Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military

The Problems of Touchscreens In the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (boingboing.net) 138

Posted by EditorDavid from the touching-screens dept.
Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes a recent blog post from BoingBoing: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most crammed-with-digital-tech fighter jet in history, the product of a multi-decade, trillion-dollar design process that has been famously messy. But the jet is out there, and pilots are flying it. One big design shift with the F-35 is that it removes many of the small physical switches that crowded older jet cockpits, and replaces them with a big touchscreen...

The folks at the Husk-Kit aviation magazine got an (anonymous) pilot of the F-35 to give their candid assessment of the plane, and it turns out the touchscreen causes some serious problems — for this pilot, anyway, an astounding error rate of 20% while trying to activate a feature.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Problems of Touchscreens In the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter More

The Problems of Touchscreens In the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Comments Filter:

  • Starting with ... (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:37PM (#61010338)

    ... turns out the touchscreen causes some serious problems ...

    Gorilla Arm [techopedia.com]

    • Re:Starting with ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @07:11PM (#61010442) Homepage Journal

      He didn't complain about that in TFA. He complained about what the friggin' designers should have thought of. THERE IS NO TACTILE FEEDBACK. And it's hard to hit the right spot with turbulence.

      • He didn't complain about that in TFA. He complained about what the friggin' designers should have thought of. THERE IS NO TACTILE FEEDBACK. And it's hard to hit the right spot with turbulence.

        That's what his says anyway ... :-)

      • Re:Starting with ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @09:31PM (#61010824) Homepage

        Yeah, the Slashdot summary really misrepresents it. He had positive things to say about the UI too, and the problem wasn't so much "that it was a screen", but rather the buttons are in the middle of the screen and he can't brace his hand up against anything while touching them.

        The rest of the cockpit is beautiful to look at – nothing analogue, all digital with about 10 actual switches in the cockpit. Notice I say beautiful to look at, not necessarily beautiful to interact with! In theory the all-glass display is great. It’s touchscreen, you can set it up to show pretty much anything you want in any layout you want. Take, for example, a fuel display. You can have it in a large window that shows you everything you could possibly want to know about the aircraft’s fuel system; the contents of each tank, which pumps are operating, fuel temperature, centre of gravity etc. Or you can shrink it into a smaller window that only shows more basic info. Or you don’t even display it at all because the Function Access Buttons (FAB) along the top of the display always has a small fuel section with the essential info visible at all times. That’s the beauty of the display – size and customisation. The drawback is in the complete lack of tactile response. It can be challenging to press the correct ‘button’ on the display whenever the jet is in motion as it is quite a bumpy ride at times. 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. One of the biggest drawbacks is that you can’t brace your hand against anything whilst typing – think how much easier it is to type on a smartphone with your thumbs versus trying to stab at a virtual keyboard on a large tablet with just your index finger.

        Voice input is another feature of the jet, but not one I have found to be useful. It may work well on the ground in a test rig, but under G in flight it’s not something I have found to work consistently enough to rely on. I haven’t met anyone who uses it.

        Having bashed the interface, the way this jet displays information to you is incredible. The sheer amount of situational awareness I gain from this aircraft and its displays is like nothing I’ve experienced before. The off-boresight helmet is much more accurate than legacy JHMCS systems and I find it clearer to read (although I still want a wide-angle HUD for flight and fight-critical data!). About the only thing missing from the whole cockpit is the lack of ‘feel’.

        Seems like some big UI design errors (which he rightfully points out):

        1) Anything that you need to press frequently should be within reach of your hands' resting position (such as buttons on the yoke); you shouldn't need to touch the screen at all. Things that are within your hands' resting position can be interacted with easily without looking (akin to touch typing). Things not within your resting position require fumbling if you try to do it without looking, which is why people almost always look when interacting with them.

        2) The next level of "most commonly interacted with" things should be on the near edges of the screen. As he noted about bracing his hand, the edge of a screen acts as a guide, dramatically increasing pointing accuracy, especially in bumpy conditions.

        3) Buttons should be big enough that taking into account expected jostling, the location of the button, and how frequently you have to interact with it, misclicks are rare. This is something that they should have tested for before they even designed the UI. Any level of jostling can be accounted for, but you have to design for it.

        4) Only things that are infrequently used should not be edge-aligned.

