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

The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

octodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 695 posts

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#431

Post by MichaelZuo »

masklinn wrote: post #305
MichaelZuo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not something that can be changed on airbus cockpits, since the nature of side sticks makes them impossible to be mechanically linked, unless there was some very complex motor system built into each stick that provided force feedback equal in strength to a pilot tugging hard on it.

> unless there was some very complex motor system built into each stick that provided force feedback equal in strength to a pilot tugging hard on it It does not have to be “equal in strength to a pilot tugging hard on it” since there is normally no significant load applied by the stick to the hand (only the centering springs). So most every feedback should be noticeable. And force feedback is being deployed right now…

Yes, but then no one would consider the feedback to be the equivalent of a mechanically linked system, like what Boeing uses.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#432

Post by MichaelZuo »

rbanffy wrote: post #427
MichaelZuo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not something that can be changed on airbus cockpits, since the nature of side sticks makes them impossible to be mechanically linked, unless there was some very complex motor system built into each stick that provided force feedback equal in strength to a pilot tugging hard on it.

> It's not something that can be changed on airbus cockpits You'd need to run cables between them and redesign the sticks to have mechanical hooks, and it'd be a very ugly hack, but it's hardly impossible.

Impossible for it to still be viable for a commercial airliner competing on costs, especially long term upkeep costs.

Not impossible for an unlimited budget.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#433

Post by immibis »

sixQuarks wrote: post #227
itsoktocry wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s a stupid comparison because the USSR intentionally shot down a plane without trying to contact it and then didn’t cooperate at all on search efforts. I don't know much about either incident, but your summary sounds exactly what the OP is saying: "Here are the reasons the Russians did it. It's different, because they're evil". One side was lying about thinking it was a spy plane, but the other side legitimate…

Exactly, you would think people would start seeing the games being played. Look up “mass control hypnosis” if you’ve never heard the term.

Are you trying to quietly introduce the term? It brings up some music videos, some fringe conspiracy theorists, and TV Tropes.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#434

Post by immibis »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #192
nojvek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

War is rarely about morals. But if they did drop them, we would be talking about casualties 20-30 times higher. This isn't about morals, since that would demand that every death is one too many. Killing just as many Palestinians as Jews were killed would be a fundamentally unmoral justification as well. I think there is different expectation towards Israel, every country would have reacted to an attack like it happen…

[flagged]

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#435

Post by rbanffy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #300
ghaff wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the moment, it's really hard to step back and ask yourself "Does this make any sense?" when you're primed to react in some particular way.

Especially with an element of "I might personally get blown up" involved.

With proper training, that should be irrelevant.

They probably had second thoughts, but they got confirmation that contact 4474 was descending rapidly.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#436

Post by subroutine »

jonah wrote: post #416
waihtis wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any good reading on this? Might be some interesting learning opportunities for (cyber)security monitoring, which is a total mess right now. Stakes are a bit less severe, but still.

Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things is a great intro to human factors and covers a number of high-stakes environments as well as more mundane things like door handles. Highly recommended reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things

Indeed a seminal work. Don is also at UCSD, and is a founder of the UCSD Design Lab.

https://designlab.ucsd.edu/

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#437

Post by immibis »

red75prime wrote: post #287
Ma8ee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations. So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks. And while I condemn the ter…

> we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum And we shouldn't pretend that organized terrorism is justified by the things you've mentioned.

[flagged]

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#438

Post by immibis »

mlrtime wrote: post #171
toyg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified. > Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at…

This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how man…

[flagged]

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#439

Post by blobcode »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #310
smcl wrote: post #239

> they saw this contact heading towards them labeled as an F-14 fighter. What's wild to me is the assumption that Iran would suddenly launch a single F-14 fighter to attack a ship. Was there no moment where they thought "maybe there has been a mistake?" - like where Stanislav Petrov chose to interpret the Soviet early warning system telling him an ICBM was incoming as being a result of some faulty instruments. Grante…

As far as I understand it, a single F14 could launch a single Exocet missile, and make a VERY large hole in an aircraft carrier, and if the conditions were right, putting it to the bottom of the sea. Or the same for a battleship. I seem to recall that being a large concern even then, if not especially then.

To my knowledge, the F-14 never carried any anti-ship missile, especially on the early-model Iranian Tomcats, as the F-14 only received an air-to-ground upgrade package in the 90’s.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#440

Post by [deleted] »

thereddaikon wrote: post #317
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these changes just introduce needless risk of complex failure for no real gain Analog speedometers are more complex and can’t be patched OTA. Eliminating them from the fleet means one less part to procure and inventory for manufacturing and service. Given the downside is losing precise speed awareness (you should still be able to judge rough speed visually—that’s the back-up), this seems like a fair trade-off. Cont…

Why do cars need to be patched OTA? Why isn't the code for something as mission critical as a car not written right before it was shipped? I never needed an ECU update on a car before? And my infotainment rarely needed one to the point where the handful of times it did get a firmware update it was handled during servicing just fine.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN