4 ms·

> There is a reason you don't see apple like designed plane cockpit. Have you seen photos of a 737 Max cockpit... https://www.google.com/search?q=737+max+cock

by mevile 7y ago

> There is a reason you don't see apple like designed plane cockpit. Have you seen photos of a 737 Max cockpit... https://www.google.com/search?q=737+max+cockpit&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=737+max+cockpit&tbm=isch Compare it with a 737-200 cockpit: https://www.google.com/search?q=737-200+cockpit&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=737-200+cockpit&tbm=isch

lisper 7y ago
I'm pretty sure [1] none of those are touch screens. However, there are aircraft avionics with touch screens, for example: https://www.avidyne.com/products/ifd/index.html https://www.avidyne.com/products/ifd/index.html [1] I'm a private pilot so I'm pretty familiar with the state of the art in aircraft avionics, but I don't fly a 737.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  It takes a while for things to trickle down to certified jets and touchscreens are still relatively new. It will come: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-airliner-cockpit-touchscreen-first-449481/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-a... If recent business jets are an indication, it's all touch based at the high end already. Also, Ipads are getting pretty popular for pilots. My understanding is that most pilots would bring one by default (two plus extra batteries typically) and that especially for GA, there is a lot of equipment and software that integrates with them. One odd thing is that some pilots use ipads to control equipment in the plane because of UI and UX issues. E.g. you can control a garmin 530 with an ipad and it seems like pilots prefer doing that because it is just easier. I think both in cars and in the aviation industry there is the notion that the companies manufacturing UIs there are not necessarily that good at it because historically their focus was more hardware oriented. The UX of especially older equipment can be kind of clunky. E.g. many planes have an fms (flight management system) with a non qwerty keyboard that looks like it was designed in the nineteen sixties and just never updated. You still find the same design in relatively new planes like the A319. I agree that it is nice to have physical controls for some thing. E.g. I love volume dials. But overall, touch is great when hardware designs result in very complex UX. So, I suspect that Mazda getting rid of touchscreens is more their own inability to do good UI than any inherent problems with touch screens. The rest of the industry seems to be trying to catch up to Tesla. I recently sat in a very new Renault with Android Car and a big touch screen. It's a very nice upgrade from the previous generation which was very clunky to use and had lots of annoying bugs. Renault outsourcing the UI to a company that has a clue was a big improvement for them they were just hopelessly out of their depth.
  - Robin_Message 7y ago
    I'm not a pilot, but my understanding is it is quite different to driving in terms of attention — a cruising pilot can easily look at a screen for 5 or 10 seconds (?) entirely safely, whereas a driver might struggle to even stay in lane looking at a screen for 10 seconds. So a touch screen is fine for a pilot but probably not good for a driver.
    - lisper 7y ago
      I am a pilot and you are exactly right. With an airplane autopilot coupled to a modern GPS, once you're cruising, you can pretty much crawl into the back seat and take a nap until it's time to land. (That's a little bit of an exaggeration but not much.)
dmix 7y ago
The solution is a combination of tablet screens and accessible controls on the steering wheel or on the centre console. I absolutely love my touch screen in my Honda and never felt unsafe because of it. All the controls for changing songs, volume, voice, etc are on the steering wheel via touch dials or a few buttons. It’s not like the car (or airplane) companies aren’t aware of this.

by mevile 7y ago

lisper 7y ago

I'm pretty sure [1] none of those are touch screens. However, there are aircraft avionics with touch screens, for example: https://www.avidyne.com/products/ifd/index.html https://www.avidyne.com/products/ifd/index.html [1] I'm a private pilot so I'm pretty familiar with the state of the art in aircraft avionics, but I don't fly a 737.

jillesvangurp 7y ago
It takes a while for things to trickle down to certified jets and touchscreens are still relatively new. It will come: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-airliner-cockpit-touchscreen-first-449481/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-a... If recent business jets are an indication, it's all touch based at the high end already. Also, Ipads are getting pretty popular for pilots. My understanding is that most pilots would bring one by default (two plus extra batteries typically) and that especially for GA, there is a lot of equipment and software that integrates with them. One odd thing is that some pilots use ipads to control equipment in the plane because of UI and UX issues. E.g. you can control a garmin 530 with an ipad and it seems like pilots prefer doing that because it is just easier. I think both in cars and in the aviation industry there is the notion that the companies manufacturing UIs there are not necessarily that good at it because historically their focus was more hardware oriented. The UX of especially older equipment can be kind of clunky. E.g. many planes have an fms (flight management system) with a non qwerty keyboard that looks like it was designed in the nineteen sixties and just never updated. You still find the same design in relatively new planes like the A319. I agree that it is nice to have physical controls for some thing. E.g. I love volume dials. But overall, touch is great when hardware designs result in very complex UX. So, I suspect that Mazda getting rid of touchscreens is more their own inability to do good UI than any inherent problems with touch screens. The rest of the industry seems to be trying to catch up to Tesla. I recently sat in a very new Renault with Android Car and a big touch screen. It's a very nice upgrade from the previous generation which was very clunky to use and had lots of annoying bugs. Renault outsourcing the UI to a company that has a clue was a big improvement for them they were just hopelessly out of their depth.
- Robin_Message 7y ago
  I'm not a pilot, but my understanding is it is quite different to driving in terms of attention — a cruising pilot can easily look at a screen for 5 or 10 seconds (?) entirely safely, whereas a driver might struggle to even stay in lane looking at a screen for 10 seconds. So a touch screen is fine for a pilot but probably not good for a driver.
  - lisper 7y ago
    I am a pilot and you are exactly right. With an airplane autopilot coupled to a modern GPS, once you're cruising, you can pretty much crawl into the back seat and take a nap until it's time to land. (That's a little bit of an exaggeration but not much.)

dmix 7y ago

The solution is a combination of tablet screens and accessible controls on the steering wheel or on the centre console. I absolutely love my touch screen in my Honda and never felt unsafe because of it. All the controls for changing songs, volume, voice, etc are on the steering wheel via touch dials or a few buttons. It’s not like the car (or airplane) companies aren’t aware of this.