Touch Screens Unsafe? Navy Says Yes

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I agree. The Navy, I hope is reviewing its training and also its promotion standards. These were two areas that drew a lot of flack after those two accidents in Asia. Officers being promoted too quickly and a lack of training all around. The touchscreen are a deflection away from the real issues.


I don't think the Navy or NTSB is saying the touchscreens were a major factor in the accidents, but they were a contributing factor.

https://news.usni.org/2019/08/06/nt...primary-causes-of-fatal-mccain-collision

Quote
Almost two years after the collision between a U.S. destroyer and a merchant ship off Singapore, the first in-depth independent investigation has determined the most probable cause for the incident that killed 10 sailors was lack of adequate Navy oversight and training.

The National Transportation Safety Board found that the most likely cause of the fatal collision of guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and chemical tanker Alnic MC on Aug. 21, 2017, "was a lack of effective operational oversight of the destroyer by the U.S. Navy, which resulted in insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures," reads the investigation.

The conclusion of the report breaks from the Navy's own assessment of the incident, which placed the blame for the early morning collision almost entirely on the leadership of McCain and not on what the NTSB determined were the service's own "insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures."

...Both [Admiral] Davidson and the NTSB report agreed on the basic facts: watchstanders on the bridge had not understood how the Northrop Grumman-designed integrated bridge and navigation system (IBNS) helm controls functioned in depth.

As the warship approached the busy shipping lane off of Singapore, an attempt to split the steering and throttle to two different consoles in fact transferred all controls to the lee helmsman - a sailor who was less familiar with the intricacies of the IBNS and had not slept the night before. The mistake led the helmsman to believe he had lost control of the ship. Meanwhile, the ship's throttles - operated by touch screen - became unlinked.

"Control of the port shaft and steering was now at the lee helm station, while control of the starboard shaft remained at the helm station," read the report.

When the helmsman thought he was slowing down both propellers, he was in fact only reducing the speed of the port screw, causing a sharp turn in front of the tanker.

The confusion around how the controls had been configured led to three minutes of the watch being unable to control the ship, allowing McCain to move in front of Alnic MC - unbeknownst to most of the bridge team. The collision occurred shortly after the bridge regained control of McCain.

 

[PimTac]

Having read that regarding the throttles, a quick call to the EOW to reduce speed at their end would have solved that issue. I do get the sense though that this is similar to automated aircraft cockpits when the flight crew are trying to figure out why the system is doing what it's doing while they fly closer and closer to danger.

In these cases you should take manual control.

It all goes back to training.

 

[tbm3fan]

There was this little tidbit in the report:

"Service news website USNI reported that Rear Adm Bill Galinis, who oversees US Navy ship design, said the control systems were "overly complex" because shipbuilders had little official guidance on how they should work.

As a result, he said, the control systems on different ships had little in common, so sailors often were not sure where key indicators, such as a ship's heading, could be found on screens."

Too good to be true...

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by tbm3fan
There was this little tidbit in the report:

"Service news website USNI reported that Rear Adm Bill Galinis, who oversees US Navy ship design, said the control systems were "overly complex" because shipbuilders had little official guidance on how they should work.

As a result, he said, the control systems on different ships had little in common, so sailors often were not sure where key indicators, such as a ship's heading, could be found on screens."

Too good to be true...





I would wonder when the last time this Rear Admiral was on a ship?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by tbm3fan
There was this little tidbit in the report:

"Service news website USNI reported that Rear Adm Bill Galinis, who oversees US Navy ship design, said the control systems were "overly complex" because shipbuilders had little official guidance on how they should work.

As a result, he said, the control systems on different ships had little in common, so sailors often were not sure where key indicators, such as a ship's heading, could be found on screens."

Too good to be true...





I would wonder when the last time this Rear Admiral was on a ship?



Good question because I could go on either the Fitzgerald or the McCain and operation both the helm, lee helm, aft steering, along with the power plant from CCS because both are flight one Arleigh Burks. More gibberish due to the fact the Navy does not want to man up and say very poor leadership and even poorer decision making from mid to very senior officers is root cause of lack of proper training and maintenance. PowerPoint briefs and community service was more important then watch standing training and then to compound matters Commanders believe months and years of experience should be made up in marathon drill sessions were crews get 2-3 hours of sleep for months on end often 100+ consecutive days. Why this "Rear Admiral" doesn't speak of this.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by tbm3fan
There was this little tidbit in the report:

"Service news website USNI reported that Rear Adm Bill Galinis, who oversees US Navy ship design, said the control systems were "overly complex" because shipbuilders had little official guidance on how they should work.

As a result, he said, the control systems on different ships had little in common, so sailors often were not sure where key indicators, such as a ship's heading, could be found on screens."

Too good to be true...





I would wonder when the last time this Rear Admiral was on a ship?



Good question because I could go on either the Fitzgerald or the McCain and operation both the helm, lee helm, aft steering, along with the power plant from CCS because both are flight one Arleigh Burks. More gibberish due to the fact the Navy does not want to man up and say very poor leadership and even poorer decision making from mid to very senior officers is root cause of lack of proper training and maintenance. PowerPoint briefs and community service was more important then watch standing training and then to compound matters Commanders believe months and years of experience should be made up in marathon drill sessions were crews get 2-3 hours of sleep for months on end often 100+ consecutive days. Why this "Rear Admiral" doesn't speak of this.





