USS Fitzgerald Collision

The litany of failures on that ship, as detailed in the link supplied by rampant, is astonishing, but the most is the failure of the Mk 1 Eyeball.
There is a similarity to a continuing problem in aviation which is the over reliance on automation which has led to a degradation in basic flying skills. A few of my former colleagues are undergoing training for a Boeing 777 endorsement. The majority of the course is computer based learning of the systems on the aircraft. The lesser component is the simulator training which mostly concentrates on systems management and emergency procedures. There is very little actual hands on flying on raw data.
Returning to the Fitzgerald, it would appear she would have been better off on the night with no CIC and a bridge staffed with competent watch keepers.
 
Apologies of posted elsewhere.
It appears that the US Navy is putting the blame on overly complicated 'touch screen' controls - US Navy to ditch touch screen ship controls

It looks like many are unhappy that there are several types of 'non-handson' controls out there and none of them very seem to be intuitive by the looks of it.
I can well imagine this. Compared to a manual wheel and throttle that can be (I imagine) operated very rapidly by a competent crewman within moments of given an urgent command, a screen based interface must be a nightmare when under pressure.
 
I can well imagine this. Compared to a manual wheel and throttle that can be (I imagine) operated very rapidly by a competent crewman within moments of given an urgent command, a screen based interface must be a nightmare when under pressure.
Not If you have a well designed HMI, which is intuitive to use. It's a big thing in my industry.
 
Apologies of posted elsewhere.
It appears that the US Navy is putting the blame on overly complicated 'touch screen' controls - US Navy to ditch touch screen ship controls

It looks like many are unhappy that there are several types of 'non-handson' controls out there and none of them very seem to be intuitive by the looks of it.
I can well imagine this. Compared to a manual wheel and throttle that can be (I imagine) operated very rapidly by a competent crewman within moments of given an urgent command, a screen based interface must be a nightmare when under pressure.
I'm presuming this refers to incident management boards in the SCCC- ship's control centre.

I'm well out of date now but - there was touchscreen tech just coming in as I was leaving. It was always backed up by some bod with a chinagraph and an incident board though.

@alfred_the_great who will know current state of affairs in RN.
 
Not If you have a well designed HMI, which is intuitive to use. It's a big thing in my industry.
Therein lies part of the problem, the reports say that the interface was very difficult to use. As someone who spent many years operating the army's largest vehicle, often in very 'dodgy' conditions, I can tell you that the ability to react with physical controls will still be much, much quicker than something contained within an interface.

I always got the impression that ships seemed to have a slower reaction process (someone telling some to do something then that someone telling someone else etc.), but even then I would guess navies would have a certain amount of urgency in carrying out these.
 
Therein lies part of the problem, the reports say that the interface was very difficult to use. As someone who spent many years operating the army's largest vehicle, often in very 'dodgy' conditions, I can tell you that the ability to react with physical controls will still be much, much quicker than something contained within an interface.
Yes for a fairly binary response but if it's something complex, trying to think about something like you have to do a sharp left turn but the radius of turn is linked to how fast you're going, sharper for lower speed and wider for fast plus the engine isn't allowed to rev above certain RPM when at such and such speed a simple interface can really make it easy. The magic is in designing that simple interface so that even Private Bubba can operate it.
 
I'm presuming this refers to incident management boards in the SCCC- ship's control centre.

I'm well out of date now but - there was touchscreen tech just coming in as I was leaving. It was always backed up by some bod with a chinagraph and an incident board though.

@alfred_the_great who will know current state of affairs in RN.
It happened on the bridge.

Touchscreen was a second order symptom of the overall problem: the USN had not prepared that ship well enough for deployment.
 
It happened on the bridge.

Touchscreen was a second order symptom of the overall problem: the USN had not prepared that ship well enough for deployment.
Ta!
 
Apologies of posted elsewhere.
It appears that the US Navy is putting the blame on overly complicated 'touch screen' controls - US Navy to ditch touch screen ship controls

It looks like many are unhappy that there are several types of 'non-handson' controls out there and none of them very seem to be intuitive by the looks of it.
I can well imagine this. Compared to a manual wheel and throttle that can be (I imagine) operated very rapidly by a competent crewman within moments of given an urgent command, a screen based interface must be a nightmare when under pressure.
There is no problem so bad that you cannot make it worse...

Lookout - "Captain, minefield ahead!"
Captain - "Computer, emergency stop!"
Computer - "We are currently in an ocean, not emerging onto a sea - please cancel current request and retry in ten seconds."

They could have been gone for the vocal control package.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top