[HN Gopher] What is good and bad about the F-35 cockpit
___________________________________________________________________
What is good and bad about the F-35 cockpit
Author : edward
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-01-21 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hushkit.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (hushkit.net)
| ajcp wrote:
| Simple solution: each pilot gets the military equivalent of a
| stream deck[1] that is loaded with their own configuration. Have
| a mounting option in the cockpit and Bob's your uncle.
|
| 1. https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/stream-deck
| blhack wrote:
| It's infuriating trying to use the touch screen in my wife's
| minivan to change the radio station. I can't imagine the
| frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet.
|
| More buttons please!
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I've always wanted to build a big rig of buttons to surround my
| pc monitor that I could program for various functions I do
| every day.
|
| When working on Bioshock I had a strip of buttons that could be
| programmed to send keystrokes like it was a keyboard. I was
| working in Unreal Engine on the Xbox 360. I could plug these
| keys it into the dev kit, and with one click could enter all
| kinds of obscure console commands I could never remember. Was
| great.
|
| Update: was one of these. https://xkeys.com/
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| My company builds and works with industrial automation,
| custom CNC machines, and industrial robots. I've observed a
| shift from purely button-and-neon operated panels from early
| PLC or relay logic machines, to multifunction keys on the
| human-machine interface display (HMI) before touchscreens, to
| a fitful few years when people thought it was a good idea to
| build machines with VB6 and various serial to digital IO
| adapters, to purely touchscreen-driven machines with one
| legally-mandated physical emergency stop button (about when I
| arrived in the industry, the other machines were mostly
| historic beasts I've occasionally been charged with
| maintaining), and back towards multifunction keys. There are
| usually a few dedicated buttons and indicators for common
| operations (reset, cycle start, control power on, feed hold,
| feed rate override, etc), that still makes sense most of the
| time.
|
| I really think multifunction keys are the best of both
| worlds. As the author of this piece describes, the
| multifunction display with 20 keys around the outside (or,
| for CNCs, 10 keys across the bottom of the monitor and 10 off
| to the right, in a 1-4-4-1 spacing so you can feel exactly
| which button you're hovering over while you're staring
| unblinking at a cutter chewing through 5-figure assemblies)
| is a good compromise. It takes some serious concentrated
| planning to design a set of keys that are intuitive (top to
| scroll up, bottom to scroll down, one dedicated for enter,
| two for context-specific operations, etc), but it gives you
| the freedom to design relatively shallow but featureful menu
| systems that you can memorize and get tactile feedback to
| operate with confidence.
| nickff wrote:
| There are lots of buttons and switches on the throttle and
| stick. Most modern western fighters are designed for HOTAS
| (hands on throttle and stick) operation, where the pilot never
| takes their hands off the throttle and stick during combat.
| cccc4all wrote:
| The touchscreen is not there for UX. The touch screen is there
| to charge $200,000 for basically $500 ipad.
|
| The software costs for touchscreen probably is in the $
| millions.
| topspin wrote:
| > I can't imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen
| to fly a fighter jet.
|
| A war plane is something you have to operate while it's
| burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see
| properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you
| with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of
| cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to
| controlling comms or navigation.
| Retric wrote:
| That's really not how we design modern jet fighters. Air
| combat involves a huge number of tradeoffs and ejecting is
| now the correct response to a wide range of issues. For
| example, the F-35 so engine so engine failure is likely to
| result in a lost aircraft.
|
| It's basically been decided that we are going to spend silly
| money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge
| aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of
| thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable
| possibly drone aircraft.
|
| PS: To be clear it's possible their making the correct
| choice. I personally doubt it, but I don't have access to the
| kind of classified documents to justify things in one way or
| another. An effective labor weapon for example might render
| vastly cheaper drone fleets ineffective.
| jki275 wrote:
| No, the post above is exactly correct.
|
| Ejecting from an aircraft is an absolute last resort, and
| you stand a good chance of dying or being badly injured if
| you have to do it, and even if you survive the ejection,
| the parachute ride, and the landing, it's a better than
| even chance you're going to be captured and beaten,
| tortured, or killed on the ground. That's if you land on
| land of course -- if you land in the water you might just
| drown or never be found.
| Retric wrote:
| > it's better than even chance you're going to be
| captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground.
|
| That's simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. The
| vast majority of time is going to be spent flying over
| either open ocean or friendly territory. That's been true
| even if you're only looking at recent combat missions.
|
| Anyway, single engine aircraft are always going to be at
| higher risk for mechanical failure, yet that's the chosen
| design. Just look through this list: https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident.... In
| commercial aviation 4 crashes per year worldwide is a bad
| year, in military aviation 4 crashes a month worldwide is
| a good month.