Because he probably had a hand in writing those policies.

Add to that steaming into perhaps the busiest strait in the planet in the early morning and not setting a heightened watch or detail as should be customary.

A lot of CYA going on here.

 

[dave1251]

Full disclosure the Fitzgerald was my first ship and I started as a undesignated Seaman on her and struck IT. The must senior to perish Sailor on the McCain was a First Class in the same department with me on the Boxer. To say I have a vested interest in both collisions is a understatement and honestly I am beyond frustration with flapping of the gums from the United States Navy "leadership" and it's beyond poor policy and accountability.

From my deck plate view it lost the ability to fight a war to a
bureaucratic mess which rewards incompetence by focusing on everything but technical knowledge and the ability to transfer this knowledge and skill into operations.

The focus has been placed who can get the most paper quals, most community service, degree's, recycle materials, and who can articulate this into an evaluation. This is fine but if this your service's focus it should keep it's ships inport and not parade itself as a power projecting entity part of the armed service.

If the above mentioned practices and mentality will remain the Navy's focus along with making prettiest power point presentations it should just leave its warships and become the "Explorers" arm of the Armed Services and focus on recruiting the next generation of great Americans because currently constructed the Navy is doing it's Sailors and Americans a dishonorable service.

Unfortunately "doing business" has engrained itself into the blue water Navy culture I believe this will be the modus operandi until a true culture shock happens.

 

[jeepman3071]

Touch screens and basically any screens that take your eyes off the road are extremely dangerous. The fact that more and more things are becoming integrated into the menus are a large issue as well. To change the volume on many vehicles you must first flip through a menu to get to the volume function. I love technology and work in the IT field, but I fail to see how this is an improvement over a simple volume button.

Gauge clusters are becoming worse also. I love the simplicity of the analog dials in my BMW. Easy to read and tells you what you need to know, other vehicles I've driven with digital gauge clusters and screens within the cluster you need to flip through for information are like flying a spaceship, not to mention the eye strain at night. Like I said, I'm all for technology but not when I'm doing [the speed limit] on the highway with a bunch of other drivers around me all trying to do the same thing with their touch screens. I'm amazed there aren't more accidents with the number of people I see looking down or to the side while driving. I've driven with older family members and have witnessed their struggles with the screens and I'd say the problem gets exponentially worse with age. My grandmother took out a telephone pole with her Acura due to being distracted. Thankfully she was okay and it was only a mile from her house, but she tried to change something while driving and took her eyes off the road for a few seconds while subconsciously steering in the direction she was looking.

 

[PimTac]

I would agree that taking multiple steps to accomplish a simple task is backwards thinking to say the least. Honda has been putting volume knobs back in their vehicles as of late and I imagine customer feedback prompted that change.

Technically, it's not the touchscreen that creates these issues, it is the underlying system itself. The learning curve when transitioning from a manual system to a touch or computerized one can be large depending on the system and the user. Some people catch on quickly. Others have a hard time. Anyone here with young children will know how they can grasp technology very quickly compared to their parents.

 

[tbm3fan]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I would agree that taking multiple steps to accomplish a simple task is backwards thinking to say the least. Honda has been putting volume knobs back in their vehicles as of late and I imagine customer feedback prompted that change.

Technically, it's not the touchscreen that creates these issues, it is the underlying system itself. The learning curve when transitioning from a manual system to a touch or computerized one can be large depending on the system and the user. Some people catch on quickly. Others have a hard time. Anyone here with young children will know how they can grasp technology very quickly compared to their parents.



Off of my Naval Warfare board which relates to what you said about learning.

"If you read the NTSB report, it details some of the procedure to move controls from one station to another. Clearly the operators didn't understand how it worked. It doesn't really sound overly complex, but it does require a certain procedure and therefore a modicum of knowledge to make it work. I think there are 2 primary contributors-
1- As with any type of system like this, some will have a better grasp of it than others. To impart a simple standard training regimen doesn't mean that everyone gets the same level of understanding from it.
2- That the USN doesn't have a standard specification for helm controls on similar ships is beyond belief. Even more, it's apparently up to the shipbuilder to design the system how they see fit and up to the navy to adapt to it.
With the new policy to just give up on the automation (instead of addressing the root causes) and go back to the old way, I wonder how the helm controls are shifted from one station to the other using this scheme?"

 

[PimTac]

This is something I don't understand. In the old days there were multiple engine control pods on the bridge. On the CG ship I was on we had the main console on the bridge plus a console on each bridge wing. The engine control room had a console.

One could control the engine speed on any console at any moment. Of course communication was necessary. The helm was only controllable at the bridge helm station and in aft steering.

So, I don't understand the concept of switching stations. Does the helm now control ship speed as well? Does not the bridge officer have instant data showing engine rpm and ships heading?

