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

521–530 of 695 posts

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

#521

Post by rainworld »

rootusrootus wrote: post #460
georgehotelling wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One difference is that Twitter no longer shows threads to logged-out users, while Mastodon does. If someone posted the same thread to both sites, the Mastodon one would be better to link to.

I think this is a misfeature that will hurt Twitter going forward. I don't bother clicking a link to a Twitter thread any more because I know I'm just going to get prompted to log into the account I don't have. And I don't care enough to use an alternate tool, so I just move on. I expect I'm not alone.

But it is a feature. Musk’s takeover of BLUEBIRD is a deliberate act of transmutation, possibly even demolition.

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

#522

Post by Nition »

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…

It sounds like the real pro strat for an attack would have been to launch a single F-14 with a commercial jet taking off right up close behind you.

"Sure that plane looks like it's moving fast and diving straight towards us, but it's just an Airbus A300."

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

#523

Post by mrguyorama »

InsomniacL wrote: post #330
m463 wrote: post #94

I wonder when a tesla will show up in a courtroom with a situation like this. I'm not talking about autopilot. I'm talking about the continuous (past ridiculous) removal of physical controls from their vehicles. For example, the original model S/X had dedicated controls for lots of functions - turn signals, gear shift, wipers, autopilot, steering wheel tilt, etc. On the steering wheel, there were two buttons and a sc…

I have a disaster storey to share about this. Sometimes the car does not want to go in to drive/reverse for some unknown reason. Not long after I first got my tesla, I was making a 3 point turn to go on to my driveway. I moved forward, then stopped, turned the wheel, pressed the stalk to go in to reverse, pressed the accelerator and WENT FORWARD, right in to my old car denting the door. There was no indication the ca…

>annoyingly the car still refuses quite often to go in to Drive/Reverse when you tell it to

How the everloving F** does this even happen? I cannot imagine an ICE car "refusing" switching gears. I know electric vehicles don't manage driving direction through physical gears and linkages like ICE vehicles but this feels like an absurd regression.

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

#524

Post by ls612 »

Armisael16 wrote: post #471
Towaway69 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More interestingly why not fake it and claim to be civilian? Logically speaking: - no identification: risk being shot down by both sides - correct identification: risk being shot down by the enemy - fake civilian identification: no risk of being shot down?

It’s a war crime. If you start doing it the other side won’t shoot at nothing - they’ll shoot at everything, civilians included.

It’s only a war crime if you lose.

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

#525

Post by steeve »

m463 wrote: post #94

I wonder when a tesla will show up in a courtroom with a situation like this. I'm not talking about autopilot. I'm talking about the continuous (past ridiculous) removal of physical controls from their vehicles. For example, the original model S/X had dedicated controls for lots of functions - turn signals, gear shift, wipers, autopilot, steering wheel tilt, etc. On the steering wheel, there were two buttons and a sc…

Thank you.

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

#526

Post by mrguyorama »

hoseja wrote: post #120
m463 wrote: post #94

I wonder when a tesla will show up in a courtroom with a situation like this. I'm not talking about autopilot. I'm talking about the continuous (past ridiculous) removal of physical controls from their vehicles. For example, the original model S/X had dedicated controls for lots of functions - turn signals, gear shift, wipers, autopilot, steering wheel tilt, etc. On the steering wheel, there were two buttons and a sc…

What sort of "physical control" would be appropriate for a radar-guided beyond-visual-range anti-air missile?

The commander of the Vincennes actually had to turn at least one key to enable fire of the missile

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

#527

Post by sillywalk »

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…

UI failings aside, a few points, mostly from the US Naval Institute's Proceedings[2] (which has references to the Official Investigation "Fogarty report"[3])

- it was standard practice to illuminate Iranian military aircraft with missile fire control radar as a warning for them to turn around. "When you put that radar on them, they went home. They were not interested in any missiles," Captain Carlson recalled.

- the captain of the Vincennes was known as trigger-happy and the Vincennes was nicknamed the Robo-Cruiser.

- the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down

- data from USS Vincennes' tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information corroborate the fact that TN 4131 was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile…squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot down."

- "Capt. Rogers was a difficult student. He wasn’t interested in the expertise of the instructors and had the disconcerting habit of violating the Rules of Engagement in the wargames." [2]

- Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire," enabling him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure.

- all hands aboard the Vincennes and the Elmer Montgomery received combat action ribbons."

...

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118

[2] https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993/august/vince...

[3] https://archive.org/details/FormalInvestigationintotheCircum...

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

#528

Post by kayodelycaon »

toss1 wrote: post #470
kayodelycaon wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Some quick googling shows F-14 had LANTIRN pods added and upgraded software to support smart bombs in the mid-90s. All models appear to completely lack the necessary software and hardware to use self-guided ground-attack weapons. A hefty unguided bomb would be possible, but a WW2 dive bomber would have better accuracy. You’re probably better off using the gun. With a lot of luck, you could mission-kill a frigate…

... which we can all discuss at leisure from our armchairs with zero of the stress associated with being in the command chair that day. Just because commenters here may come up with some down-in-the-weeds detailed analysis that could have, if known then, changed the course of events, does not mean that it's reasonable to have come up with that in the heat of battle. There is a reason that the practice is called "Mond…

I happen to agree with you. I was just speculating what could have been done.

I have had to make decisions under stress. If I had been in the captain’s chair, I absolutely would have fired.

A verified enemy plane diving towards my ship in an active war zone?

If I had been thinking at all, I’d be thinking about the British losing a ship in the Falklands just 6 years ago.

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

#529

Post by [deleted] »

mrguyorama wrote: post #520
toss1 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which we can all discuss at leisure from our armchairs with zero of the stress associated with being in the command chair that day. Just because commenters here may come up with some down-in-the-weeds detailed analysis that could have, if known then, changed the course of events, does not mean that it's reasonable to have come up with that in the heat of battle. There is a reason that the practice is called "Mond…

If you are commander of an explicitly Anti-Air cruiser, and you are unaware that any F-14 tasked against you would not have an anti-ship missile and would be abusing some other weapon "off-label", then you should not be defending a carrier fleet from aircraft. You should be familiar with the airframes, weapons, and abilities of your adversary. The F-14 is not an attack aircraft! It was designed to intercept incoming…

[deleted]

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

#530

Post by sillywalk »

wil421 wrote: post #377
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…

Iraq attacked the USS Stark a year before. They used a business jet with an Exocet missile attached to it. This was by mistake but it still happened. A single plane shooting down a ship is not unheard of but the US has done it in pairs to the whole Iran navy.

I thought it was an F-1 Mirage?
Post reply on HN