Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 369 posts

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#91

Post by chrisseaton »

tlb wrote: post #77
Animats wrote: post #73

There was a ferry accident involving a similar transfer of control problem in New York harbor.[1] Ferries have a lot of maneuvering modes and directional thrusters, because they do so many dockings, and so they have a more complex control problem. The pilot put the system into a backup dumb mode while in cruise, then changed stations to where he could best see the dock while still in the wrong mode. Rammed the dock a…

In the steam days, it was a major operation to adjust the output of an engine. Valve linkages had immediate effect on the output, but you also had to adjust the boiler heat input to keep the temperature within limits. Far enough back, there were men shoveling coal into the boilers who had to be told to slow down or speed up. Do you think it's mainly bureaucratic inertia that keeps it separate? Or is there something m…

> Valve linkages had immediate effect on the output, but you also had to adjust the boiler heat input to keep the temperature within limits.

Can you not vent some of the steam, so the same volume of steam is being produced and the temperature the same but only some of it goes to the drive?

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#92

Post by azernik »

Zak wrote: post #21

Aside from the lack of clarity about which station has control over what, which should be made really obvious, with additional warnings when someone sets a control input on an inactive station, this seems bizarre to me: While the Ship's Control Console has a wheel for manual steering, both steering and throttle can be controlled with trackballs, with the adjustments showing up on the screens for each station. I've ne…

These are all multi-purpose consoles - the trackballs are general-purpose input devices at what looks kind of like a desktop computer setup. The helm station has special-purpose steering input devices, but it just so happens that all the things those special input devices control can be controlled also by the general-purpose desktop setups at other stations.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#93

Post by [deleted] »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #56
JshWright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard the tunnel analogy. Seems odd, since tunnels generally only have one entrance and one exit... In a lot of fields where the stakes are high and mistakes are costly (aviation and emergency services are the two I'm most familiar with) the analogy used is a chain. Break any link in the chain and you prevent the event. https://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?arti...

I think the idea is that if you are stuck in a dark train tunnel and there's a train coming towards you, there may be doorways, recesses, etc in the walls that are invisible without the proper tools (flashlight, etc).

[deleted]

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#94

Post by erydo »

Animats wrote: post #73

There was a ferry accident involving a similar transfer of control problem in New York harbor.[1] Ferries have a lot of maneuvering modes and directional thrusters, because they do so many dockings, and so they have a more complex control problem. The pilot put the system into a backup dumb mode while in cruise, then changed stations to where he could best see the dock while still in the wrong mode. Rammed the dock a…

As a devil's…inquisitor, I guess— I'm curious what the reasoning has been behind the Navy's (and WWII RAF's) preference for split/seniority control and in what situations that balances out, if any. Are those situations where some known, serious risk of error is mitigated by sharing responsibility? Is betting on experience over skill actually wrong, or is their implementation misguided? Or just not applicable to those situations? (Fast situational awareness, etc)

It seems similar to the whole democracy v. autocracy tradeoff. One optimizing for coverage of perspective, the other optimizing for efficiency of a perspective.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#95

Post by robbrown451 »

There were multiple causes. The article makes this clear, but the title to the HN post implies there was only one main cause.

The UI should be fixed. There should be a process for helmsmen to report problem UIs.

And of course training. But you can't really train for situations that you don't fully understand, and the people designing the UI are really the ones who need to put the hard work into understanding all these possibilities.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#96

Post by ams6110 »

kylec wrote: post #84
monocasa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he used block quote syntax. It's designed for code on HN's implementation, so it preserves newlines, instead making you scroll. It's a poor choice for quoting non computer languages.

People wouldn't use it if a better option was available. Lots of people are familiar with Markdown, which lets you start a line with > to have it quoted, but HN does nothing with this syntax so it looks ugly and as a consequence people don't do it.

I use asterisks around quoted text, which renders it in italics, but does not disturb line wrapping.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#97

Post by monocasa »

kylec wrote: post #84
monocasa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he used block quote syntax. It's designed for code on HN's implementation, so it preserves newlines, instead making you scroll. It's a poor choice for quoting non computer languages.

People wouldn't use it if a better option was available. Lots of people are familiar with Markdown, which lets you start a line with > to have it quoted, but HN does nothing with this syntax so it looks ugly and as a consequence people don't do it.

I at least use the '>' for human language quotes anyway. It's better than block quote, and it's pretty common syntax from email list serves.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#98

Post by maxerickson »

swixmix wrote: post #86
Animats wrote: post #73

There was a ferry accident involving a similar transfer of control problem in New York harbor.[1] Ferries have a lot of maneuvering modes and directional thrusters, because they do so many dockings, and so they have a more complex control problem. The pilot put the system into a backup dumb mode while in cruise, then changed stations to where he could best see the dock while still in the wrong mode. Rammed the dock a…

Do you have references for the Submarine story? The submarines I've seen have a rudder, stern plane, and another on the sail. With mechanical controls, I imagine it's difficult to have one person control all three of those movements. Two people controlling three movements seems right.

The Albacore museum has a virtual tour, it shows 2 seats:

http://www.ussalbacore.org/html/virtual_tour.html

http://www.ussalbacore.org/img/img_virtual_tour/32-lg.jpg

But it was modified several times, so that doesn't really contradict the story.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#99

Post by ams6110 »

tlb wrote: post #3

Amazing that someone would design in multiple steering wheels, only one of which is active, and no big indicator to make it super-obvious which one it is. Also amazing that there's a mode where moving a control sometimes controls all engines, sometimes just one.

In my view, on screen UI instead of physical controls is a big factor. If the throttles had been levers it would be instantly discernable if one or both were being moved. This is also why I dislike touch screen controls in cars. I want levers and knobs that give tactile, physical feedback.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#100

Post by jzwinck »

ilaksh wrote: post #75

Shouldn't it have some kind of automated collision avoidance that would have at least given an optional course correction?

I sail regularly in the waters where this occurred. They are extremely crowded with large ships, small fishing boats, and more.

The Navy ship was moving at 12 knots which is relatively fast in the local context. Not only does this open them to a violation of the Safe Speed Rule discussed in another comment, it means that any automated course correction would have a decent chance of putting them on a new collision course with a different boat. Perhaps even a small one their radar will not see.

The solution is to slow down. This is well known in nautical practice: if things are not going your way, slow down. If you are not sure what to do, slow down. If you are unable to control your vessel, slow down.

Post reply on HN