Is it score? <SNIP>
Is it score?, is it the fact you would rather turn and burn over boom and zooming?, or is it respect amongst your peer's?
Could the ammount of post's youve made have somthing to do with it? or the length of time youve played or been in the Forums?
Perhaps its what plane you fly that is the statement of how good you are.
I have to wonder, since there is so much brow beating over silly things like "this guy runs away, and is afraid to fight" or "he isnt much of a pilot because he boom and zooms" or my personal favorite "well im smarter than so and so because my score is lower".
Alot of guys in the MA seem to put alot of stock into how well they DA, and will gladly offer to school anyone of us at the drop of a hat, though things like fair play, or clearly stating the rules of engagment are allowed to slip.....Do certain persons put to much stock in victory in the DA where SA is of no importance, and subterfuge is used in place of skill?
I ask all these silly questions, because after many years within the community ive seen score become very important to some guys, and to others ive seen the DA used as the ultimate statement of pilot skill, when in the end im not sure that either is a true reflection of a pilots "worth"
Fairplay seems to have gone the way of the Do Do in the DA, and several squads seem to function on the bases that it is ok to die in the MA as long as the victoriouse pilot can be suckerd into the DA where he cant ever seem to get a fair fight, be it the merge rule is broken, or one guy ho's another when it was clearly stated that ho's where to be avoided, or any other of a hundred ways that can be found to prey upon the guy who is honestly doing his best to give a fair fight.
So enlighten me... What is the measure of a pilots skill?
Personaly I believe that somone who can do everything, and do it well is better than a guy whos fly's one type of plane well, yet cant kill a panzer with a bomb...(though I could be wrong of course.)
Perhaps its team work, (id definatly like to think so) whatever, just fill in the blanks for me guys, as I need some yardstick with which to measure my progress, and others.
if I listen to what everyone tells me, im a piece of dirt that runs when the odds are bad because I dont have the skill to stand and fight a better turning plane, and also a worthless picker that preys on honest god fearing turn and burners, who after all are the BOMB! lol( I am your anvil please begin the hammering ) :aok
Having someone call me a cheater or hacker makes my day.U cheater.....U hacker :furious :rofl :rofl
Hoffman's Pilot Skill rating sheet:
The guy who shoots me down in a fair fight is better than me.
The guy who shoots me down in a furball is more opportunistic than me.
The guy who shoots me down when I'm not looking is luckier than me.
The guy I shoot down in a fair fight is worse than me.
The guy I shoot down in a furball is two seconds faster than me at getting back into the air.
The guy I shoot down when he's not looking is a moron and I'm an ub37 l337 r0kst4r pilot.
Hoffman's Pilot Skill rating sheet:
The guy who shoots me down in a fair fight is better than me.
The guy who shoots me down in a furball is more opportunistic than me.
The guy who shoots me down when I'm not looking is luckier than me.
The guy I shoot down in a fair fight is worse than me.
The guy I shoot down in a furball is two seconds faster than me at getting back into the air.
The guy I shoot down when he's not looking is a moron and I'm an ub37 l337 r0kst4r pilot.
The only pilots who have real skill are the pilots who flew/fly fighters and bombers in real life. Everyone else is just a gamer. And yes, I'm just a gamer.
Alot of guys in the MA seem to put alot of stock into how well they DA, and will gladly offer to school anyone of us at the drop of a hat, though things like fair play, or clearly stating the rules of engagment are allowed to slip.....Do certain persons put to much stock in victory in the DA where SA is of no importance, and subterfuge is used in place of skill?
Fairplay seems to have gone the way of the Do Do in the DA, and several squads seem to function on the bases that it is ok to die in the MA as long as the victoriouse pilot can be suckerd into the DA where he cant ever seem to get a fair fight, be it the merge rule is broken, or one guy ho's another when it was clearly stated that ho's where to be avoided, or any other of a hundred ways that can be found to prey upon the guy who is honestly doing his best to give a fair fight.
It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.
Never losing sight of a bandit after the merge, watching him in order to decide how to best counter his merge move is an example of tactical awareness.
Keeping a vigilant eye on the bandit above you who you suspect may be coming in for a gun pass on you just as you are about to go to guns on his buddy you've been working is an example of situational awareness.
I really do hate to burst your bubble after you've spent so much time composing yet another essay. 'Tactical Awarness' is all part of Situational Awarness and is not a seperate thing, just like 'Situational Assessment' isn't seperate from SA but rather a part of Situational Awarness.
It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.
Never losing sight of a bandit after the merge, watching him in order to decide how to best counter his merge move is an example of tactical awareness.
Keeping a vigilant eye on the bandit above you who you suspect may be coming in for a gun pass on you just as you are about to go to guns on his buddy you've been working is an example of situational awareness.
I really do hate to burst your bubble after you've spent so much time composing yet another essay. 'Tactical Awarness' is all part of Situational Awarness and is not a seperate thing, just like 'Situational Assessment' isn't seperate from SA but rather a part of Situational Awarness.
ack-ack
I never said tactical awareness couldn't be construed as a subset of the broad definition of situational awareness, it's obvious by my definition it very well could be in a general sense. But, situational awareness is so much more than just tactical awareness. To say tactical awareness is situational awareness is to say a water droplet is the ocean, it can be a component part of it, but it's not the ocean...Think of it as the logical sets and subsets of mathematics. All you need to fight one con in guaranteed isolation is the subset of tactical awareness. When fighting in a complex engagement you need the full breadth of situational awareness, also including the tactical aspect of course.
