Things Make More Sense Now

[Redress]

We hear reports of pilots' failing to understand a situation: 'They didn't realize the auto pilot was engaged…' or similar. Why aren't complex aircraft equipped with annunciators alerting pilots in plain language, not just tones and lights? - Quora

From a story about a guy who flew C-17 explaining meeting with a vendor about how a system was designed:

So as they’re showing the planned display in a big briefing (called the CDR or critical design review) they show the modes in the upper right corner of the selected MFD would be something like HI, LOW, STBY, and FAIL written in cyan. Fail, I thought. So I spoke up “What kind of mode is fail? Is that total system failure? If so shouldn’t it be written in big yellow letters across the center of the display FAIL?” They just sort of looked at me like a deer in the headlights. “I suppose” the lead engineer said. “But it’s more lines of code to write. This way it just uses the same SLOC (single line of code) as the other modes but if you want it to look like that we’ll have to increase the contract price.”

Then the world blew up. I said “Well yeah, we really can’t see the top inch or so of those displays anyway.” HO-LE-****-BALLS, that meeting came to a halt. “What? What do you mean you can’t see the tops of the displays????” I explained that back when then were smaller CRTs we could but when they upgraded to bigger LCDs the AFCS panel (that center piece between the HUDS that sticks out) blocks the view of the tops of those center screens unless you duck your head down, so we (pilots) prefer if you don’t put any important information there. Meeting halted, cockpit design team called in.

“We designed the height for those screens, look!” And I see a little person in a picture of a cockpit with eye angles BUT there’s another one, higher, overlaid with a different eye line. “What’s with this second eyeline?” I asked “That’s for the HUD, the cockpit eye line is different than the HUD.” “WHY, in God’s name, would you do that? We fly around with the HUD all the time.” They replied “Why would you do that? We only were contracted to put the HUD in for landings, the rest of the time you should have it retracted and off.” To me, that’s like saying “Why are you using your car all the time? You should just use it for going to the mailbox and you should use your bike everywhere else.” For a pilot it was insane.

 

[Mr Person]

I really would have expected people in charge of designing things for pilots to have some, you know, ****ing pilots on the team. Maybe just the one.

 

[PirateMk1]

We hear reports of pilots' failing to understand a situation: 'They didn't realize the auto pilot was engaged…' or similar. Why aren't complex aircraft equipped with annunciators alerting pilots in plain language, not just tones and lights? - Quora

From a story about a guy who flew C-17 explaining meeting with a vendor about how a system was designed:

Not surprised. That's what happens when your design team does NOT involve the end user, and by going strictly by contract. Engineers can be quite literal. This is the prime reason that engineers should be cross trained across engineering disciplines but also in other fields giving them a broader perspective. This is why when designing product, the end user is involved along with the design team who has at least one member specifically there for ergonomics. The ergonomics not only operating the aircraft but the requisite maintenance as well. Time is money, the longer a piece of equipment is out of action for maintenance the more it costs. Car and Truck companies spend millions of dollars in RD figuring this sort of stuff out for their projects. The reason you get the situation you describe especially in government projects is a lot of those contracts are the cost plus variety. They usually have strict verbiage on what is or is not in the final design and its costs. Thus the equipment was designed by lawyers before even being designed in the design applications.

 

[PirateMk1]

I really would have expected people in charge of designing things for pilots to have some, you know, ****ing pilots on the team. Maybe just the one.

Depends on the contract government contracts for military hardware, or any hardware or service for that matter, are their own beast. When designing for military applications my company does NOT bid for contract. We build the prototype equipment to send to DARPA for trial and evaluation. Typically at that point they either show interest or not. If so a contract is then negotiated and drawn up.

 

[Mr Person]

Depends on the contract government contracts for military hardware, or any hardware or service for that matter, are their own beast. When designing for military applications my company does NOT bid for contract. We build the prototype equipment to send to DARPA for trial and evaluation. Typically at that point they either show interest or not. If so a contract is then negotiated and drawn up.

If I were to design a thing that required an operator, I would obtain operator input.

 

[PirateMk1]

If I were to design a thing that required an operator, I would obtain operator input.

My company works similar to an automotive company, but for aircraft and boats. There is at least one ergonomist involved who then works with a multitude of pilots and maintenance technicians hashing out control schemes and work flows and emergency procedures. We started by designing aircraft and RUAV's control systems. So user experience is cooked into our companies DNA.

 

[Redress]

Not surprised. That's what happens when your design team does NOT involve the end user, and by going strictly by contract. Engineers can be quite literal. This is the prime reason that engineers should be cross trained across engineering disciplines but also in other fields giving them a broader perspective. This is why when designing product, the end user is involved along with the design team who has at least one member specifically there for ergonomics. The ergonomics not only operating the aircraft but the requisite maintenance as well. Time is money, the longer a piece of equipment is out of action for maintenance the more it costs. Car and Truck companies spend millions of dollars in RD figuring this sort of stuff out for their projects. The reason you get the situation you describe especially in government projects is a lot of those contracts are the cost plus variety. They usually have strict verbiage on what is or is not in the final design and its costs. Thus the equipment was designed by lawyers before even being designed in the design applications.

Yeah, I was involved in a meeting from the makers of the F-18 FLIR pods, they where going to various squadrons and asking the maintenance people why the pods had such a high down rate. It was...educational for all.

 

[apdst]

I really would have expected people in charge of designing things for pilots to have some, you know, ****ing pilots on the team. Maybe just the one.

