4 ms·
Jaynes's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" was used as a significant reference for the design of the Boeing 757 and 767 cockp
by Wistar 7y ago
Jaynes's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" was used as a significant reference for the design of the Boeing 757 and 767 cockpits. Even though the flight decks of the two aircraft were of significantly different scales, Boeing managed to design the two so that they appeared identical to the flight crew, for example, larger windows in the 767 but further away so that they covered the exact same field of view. The goal was to, for the first time, create two quite different aircraft with identical certification so that a pilot certified in one is also certified in the other. It was successful.
- GuiA 7y agoI’m not sure i get how a theory of the human mind being divided in a master/follower model relates to designing cockpits that appear identical despite being different sized. Could you elaborate?
- Wistar 7y agoI cannot elaborate. I once interviewed one of the Boeing design team execs who told me about the book and its key role in designing for human perception but that is all I know. I wish I knew more.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- klipt 7y agoThe idea of designs appearing identical sounds clever - but also simple enough that you can't possibly need a whole book to explain it.
- xtiansimon 7y ago>> “...but also simple enough that you can't possibly need a whole book to explain it.” Graphic designer Paul Rand designed several logos during his long career which will be familiar to many people to this day. The deliverable for Rand was not just a mark, but also a presentation book (example [1]), which is different from the Style Manual describing how to use it. A dilemma for designers in business is how to justify costs of their designs. (Not much different from R&D I would guess). While it sounds like a good _idea_ to design cockpit in such a way pilots can be certified once and fly either plane, I could imagine an equally compelling argument the cost is too great compared to the cost of training (I have no idea why—maybe if training costs we’re somehow the burden of a secondary market—whatever). In which case you might need a great deal of research and maybe a book to make your argument? [1]: https://www.logodesignlove.com/next-logo-paul-rand https://www.logodesignlove.com/next-logo-paul-rand
- Wistar 7y agoWell, they haven't done a common cockpit design since.
- xtiansimon 7y agoExactly. Great design is hard to quantify and therefore justify.