No matter how you try to spin it or redefine what it is, you're still wrong. You cannot have tactical awarness without situational awarness, they are not two seperate things. They are inter-related, one goes with the other and a player needs to be proficient in both if they want to be successful in any sort of engagement, whether it be a 1v1 affair in the DA or a multi-threat environment in the MA. To say different really shows a lack of knowledge what SA really is.
It's like the thread about stall fighting, you kept changing the definition of what it is to fit your argument, exactly what you are doing here. In the stall fighting thread, you were incorrect just like you are in this thread.
ack-ack
Your true motivation for arguing with me in every thread notwithstanding, I changed my definition of nothing. Use whatever terms you care to use to describe them the fact remains the same. The level of awareness required to fight a single enemy with zero chance of any other mitigating factor entering your sphere is a lot different quantitatively if not substantively than the level of awareness required when involved in a complex multi-plane engagement containing a vast array of mitigating factors and elements demanding your active attentiveness. To say otherwise indicates you are either completely ignorant, which I know is not the case, or you are being intentionally thick and argumentative for personal reasons, which I strongly suspect is the case...
PS
No need to call people ignorant just because they disagree with you.
To say otherwise indicates you are either completely ignorant, which I know is not the case
Your true motivation for arguing with me in every thread notwithstanding...
you are either completely ignorant, which I know is not the case, or you are being intentionally thick and argumentative for personal reasons, which I strongly suspect is the case...
The flow is always the same: SA -> Decision -> Act.
Tactic comes into play after you made decision based on SA and is nothing more but one or more tasks you have to perform in order to achieve an objective.
No need to split the hair. You know what I meant.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
...The level of awareness required to fight a single enemy with zero chance of any other mitigating factor entering your sphere is a lot different quantitatively if not substantively than the level of awareness required when involved in a complex multi-plane engagement containing a vast array of mitigating factors and elements demanding your active attentiveness...
1 v. 1 enviroment is completely different then furball. There are times in a furball when I'm sitting 400 yards from a kill and have to break to survive. In a furball I almost never been able to stay on someone's tail for more then 30 seconds without not having to take evasive manuever.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
The day we start holding AH bbs users accountable for the use of informal fallacies is the day 90% of you will have nothing to say. ;)
Generalizing in that way in very convenient when trying to fit something under a very restricted contextual umbrella. But, it does not change the fact that awareness of a single enemy in complete isolation is far less complex than awareness of an entire area containing multiple threats and friends. It's not just a matter of plurality, it's a matter of different things being much more important and to very different degrees.
Furthermore, some things absolutely required in expansive SA have absolutely no relevance in TA.
For example, there is absolutely no use for judging the relative E states and intentions of friendly and enemy cons you are not directly involved with in close proximity when dueling a single foe in isolation. Instantaneously judging the E states and intentions of multiple cons and maintaining that level of cognizance is an incredibly fundamental part of SA and very hard to maintain while engaged with another bandit. Truly gifted furballers have mastered this art, it's what makes them great at it. This art is not applicable to a 1 vs 1 isolated duel at all, but it is the single most important part of SA in complex multi-plane engagements.
Having only to focus on a single bandit at close range where single-minded observation is simple, with no worry of outside factors, is so trivial by comparison it is laughable.
Gross generalization in that way is a very convenient method of trying to fit something under a very restricted contextual umbrella.
Bighorn is apparently a mystery man of many faces and the dueling King of AH. But, he almost never flies the MA, so he always tries to argue that 1 vs 1 duels are the end all be all to fighterdom existence and somehow magically contain within their context every factor the chaotic MA environment encompasses and more...lol :huh
Maybe laughable to you, to me it's just different and definitely not trivial.
It is not a convenient generalization. Your argument is akin to saying a car on the highway requires licencing, and a safety inspection. A beater that is driven around in the sand dunes does not. Therefore we can strip the body panels and windshield off of the car and call it a dune buggy. Thats fine, but is still a damn car! You can peel off unneeded layers of SA, but you will still be left addressing SA.
There ya go, it's different, as in it's not really the same thing in essence, you got there! Congratulations! ;)
Again, nobody claimed it is not different. To use your ocean and raindrop analogy, we said ocean and raindrop are both water, whilst you originally claimed raindrop isn't.
You find me a rain drop with a fish in it and I'll agree with you a rain drop is the ocean. ;)
No. The action sequences and multiple environmental cues are still there whether there is one or ten bogies around. Have you ever augered in a 1 vs 1? Departed controled flight? Ran out of fuel unexpectedly? Misjudge where your lift vector is pointed when not having the horizon in view? All of those are break downs in SA, in a one vs one that have nothing to do with the immediate threat. And tactical awareness covers all immediate threats, not just one specifically, and there are many of the same environmental factors that need to be considered regardless of how many immediate and non-immediate threats there are. Your separation of SA to being defined as something else does not conform not only to air combat specifically, but SA in general.
In a complex engagement you have to do all of those things IN ADDITION to remaining acutely aware of your plane's behavior and the one bandit you are engaged with at the time.
