"riff_raff"]Going back to the topic of "spatial awareness" of an F1 driver vs the pilot of an F-35, F-18, V-22, US Space Shuttle, or even the Apollo Lunar Lander, I say the F1 driver has a far less demanding task since the consequences of failure are not the same. The F-35 or F-18 pilot landing on an aircraft carrier at night faces a life/death situation. The V-22 pilot making a vertical landing under combat conditions with enough dust being kicked-up to create a brown-out is performing an incredibly dangerous maneuver. The Space Shuttle pilot had a single chance to perform an un-powered landing of what was basically a flying brick.
Spatial awareness is affected by the demands of the task but not by the consequences of failure.
I would agree that landing on a carrier at night is probably one task where spatial awareness is severely restricted.
However the landing aids make the task strait forward and it is usually when their is a mechanical failure or in extreme weather when problems arise where the pilots spacial awareness is stretched to the limit.
I would rate the skills required as equal to F1 driving.
IMO the Osprey V-22 is a dangerous design with little reserve control capability in any mechanically compromised situation.
The 'brown' outs you mention when dust is blown up obscuring vision and dangerously effecting the engine intakes and any delicate flight controls and gearing is as a direct result of the flawed concept of tilt wing helicopter flight.
The British designed and in service Fairy Rotodyne of the early 1960s was a far far better design concept for this operating roll and a modern version would have a superior performance and much higher safety than the Osprey.
A modern version of the Rotodyne with its un-powered rotor would have at least an extra 100 knots airspeed, twice the range and a higher payload.
The Rotodyne was an autogyro and on short landings (less than 50 yards) did not disturb the ground dust at all.
It could also operate with full VTOL with complete safety if the engines failed.
Our own Wallis W116 autogyro also displayed this capability being able to attack armour with rockets three feet off the ground at over 100 mph with no dust cloud, heat signature or radar image.
It costs no more than a police car.
The Space Shuttle was an orbiter concept that originated in Nazi Germany in the late 1940's.
There are much superior ideas which have not been developed because of the high cost and America's domination of space research.
I know of two which remain on the drawing board.
And lastly, the single most impressive example of piloting in history was Neil Armstrong manually landing the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander on the face of the moon in 1969. His "spatial awareness" was severely complicated by the minimal lunar gravity, extremely limited amount of fuel reserves, and by the tiny little side window he had to look out of while performing this vertical landing. This was a feat that had never been done before, in a location Armstrong had never seen, using a vehicle that had never been flown in this environment, and if Armstrong got it wrong it would be the end for him and Aldrin. Needless to say, Armstrong made a safe landing with 18 seconds worth of fuel to spare.
Neil was indeed a fine pilot, however the Apollo landers were even then computer controlled mainly.
I have not been to the Moon but I would guess that spatial awareness is not a major issue, in fact it is probably easier to be aware of your environment there than in many places and situations on Earth.