        • Re:Starting with ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mooncaine ( 778422 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @09:44PM (#61010858) Journal

          Agreed. Automotive and aircraft designers realized this and proved it with testing long, long ago. Touchscreens are lousy interfaces in any vehicle, but especially one that maneuvers as violently as a fighter plane.

          Buttons have to be big enough (or, a control must be usable, whether it's a button or not) in the dark, when blinded, when the vehicle's upside down or spinning rapidly while falling at the same time. By hands that might need to be gloved, right? So, fat fingers.

          And you absolutely need to be able to feel whether or not you successfully operated the control. You need to be able to feel the throttle's position along the length of its slot, and you need to feel the switch change when you lower landing gear, or whatever.

          Touchscreens take your eyes off of the primary task. No choice; you have to divert your attention to the touchscreen.

          • If I designed the user interface the things you pressed would be light grey swirls over a mid grey background. Or better, nothing at all and you just need to know where they are, perhaps if you hover in the right way. Keeps people over 15 years old from messing with it.

            That said, planes I used fly have sticks and rudders and no new fangled electrical system at all, but I have used touch screens on a boat and it is fiddly in a choppy sea.

          • Re: Starting with ... (Score:4, Informative)

            by birrddog ( 1237440 ) on Sunday January 31, 2021 @07:41AM (#61011872)
            This has been proven regularly in boating displays for a long time. Touch screen great in the harbor. Doing 30+knots in even mild seas trying to pan, pinch/zoom, let alone select a button is a nightmare. Canâ(TM)t imagine how designers would think this problem would be any less in an aircraft. Let alone a fighter in a high G environment

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The voice control not working is interesting too. Google's voice input has got good enough that I can reliably use it even in noisy environments, e.g. with the TV on the background. Only for English and Japanese though, it struggles with Chinese. But still, is the environment in the F-35 just incredibly noisy and difficult to filter, or is their voice recognition crap?

          BTW the Google voice stuff is done locally on the phone. Some devices use the cloud but Pixel 5 does it locally. It's probably a fair bit mor

          • You do know everything you say to google alexa or siri gets saved and shipped to a giant cloud server for audio processing before having the command string returned to your unit for processing.

            All of them have just enough to process alexa or hey siri. And record a continuous loop in ram which is then sent off when you say the keyword.

            You need a massive cloud computer to process audio in near realtime. It is okay if you say your phrase in exactly the right order.

            Alexa set a timer for 15 minutes is correct

            Al

          • Jet fighters are incredibly noisy. They are much, much louder than civilian passenger jets. However, in the quote the pilot states that the voice control works fine in the ground simulators so the technology isn't all that bad. It fails when performing high-G maneuvers. During those times people would have a greater difficulty of talking due to the pressure being put on their bodies. For example, lay down on the floor, then have someone approximately your size sit (gently) down on your chest and see how wel

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          I used to design mobile apps for work data entry; another easily overlooked factor is widget *size*. I soon learned people who were frobbing with an app while trying to do something else needed big-ass buttons. When users are trying to do more than one thing at once the rhythm of a data entry task is completely different from when you're just testing the application itself. Often a task that you'd naturally put on one screen as a desk jockey works better split across several in a mobile work app.

      • He complained about what the friggin' designers should have thought of. THERE IS NO TACTILE FEEDBACK. And it's hard to hit the right spot with turbulence.

        This is one of the things I really disliked about TNG and the treks that followed it. You just can't operate any of the (critical) systems without diverting your attention TO the controls. You have to look to operate them. That kind of thing can cost you dearly.

  • Should have Copied The Russians... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lobiusmoop ( 305328 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:39PM (#61010342) Homepage

    and made the aircraft thought-controlled. [imdb.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Joke's on you, the current implementation of the helmet mounted targeting system (as opposed to heads up display) is an old Russian tech lifted from MiG-29 transferred to Luftwaffe in the wake of German unification and then iterated upon by Western companies.

  • Imagine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by diffract ( 7165501 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:40PM (#61010346)
    Imagine having an aerial fight with enemies and having to fight with a touchscreen at the same time

    • Imagine having an aerial fight with enemies and having to fight with a touchscreen at the same time

      Combat related things can remain physical buttons, switches, etc so they can be operated without eyeballs on them. There are however many secondary non-combat related things that could be moved to a touchpad. The line can be drawn intelligently.