Known occurrences:
* Cambridge, Maryland, 1828
* Rahway, New Jersey, November 13, 1833
* Aberdare, Glamorganshire, Wales, 1841
* Singapore, February 22, 1861 [10]
* Mountain Ash, Glamorganshire, Wales, February 9, 1859
* Olneyville, Rhode Island, May 15, 1900
* Tiller’s Ferry, South Carolina, June 1901 (catfish)
* Marksville, Louisiana, October 23, 1947
* Ranchi, India, July 1997
* Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, August 8, 2000
* Wiltshire, May 2001
* Knighton, Powys, Wales, August 18, 2004
* Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 2004
* Paravur, Kerala, India May 2006
* Peerumed, Kerala, India July 2006
* Thaliparamba, Kerala, India, July 20 2006
* Paracatu, Minas Gerais, Brazil, February 14, 2007
* Honduras, Rain of Fishes, (supposedly taking place once or twice a year, every year for more than a century)
Yeah, but that's still 1vs1
:rofl It wouldn't matter if I said the sky is blue. These guys would argue it with me until they stroked out and became worm dirt.
AKAK has personal history with me and has hated me since long before AH even existed, I thought he had grown out of that adolescent fuedalism but I guess I was mistaken. Bighorn is apparently a mystery man of many faces and the dueling King of AH. But, he almost never flies the MA, so he always tries to argue that 1 vs 1 duels are the end all be all to fighterdom existence and somehow magically contain within their context every factor the chaotic MA environment encompasses and more...lol :huh
I would like to hear what players like eagl and Mace have to say, I think with them being military fighter pilots (or former) they could shed some light on the subject.
:rofl It wouldn't matter if I said the sky is blue. These guys would argue it with me until they stroked out and became worm dirt.
All of those things are considered in complex engagements as well. But, there's also much, much more. Being aware of your plane's behavior is ubiquitous not unique to 1 vs 1's. ---snip---
I've always found the DA fairly dull other then for squad training. While it's good to face up against someone good from time to time, I usually get bored after two or three sorties. Basically since it's the "unknown" factor of flying in the MA that keeps me interested in the game. Staged fights whether 1v1,1v3 or what ever don't have that.
Plus I can never take the DA seriously, I find that I don't push it as hard as I do in the MA, simply because it's a staged environment plus added gamey aspects reduced damaged etc. Then there are the DA rules. :rolleyes:
As for SA training something else I'd rather practice in the MA and take the hits. Again with the DA stages environment you always know what your coming up against and where they will be. Spending more time in the MA flying at 7,000 feet in a high eny ride is the best SA and defensive training imho.
<S>...-Gixer
I have to wonder, since there is so much brow beating over silly things like "this guy runs away, and is afraid to fight" or "he isnt much of a pilot because he boom and zooms" or my personal favorite "well im smarter than so and so because my score is lower".
Let me get this straight. Are you all really having an argument over terminology? Whether Situational Awareness is broad enough to include dueling or if a new term like Tactical Awareness must be introduced?
As yourself these questions: What job does the term Situational Awareness have in our air-combat language? If we add another term like Tactical Awareness are we discovering something new, or limiting the scope of Situational Awareness?
Sometimes the sky is white with puffy cumulous clouds.A red rose in the dark is still red.
Sometimes the sky is grey, as on a gloomy day.
Sometimes the sky is red, as at sunrise or sunset.
Sometimes the sky is black, as at night.
Sometimes the sky is green, as before a major storm.
Probably not your best analogy.
A red rose in the dark is still red.
Well, it isn't. Red rose appears red because it reflects light of certain wavelength. No light no color...Red is "red under standard observing conditions." To say that a red rose isn't really red because of what you know about physics is akin to saying "the table isn't really solid," even though this use of "not solid" doesn't mean the table is rotting, hollow, or that you couldn't stand on it. Rather, that the table isn't really solid is meant to explain solidity. In the same way, optics is meant to explain why the rose is red, not disprove it.
Red is "red under standard observing conditions."
To say that a red rose isn't really red because of what you know about physics is akin to...
Heavyweight boxing and other 1:1 sports are boring too because they do it 1:1 rather than 10:10. Everyone knows those boxers ought to know better and fight 10:10.
myself.... i figure its what i fly & how i fly it. could never compete for high score that takes very meaningless abilities such as vulching hording & ganging & in cases duel accounts.
ive become well known as a 110C-4b dweeb but i do it well & usually smoke most 'ranked' players. rank/score is meaningless unless u can back it!
what means the most to me is that i fly with honor... fight hard & gain any respect that way.
I could swear you've mentioned being dark... Probably my Alzheimer kicked in. Apologies...I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
Do you know any better use of science than to explain the natural phenomena?Of course not. But we don't conflate the phenomenon to be explained with its explanation; that's a misuse of language.
AK AK....im A8Popycd, im sure you recount that ive dueld before, and im sure you know where I got the basis for my complaints about the DA....
See your up to the old tricks lol :D
I like that distillation. I like to think of them differently because in your mind, when you are fighting they are quite different. I find having distinct terminology for them makes the fundamental principles involved easier to conceptualize.
Instead of Situational Awareness we could probably call it Strategic Awareness then when you refer to Tactical Awareness the differences are very clear.
Tactical Awareness is the concentration of attention on factors specifically and exclusively relating to your aircraft and that of a single opponent you are intimately engaged with. Those factors are very finite, predictable, easily observable and identifiable making Tactical Awareness relatively easy to persistently maintain.
Strategic Awareness is the perpetual concentration of attention on all factors in your visual vicinity for the purpose of threat assessment, anticipation of response and to provide the basis for strategic decision making such as wether or not to switch targets mid-engagement, disengage or reengage, etc. The myriad of potential factors involved in Strategic Awareness are for all practical purposes infinite, therefore much more difficult to persistently maintain. The information itself and the decisions that must be made on the basis of the interpretation of those factors are not generally applicable to a 1 vs 1 encounters.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
Red is "red under standard observing conditions" means that we don't say an object changes colors just because we turn off the lights
put it under black-light, or create some other non-standard circumstance. Under non-standard circumstances, we say "it looks like it's this color, but really it's not."
