4 ms·

That's because the Navy doesn't rely on software to do these checks, the officers and crew are supposed to ensure they don't crash. This idea of having software

by ok_dad 5y ago

That's because the Navy doesn't rely on software to do these checks, the officers and crew are supposed to ensure they don't crash. This idea of having software check things is dead in the water, because of that. The real problem is training, and much like any other human problem, this one cannot be solved through technology; it has to be solved by culture changes. VMS, however, was horrible a decade ago, and I'm not surprised it's still horrible. We used paper charts rather than VMS back then because it was so horrible.

KineticLensman 5y ago
> This idea of having software check things is dead in the water, I accept that people have to make the judgement calls and sign-off, but if the maps are in fact accurate why couldn't the computer at least issue a warning / red flag or similar when there are obvious problems (requested depth within some threshold of the actual depth). I came across a scenario editor for a land training simulator that didn't provide any way of testing intervisibility between two points. The course authors wasted vast amounts of time when assigning vehicle positions clicking around maps to see if potential targets were in fact visible to the trainees. An auto check would have allowed the course authors to use their expertise to do things that couldn't be automated, building better scenarios faster.
- ok_dad 5y ago
  I agree in the case of planned maneuvers for sure, however if you want the result of the "5 Whys" (kinda joking) then my answer is: because the contractors that build this stuff SUCK ASS. Sorry for the harsh language, but I worked on a pre-com ship during my time (an LCS, go figure) while it was being built, and the absolute lack of standards on every level (from the top of the SWO military chain through the dogshit contractors) is part of what made me leave the Navy. I'm not gonna complain about it too much, but man oh man, I think you and I could build better software than what I saw, and I don't even know you from Adam.
  - jwithington 5y ago
    I do want to build better software for DoD, but I can't figure out how to sell in. I'd start by tackling VMS! No clue how I'd go about it though.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      My understanding is that all government vendors must be listed on the GSA - getting onto that is a start. Or, buy a company already listed and then start fighting for procurement contracts.
    - foxyv 5y ago
      This difficulty is part of why their software is so bad.
    - tedmiston 5y ago
      Defense contracts are awarded extremely subjectively: there is very much an old boy network in play here. There are only a few primes. If you dig deeper into the "small businesses" that are awarded contracts, many / most are started by people already deeply involved in the defense space. The Air Force has an initiative called Kessel Run [1] to embrace agile software development — that might be your best route to building better software for the DoD. I'm not sure if other branches have similar programs. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/not-going-solo-air-force-kessel-run-sign-new-agreement-for-speedier-code/ https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/not-going-solo-air-force...
    - zentiggr 5y ago
      Without having a foot in the vendor / contracting process, it's going to be near impossible. Other responses have mentioned some routes inside... but beware... make the incumbents look bad too much and you'll be bought out and shut down. Pride takes a seriously distant back seat to maintaining the current procurement monopolies and relationships, and maximizing contract payments for the least effort. I'll stop there before I start to incriminate myself or get on watch lists if I mention possible solutions.
    - nradov 5y ago
alwayshumans 5y ago
The vast majority of navigational incidents are caused by human error, but better systems would give the crew a chance to realise their mistakes At the moment lots of maritime crew have alarm fatigue, the system constantly warns them of danger so they learn to ignore alarms and when something super serious does happen, they can ignore it
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jwithington 5y ago
Sure, the officers and crew are ultimately responsible. But how are "we" enabling the officers and crew to do their jobs? Manually verifying minimum soundings is a terrible use of one's time AND something that a computer will beat a human at every time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  A colleague visited a multi-billion-dollar, safety-critical facility that had adopted automated alarms based on safety rules. He was there because they were asking for software to help them sift through the cacophony of constantly-firing alarms which were distracting all their staff playing whack-a-mole "disable" and ruining situational awareness. I imagine it's similar here. Do you want the sub to move up automatically? To fire an alarm? To dissalow a maneuver? Absolutely not. Imagine a crew knowingly pushing their vehicle into potentially dangerous maneuvers and spending those critical moments fighting the vehicle or disabling alarms. This is how the "stick pusher" causes crashes on airplanes. The fault lies with whomever commanded the maneuver, not with the ship for doing a minor mutiny to prevent it. Now, as a counterpoint, see the f-16 auto-maneuver (I think this is a representative link): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA583778.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA583778.pdf
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > I imagine it's similar here. Do you want the sub to move up automatically? To fire an alarm? To dissalow a maneuver? Absolutely not. Imagine a crew knowingly pushing their vehicle into potentially dangerous maneuvers and spending those critical moments fighting the vehicle or disabling alarms. These kind of systems typically have manual overrides. If the operator truly believes they know best (or are in an exceptional situation that the automated system cannot account for), they can override the automated system (including many, if not most, safeguards). That's design 101 when you're building critical systems.
    - 5y ago
Jtsummers 5y ago
> The real problem is training, and much like any other human problem, this one cannot be solved through technology; it has to be solved by culture changes. What this makes me think of: > Why test software? It's a culture problem, not a technical problem. Just write correct software. As long as no one ever makes a mistake it's a totally valid approach...
IshKebab 5y ago
This can be solved through technology. The post is all about how easy it would be to solve through technology and how ridiculous it is that the technology doesn't help. How can you say that the real problem is training?
- ok_dad 5y ago
  Well, I was a naval officer, so that's how. I was in that environment. No technology can be sailor proof.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    The sheer breadth of experience and background on Hacker News never ceases to amaze me. And nobody announces their creds up-front, making for some lively discussions.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    There's a vast chasm between "zoom doesn't take 5 minutes; what is the minimum depth in this area" and "sailor proof".

