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

311–320 of 369 posts

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#311

Post by swixmix »

Animats wrote: post #160
maxerickson wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See [1], the section on "The Pilot". Albacore was very maneuverable, probably more so than any large sub before or since. The term "hydrobatics" was used. Probably too maneuverable for a ship of that size, since it wasn't configured for operation with everybody strapped in. [1] http://www.ussalbacore.org/html/albacore_story.html

It looks like steering was controlled by one person. Unfortunately it lacks further detail. I saved the link to read later. Thank you.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#312

Post by triangleman »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #78
cyberferret wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the warning can change depending on which of the 3 flight modes the aircraft is in at the time. Big contribution to AF447's demise was that the aircraft was in 'alternate flight' mode and the crew assumed it was still in 'normal flight' mode and made a lot of their judgement calls accordingly. For an industry that is so safety conscious, I believe this is a huge flaw in disaster control. To put it in contex…

I'd argue it's more like getting dropped into single user mode. No friendly GUI, but the underlying systems are the same. The flaw with any sort of safety net is that you get used to it and forget the basics of aviation. The big problem was that the pilot-in-command simply forgot (or did not know) how to fly the plane. He overcorrected in reaction to turbulence and the rest is history. Normal law does not allow the p…

Good points all around. Obviously it's up to the human beings to do the best they can in the face of limited information and control.

But where does your viewpoint meet up with someone like Chesley Sullenberger who says the pilots would have probably not crashed if the plane was a Boeing rather than an Airbus, because it would have had an angle-of-attack indicator?

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#313

Post by scott_karana »

thomasz wrote: post #203
scott_karana wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air France 477 was caused by UI stupidity, too. Linked controls (nobody realized the junior copilot was making opposing inputs, which were then averaged with the pilot's) plus poor autopilot UI that they were accustomed to ignoring, made it stall and crash after a single wind speed sensor iced up. If nobody had touched the controls, autopilot would have flown safely through the storm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

That's a very simplistic interpretation. The article is really worth a read. The whole accident is a prime example for a very minor problem (loosing air speed indicators) spinning completely out of control, with the crew being making every possible mistake all the way down, all three people in the cockpit completely ignoring 47 stall warnings.

Agreed, I was just paraphrasing from old memory. Only intended to get people interested in further reading. :)

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#314

Post by exabrial »

jessaustin wrote: post #271
exabrial wrote: post #124

My friend's boat is a dual engine diesel, 78ft, two stories. It has a controller where you set a course and a computer controls the throttles and rudder. On the very choppy lake of the Ozarks, this is a handy feature. You're telling me a million dollar guided missle destroyer can't do this?

Everybody come to the beautiful Lake of the Ozarks, where you too can be menaced on narrow inland waterways by giant overpowered wave-making monstrosities like that of 'exabrial's friend! At least you won't have to worry about uncontrolled USN vessels...

HAHA :D

I took a 5mi trip up the channel on jet skis on memorial day weekend. Holy smokes, I thought I was going to die. The channel chop is no joke!

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#315

Post by bzbarsky »

misnome wrote: post #220
toomanybeersies wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a nuclear powered ship, yes, since you still essentially have a steam engine, the engine telegraph (throttle) isn't actually linked directly to the engine. On a modern diesel or gas turbine ship, no there's not. Obviously there are limits to what the engine can do still.

The nuclear part isn’t just used to generate electricity for the motors?

If https://www.defensetech.org/2013/09/27/ohio-class-subs-to-sh... is correct, then at least the Ohio class submarine drives the motor directly off the turbines, but the thing being designed to replace it will use electric motors. And actually, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine#Elect... talks about the same, but with some comments about the few submarine types that do this so far. And following the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion gives us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion...

Looks like some of the most modern or in-design classes are using electric drive, but most things out there are using direct mechanical linkage to the turbines to drive the propeller.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#316

Post by scott_karana »

theyregreat wrote: post #20
digi_owl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even better, make the stations operable from either side. Then the yokes always orient in reality, and it's just the frame of reference of the pilot that changes.

Eg, if you're facing the dock, and push forward, you'll hit the dock. Take the other side and point your body to sea. Intuitive.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#317

Post by bzbarsky »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #273
zwily wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heat from the nuclear reaction in a nuclear power plant is typically just used to boil water, which turns turbines, which creates the electricity.

Does this electricity charge a battery pack, which then is used to drive the electric motors which turn the screws? This would imply that the heat generation and turbine spin-up time merely need to respond before the batteries are discharged, potentially allowing response times of minutes or hours. It would give Tesla-like instant throttle response, where the operator would move the lever and the sub would jump forwa…

It looks like warships with electric drive are _just_ starting to go into production. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine#Elect... for some background.

Both the Ohio and Los Angeles class submarines use mechanical linkage propulsion, not electric, if I understand correctly.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#318

Post by bzbarsky »

autokad wrote: post #293
avar wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to find anything like a schematic of a Nimitz-class carrier for obvious reasons, but as far as I can tell yes, it's all directly steam powered. The reactor boils (sea)water, which is used to power 4 steam turbines[1][2][3], those turbines drive the propellers. You've probably seen aircraft carrier decks covered in smoke. This is because the Nimitz's catapult system is directly steam powered, service steam i…

some nuclear submarines are not steam powered directly, they use electric engines.

Very few, if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine#Elect... are to be believed. The latter claims that as of 2013 there is exactly one nuclear submarine class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triomphant-class_submarine to be exact) that uses electric engines.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#319

Post by eternalban »

moogleii wrote: post #254
eternalban wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, don't believe your lying eyes. Point out a single scratch that indicates anything other thana 90 degree impact with a stationary vessel.

When a car gets t-boned at an intersection, do you always assume it was stationary? Please point out what aspects of the damage has speedometer-like qualities that your eyes are seeing.

There will be, by physical necessity, surface damage reflecting the forward motion of the penetrated vessel.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170821080742-04-uss-jo...

There is no visile damage indicating that the penetrated vessel was moving forward. The damage is perfectly symmetric, as you can clearly see.

Re: USS McCain collision ultimately caused by UI confusion

#320

Post by dredmorbius »

averagewall wrote: post #163
foobarian wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me started about TVs. When I grew up our family TV turned on in seconds, and pressing channel up/down reacted in tens of milliseconds.

How long ago? My color CRT TV took a good 10 s or so to warm up the tube before you'd see much/anything. But at least it responded instantly, so you could spend that time walking back to the couch instead of waiting for some stupid menu. Instant and trustworthy response is basically gone from most appliances. I think it's a combination of marketing (has to look high tech) and cost (touch buttons are cheaper than mech…

mps / mps-youtube :)
Post reply on HN