If you don't accept this analysis, then the truth-value of a label like "Blue" on a pair of pants changes when you turn off the lights. With the lights on it's true, with the lights off it's false.
But we don't conflate the phenomenon to be explained with its explanation; that's a misuse of language.
If you don't accept this analysis, then the truth-value of a label like "Blue" on a pair of pants changes when you turn off the lights. With the lights on it's true, with the lights off it's false.
Correct
Wow. Quite a thread, I'm not sure where to start. You could write a book on this subject alone. Let me say I don't think it really matters much how you define things except in a training environment where you're trying to convey certain information in a very specific way to generate an overall understanding. That said, there are many, many different definitions in use even today although the military has tried to standardize. Terminology can vary not just between the services but between squadrons or even sections.
<S>
Mace
As Mace said its an interesting thread, I'll approach it from a bit of a different angle....
Correct situational awareness is essential in order to achieve good tactical awareness. While "TA" is a subset of "SA" the inverse is not true. Any decision that would be tactical that is based on faulty or incorrect SA is flawed to some degree. Broader situational awareness is the foundation that good tactical decisions are built on. The better the SA the sounder and more precise the "TA" can be...
Now I agree completely with this statement...
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement....
This part is a fallacy to me situational awareness is not since without enough observation {"SA"} you have insufficient data available to make those decisions accurately. To me "TA" is roughly the timeframe from the merge on, blending back into the time visibility is established.
Aye, as defined today,
I see someone knows who Mica R. Endsley is , possibly even "Know the Situation. Know the Solution."
btw..excellent reply, Mace :aok
The quoted section above is exactly where I am coming from in this discussion of Awareness. Whether a term is a part of some universal vernacular or not doesn't really matter for the purpose of expounding upon a complex subject in discussion and debate format. It's interesting that you point out that in the real world the vernacular used varies greatly for the purpose of combat training. My use of terms is almost never a simple parroting of something extracted verbatim from a textbook or other formally published document. I will often use creative solutions and coined terminology to explain and describe, in a more refined way, concepts that when left grossly generalized are not necessarily most conducive to ease of understanding and application.
In my mind at least, there is a HUGE difference in mental processes involved when maintaining awareness of a single intimately engaged foe in isolation and maintaining awareness of a complex engagement involving many friends and foes. The terms I used, Tactical Awareness and Strategic Awareness, which together form the full spectrum of Situational Awareness as I described earlier really encapsulates the distinction between the two in terms of the mental approach to those very different types of engagements. You could call them whatever you want to, but making no distinction whatsoever conceptually is not just misleading it's a disservice to promoting understanding of the entire broad concept of Situational Awareness. IMHO...
Your process does not change in any form be it 1v1 or 1v100, its the same process. The only factor is that you just get the option of dealing with less information, which can speed up your OODA Loop. More or Less information does not change how you use your decision making process, only the amount of info and time it takes to act.
The only place I spoke up is where you started to re-define broader terms by logically applying "creative solutions" to them. Some fundamentals are not really up for debate, because in the end it causes more confusion than understanding.
Yep Endsly's flow chart is posted on the Wikipedia SA page.
Googling Wikipedia quotes and pasting them here only gets you so far in an entertaining discussion and debate.
1) There are variations on definitions depending on context and source. 2) It all falls under SA. 3) If a different way of conceptuizing it works for you, great.
Whether a term is a part of some universal vernacular or not doesn't really matter for the purpose of expounding upon a complex subject in discussion and debate format.
My use of terms is almost never a simple parroting of something extracted verbatim from a textbook or other formally published document. I will often use creative solutions and coined terminology to explain and describe, in a more refined way, concepts that when left grossly generalized are not necessarily most conducive to ease of understanding and application.
If in a complex engagement however, not only do you need and care about that extra information, but it suddenly becomes the focal point of your attention to varying degrees throughout the engagement. So, all of the decisions you make based upon that extra information, although also a result of observations, are not in the same realm as the purely tactical decision making processes, they differ greatly in terms variability, complexity, and the types of decisions you must make.
As an example, in a complex engagement vigilant active SA requires you always be open minded to breaking off one bandit to switch to another. Not only that but, your information precipitating this decision has to be incredibly accurate as precise timing is hugely important. In an isolated 1 vs 1 encounter, no such information is even gathered, the entire decision making process specifically relating to that type of information and subsequent decisions need not be entertained at all. The entire premise of the engagement is fundamentally based upon different information leading to potentially very different decisions.
Jeez you gents think too hard about this.
What counts is having fun and enjoying the people I fly with and against.
The second it stops being fun, all the SA in the world won't make a bit of difference :)
OK, lets just say that your SA and especially decision making process is up to such level and speed, that you're actually capable of dealing with multiple cons in complex engagement, how comes you found yourself there in the first place? Wouldn't that suggest flaw in either SA, decision making process, or both?
There is not one word copied and posted by me to this thread.
There is not one word copied and posted by me to this thread.
He means my ad hominem and fish rain quotes.
are you pretending you're ignorant just to try the old bait n' switch routine again?
Oh, you know I wouldn't do that.
Do I come off as arrogant with this post? Let me tell you what is arrogant. Your assumption that everyone should just adopt the Zazeneeze language and piss on the century of concepts preceeding you.
