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

11–20 of 369 posts

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#11

Post by NoPiece »

foldr wrote: post #6
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

The Navy's investigation found that both collisions were avoidable accidents. And in the case of the USS McCain, the accident was in part caused by an error made in switching which control console on the ship's bridge had steering control So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident w…

>So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident with loss of life. I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but this theory of the AF 447 crash keeps getting repeated online despite the fact that the accident report did not conclude that the UI was a factor. If it's got to the point…

I'd call it an interpretation, not a theory. But clearly the conflicting inputs was a UI problem, and while there may be tradeoffs, a better UI could have prevented the AF 447 crash.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#12

Post by digi_owl »

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.

Happens more often than we like.

I know of a ferry that a local warf built that had two bridges, and a combined throttle and rudder in each.

The thing is that when moving from one bridge to the other, the crew had to flip a switch to indicate what direction was forward. And quite often they forgot.

End result was a long history of damaged because ferry would ram the pier when the crew was actually attempting to move away from it.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#13

Post by foldr »

dredmorbius wrote: post #10
foldr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident with loss of life. I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but this theory of the AF 447 crash keeps getting repeated online despite the fact that the accident report did not conclude that the UI was a factor. If it's got to the point…

Hearing (one of many) alarms is one thing. Feeling the control wheel or stick fighting you is far more direct. AF 447 was absolutely a UX failure.

If you're going to go against the conclusions of the accident report, which is very thorough, you'll have to do more than just assert that the side sticks were responsible.

Check it out here: https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp09060...

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#14

Post by foldr »

NoPiece wrote: post #11
foldr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident with loss of life. I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but this theory of the AF 447 crash keeps getting repeated online despite the fact that the accident report did not conclude that the UI was a factor. If it's got to the point…

I'd call it an interpretation, not a theory. But clearly the conflicting inputs was a UI problem, and while there may be tradeoffs, a better UI could have prevented the AF 447 crash.

This really won't die. It's clear if you read the accident report (linked in another comment) that the plane was already doomed by the time that conflicting inputs were potentially a factor.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#15

Post by mikeash »

foldr wrote: post #6
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

The Navy's investigation found that both collisions were avoidable accidents. And in the case of the USS McCain, the accident was in part caused by an error made in switching which control console on the ship's bridge had steering control So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident w…

>So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident with loss of life. I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but this theory of the AF 447 crash keeps getting repeated online despite the fact that the accident report did not conclude that the UI was a factor. If it's got to the point…

With linked controls, the sane pilot at the controls would have immediately realized that the crazy one was fighting him, and it would have been brought to a swift end.

I know a lot of pilots and I don’t recall ever hearing one express the opinion that non-linked dual controls were anything other than idiotic. I’d personally be quite wary of ever flying such a machine. (Although of course the stuff I fly uses purely mechanical controls so there’s no choice in the matter.)

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#16

Post by foldr »

mikeash wrote: post #15
foldr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, basically this was a reprise of the AF 447 crash at sea, where lack of clear command authority combined with a maddeningly poorly-thought-out UI resulted in a serious accident with loss of life. I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but this theory of the AF 447 crash keeps getting repeated online despite the fact that the accident report did not conclude that the UI was a factor. If it's got to the point…

With linked controls, the sane pilot at the controls would have immediately realized that the crazy one was fighting him, and it would have been brought to a swift end. I know a lot of pilots and I don’t recall ever hearing one express the opinion that non-linked dual controls were anything other than idiotic. I’d personally be quite wary of ever flying such a machine. (Although of course the stuff I fly uses purely…

The sane pilot realized this anyway. Check the accident report.

(Or rather, the captain realized once he entered the cockpit. Neither of the pilots in the cockpit ever figured it out.)

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#17

Post by jordanb »

The real cause of the collision was poor seamanship and failure to follow the COLREGS on the part of the bridge crew of the destroyer. Most specifically they were seriously in violation of Rule 6: the Safe Speed Rule

http://navruleshandbook.com/Rule6.html

  Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so 
  that she can take proper and effective action to avoid 
  collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to 
  the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
The USS McCain was traveling at over 20 knots at the time of the collision, through a very crowded area at the entrance of a traffic separation scheme. If they hadn't been traveling at this obviously excessive speed they would have had the time to think, and to work through little UI issues like the one described here.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#18

Post by dragonwriter »

pbh101 wrote: post #8

UI flaws have hit the Navy before, with even worse consequences [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air...

Nothing I see in that article (or anything else I've seen about the incident) attributes it to a UI issue.

Not all errors made by users are the fault of the UI.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#19

Post by theyregreat »

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.

Redundant affordances are needed:

Controls that are active should be illuminated in a particular color, say red.

Controls that are disabled should be extinguished, physically-locked or track active controls, and sound a warning when manipulated.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#20

Post by theyregreat »

digi_owl wrote: post #12
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.

Happens more often than we like. I know of a ferry that a local warf built that had two bridges, and a combined throttle and rudder in each. The thing is that when moving from one bridge to the other, the crew had to flip a switch to indicate what direction was forward. And quite often they forgot. End result was a long history of damaged because ferry would ram the pier when the crew was actually attempting to move…

That is super dumb and dangerous. They should just flip the inputs on one end.

EDIT (since some people obviously don’t understand the problem): ... so that each set of controls is always correct for the respective side on which it is located. No switch is necessary.

Post reply on HN