3d spatial testing Failure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3d spatial testing Failure
I had just sat a military flight aptitude test and failed the 3d spatial testing module.
The reasons I failed are below and begin with my understanding and reasoning.
My main concern is the statement "RELATIVE TO THE PILOT"
First of all, in a 3 dimensional environment, there are 3 axis, commonly referred to X,Y and Z and can only have 1 reference point (0,0,0) the 3d graph.
Now each of these axis has a positive and negative component.
Relative to a human, If a human starts at the centre (ie x,y and z all = 0) and moves to a point where x = -1 y = 0 and z = 0 then relative to his starting position he has moved left.
By the same reasoning the following points are such
1,0,0 = right and 0,1,0 = up and 0,0,1 = forward
For the purpose of this all we are interested in is they y-axis.
Putting this into flight terms, and to be relative to the pilot, to achieve a point where y=1 the pilot pulls back on the stick. The 3d graph (ie x.y and z) is always the same way around relative to the pilot.
If a pilot is flying normally straight and level, at an altitude of 1000, ie y = 1000(which is relative to the environment) and wishes to be at an altitude of 2000 ie y = 2000(relative to the environment) he pulls back on the stick (Towards the pilot relative to the pilot).
The reason both y components are relative to the environment and not the pilot is because they are measured from environments 3d graph (gravity) and not the pilot’s. Unfortunately they both have the same values at this point.
To put this is a pilot’s perspective, or relative to the pilot, if the pilot is between the earth and the moon, and wishes to increase y by the same value he would pull the stick towards the body. (If the resulting movement was the same)
Here is where it gets tricky
Now to explain the ambiguity is that if the human is upside down, than relative to that person, the y-axis is also upside down, or changed by 180 degrees.
Now we have two 3d graphs, one relative to the pilot, which is 180 degrees different from that that is measured by the environment he is in, in this case gravity. Another way to explain it is that if we have 1 plane at 1000ft asl heading east straight and level on the equator, and another plane on the other side of the world in the same position and heading, in the 3d environment which is NOT relating to gravity they are in fact heading in opposite directions, and in two different positions on the 3d graph. If both planes gain altitude, in 3d space they are going in different directions again, or you might say they are getting further away from each other.
Now in the test it states that all movements are relative to the pilot, which is an incorrect statement.
Upon reflection, I'm sure they even stated that up meant gaining altitude, however I might be wrong, which is the opposite of "in relation to the pilot and adds to the ambiguity.
In short what I have tried to explain that is up in RELATION TO THE PILOT in 3d space, is always stick back towards the body, however up in RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT could be forward stick away from the body, if the plane is upside down.
I know now that the testing questions are wrong, or more importantly worded wrongly, and may I say what a disappointment that is. I now know, after failing how to answer the questions they way the military want.
All I can say is RELATIVE TO THE PILOT MY A##
Anyways, on another point, all this testing was done on a computer.
Having a fixed wing and helicopters licence for nearly ten years, and with 5 years in the computer industry experience, I am bewildered why these spatial tests are still in 2d, I mean you have the ability to have 3d imaging there, why not use it, but that may be another story?
Waiting for 12 months to pass........................
The reasons I failed are below and begin with my understanding and reasoning.
My main concern is the statement "RELATIVE TO THE PILOT"
First of all, in a 3 dimensional environment, there are 3 axis, commonly referred to X,Y and Z and can only have 1 reference point (0,0,0) the 3d graph.
Now each of these axis has a positive and negative component.
Relative to a human, If a human starts at the centre (ie x,y and z all = 0) and moves to a point where x = -1 y = 0 and z = 0 then relative to his starting position he has moved left.
By the same reasoning the following points are such
1,0,0 = right and 0,1,0 = up and 0,0,1 = forward
For the purpose of this all we are interested in is they y-axis.
Putting this into flight terms, and to be relative to the pilot, to achieve a point where y=1 the pilot pulls back on the stick. The 3d graph (ie x.y and z) is always the same way around relative to the pilot.