 

[4WD]

Yes, the up/down rocker switches behind the wheel are on GM's as well … and a bunch in the front …
Really nice since you can adjust stereo, navigation voice, and Bluetooth iPhone from those …

 

[NavyVet88]

Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
Let it be known that I'm all for larger touch screens.

....just as long as there aren't any installed in any of MY vehicles
(I've been lucky in avoiding them so far).


+1

I have managed to avoid it myself. Just one more thing to repair when it goes out.

 

[nthach]

I dunno man - I haven't driven too many cars with remote HMIs for the infotainment, except for my cousin's leased E350 with Mercedes COMAND, a service loaner Lexus ES350 with Remote Touch and the adopted mom's Ascent. The Mercedes system seemed to be the best out of them, the Lexus one was too "touchy".

To me, a touch screen is best for cars - intuitive and people don't need to know their way around each system(BMW iDrive, Audi MMI, Mercedes COMAND, Lexus Remote Touch). Lexus has gone back to the touchscreen on the refresh of the 4th gen RX. However, I can see why the Germans wanted a separate HMI for their systems - less distractions once you master that system.

Interestingly, while Airbus has been installing keyboards and touchpads on the A380 and maybe the A350, Boeing has been using touchscreens on the 787 and 737 MAX. But softkeys still rule in aviation.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I would agree that taking multiple steps to accomplish a simple task is backwards thinking to say the least. Honda has been putting volume knobs back in their vehicles as of late and I imagine customer feedback prompted that change.


Honda's infotainment was using touch controls/buttons for the hard keys(volume, seek, tune, source, band) on the Fit and a few other cars with the higher-end infotainment option and I could have swore the Fit and Civic did use a OEM-ized version of Pioneer's interface(Honda does own a bit of Pioneer). All the aftermarket units except for some Sony and Kenwood are all buttons with no knobs. The minute you want CarPlay and Android Auto, unless you get a single-DIN motorized Pioneer you will lose the volume button. The newest Honda system is running Android and can be rooted to load apps off an SD card. I wouldn't doubt if Pioneer made the "premium" Honda infotainment - higher end AVIC/NEX series decks use a very neutered Android build. Everyone else uses BlackBerry's QNX or Wind River's VxWorks.

Clarion, which is the supplier of choice for Nissan and Subaru but also getting some significant Honda business was bought out by a French interior supplier Fareucia. I feel the OEM audio suppliers put more focus on HMI than the aftermarket does. Which is funny, Alpine and Pioneer also have a good chunk of OEM contracts from BMW, Honda and Toyota. But aftermarket is hard for some to use.

Now, you can put in a big screen in your car and have your knobs too? https://stingerelectronics.com/catalog/multimedia/elev8

 

[PimTac]

I like options. On the Mazda we have a volume button on the center console and one on the steering wheel.

 

[DGXR]

Originally Posted by Greggy_D
Give me my buttons and switches back. I can't stand touch screens in cars. It's impossible to change anything without taking your eyes off the road. With mechanical buttons and knobs, you can change any setting by feel and watch the road the entire time.

I love this comment.

I cringe every time I see an automaker advertisement for braking assist or lane departure control or some other nanny that replaces the human driver's attention. We are enabling ourselves to become increasingly dangerous on the road. We are encouraging ourselves to live busier, more fragmented lives. No wonder the number of Adult ADD and ADHD diagnoses have exploded. Touch screens are only part of the problem. Automakers are simply responding to market demands.

Enforcement is the key -- nobody changes their behavior until there is a real motivation to change. I am impatiently waiting for the day when everyone is held accountable for their choices and actions. Maybe I'm just delusional. I am definitely hopeful for a better day of driving pleasure when I don't have to worry about the selfish inconsiderate scatterbrain in the lane next to me, whose actions show that they care about nobody else.

 

[A_Spruce]

I absolutely despise touch screens in vehicles!

How is it that every state in the union has laws against "distracted driving", yet auto manufacturers get away with installing highly distracting and confusing touch control screens in their vehicles?

Touch controls are not easier than manual controls.
The screen is way too bright and distracting by day and even worse at night.
Why does every minutia of everything in life have to be computer controlled?

 

[4WD]

Let's see … what do I adjust ? Seats, mirrors, radio station, HVAC and seat temps, what info I monitor on the dash above the wheel. I can do some of that from the steering wheel and all of that without my touch screen. But I can do some of that on TS (don't) - and the passenger can do things on the touch screen as well.
It will block me from typing in an address - but maybe that should have been done before starting the journey if I needed navigation.
Vehicle can accept many voice commands including destination - iPhone is hands free with numbers displayed on dash, not TS.

We are just fine - let's go back to thick and thin oil debate. Oh wait, I'm using both of those too.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by A_Spruce
I absolutely despise touch screens in vehicles!

How is it that every state in the union has laws against "distracted driving", yet auto manufacturers get away with installing highly distracting and confusing touch control screens in their vehicles?

Touch controls are not easier than manual controls.
The screen is way too bright and distracting by day and even worse at night.
Why does every minutia of everything in life have to be computer controlled?




Your touch screen doesn't have a light sensor that automatically sets the brightness?

Also, do you let the computer control you or you control the computer? You have a choice.