Here again you make assumptions and have the process backwards. We often reach our own conclusions individually, and then find it validated by existing works. (Of course most of us don't do this as a public work in progress disguised as fact on the bbs). Even by being disappointed to find the "new" thing we figured out is not new at all.
It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.
I like that distillation. I like to think of them differently because in your mind, when you are fighting they are quite different. I find having distinct terminology for them makes the fundamental principles involved easier to conceptualize. Instead of Situational Awareness we could probably call it Strategic Awareness then when you refer to Tactical Awareness the differences are very clear.
Again, tactical awareness involves assesment of all immediate threats. Though I can site military instances where the scope is expanded to include the entire immediate battlefield.
The scope of strategic awareness goes beyond visual range. Academically it is a needed leadership skill of knowing not only your own plan of action needs to be, but also what others need to be doing in order to achieve the group objective. In practice in Aces High, beyond the obvious mission context, I'd argue that strategic awareness applies to interpreting radar, marker, and radio traffic info, comprehending its significance on the evolving situation, and integrating that information into ones decision making process.
I don't think we are arguing the logic of decision making based on observations, that same logic is not even unique to warfare in general let alone SA. I think the contentious issue is the type of information and the type of decision making required. There is a large swath of information you don't need or particularly care about if isolated in a 1 vs 1 fight. It's not just that the unnecessary information is 1/100th as important as it would be if you were fighting 100 enemy as opposed to just 1 enemy, it's actually of absolutely ZERO significance, therefore has absolutely zero effect on your combat efficiency, it doesn't even need to be considered.
If in a complex engagement however, not only do you need and care about that extra information, but it suddenly becomes the focal point of your attention to varying degrees throughout the engagement. So, all of the decisions you make based upon that extra information, although also a result of observations, are not in the same realm as the purely tactical decision making processes, they differ greatly in terms variability, complexity, and the types of decisions you must make.
As an example, in a complex engagement vigilant active SA requires you always be open minded to breaking off one bandit to switch to another. Not only that but, your information precipitating this decision has to be incredibly accurate as precise timing is hugely important. In an isolated 1 vs 1 encounter, no such information is even gathered, the entire decision making process specifically relating to that type of information and subsequent decisions need not be entertained at all. The entire premise of the engagement is fundamentally based upon different information leading to potentially very different decisions.
It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.
The absolute "Zero" of certain bits of information (yet not all) is no different then saying you have less information to deal with.
An example would be to say that drawing a circle is art in the same way that a painting complex masterpiece is. Sure, in painting the masterpiece the artist probably drew a circle or two, but did he or could he have composed the entire work by ONLY drawing circles, just many more of them? Not likely, it's not a simple matter of plurality. He had to do a lot of very different things in completely different ways to construct his artwork than the circle drawer did. Therefore, I could say a circle is a component of his masterpiece, but I could not say his artwork is just a circle....If I say "My three year olds artwork is hanging on the refrigerator" everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about. If I say "I saw some nice artwork when we went to the museum" everyone still has an understanding of what I am describing. If I instead ignore the context the word was used in and decide I need to hi-jack another word since the two scenario subjects differ from each other..."My three year olds paint is on the refrigerator". Now people are going to visualize a concept different from what I am really describing.
No, that is not it at all. It is not just less information in the quantitative sense. That is because it is not the simplistic arithmetical extrapolation of the same information multiplied times the number of individual factors to be considered, which is what you attempted to say in your original post. It is qualitatively completely different information on many levels requiring equally different decisions to be made for very different reasons.
An example would be to say that drawing a circle is art in the same way that a painting complex landscape masterpiece is. Sure, in painting the masterpiece the artist probably drew a circle or two, but did he or could he have composed the entire work by ONLY drawing circles, just many more of them? Not likely, as it's not a simple matter of plurality. He had to do a lot of very different things in completely different ways to construct his artwork than the circle drawer did to draw his circle. Therefore, I could say a circle is a small component of his masterpiece, but I could not say his masterpiece is just a circle multiplied....
Perfect Example:Nice observation :aok
AKDogg was helping me with some ACM one night. A guy upped and came over to Jump Dogg, next thing I knew, it was AkDogg in a 3v1. He killed 2, and sent one home wounded. What was the determining factor here. He was talking to me all the while, so do you think with the addition of more cons, that his SA was stretched, or severely compounded with the addition of 2 cons? No, it wasn't, it required little more SA then it did with 1v1. What the difference was, is Knowledge. To me, who has great SA, but crappy ACM knowledge as far as how to counter maneuvers, 1v3 seems overwhelming odds.
When I jump into a Furball, I can see the guys coming in on me and I choose what course I deem needed, or what I am getting myself into. I am at this point trying to obtain the knowledge that is needed to succeed in that case. MY SA, however.. I saw Death coming before I even dove down to get in the furball before hand.
To Dogg, who has the knowledge, it was simple. This tells me that SA is not compounded but variables are simply added, only the process of decision making in reference to your level of skill is what seems compounded.
If I say "My three year olds artwork is hanging on the refrigerator" everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about. If I say "I saw some nice artwork when we went to the museum" everyone still has an understanding of what I am describing. If I instead ignore the context the word was used in and decide I need to hi-jack another word since the two scenario subjects differ from each other..."My three year olds paint is on the refrigerator". Now people are going to visualize a concept different from what I am really describing.