No, never. People who design trucks aren't truck driver, either. People who design cars aren't mechanics.

 

[beerftw]

No, never. People who design trucks aren't truck driver, either. People who design cars aren't mechanics.

People who design cars are not mechanics, infact an old saying from mechanics is that if the engineers who designed those cars had to work on them, they would likely hang themselves after realizing what a nightmare they created.

In my field it is actually pretty bad, guy with 6 years college designs an automatic transmission, can never get it to work right, a mechanic with no college figures out spring tension and re calibrates the valve body with parts from another transmission, a paper clip a rubber band and a piece of round steel bar, no kidding engineers make good money to make something and it is usually mechanics who end up fixing it and making the design work right.

Granted much of that too was no so much the engineer could not build it right, but rather major company ford gm etc said we need to get this on the road and our bean counters said it would be ok if the product was garbage.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

People who design cars are not mechanics, infact an old saying from mechanics is that if the engineers who designed those cars had to work on them, they would likely hang themselves after realizing what a nightmare they created.

In my field it is actually pretty bad, guy with 6 years college designs an automatic transmission, can never get it to work right, a mechanic with no college figures out spring tension and re calibrates the valve body with parts from another transmission, a paper clip a rubber band and a piece of round steel bar, no kidding engineers make good money to make something and it is usually mechanics who end up fixing it and making the design work right.

Granted much of that too was no so much the engineer could not build it right, but rather major company ford gm etc said we need to get this on the road and our bean counters said it would be ok if the product was garbage.

Which is why auto companies should have race teams that have engineers rotate in and out on a 12 month rotation to build practical and high paced experience

 

[PirateMk1]

Which is why auto companies should have race teams that have engineers rotate in and out on a 12 month rotation to build practical and high paced experience

They don't need that. It might be nice, but not needed and could be counterproductive. They just have to have good experienced fabricators, operators, technicians and couple of bubba's, around to help with the design from different points of view from the various end users. The more points of view that the design is looked at from the better it tends to be especially if its a general use design. Whats good in racing does not always translate well in general use.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

They don't need that. It might be nice, but not needed and could be counterproductive. They just have to have good experienced fabricators, operators, technicians and couple of bubba's, around to help with the design from different points of view from the various end users. The more points of view that the design is looked at from the better it tends to be especially if its a general use design. Whats good in racing does not always translate well in general use.

Which is why engineers on race teams ( smaller scale than F1) can be valuable. If given the opportunity to repair build etc the race car they will gain a lot of experience very quickly on the overall picture you mention. It also builds engagement in the products they produce rather than just designing widget number 46

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Putting engineers and bean counters in charge is how you wind up with cars like the "new" Dodge Dart (the absolute poorest performance and reliability specs of any vehicle in its class) or the Chevy Vega, which was an almost "disposable" car, or quite simply, the Plymouth Volare or Pontiac TransSport minivan, vehicles which almost mock their buyers in terms of overall absolute "horrible-ness".

If you have to design any vehicle or vessel, you must use significant input from enthusiasts and end users, you must have "car guys" in charge if you want the vehicle to be useful, well made and popular.
At least some of that surely applies to military equipment...at least the "end user" inputs anyway.

 

[joko104]

Someone in the Air Force said that heavy aircraft generally only have parachutes for the pilot and co-pilot. However, they are in the front and further back the rest of who is on-board are with the tools including axes and other heavy tools. "So whose parachutes are they REALLY?" LOL

 

[joko104]

Can't remember if it is the C5 or C17, but an AF maintainer said one is the "Rube Goldberg aircraft." A dinosaur of incredible unreliability and complexity - but they keep them going because of the massive weight they can move - like a couple of tanks. It isn't a question of whether something isn't functioning correctly on the aircraft because that is a certainly. Rather, whether it merits grounding the aircraft or not. So who gets the black ball to sign off on each flight against imperfection, knowing it's their ass if something goes wrong in flight?

 

[joko104]

Putting engineers and bean counters in charge is how you wind up with cars like the "new" Dodge Dart (the absolute poorest performance and reliability specs of any vehicle in its class) or the Chevy Vega, which was an almost "disposable" car, or quite simply, the Plymouth Volare or Pontiac TransSport minivan, vehicles which almost mock their buyers in terms of overall absolute "horrible-ness".

If you have to design any vehicle or vessel, you must use significant input from enthusiasts and end users, you must have "car guys" in charge if you want the vehicle to be useful, well made and popular.
At least some of that surely applies to military equipment...at least the "end user" inputs anyway.

Cars are a bad example as they are deliberately designed to have a limited life span plus cost compromises. Military aircraft might have useful lifespans of over half a century, particularly the heavies. But then the cost is over a quarter of a billion each - or more in real terms. A few, highly specialized including what is aboard are over a billion dollar asset. Add more for spares, training and maintenance/upgrading. Nothing in the modern military is cheap.

 

[PirateMk1]

Which is why engineers on race teams ( smaller scale than F1) can be valuable. If given the opportunity to repair build etc the race car they will gain a lot of experience very quickly on the overall picture you mention. It also builds engagement in the products they produce rather than just designing widget number 46

This really applies to autos and the like and only to a degree. Its shop ethos and environment that really controls how well things are designed. My shop always has fabricators and end users in and out going through designs. A good shop involves the people using the product being designed and is in the field with them to observe and evaluate for themselves. Also products from good shops are not just lab tested but bubba tested in the field. Bubba testing is the deliberate abuse of the designed product. Our shop uses our bubba tests in our advertising.