    • Nobody's had an "aerial fight" since about the 1960s.

      • Which is exactly why the f35 is completely pointless. You dont need a f35 to drop bombs on afghanistan or any similar shitholes, the best planes they have are kites. These planes also will never fly over Russia or China because of nukes, so whats the point ?

        • The whole point of the F-35, like all major military projects and some NASA contracts, is to distribute as much pork to as many political districts in order to get as many politicians re-elected as possible. The F-35 has nothing to do with fulfilling a required role. It's taken a plane that would have been a good replacement for the F16 and F-18 and then tried had the politicians and industry push as many jobs at it in the name of replacing more and more planes all in the publicly stated goal of "saving mon

          • No argument, im just trying to add to the point that the USA is investing in old technology a bit like investing in wooden sailing ships when steam came along. This same mistake cost the British Empire its domination. When the dreadnaught came out early 1900s, suddenly their significant advantage in old steam and wooden boats instantly became worthless. We are seeing the same here today buyin planes that serve no purpose even if lets pretend , they are the greatest shit in the universe, the idea of planes

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Hi, the Royal Navy would like to have a quick disagreement with you. The Argentine Air Force would like to have a quick violent disagreement with you.

        Hell, so would the Israeli, Turkish and Russian air forces.

  • the think in Russian system is better but hard to learn if you are from the USA

  • Who would have guessed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:43PM (#61010354)

    It's amazing anyone would think a touchscreen where one has to poke around hoping to hit the right spot with a finger, could in any way be superior to a manual switch in an environment where accuracy under pressure is paramount.

    I'm sure the same excuses for putting in a touchscreen in this advanced fighter are the same ones we keep hearing from car manufacturers. As has been pointed out countless time on here, a physical knob or button is superior in every way to a touchscreen when it comes to simple tasks such as turning your radio on or off, changing channels, adjusting temperature controls and so on.

    To think that a pilot wearing a bulky glove would be able to hit the right spot each time, every time, on a touch screen, rather than flipping a switch, is madness. To do this during a combat situation is even more unlikely. This is merely another in the very long line of reasons why the F-35 is an abject failure.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      It's amazing anyone would think a touchscreen where one has to poke around hoping to hit the right spot with a finger, could in any way be superior to a manual switch in an environment where accuracy under pressure is paramount.

      Yeah. I have about a 50:50 shot at hitting within a cm of the right spot on my car's touchscreen unless the road is quite smooth, and I find it hard to belive that a fighter would be smoother than a car.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Yeah. I have about a 50:50 shot at hitting within a cm of the right spot on my car's touchscreen

        Which is why my car's touchscreen buttons are over 2 cm wide, and edge-aligned. Things need to be designed for their use case.

        And FYI, if you read the article, he actually loves the amount of information the displays give him. He just doesn't like how he has nowhere to brace his hand when it's bumpy (e.g., buttons in the middle of the screen, can't brace the hand against the edge of the screen). Bracing signific

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          If they're going to be edge aligned, why not do it like ATM screens where the buttons are physical and go around the screen?

        • -- And FYI, if you read the article, he actually loves the amount of information the displays give him. He just doesn't like how he has nowhere to brace his hand when it's bumpy (e.g., buttons in the middle of the screen, can't brace the hand against the edge of the screen). Bracing significantly increases touching accuracy.

          Most pilots love glass displays - particularly over the 6 steam gauges. (In the civilian world, it's common to have both, glass and steam gauges as the fallback)

          But glass displays do not

    • Yes and no— the touchscreen gives them a chance to refine and reduce pilot workload. It should not be used for everything obviously, but if you can reduce a sequence of four switches via a single touch for a script it is a win. If you can eliminate the need for any interaction you have a bigger win.

      Obviously it takes time for pilots to adjust, and most speed and safety-critical actions would be inappropriate to place solely on a touchscreen seven menus deep.

    • I think the BMW iDrive Knob is a good approach, the information is onscreen so that can be reconfigured to show more than would fit into that space, but the controller knob is down where your hand rests. And instead of proportional movement like a trackball or mouse, you're using discrete nudges to navigate menus, although one of the inputs is the outer dial that gives you scrolling at a desired rate. I remember when this was introduced it got bad reviews, but then after a few years it got better.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Any primary control that is not within reach of your hands' resting position is not in the right place. Your hand is not supposed to rest on the centre console - it's supposed to be on the wheel.

