Originally Posted by
Ridger
I completely agree - CI is far too broad to agree on in a specific acute context. De-coupling from the accident, I would say that is a major reason to motivate research, perhaps of assessing cognition at sub A-LOC levels in a centrifuge. If meaningful data were produced it would add another solid reason to not erode safety margin...
I don’t think it takes much of a leap to imagine what that research might find. As Gz increases, more and more cognitive capacity will be devoted to resisting its effects (mainly the anti-g straining manoeuvre, but also things like planning how to position head and neck). Physical discomfort will also have an effect on spare mental capacity. Taken to an extreme well beyond Shoreham, at +9g in old-style kit there isn’t much of it left!
In the context of culpability, the effects I mention are all ‘known knowns’ and trained for. Pilots, and especially display pilots, should not be able to *choose* to expose themselves to the high ‘g’ environment and then claim that its entirely predictable effects excuse them from responsibility.
At issue, I think, is whether unpredictable ‘medical’ CI is distinguishable from the predictable effects of Gz. The research will need to be very carefully designed to separate those things, if indeed it is possible to do.