Either you've had too much to drink, or I need one, but that makes no sense whatsoever other than perhaps you're yet again trying to play amateur forum moderator... :huhGood, now you understand how I am seeing some of your posts when you try to redefine terms :D
Good, now you understand how I am seeing some of your posts :D
Your confusing SA and knowledge.
Funny, I understood exactly what you meant by that post.
Pretty sure most others did as well.
Holy Cow dude! Get off his ankle you're making me blush! :P
SA is what gathers the information for you to make a choice, SA is not the choose you make, after and during your Choice SA never changes, never goes Active or passive, it just simply IS.
SO... have we actually worked out what really counts?
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/sarahjeanb/Peters/count-1.jpg)
So, in essence, neither aspect can exist alone, therefore they are actually dynamic and interdependent aspects of the same thing.
Yes you can have knowledge without SA, or SA without Knowledge. However, only one of those 2 make a certain situation difficult, and that is the lack of knowledge.
That is incorrect according to currnet analysis of human factors in aviation. The choice is the output of SA, not a component of it.
That would be like saying food creates poop, but poop can exist without being the direct result of eating food, which is of course impossible. Poop is just the excreted unused remnants of food, or for the purpose of our discussion, processed information resulting in a decision, or a turd, as the case may be. ;)
On the same basis (current and accepted scientific analysis), pilot knowledge is considered a primary component of SA.
Poop=decision
Pooping=performance of action.
Knowledge could mean almost anything, that kind of general statement is pure fluff, it means nothing."Pilot knownledge" is pretty self explanitory. I'm not going to waste my time spelling out the depth of a knowledge base needed to help evaluate environmental information.
But, if by knowledge you mean of ACM's than that is a load of bull pucks.Sure, one can make an effective decision without that knowledge, but the perspective pool of choices to pick from will be much more limited.
With almost no ACM knowledge very good decisions can be made based on SA alone such as whether to engage, disengage, switch targets,I see, and what will the quality of possible choices be without a systems knowledge of your own aircraft, a basic knowledge of opposing aircrafts performance in relation to your own?
commit E to a con, preserve E and regain altitude etc.That's going to be difficult to manage without a grasp of energy theory.
Sure, one can make an effective decision without that knowledge, but the perspective pool of choices to pick from will be much more limited.I see, and what will the quality of possible choices be without a systems knowledge of your own aircraft, a basic knowledge of opposing aircrafts performance in relation to your own? That's going to be difficult to manage without a grasp of energy theory.
Ah cool, just came across somthing that saves some typing.... Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (http://books.google.com/books?id=ao_d2y6xookC&dq=Endsley+awareness&pg=PP1&ots=j_AOBNG2UC&sig=KRy-Bw7bbmtJueUSI9d0KaE8AZE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1,M1) book preview. Page 5, SA definition. Page 8, reasoning of the decision being a product of his model. I didn't expect to find Endsley's book in an e-format.
This is a big reason I really like sub-dividing Tactical Awareness and Strategic Awareness conceptually. Tactical Awareness definitely does require specialized knowledge in every respect that I can conceive of. Strategic Awareness does not necessarily require anything more than the power of observation and common sense.
Not only has SA been previously broken down by categories, grouping them in a number of different ways. But "Tactical Awareness", as I've been saying for pages, is already defined- "This knowledge domain stores facts about the identity and capabilities of all other units in the vicinity (and, if military, that will include their combat intention as well)". (Endsley). But it is still a subcategory of SA and not a separate entity.
The term vicinity he uses as it evidentally relates to ground forces would be equivalent to considering bandits you are actually actively engaged with in close proximity in air combat or will be imminently.Well there's progress. How many pages have I been saying that TA is assessing ALL immediate threats?
Strategic Awareness on the other hand can be maintained, as he said in his description of SA on page 5, even without direct involvement in the engagement.This is also not a new term. The thing I disagreed with your comments on StrA is that instead of being limited to visual cues, it is scoped well beyond visual range.
Yea, I've read that before. He uncouples decision making from SA for the arbitrary reason of later being able to retrospectively evaluate the decision itself and the outcome of that decision. If the decision isn't evaluated independently this way, from a military standpoint, it's much more difficult to determine what caused the positive or negative outcome, the good or bad decision itself, possibly flawed SA precipitating the decision or the influence of another mitigating factor (ie: mechanical failure, deception, personality factors). In real combat, good decisions can lead to failure and bad decisions can lead to success, so it's important to evaluate those situations in the interest of preserving life and resources in the future.
He admits that often the mental process of SA and the decisions from it are in actuality the same mental process, seamlessly coupled. Uncoupling them is just a theoretical convenience for the purpose of establishing after the fact cause and effect relationships for evaluation purposes.
In AH we have a versatile filming tool and massive volumes of non-lethal sheer repetition of cartoon air combat to use to evaluate those cause and effect relationships. So, theoretically isolating the two inextricably interwined mental processes is not necessary. We have far more efficient methods available to reconstruct and evaluate the relative efficacy of our decisions and what factors precipitated them.
Strategic Awareness + Tactical Awareness = Situational AwarenessWhat about System Awareness? The status of your aircraft, its instrument data, its expendable resources
It is not just from a "military standpoint". This goes across the board into commercial and private aviation. The same analysis that evaluates poor decisions and accidents in real life results in forming training simulation scenarios. Repetition of training simulations with unpredictable problems posed to the trainee is then evaluated again as a learning tool. The AH situation is not unique or set apart from that.