by ok_dad 5y ago

KineticLensman 5y ago

> This idea of having software check things is dead in the water, I accept that people have to make the judgement calls and sign-off, but if the maps are in fact accurate why couldn't the computer at least issue a warning / red flag or similar when there are obvious problems (requested depth within some threshold of the actual depth). I came across a scenario editor for a land training simulator that didn't provide any way of testing intervisibility between two points. The course authors wasted vast amounts of time when assigning vehicle positions clicking around maps to see if potential targets were in fact visible to the trainees. An auto check would have allowed the course authors to use their expertise to do things that couldn't be automated, building better scenarios faster.

ok_dad 5y ago
I agree in the case of planned maneuvers for sure, however if you want the result of the "5 Whys" (kinda joking) then my answer is: because the contractors that build this stuff SUCK ASS. Sorry for the harsh language, but I worked on a pre-com ship during my time (an LCS, go figure) while it was being built, and the absolute lack of standards on every level (from the top of the SWO military chain through the dogshit contractors) is part of what made me leave the Navy. I'm not gonna complain about it too much, but man oh man, I think you and I could build better software than what I saw, and I don't even know you from Adam.
- jwithington 5y ago
  I do want to build better software for DoD, but I can't figure out how to sell in. I'd start by tackling VMS! No clue how I'd go about it though.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    My understanding is that all government vendors must be listed on the GSA - getting onto that is a start. Or, buy a company already listed and then start fighting for procurement contracts.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    This difficulty is part of why their software is so bad.
  - tedmiston 5y ago
    Defense contracts are awarded extremely subjectively: there is very much an old boy network in play here. There are only a few primes. If you dig deeper into the "small businesses" that are awarded contracts, many / most are started by people already deeply involved in the defense space. The Air Force has an initiative called Kessel Run [1] to embrace agile software development — that might be your best route to building better software for the DoD. I'm not sure if other branches have similar programs. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/not-going-solo-air-force-kessel-run-sign-new-agreement-for-speedier-code/ https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/not-going-solo-air-force...
  - zentiggr 5y ago
    Without having a foot in the vendor / contracting process, it's going to be near impossible. Other responses have mentioned some routes inside... but beware... make the incumbents look bad too much and you'll be bought out and shut down. Pride takes a seriously distant back seat to maintaining the current procurement monopolies and relationships, and maximizing contract payments for the least effort. I'll stop there before I start to incriminate myself or get on watch lists if I mention possible solutions.
  - nradov 5y ago

alwayshumans 5y ago

The vast majority of navigational incidents are caused by human error, but better systems would give the crew a chance to realise their mistakes At the moment lots of maritime crew have alarm fatigue, the system constantly warns them of danger so they learn to ignore alarms and when something super serious does happen, they can ignore it

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jwithington 5y ago

Sure, the officers and crew are ultimately responsible. But how are "we" enabling the officers and crew to do their jobs? Manually verifying minimum soundings is a terrible use of one's time AND something that a computer will beat a human at every time.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jvanderbot 5y ago
A colleague visited a multi-billion-dollar, safety-critical facility that had adopted automated alarms based on safety rules. He was there because they were asking for software to help them sift through the cacophony of constantly-firing alarms which were distracting all their staff playing whack-a-mole "disable" and ruining situational awareness. I imagine it's similar here. Do you want the sub to move up automatically? To fire an alarm? To dissalow a maneuver? Absolutely not. Imagine a crew knowingly pushing their vehicle into potentially dangerous maneuvers and spending those critical moments fighting the vehicle or disabling alarms. This is how the "stick pusher" causes crashes on airplanes. The fault lies with whomever commanded the maneuver, not with the ship for doing a minor mutiny to prevent it. Now, as a counterpoint, see the f-16 auto-maneuver (I think this is a representative link): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA583778.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA583778.pdf
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > I imagine it's similar here. Do you want the sub to move up automatically? To fire an alarm? To dissalow a maneuver? Absolutely not. Imagine a crew knowingly pushing their vehicle into potentially dangerous maneuvers and spending those critical moments fighting the vehicle or disabling alarms. These kind of systems typically have manual overrides. If the operator truly believes they know best (or are in an exceptional situation that the automated system cannot account for), they can override the automated system (including many, if not most, safeguards). That's design 101 when you're building critical systems.
  - 5y ago

Jtsummers 5y ago

> The real problem is training, and much like any other human problem, this one cannot be solved through technology; it has to be solved by culture changes. What this makes me think of: > Why test software? It's a culture problem, not a technical problem. Just write correct software. As long as no one ever makes a mistake it's a totally valid approach...

IshKebab 5y ago

This can be solved through technology. The post is all about how easy it would be to solve through technology and how ridiculous it is that the technology doesn't help. How can you say that the real problem is training?

ok_dad 5y ago
Well, I was a naval officer, so that's how. I was in that environment. No technology can be sailor proof.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  The sheer breadth of experience and background on Hacker News never ceases to amaze me. And nobody announces their creds up-front, making for some lively discussions.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  There's a vast chasm between "zoom doesn't take 5 minutes; what is the minimum depth in this area" and "sailor proof".