| topspin wrote:
| > That's simply not the reality of modern fighter jets.
|
| Even Iraq managed to capture US and allied pilots. I
| think I'll forego the rest; you're reality and actual
| reality are a bit too divergent.
| d_silin wrote:
| You can learn quite a lot about aviation UI experience from
| civilian airliners' instruments. I did work a little bit with
| Boeing-777X ones.
|
| It is not great, actually. PFD (primary flight displays) are
| cluttered and information-noisy. HUD is a much better tool for
| flying experience. Fortunately for civilian pilots, this is
| becoming more common now.
|
| FMS (flight management system) has all the usability of IBM
| mainframes from 1960s and about the same performance.
|
| The tasks that pilot have to do before the flight are rather
| simple: you have to input weather conditions, aircraft load and
| waypoints for autopilot. But with even the most modern FMS it is
| a tedious and frustrating process, you have non-intuitive control
| flow and non-qwerty keyboard. Also all text-based, non-graphical
| interface.
|
| The better parts of aicraft UI are EICAS/ECAM (engine information
| and alerts) - they are both useful and intuitive to understand,
| with emphasis on graphical indication.
|
| A lot of hard to use bits are not from any technology limitations
| - modern aircraft displays are rather capable, but from the
| decades of industry legacy and expensive certifications required
| for any change.
| d_silin wrote:
| To elaborate on my point. Arcade flight and space simulators
| have probably the optimal possible UI for
| "aviate/navigate/communicate" activities.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Ask any pilot what the most complex part is about switching
| aircrafts and getting a new type rating. It's never the way the
| plane handles, is always either remembering the mandatory
| systems knowledge or how to use the FMS.
|
| I flew along on a small private jet recently, their system was
| 10x easier to understand and more capable than the typical
| airliner... So it is possible, probably even at a lower cost.
| mshockwave wrote:
| are private jets under different regulations (rules)?
| bdavis__ wrote:
| Yes. Both for pilots and the airplane.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It depends on the weight, seat count and type of operation.
| Very generally speaking small jets with 9 seats or less and
| not being too heavy are CS-23 certified while larger
| (transport category) aircraft are CS-25.
|
| So the small jet in my example indeed has less regulations
| than a larger airliner. And would probably not be allowed
| to be used for commercial air transport, only charter
| flights.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Wow, how did the fact that the G-forces will make it difficult to
| use voice commands or to interact with a touch screen not kill
| these F35 cockpit features a long time ago?
| JohnBooty wrote:
| To be _really_ specific for those not aware, pilots need to do
| special breathing routines when under high g-forces.
|
| Deep, rapid breaths. They need to suck oxygen into their body
| as quickly and efficiently as possible to maintain
| consciousness, because the g-forces forces blood away from
| their heads and towards their legs and feet.
|
| Here's a "classic" video of a pilot successfully evading an
| unbelievable number of SAMs over Iraq. The rapid breathing
| might make you think he's panicking. Nope, he's got it 100%
| under control and is following training perfectly. Though I'm
| sure he certainly needed a drink after making it home.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUjX1RntqVw
|
| There's also sort of a method of flexing their thighs that they
| learn. Restricts blood flow to the legs, so there's more blood
| for the rest of the body. That's a bit of an athletic endeavor
| in and of itself. Try flexing your thighs... now hold them that
| way for 5, 10, 20 minutes. Yikes.
|
| Anyway, how the hell could you even bark out voice commands
| while doing that sort of breathing!?!?
| waiseristy wrote:
| These voice commands are usually just for changing radio
| settings and other non-essential functionality. Stuff that
| would be just as difficult to change with tactile switches in
| high G. The Eurofighter has been using a similar system since
| the 90's
| mshockwave wrote:
| I only know some standard "anti-G" actions involve breathing
| really hard while keeping your lungs inflated. I guess that
| makes speaking more difficult?
| medium_burrito wrote:
| First, I'm curious if they use a throat mike or something bone
| conducting.
|
| Second, given how shitty voice interfaces are, I'm shocked they
| would use them at all. I assume the military funds a lot of EEG
| research- that would be ideal here.
| jandrese wrote:
| According to the article the author knows of no pilots that
| use the voice interface.
|
| Given how finicky they are I can't say I'm surprised. Maybe
| with modern pseudo-AI systems they could be reliable enough
| to depend on, but none of that is in military hardware
| specced out 20 years ago.