I evaluate films for players often enough. Observing a breakdown in SA is clear. Observing a bad decision is clear. It's often not too hard to spot when a bad decision resulted from poor SA, though it helps when there is feedback from the player. A breakdown in SA does not always lead to a bad decision. A bad decision cannot be assumed to have resulted from poor SA. This is exactly why they can be separated for the sake of discussion. I see no practial purpose in coupling them back together.
What about System Awareness? The status of your aircraft, its instrument data, its expendable resourcesYou'd need to be aware of all of that in any situation. Even a passenger jet from New York to Chicago has to remain reasonably aware of that information just flying straight and level in a non-combat role.
What about Spatial/Temporal Awareness? Your location and orientation in a 4d enviornment (3d+time)
What about Environmental/Geographical Awareness? The physical terrain around you, atmospheric conditions, visiblity.
In fast paced air combat, the majority of decisions are made in a quasi-instinctive way in a direct response to SA.
You'd need to be aware of all of that in any situation. Even a passenger jet from New York to Chicago has to remain reasonably aware of that information just flying straight and level in a non-combat role.There ya go, and that is why it is also part of SA.
There ya go, the decision is not really a part of SA but a product of.
but in combat, especially air combat, that could be relatively time-consuming and therefore unhealthy.
That's where the training comes in.
training allows the SA>Decision dynamic to function as a single mental action as you need not consciously think about it.
To me the biggest proof why they are not single action is possibility to train both separately and actually measure them as well.
Yes, if you look at Endsley graph or OODA Loop by Boyd, they are practically the same. It is a process and the faster it is the better. When of sufficient speed it is seemingly one and the same. Yet, they can be broken down into specific parts, and no matter of your SA, you don't have to make decision, even less act upon it.
It was mainly about your definition of SA and specifics of application (1vs1, 1vs many). You renamed it and redefined it. You are free to do it. But do not expect us to be on the same frequency when we talk about SA. We have specific terminology so we can understand each other and discuss without the need of defining the term and context of it every and each time.
Endlsey acknowledges that in the document, noting that in actuality the SA>Decision dynamic is often a single mental operation.
Did you actually read the document or are you just looking at the chart? The flowchart has nothing to do with the true nature of the mental process in your brain, it's an arbitrary subdivision for the purpose of retrospective analysis. We can only dream of understanding, through compartmentalization, brain function that simplistically. By its very nature retrospective analysis is the examination of "dead things", contrived symbolic artifacts of what actually occurred in real time. Endlsey acknowledges that in the document, noting that in actuality the SA>Decision dynamic is often a single mental operation. But, the choice to treat them separately is made to artificially dissect the component aspects of the often indivisible mental process of SA for the purpose of evaluation and 3rd party inspection of events after the fact...Let me create some other examples that may help...
Example #1:
Let's say there's an athlete who is "in the zone". Say it's a wide receiver in football. The ball is hiked, he runs his pattern, the QB throws the ball, he sees the ball, sees the defender coming toward him, he observes the trajectory and velocity of the ball, he arrives at the place where he knew it would be, jumps up and catches it. If we had the ability to do a PET scan on the receiver during that entire process there would be just one continuous mental operation. There would not be an interface or temporal gap between the information he was aware of and the performance of the various actions resulting in the catch. The decision how, when and where to catch the ball was a singular and ongoing function of the continuous real time observations not a separate operation. If he had separated his observations from his actions he would not be "in the zone" first of all. He would also almost certainly destroy his timing and fail to catch the ball even if the decision he arrived at "manually" was the same as the "automatic" one his brain produced as the observations were actually taking place. He would not be a professional athlete for long if he mentally separated the single SA>Decision process.
Example #2:
You are walking along the sidewalk talking to your friend. Suddenly, you trip on a raised concrete sidewalk tile, your brain instantly realizes you're falling via your senses and without your assent or intervention decides to move both of your arms quickly in an effort to protect your skull and break your fall. That is one single mental process of SA>Decision. If the SA>Decision process was actually separate in your brain, you would be unable to respond quickly enough with a formulated decision based on the deliberate analysis of observation and you'd crack your skull open on the sidewalk.
Oh my, let me try. When we talk about "SA->decision->act" process, we break it down to understand what's going on and how they relate to each other. Very similar to when we talk of brain response to stimuli. Good example is reflex. And again, it's the same input->processing-> reaction. When you measure reflex ie response time, you'd think it has to be instant single action event, or how else you could response so quickly. It's still a process, breakable down to few distinct functions of human body, even though people view it as single event.
So, looking at Endsley's flow chart and saying this must be a precise template of human brain function as it relates to the process is not only not the intention of it, but it's a complete and utter impossibility. Neuroscience is no where even close to that kind of simplistic representation of real time brain function.
Well, to be fair, Endsley chart does not try to explain how brain works in any way. It just breaks down cognitive process from system management rather than psychological or neurological point of view.
You've got it I think.
I have worked in the field for years. I can promise you the scientific process of dissecting concepts and putting aspects of it into little compartmentalized jars is not for the purpose of creating a symbolic facsimile of the actual thing to be considered one in the same. It is done purely to achieve a more easily observable and less abstract representation of something to facilitate the discrimination of cause and effect relationships of aspects presented artificially in isolation from the whole naturally occurring process, for the purpose of making data easier to collect, quantify and manage.I am trying to figure out how Biology plays into a discussion on SA.........and how SA is applied?