        (Okay, this is where I sheepishly admit that I spend 95% of my time in autopilot, so rather than hands on 10-and-2, my hands are on "7 and not-on-the-wheel".... but that's specifically because with AP engaged, you're no longer driving, but rather just supervising)

    • To think that a pilot wearing a bulky glove would be able to hit the right spot each time, every time, on a touch screen, rather than flipping a switch, is madness

      Touchscreens have been used in military aircraft since the 90s, although not necessarily by the pilot, but rather by navigators and onboard radar operators. The issue normally is there are so many things you can do that there's no way you could put enough buttons in the cockpit to do everything. For example you can control a fleet of sidekick dro [defensenews.com]

    • My bank used to have ATMs with well manufactured steel buttons, and I could get money out in around 10 seconds because the buttons were responsive and I didn't have to look at them to push them.

      Now they switched to new touchscreen ATMs (with shitty plastic buttons) and it takes minutes.

    • As has been pointed out countless time on here, a physical knob or button is superior in every way to a touchscreen when it comes to simple tasks such as turning your radio on or off, changing channels, adjusting temperature controls and so on.

      Allow me to push back a bit.

      For common operations, and for things you're going to want to fiddle with while getting shot at/in a cockpit filled with smoke or flames/while avoiding crashing/while landing on a carrier (but I repeat myself), yeah, physical switches are going to be really handy. I don't think we want throttle controls to be like the transporter sliders in ST:TNG.

      (Off topic, but is there an in-universe explanation for why there were three sliders and why they're not yoked together? When would yo

  • I hate touch screens for many things (Score:3)

    by satanicat ( 239025 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:52PM (#61010390)

    Hopefully the eject seat isn't wired up to it...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Ejection systems are typically completely isolated, self-contained systems. This is because they're designed to be used in scenarios where aircraft has suffered catastrophic damage, which may include total loss of power, electric systems, hydraulic systems etc.

      • Re:I hate touch screens for many things (Score:5, Funny)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @08:36PM (#61010696)

        Maybe the ejection seat has its own little embedded 4-inch touch screen down on the armrest.

        [Touch to unlock eject function screen]

        Do you really wish to eject? WARNING: This will result in loss of the aircraft.
        Type Y-E-S in the text box:
        [ - - - ]

        Limited time offer: Get a one-month free trial of the Ejection Seat Pro upgrade. [Click here] for a list of benefits including live chat support and all-weather finder beacon. Cancel your subscription any time.
        [Intall Now] [Maybe Later]

        Disclaimer: This ejection procedure is a last resort. We will make every effort to safely remove you from the aircraft, but there is no guarantee that you will actually survive the situation. High speed collision with parts of the aircraft may occur. If you do land safely, we cannot guarantee that you will not be captured by hostile parties.
        [Got It]

        [Swipe right to eject] [Swipe left to cancel]

      • Typically, but... "Automatic ejection systems are rare, because you want the pilot to have control over when to eject (automatic ejection is considered a bad thing). However, it is found in a few aircraft, like the Soviet Yak-38, a VTOL aircraft. Once the aircraft rolled past 60 degrees in case of engine failure, ejection sequence was initiated automatically."

        So this requires a good degree of tie-in to the plane's central nervous system. Hope those sensors are reliable!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Automated ejection systems are usually reserved for very special purposes. In case of Yak-38, the problem was similar to one experienced in Harrier during vertical take off and landing. Loss of thrust in one of the control thrusters would cause aircraft to rapidly roll over and slam into the sea/ground upside down. This failure leading to disaster was so quick that pilot had no real chance to react in time to eject manually. Soviets addressed this problem with automated ejection seat that kicked pilot out o

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @06:54PM (#61010398)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I noticed on crew dragon an instance where one of the astronauts held their thumb on a raised surface near the edge of the screen to provide an anchor point, then tapped a button on the screen. It seemed very intuitive.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ebonum ( 830686 )

      The problem of how to create a dynamic UI with the reliability of physical buttons was solved decades ago.

      Because those UI researchers decades ago regularly sent lots of time upside down while pulling 4G's. You just program the logic to guess what the pilot needs and have the right button track the pilot's finger until he hits it. So Simple!

