news Canadian News
Good Afternoon Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

The US Navy will replace its touchscreen contro

Canadian Content
18116news upnews down

The US Navy will replace its touchscreen controls with mechanical ones on its destroyers


Military | 181156 hits | Aug 12 5:16 am | Posted by: Freakinoldguy
9 Comment

Comments

  1. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:30 pm
    Living proof that technology on a 9800 ton moving platform isn't all it's cracked up to be. A fact to which I can attest. Back in the 70's when I went aboard HMCS Provider one of my first watches at sea was as the Quarter Master in charge of helmsmen. The helm was on the bridge and unlike destroyers the helmsman got to sit at the console and drive. Well when I sat down next to the console to start my watch I noticed this very large switch and dial in the middle of the helm stand. I asked the young LS what about it and was informed that it was the automatic pilot which, once engaged would maintain a course and heading without the need for the helmsman to steer the ship. Well, to say this piqued my interest would be an understatement. So given we were in the middle of the Pacific I asked the OOW if I could engage it to see how it worked. He gave me permission and then a heading to bring the ship around to that matched our course. We engaged this devil from hell and set the sea state based on the OOW's estimation.

    I then sat back to watch. Well, it was fine for the first couple of minutes and kept us on course with no issues but, as the head of the ship moved ever so imperceptibly it kept correcting itself. So, after 15 minutes of the automatic pilot correcting the ships head, we were on course but, rocking like a cork in a hurricane which led to a quick call from the CO's sea cabin asking us "what the fuck are you doing up there". We quickly disengaged the automatic pilot and resumed manual control of the helm.

    Well that ended my attempt at using technology to drive a ship pretty quickly and from then on I never let any of the helmsmen on my watch use it again. So, the lesson here is, that just because it's new and technologically advanced doesn't mean it's safer or more effective than the old school mechanical methods.

  2. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:28 pm
    Any new technology has it's learning curve.

    That setting meant that any crew member at another station could take over steering operations, and when the crew tried to regain control of the ship from multiple stations, control “shifted from the lee helm, to aft steering, to the helm, and back to aft steering.”


    Looks like it wasn't the fault of the tech, but those who didn't use it properly. Going back to manual controls means it can't be used improperly, but also means a single point of failure.

  3. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:26 pm
    "DrCaleb" said
    Any new technology has it's learning curve.

    That setting meant that any crew member at another station could take over steering operations, and when the crew tried to regain control of the ship from multiple stations, control “shifted from the lee helm, to aft steering, to the helm, and back to aft steering.”


    Looks like it wasn't the fault of the tech, but those who didn't use it properly. Going back to manual controls means it can't be used improperly, but also means a single point of failure.



    As long as you have humans involved, technology isn't fool proof. So, whether the technology fails because of bad design inherent glitches or the ghost in the machine it's the same result as when it fails because of the humans error and the result is the same.

    Technology is fabulous when it works and the people understand it but on a warship there should always be a mechanical human controlled backup especially in a combat situation where the single disruption of the technology could mean the ships survival.

  4. by avatar Strutz
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:33 am
    "Freakinoldguy" said

    As long as you have humans involved, technology isn't fool proof. So, whether the technology fails because of bad design inherent glitches or the ghost in the machine it's the same result as when it fails because of the humans error and the result is the same.

    Technology is fabulous when it works and the people understand it but on a warship there should always be a mechanical human controlled backup especially in a combat situation where the single disruption of the technology could mean the ships survival.

    It seems to me that some of the techy stuff we develop to make some tasks seem easier often seems to create a complication we didn't have before.

  5. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:56 am
    "Strutz" said

    As long as you have humans involved, technology isn't fool proof. So, whether the technology fails because of bad design inherent glitches or the ghost in the machine it's the same result as when it fails because of the humans error and the result is the same.

    Technology is fabulous when it works and the people understand it but on a warship there should always be a mechanical human controlled backup especially in a combat situation where the single disruption of the technology could mean the ships survival.

    It seems to me that some of the techy stuff we develop to make some tasks seem easier often seems to create a complication we didn't have before.

    Definitely. It's nice to have from a manning perspective because it reduces the size of crew required to operate a modern warship but it still doesn't negate the fact that without backups systems that can be manually operated it's still a crapshoot.

    Our warships that were built in the 50's and 60's were very technology limited but what they lacked for in that field they made up for in logic. They'd been designed from our WWII experiences so, for example we had 3 helm positions. The wheelhouse, the tiller flats and the Emergency Conning Position. A fact which allowed the ship to almost always be conned no matter the battle damage.

    Now don't get me wrong I think technology is wonderful but, it has to be tempered with a healthy dose of common sense and that's what we're not seeing in today's technoratic navies.

  6. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:54 am
    "Strutz" said

    As long as you have humans involved, technology isn't fool proof. So, whether the technology fails because of bad design inherent glitches or the ghost in the machine it's the same result as when it fails because of the humans error and the result is the same.

    Technology is fabulous when it works and the people understand it but on a warship there should always be a mechanical human controlled backup especially in a combat situation where the single disruption of the technology could mean the ships survival.

    It seems to me that some of the techy stuff we develop to make some tasks seem easier often seems to create a complication we didn't have before.Welcome the post-Industrial Revolution. Seems to me it's a lot more than just some and not just techy stuff.

    Look at modern medicine. You won't find many that would argue it's a bad idea for people to live longer healthier lives, to cure diseases, prevent illnesses, etc etc. But there's definitely been a down side to it.

  7. by avatar DrCaleb
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:30 pm
    "Strutz" said

    As long as you have humans involved, technology isn't fool proof. So, whether the technology fails because of bad design inherent glitches or the ghost in the machine it's the same result as when it fails because of the humans error and the result is the same.

    Technology is fabulous when it works and the people understand it but on a warship there should always be a mechanical human controlled backup especially in a combat situation where the single disruption of the technology could mean the ships survival.

    It seems to me that some of the techy stuff we develop to make some tasks seem easier often seems to create a complication we didn't have before.

    One of the biggest errors of modern time has been the giant touchscreens in Teslas. Everything is controlled through it, which makes building the car faster and cheaper. And it's pretty cool.

    But its extremely distracting for the driver, who has to fumble through all sorts of menus to turn on the heat. Some things just need to have manual control.

  8. by avatar llama66
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:19 pm
    The US Navy will replace its touchscreen controls with mecha


    I got excited for a second.

  9. by avatar raydan
    Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:23 pm
    That 3rd line will have to go... :(

    Where can you find pleasure
    Search the world for treasure
    Learn science technology
    Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true



view comments in forum
Page 1

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

Advertise


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2023 by Canadaka.net