it. Later, you can add your traditional math/geometric reasoning back into your work, no problem.

So during this "about 20 minutes in the hands of an experienced IP to indoctrinate an inexperienced student to the technique, and about 1 hour to perfect it" what is it exactly that I'm looking for? Lets say I'm on the 090/13 heading 090 going to the 030/33, what am I looking for with respect to the HSI?

I'm not sure I can answer your question in that form, not yet. I'll get to it though. This fix-to-fix technique lends itself to instruction based upon real-time demonstration, and hands on "real time" observation by an instructor, with real-time feedback and guidance by an instructor (something like instruction in landing an airplane, real time, while the plane is MOVING ). It's not like teaching someone how to plot a course on a map, which can be done with a written, step-by-step guide book. Its a dynamic process between an instructor and a student who are seeing the same MOVING visual cues at the same time. The instructor tells the student (real time) how to think about what he/she is seeing, how to interpret the MOTION of the BP/DME in order to trigger a subconscious ability called "Temporal Perception" (time processing). It's similar to being taught to ride a bicycle. The teacher gives you a shove, a little help running along side you, and a few things to think about, and eventually your brain subconsciously wires itself to balance the bike. How that happens, and what makes the balance wiring kick in, no one exactly knows. But there is a moment in time when you suddenly realize you can balance on your own, you don't need help, and you'll never forget how to ride a bike (why that wiring is permanent and never goes away is also a mystery). Once Temporal Perception kicks in, its kids' stuff, super easy. It's like playing a video game on an HSI. You can hit any fix, any time, any where. But normally it has to be kicked in by an experienced instructor.

Having said that, I have no doubt that some of you guys will pick it up without the one-on-one instruction. But since I've never tried to teach this before by email, or by forum, I have not completed writing up the first exercise I plan to post. You guys can try it after I post it and let me know if it works for you, or if I blew it. But please be patient with me, I can't answer your question from the context you asked it. In the mean time, please become familiar with the operation and features of the HSI SIM I posted.

For those of you who want real-time instruction using the HSI simulator I posted ,, http://wantscheck.com/UPTPrep/CourseInterceptTAid/tabid/380/Default.aspx , , , you can contact me at qutch1234567@hotmail.com , I'll provide you with a phone number, and I'll schedule a time to talk you thru it, real time on the SIM. I think we can arrange to be looking at the same screen simultaneously (or close enough to it) for me to guide you thru it. But I'm going to try to post an exercise on the forum first so anyone who wants to follow along can try it that way on their own. Short of putting up a YouTube video, that's the best I can do. Thanks for your patience Getzen2.

Sounds like a beauty of a plan...

2

Apparently, the new, proper term is "JISR'd"... I don't like the sound of that.

Huggy, you're old enough to have been one of these UPT student test cases for this fix-to-fix technique, right?

Yes.
By the time I started UPT, the older light beacons that were used to navigate across the country were pretty much going by the wayside.
At that point, we were using LF radio beacons, and "flying the beam"... e.g if you are too far left of course, you hear either an "A" or "N" in Morse Code.
In fix-to-fix (F2F), our "pencil method" worked well, but it was always a #2 pencil: we didn't have mechanical pencils back then. Of course, we also didn't have problems like FOD'ing the cockpit with those removable erasers, clips, and various parts that are found on modern mechanical pencils. However, finding a place to mount a pencil sharpener in the cockpit was always a challenge with a new airplane. Additionally, the pencil shavings would often swirl,... especially in open cockpit primary training,... and combined with the engine oil in the smoke, it created a vision problem on your goggles. Hence the reason we wore a scarf (much to the amusement of my Navy/Marine brethren). Of course, they had their own issues to deal with like splinters on their wooden carrier decks. But I digress...
The F2F became more accepted in UPT as our gyros became more reliable,... much better than the original gyro designs of Bohnenberger,... and we became quite good at them. Although the plus/minus 3 miles standard doesn't match what you can do with a GPS, it was manly: "do you really need a GPS to get you to the entry point of a low level under perfect VFR conditions? Did you have melon balls and quiche for breakfast too??" It's a slippery slope... next thing you know, you're enjoying gladiator movies...

When we have time, I'll be happy to discuss how the demise of radial engines has created a lackluster military pilot cadre,...
... as well has how the term "crank mil settings" is lost on fighter pilots of the new millenium.
"Two's off cold,... my GPS receiver is down....". Robin Olds would not be impressed.
By the way,... do any UPT students know what a Sectional Chart is??

To summarize:
Less fix-to-fix training, no more celestial navigation, HUD-out approaches in UPT being a "special syllabus item", GPS reliance, being concerned about traffic on the TCAS that is 5 miles away and 3000' feet below you, RPA's/UAV's, no squadron bars ... I weep for the future of military aviation.

One exception to this: my squadron's bar has been called "The Heritage Room" since the 1970's,... maybe longer. It had nothing to do with being PC.

I expect to post the ancient fix-to-fix technique sometime Friday evening, right next to the ancient Torahs. . I've drafted it, but I want Orville and Wilbur to proof read it first for accuracy before I post it. Might want to take out the "Thees" and "Thou shalt nots..." first. . Also have to have my wheelchair serviced tomorrow afternoon. Unfortunately I got lost the last time I tried to find the place. Took 2 days to find my way home.

Glad to see the overwhelming thrill and excitement for fix-to-fix hasn't diminished since the 70s. They loved them almost as much as you guys do.

I'm all ears if you can explain. USS Boat very much still uses her TACAN, and us boat types still have to find the marshall stack with it.

Thanks for the input. I know very little Navy stuff from my days at AF UPT or Navigator Training at Mather AFB, other than a few tight approaches into Jacksonville Naval Air Station, FL. But I would be interested in learning from you if this applies to negotiating a marshall stack.

I've been trying not to abuse the forum by going too far afield the assigned subject of "fix-to-fix", but the reason this concept landed in an Air Force Systems Command Laboratory (combat support Human Resources Lab), located on a UPT base (Williams AFB), was that it had applications to far more than fix-to-fix. Fix-to-fix was just, what we would call now days, an "App". The technique also enhanced the pilot's ability to enter the holding pattern more smoothly, and less stressed by the fix-to-fix, and then handle the later penetration with more confidence. From there, the penetration/approach scores improved dramatically, in part from more confident interpretation of the HSI indicators, but also from the diminished stress. Any pilot that could perform repeated back-to-back, tight turning, climbing and descending, ultra short range fix-to-fixes, and called it "fun", didn't have any problem flying holding patterns. UPT was interested in the technique's potential to shorten UPT training time and improve scores. But Systems Command (HRL lab) was interested in the larger implication of using the concept as a "Program" to build additional "Apps". I used the Temporal Perception training to teach "Apps" like ILS, approaches and landings as well. The only reason that fix-to-fix was showcased was because, then as now, a lot of guys feared the fix-to-fix (including me at first) and guys were looking for a way to get out of doing them, or at least survive them. It was thought that by showing what the technique could do, even for the dreaded fix-to-fix, it wouldn't be necessary to justify its worth for other, less stressful maneuvers. Fix-to-fix was just the acid test.

So far, I've just tried to limit my comments to its use in the fix-to-fix application because this is the fix-to-fix forum. But yes, it applies to negotiating tight, complex, fast moving holding scenarios, if that's what you are refering to. If no one objects I'll go ahead and post a couple of links to Temporal Perception research into other areas of flight training. Thanks for the input.