  • ...and ended up reverting many of their controls back to mechanical controls. They shockingly (not) found out that drivers lost concentration when they had to to navigate a touch screen. Can't imagine what it would be like for a fighter pilot. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

  • I guess using the physical buttons on the CD player in my car is much easier than fumbling with my phone while I'm driving. I'm sure that's exactly like trying to get missile lock on a MIG. I sure hope the era of the dogfight really is over, because if it isn't, this jet is going to get many pilots killed. As an aside, I have heard it commented that the aviation industry has something called the one plane theory. With each successive generation the cost of the aircraft increases enormously, and the end resu

    • modern missiles can kill a target from 100 miles.

      which begs the question why we need airplanes with human pilots in the first place.

    • Missile lock on a mig ?
      That will never happen for starters Russia is massive, a F35 simply hasnt got any range, and secondly trying to even cross the border will cause a nuclear response, remember Cuba?
  • Theres a pressure or something problem and the screen frosts or humids up and the screen doesnt register touches. Many times in the rain ive found with wet fingers my phone screen just doesnt work.

  • Not as big as deal as one would think (Score:4, Informative)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @07:17PM (#61010464) Homepage

    The F35 is mostly designed as a long distance fighter. It's all about the sensors, com, nav and stealth. Only the F35A has a gun, the F35 B and F35 C just use missiles and bombs. Those are not as time sensitive. That is if you fire a bomb or missile 1 second late, the weapon will still likely hit.

    The sensor + com is designed to integrate with other networked units. So having a friendly F35 fly in your area gives you knowledge about about what is going on, helping you fight. Pilot doesn't have to do anything.

    Not saying it isn't a flaw, but the F35 was plagued for years with rumors of major flaws that would cost a ton of cash to fix. Turns out they are being made cheaper than projected and generally be accepted well.

    Especially the F35 B that can practically land on a helicopter pad, even if it needs more runway to lift off.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      F-35 is not a fighter. It's a light strike/light reconnaissance aircraft. Which is the role in which the only nation that actually uses F-35 for combat uses it for. All other functionality is "checkmark" level of inclusion. It's a "fighter" that can't carry ordnance to have any kind of a meanignful fight, gun that is utterly useless for air combat as attempting to fire it literally jerks aircraft to the left, pulling it hopelessly off target and sprinting ability significantly slower than any gen 3 aircraft

      • You gave a more detailed description of what I said, but failed to realize three things:

        1) You underestimated their power. Yes it caries about 2 missiles and 2 bombs (which is why you think it is not a fighter) in Stealth Mode. but that is only internally. Once they take out the radar, they can load it for bear on the wings. Yes this destroys it's radar - you only do it after you have air superiority. Which brings us to...

        2) You are totally wrong about what the US/Europe needs. We need this exactly a

        • It was put it mainly because idiots in the old guard Air Force agreed with you and wanted more air superiority.

          Those old guard Air Force "idiots" lived through, some of their friends did not, the last era in which guns were deemed obsolete and desk jockeys declared that a pure missile aircraft is all you need.

          The Navy and the Marines said no thank you, we don't care about that.

          Nope, they care very much about guns for close air support. They have a gun pod they will mount externally.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >You are totally wrong about what the US/Europe needs. We need this exactly as much as Israel does.

          Bombing Middle East is no longer on the books as the main threat for Europe or US as it remains for Israel. It's now near peer to peer adversary engagement in Russia and China. For that role, F-35 is simply irrelevant.

          >Once they take out the radar, they can load it for bear on the wings.

          And then you realise that pretty much every fighter from 3nd gen up has a solid air to air radar. And then you realise

        • The gun was added so that the F-35 could do ground support. The A-10 is currently being flown by the Army and there is a big pissing contest over who flies the planes between the Army and Air Force. The Air Force doesn't want the Army to fly planes as it cuts into their responsibility but they don't want to take over the A-10. (I don't know why as it's perfect for ground support. Yes, it's old but an update would be better than a replacement.) Anyways, the A-10 is going away and the responsibility for groun

    • The headline distorts the story. There are multiple quotes they could have chosen, but here's another one by the same person:

      "Having bashed the interface, the way this jet displays information to you is incredible. The sheer amount of situational awareness I gain from this aircraft and its displays is like nothing I’ve experienced before."