If a pilot is flying normally straight and level, at an altitude of 1000, ie y = 1000(which is relative to the environment) and wishes to be at an altitude of 2000 ie y = 2000(relative to the environment) he pulls back on the stick (Towards the pilot relative to the pilot).
The reason both y components are relative to the environment and not the pilot is because they are measured from environments 3d graph (gravity) and not the pilot’s. Unfortunately they both have the same values at this point.
To put this is a pilot’s perspective, or relative to the pilot, if the pilot is between the earth and the moon, and wishes to increase y by the same value he would pull the stick towards the body. (If the resulting movement was the same)
Here is where it gets tricky
Now to explain the ambiguity is that if the human is upside down, than relative to that person, the y-axis is also upside down, or changed by 180 degrees.
Now we have two 3d graphs, one relative to the pilot, which is 180 degrees different from that that is measured by the environment he is in, in this case gravity. Another way to explain it is that if we have 1 plane at 1000ft asl heading east straight and level on the equator, and another plane on the other side of the world in the same position and heading, in the 3d environment which is NOT relating to gravity they are in fact heading in opposite directions, and in two different positions on the 3d graph. If both planes gain altitude, in 3d space they are going in different directions again, or you might say they are getting further away from each other.
Now in the test it states that all movements are relative to the pilot, which is an incorrect statement.
Upon reflection, I'm sure they even stated that up meant gaining altitude, however I might be wrong, which is the opposite of "in relation to the pilot and adds to the ambiguity.
In short what I have tried to explain that is up in RELATION TO THE PILOT in 3d space, is always stick back towards the body, however up in RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT could be forward stick away from the body, if the plane is upside down.
I know now that the testing questions are wrong, or more importantly worded wrongly, and may I say what a disappointment that is. I now know, after failing how to answer the questions they way the military want.
All I can say is RELATIVE TO THE PILOT MY A##
Anyways, on another point, all this testing was done on a computer.
Having a fixed wing and helicopters licence for nearly ten years, and with 5 years in the computer industry experience, I am bewildered why these spatial tests are still in 2d, I mean you have the ability to have 3d imaging there, why not use it, but that may be another story?
Waiting for 12 months to pass........................
A Zillon from the planet Tharn?
To be helpful, might I suggest 'KISS' principles should apply.
Good luck with your next application!!
To be helpful, might I suggest 'KISS' principles should apply.
Good luck with your next application!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other qualities needed to be aircrew are: accuracy, brevity and clarity not to mention a smattering of common sense. It would appear from your post that you lack these; especially the first three!
You are trying to be too clever. Air force tests are designed for monkeys because they pay peanuts.
How old are you anyway and which air force are you applying for?
You are trying to be too clever. Air force tests are designed for monkeys because they pay peanuts.
How old are you anyway and which air force are you applying for?
Sorry but the OASC aptitude tests are a gold plated assessment tool. I have studied in depth the tests as past of an undergraduate Psychology degree dissertation. They are practically without parallel in their robustness and validity.
If you failed then it with good statistically valid reason.
Better luck next time. They are tough.
WWW
If you failed then it with good statistically valid reason.
Better luck next time. They are tough.
WWW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up guys - Line 1 'Miltary Flight Aptitude test'.
This colleague is methinks across the pond, and so more deserving of a measured resaponse than the somewhart arrogant cr@p to date.
As to gold plated RAF OASC tests - that says it all - good quality plate, but still only one way of doing things, and one wonders what the solid product would be - how could the OASC system be improved upon. If OASC was 'perfect', there would be no course failures through a person reaching their limit.
This colleague is methinks across the pond, and so more deserving of a measured resaponse than the somewhart arrogant cr@p to date.
As to gold plated RAF OASC tests - that says it all - good quality plate, but still only one way of doing things, and one wonders what the solid product would be - how could the OASC system be improved upon. If OASC was 'perfect', there would be no course failures through a person reaching their limit.