Here is an actual example of this intrinsic flaw of scientific dissection and observation. A physics research lab was doing work with subatomic particles. The work was producing strange results that could not be accounted for by any known theory of quantum mechanics. Serendipitously one scientist produced some data that was generated accidentally during some equipment calibration tests. That data was very different than the data produced during the controlled experiments. They quickly surmised that the simple act of observing something scientifically actually changed the behavior and properties of that which is observed. In its natural, unobserved state, it would not manifest those anomalous properties. So, just the presence of an observer distorts or even invalidates the results to a degree. It doesn't make results obtained in this way useless so long as the data and conclusions derived from them are understood to be an artifact of the real, natural thing, altered and contorted by the mere act of being observed and scientifically scrutinized.
So, looking at Endsley's flow chart and saying this must be a precise template of human brain function as it relates to the process is not only not the intention of it, but it's a complete and utter impossibility. Neuroscience is no where even close to that kind of simplistic symbolic representation of real time brain function.
I do not logically see how you can compare the above quoted example in regards as to how a person acts when they are observed verses unobserved........
I am trying to figure out how Biology plays into a discussion on SA.........and how SA is applied?
"A man who pays attention to what's going on around him, will go far."
Did you actually read the document or are you just looking at the chart? The flowchart has nothing to do with the true nature of the mental process in your brain, it's an arbitrary subdivision for the purpose of retrospective analysis. We can only dream of understanding, through compartmentalization, brain function that simplistically. By its very nature retrospective analysis is the examination of "dead things", contrived symbolic artifacts of what actually historically occurred in real time. Endlsey acknowledges that in the document, noting that in actuality the SA>Decision dynamic is often a single mental operation. But, the choice to treat them separately is made to artificially dissect the component aspects of the often indivisible mental process of SA for the purpose of evaluation and 3rd party inspection of events after the fact...Let me create some other examples that may help...
You've got it I think. We could break down absolutely anything into a wide variety of arbitrarily contrived compartmentalization's for the purpose of retrospective evaluation and analysis. But, it's just like dissecting a cat. I can dissect a cat, examine his brain, his alimentary canal, lungs, heart, etc. I can label, classify and put into tiny jars filled with formaldehyde all his little organs in an effort to evaluate the feline species physiologically.
It's important to establish that there's a not so subtle difference between Situational Awareness and Tactical Awareness. Situational Awareness implies the assimilation of area wide information consisting of multiple bandits, friendlies, their relative E states, projected vectors and likely intentions on an ongoing basis. Then using that information to formulate a dynamic action plan for working the entire engagement.That would be you. And since you initiated the discussion of dissecting SA, it is not unreasonable for anyone wishing to engage in that discussion to expect that we try to communicate with mutual terminology. And since you are subjecting SA to analysis, arbitrary compartmentalizing, and dissection, it is not unreasonable to want to work off of a common model. If that common model wants to examine SA independent of the resulting decision, I do not see why that is a major problem for you.
Tactical Awareness is the diligent scrutiny of a single opponent's moves, behaviors and likely intentions in order to decide the proper counter-maneuvers to deal with him specifically, in hermetic isolation, as efficiently as possible. Tactical Awareness is always required in any engagement, situational awareness is not.
Never losing sight of a bandit after the merge, watching him in order to decide how to best counter his merge move is an example of tactical awareness.
Keeping a vigilant eye on the bandit above you who you suspect may be coming in for a gun pass on you just as you are about to go to guns on his buddy you've been working is an example of situational awareness.
assume everyone else in the room does not know the difference between a flow chart (system analysis modeling a multidimensional cognative construct), and what goes on in the mind when it is practically applied. It's really a no brainer. Nearly anyone on this bbs should have a basic grasp of what SA is based on experiencing it in practice.
Example: If you was to have an A6-E flying , you have 2 in the cockpit, ( pardon me for not remembering the "title" of the 2nd guy ), would he not be an observer of the pilot, again would the pilot perform or act in any different way if he did not have his partner?
personally, i dont belive score means everything, because not everyone (like myself) can be on ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, so we may have lower scores because of it, personally, i belive i am a good pilot, and so do others, i could care less about score, because, for all u know, all those kills they got, could b vulches,cherry picks, and BnZs
-BigBOBCH
That's a nice historical quotation, but its age does not make it true.
No light means you cannot perceive color, true, but that has nothing to do with this argument.
You accept that result? :huh :huh I'd like to see someone follow a similar line of argument in front of a judge. "No your Honor, that policeman cannot identify me because the event in question happened at night. He claims he saw a brown-haired man, but my hair is not brown after 9pm unless I am under a lamp."
I rest my case.
Oops... I forgot about this thread. In the absence of light the policeman could not, in fact, identify the person in front of the judge so the first starement; "No your Honor, that policeman cannot identify me because the event in question happened at night" is correct.
The second statement; "He claims he saw a brown-haired man, but my hair is not brown after 9pm unless I am under a lamp." has no relevance uless of course, there was SOME light, in which case the person's hair color could be identified, however with a lesser degree of accuracy than in full light.Bingo. You can tell a brown haired person from a black haired person at night or under low light conditions (with at least some accuracy and if you're close enough), even though the brown haired person's hair would be called black if it had the same appearance in daylight.
The crazy thing about this digression is that no one would argue with me over this point were it not for the stubborn insistence to nit-pick zazen over his "the sky is blue" comment.
Sometimes the sky is white with puffy cumulous clouds.
Sometimes the sky is grey, as on a gloomy day.
Sometimes the sky is red, as at sunrise or sunset.
Sometimes the sky is black, as at night.
Sometimes the sky is green, as before a major storm.
Probably not your best analogy.