    • Who exactly is it going to fight ? Its never going to fight China or Russia, theres that problem of nukes. The Afghan taliban types, well they only have kites, so why woul dyou need a stealth plane when the skies are clear ?

  • I've had similar problems with touchscreens... (Score:3)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @07:18PM (#61010470)
    ... versus physical controls in the rental cars I've used. You can learn the layout of a dashboard that has the physical controls, and find and adjust the control without taking your eyes off the road. With the touchscreen dashboard controls, I had to look at the screen and then try to make sure my finger hit the part of the screen that had the control I wanted to adjust. There was no z-axis knob or switch to touch and help me zoom in. Just a flat panel. To me, touchscreen control panels (dashboards) seem to be more for the convenience of the developer and less for the convenience of the user.

  • F-35s and many other jet fighters have HOTAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS), a system which allows control all vital and flight functions without removing their hands from the controls. But I suppose that HOTAS won't allow controlling all functions.
    In that case, it would be better if they put screen-side buttons as well as touch.
    Well, bummer. Another example of what happens when you try to solve an already solved problem.

    • "Having all critical switches on the stick and throttle allows the pilot to keep both "hands on throttle-and-stick"

      Critical -> Situational Awareness
      However I think there are also very important actions that are not critical in a certain situation that aren't covered by HOTAS

      HOTAS targets critical situations like engagement, but even a fighter jet is called a fighter jet I bet it's way more flying than fighting.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • I thought modern fighter planes mostly used HUDs. It's a advantage to see all the relavent data without looking down at gauges during dogfights.
  • You can find the button or switch by touch with out having to stop and look at the button or switch. I think the test on this should be: How much of the plane can you operate without having to look at the controls for it?

  • The problem is so common that every person in the world with a modern mobile phone can relate to it. Add to it the G forces fighter pilots regularly experience and it becomes madness. Pilots will have to look at the screen each time and take their eyes of a target to press a button or flip a switch. Nor will they be able to develop muscle memory when they cannot trust a touchscreen to work flawlessly. And when they figure this issue out only now and didn't think of it during development then one can expect

  • Touchscreens are inherently poor for fighter use (Score:4, Insightful)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @07:29PM (#61010506)

    Traditional cockpit ergos reflect the need to operate controls BY FEEL OF DETENTS, TOGGLES AND OTHER TACTILE FEEDBACK. Flying a 9G combat aircraft is not the same thing as playing Angry Birds on a smartphone. Car makers get away with it because auto buyers are the utterly tech-illiterate majority but HOTAS would be an improvement there, too as any gamer knows.

    HOTAS plus MFD switchology and dedicated manual switchology on control boxes isn't proven since before WWII by accident. You can reach down and find the correct switches without taking your eyes off the HUD or MFDs. (Maintainer here and it ain't difficult.)

    MFDs are a partial solution (far superior to touchscreens) using a border of tactile mechanical switches whose function may change with the display selected.

    OTOH touchscreens are used to replace mechanical switches solely because they're dirt cheap thanks to substitution of software for hardware. Touchscreens will be forced on users everywhere manufacturers can get away with it because money. User interface is only a consideration on firearms (the finest historic examples) and aircraft, but some bright-eyed spectator thought touchscreens would be cool. Unfortunately they FORCE aircrew to look at them (not just to SCAN the image as on an MFD, but to then stab a finger (fingers live on hands live on arms which must be outstretched from the recumbent-for-G-reasons aircrew) at them while multitasking under G-load in combat or training.

    That's pants-on-head stupid any everyone who signed off on such nonsense should be ashamed of their grotesque ignorance of aircraft operation. While using iPads instead of dead tree checklists for reference works (mostly unless they overheat in a cockpit in the sand box) because referring to a checklist is done somewhat at leisure and NOT an act of controlling the machine itself, that's not controlling the machine itself.

    I expect many more human interface problems because UI designers love cute art and despise users. Modern UI designers value shiny objects for tech-helpless users but pilots are the opposite and need GRANULAR system control, not stabbing a (Nomex-gloved) finger at a touchscreen.
    The MFD concept is proven reliable (and could make for a dandy "touchbar" below a notebook screen much better than multimedia keys on old keyboards) and should be retained.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jamlad ( 3436419 )

      OTOH touchscreens are used to replace mechanical switches solely because they're dirt cheap thanks to substitution of software for hardware. Touchscreens will be forced on users everywhere manufacturers can get away with it because money.