| medium_burrito wrote:
| If you used the nato phonetic alphabet maybe, ie shortcodes
| for voice???
| jandrese wrote:
| It would probably help, but there is still the enormous
| noise floor to contend with. Jet Fighters are
| unbelievably loud. I mean that literally. If you've never
| watched one take off you would think I'm exaggerating the
| noise level. It's hard to describe because most people
| have never experienced something that loud.
| stickydink wrote:
| Not sure how much I'd trust my brain for this kind of
| thing... Thinking "I better not press that eject button!"
| might be problematic
| rtkwe wrote:
| Ejection isn't on the screen it's the big yellow loop
| between their legs.
|
| https://martin-baker.com/products/mk16-ejection-seat-f-35/
| etrautmann wrote:
| EEG requires highly stable signals. G forces would make any
| EEG measurements extremely unreliable.
| [deleted]
| dmix wrote:
| > two MFDs with the classic 20 pushbuttons around the outside
|
| MFD = multi-functional display
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-function_display
|
| There's always acronyms in these sort of posts that I get to
| learn. And probably relevant to this:
|
| > Something that has been lost in all glass cockpits is the
| tactile feel of pressing buttons and knowing you got a response
|
| As I'm assuming they all went touch screen
| stretchcat wrote:
| I wonder if they've considered wearable haptics. A little
| buzzer somewhere in their flight suit might provide pilots with
| 'a button was pushed' confirmations. Maybe that would be too
| distracting though.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| I've missed notifications on my phone on long flights because
| I didn't feel the buzzer. I can't imagine a fighter jet is
| more conducive to feeling a buzzer than a commercial airline.
|
| Honestly, I'm amazed the buttons around the edge of the
| screen aren't context aware buttons based off which screen a
| non-touchscreen display is showing.
| jandrese wrote:
| It would probably be a little hard to feel when you're
| already getting buzzed constantly by the turbine engines and
| airflow.
| stretchcat wrote:
| True... maybe if they could get buzzers in the fingertips
| of the gloves... maybe. You're probably right though, the
| vibrations of the aircraft would drown it all out.
| emilecantin wrote:
| This particular acronym is also used a lot in the marine
| industry. Marine GPS, also known as "chartplotters", are mostly
| called MFDs nowadays, as it's a much more descriptive of what
| they've become.
| brmgb wrote:
| Touch panels on military boats are called MFDs too. They are
| actually surprisingly good but they come with large handles
| you can use to stabilize yourself while the boat is moving.
| snide wrote:
| I play a lot of Digital Combat Simulator, which models a lot of
| these planes. At first I was interested in shooting things, then
| I was interested in the flying, but in the end I learned I was
| most interested in the computer systems and how these games are
| mostly virtual simulations of old computers. It's fun to see what
| changed over the years and between cultures. The MiGs are
| completely different than their Western counterparts. How you
| navigate from point to point is often completely different. It's
| also interesting how durable the UX of MFDs were in cockpit
| design. When I went for my GA license, it was funny to see how
| many newer models of planes had moved to "glass" cockpits. It
| some ways, it felt like putting wifi on your fridge. Most of the
| GA planes folks fly were made in the 70s.
| unoti wrote:
| Agreed! If the information in this article is even slightly
| interesting to you, then you owe it to yourself to spend some
| time with Digital Combat Simulator. In there you can get first-
| hand experience with the Harrier and the F/A 18 discussed in
| the article. You will spend a lot of time with the cockpits and
| start to develop your own affinity for things in the cockpit,
| and develop your own ideas about what you like and what you
| don't.
|
| Do a Google Images search for "DCS FA18 cockpit" or "DCS
| Harrier cockpit" and you'll see that the real life photos are
| pretty much indistinguishable from the screenshots, if you take
| the word "DCS" out of the search term. Every switch and gauge
| are faithfully simulated, and you can use the real-life
| operating manuals to operate these simulators.
|
| There's a lot of overlap with a lot of the things I love about
| computer systems. It's fun to _learn_ , and to operate systems,
| and to feel that feeling of mastery as you gain confidence in
| making the machines do your bidding. Those types of feelings
| are much the same (and different) between operating computers
| and operating aircraft systems. To a large extent these modern
| planes feels a lot like operating a big flying computer, at
| least in the simulators. This is also true of things like the
| Cessna G1000 glass cockpit in Flight Sim 2020.
| mhh__ wrote:
| > DCS FA18 cockpit
|
| One thing that's particularly impressive about the F/A-18 is
| that the Spec available in DCS (give or take a few features)
| is almost the same as the first batch from the 80s UI wise.