      My grandmother is legally blind. She can see vague shapes and shadows but is otherwise incapable of reading a book or navigating a menu. Guess what her new washingmachine has? A f$cking touchscreen instead of a dial. So now that instead of three-clicks clockwise for cottons and eight clicks for dedicates we had to glue IBM nubbins onto the display and force her to memorize every sequence for every program she wants. Bullshit. Don't get me started on flat design and gray-on-gray UI choices. It's almost has

      • Dishwashers used to have a dial to select the type of wash and the length of time. When it was done the dial would stop at "Clean" and remain there until someone moved it to "Dirty" or set the program to wash the dishes. Now dishwashers have lights that indicate the clean status but as soon as you open the door or if the power goes out for a microsecond the light goes out. It's brought in a bunch of different hacks for people to remind themselves whether the dishes in the dishwasher are clean or dirty witho

    • It's hard enough to use a smartphone as a passenger in a moving car.

  • They're re-learning all the same lessons and it's costing a hell of a lot more... for a plane that isn't great in a dog fight

  • Distracting from 'situation awareness' (Score:3)

    by maxrate ( 886773 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @08:13PM (#61010630)
    Pilot here - touch screens suck because 1) detracts from situational awareness (no muscle memory for touch displays) 2) it gets bumpy up there sometimes and difficult to press the correct video button. Often, not easy to 'anchor' your hand/thumb/finger to stabilize your hand - takes aware from flying the aircraft itself. THAT SAID - displays have been the BEST think to happen to avionics in a long time - not 'touch'.
  • My experience as a BOATER is that attempting to use a touchscreen (iPad) for navigation in a vehicle which is bouncing around is not only highly problematic - but Iâ(TM)ve even gone off an written my own navigation software to HELP work around this. But even still - there is no substitute for physical controls with real tactile feedback when your vehicle is bouncing around. Rookie mistake to think otherwise.
  • If a jet cockpit has a hundred manual switches I canâ(TM)t imagine a single touchscreen isnâ(TM)t simpler just like with a computer keyboarâ"OH WAIT.

  • Touchscreens: Kill them with fire.

    (And don't even try any dichotomies on me.)

  • Turbulence (Score:3)

    by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @10:33PM (#61010960) Homepage

    I fly general aviation aircraft that mostly have Garmin GPS and radio units in them. I can say for sure that the 600 series which has some touch screen functions on small screen in addition to tactile buttons can really be a challenge to use. In smooth air it's quite nice and easy to operate. In even light turbulence it really becomes a challenge to accurately use the touch screen. It can take two or three tries to correctly type in a 5 digit radio frequency. The backspace key is also a touchscreen button, so it's easy to make mistakes trying again. In moderate turbulence it is nearly impossible to use without someone else's help. The 700 series is a little easier to use because it has a bigger screen and the buttons are bigger touch targets.

    I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass it could be to use touch screen functions in a fighter unless the interfaces and bezels around the touch screens were perfectly designed.

  • When the air is turbulent and the fighter is rolling and pitching, and the pilot has to extend his arm to touch something, it would be good if every casual touch didn't instantly do something before the pilot gets a chance to ensure that he's touching the right part of the touchscreen. I have that problem with the touchscreen of the navigation system on my new vehicle, even when the road is smooth.

    Engineers working on touchscreen designs need to be strapped in to a seat that pitches and shakes so that they

  • don't worry soon it will be voice controlled, you will not have to complain about touch screen.
  • with some careful GUI design. For example, placing on the touch screen the landing gear icon too close to the virtual button for deploying a H-bomb should be avoided.

  • Yes, is this customer service? I'm havin' problems with my new F35. It started flying around shootin' people. Uh huh. Okay. Ohhh, so I press "menu", then "function", then "enter".

  • Yes there are reasons why fighter jets still use old fashioned switches and buttons, why the Space Shuttle used radiation hardened processors that were over a decade or two behind what you would find in a desktop PC, and why most military gear isn't so sleek looking.

      So what happened with the F-35? Did they replace all of the designers who put function and reliability first, and didn't even think about what's cool to the masses with teenagers?

  • A pilot could navigate more than one page menus--with only one glance.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Close