|
| In 1983, serving alongside the almost completely analog/60s
| F-14, the F/A-18 had 3 pretty modern MFDs. Definitely more
| advanced than most Star Wars cockpits, for example.
| ak217 wrote:
| I'm flabbergasted that MFDs haven't made more inroads in
| automotive and computer input device applications. We even have
| decent HUDs in cars now, but no MFDs. I'm convinced a good MFD
| would be far superior to the typical touchscreen crap - if
| Tesla had a MFD and a HUD instead of the giant TV screen, I
| would have bought one by now.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I think it's because the MFD model is designed for trained
| pilots who have to take a test to use them, i.e. I'd love
| one, but I can just imagine the complaints about the
| different pages and things like that.
|
| Also, I'd love one for home automation too. There's only so
| much data you need to display or enter so the reduced latency
| of a dumb screen going straight into the back of a internet
| connected SBC (or even microcontroller) could be really nice
| to have in the kitchen, rather than having to fiddle around
| with either just a phone or what would end up being a tablet
| bolted to a wall.
| tra3 wrote:
| I upgraded my car's stereo and it went from a knob for volume
| control to two small buttons. Hate it.
|
| It was difficult enough to find stereo with dedicated volume
| buttons. The rest of the functionality is via touch. Not a fan.
| I've never driven a BWM, but I believe they have a knob beside
| the shifter that allows you to go through the menus.. that feels
| like a much better system.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| They do, and also a physical volume knob that you can find and
| turn without looking at it.
|
| When I had a rental Renault that had everything on a
| touchscreen I thought "cool, looks modern!" when I looked at it
| stationary. And then totally hated it after 5 minutes of
| driving because it is so much worse to use on the road than the
| BMW system with actual buttons and the controller you can use
| blindly.
| jeromenerf wrote:
| Renault cars have audio controls behind the right hand side
| of the steering wheel, alongside the touchscreen. It works
| fine and you keep your hands on the wheel.
| visviva wrote:
| > At present I am pressing the wrong part of the screen about 20%
| of the time in flight due to either mis-identification, or more
| commonly by my finger getting jostled around in turbulence or
| under G.
|
| That seems... bad, but also totally unsurprising.
| waiseristy wrote:
| I'm surprised there isn't more hand rests used in these
| applications, similar to how the Dragon capsule has those
| finger "shelves" for the touch panels. Would make accurate
| touch input at least slightly easier
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Some general aviation planes have this, I've only used one
| during a short test flight in a simulator but it seemed to
| work quite well.
| jandrese wrote:
| Yeah, this seems like a fairly easy workaround. A possible
| limitation is the cramped cockpit may literally not have
| enough room, your knees might hit the rests when working the
| rudder.
|
| Maybe if it were a flip-down thing where you could rest your
| hand when needed, but also bounce it out of the way when its
| not needed.
| cccc4all wrote:
| F-35 is a slush fund for politicians and Military Industrial
| Entertainment Technology sector.
|
| $1.5 Trillion and counting.
| waiseristy wrote:
| Alright, HN. Some required listening for you :
|
| The Harrier :
| https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/056-av-8-harrie...
|
| The F35 :
| https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/078-f-35-lightn...
|
| The Eurofighter (for their short discussion on the voice
| commands):
| https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/058-eurofighter...
| dirtyid wrote:
| https://i.redd.it/z9tejhhbg6931.jpg
|
| This is way more sparse and streamlined than I thought. Wonder
| how big the manual for flight simulator game would be. Some video
| of UI in action on simulator.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSy8DcLaRDo
|
| Are there any design documentations for UX/UI for military
| hardware? Is there a name for this style. Is it actually as
| functional as it looks? I wonder how these designers feel about
| dealing with military powerpoints.
| mhh__ wrote:
| > Wonder how big the manual for flight simulator game would be.
| One manual for the F-14B is about 1k pages, so I would assume
| this would clock in significantly more than that due to the
| added capabilities (in information at least, possibly not pages
| due to the F-14 being pre-HOTAS and things like that
| http://server.3rd-wing.net/public/Ked/natops%20F14B.pdf
| pugworthy wrote:
| Looking at the picture, that's surprisingly sparse.
| nickff wrote:
| There are many design guidelines and studies for A&D (aerospace
| and defense); everything from which typeface to use, to how to
| display quantities and directions. I am not away of any
| comprehensive style guide or all-encompassing name for it.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| I love how immediately obvious it is that the Harrier cockpit
| _lets you see downwards_.
|
| Also, the red button on the stick really brings home just how
| much flying these machine are like a flying a loaded gun.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-21 23:00 UTC)