5 ms·
Interesting to read this, as I have some experience sailing - and that sometimes involves people changing control of the tiller/wheel. The procedure that was dr
by _whiteCaps_ 4y ago
Interesting to read this, as I have some experience sailing - and that sometimes involves people changing control of the tiller/wheel. The procedure that was drilled into my head at an early stage was this:
A: B, take the helm
B: I have the helm
or for tacking:
Skipper: Prepare to tack
Crew: Ready to tack
Skipper: Helm's a lee
Skipper tacks, crew does their stuff
If you don't get a response at any point don't continue. Communicate.
- tjohns 4y agoThat's standard procedure in flying as well, drilled into pilots' heads from their very first flight lesson: A: "You have the flight controls." B: "I have the flight controls." A: "You have the flight controls."
- chrisseaton 4y agoIt’s weird I’d thought they use different terms for A’s two phrases, because it’s the same words but the first is an instruction and the second a statement! Different meanings but same words - why’d you do that in designing a protocol!
- frutiger 4y agoJust like TCP, it’s a stateful protocol.
- chrisseaton 4y agoSeems like a terrible idea - what if you’re mistaken about the other person’s understanding of the current state?
- SteveNuts 4y agoI'm trying to think how this could possibly be misconstrued
- simulate-me 4y agoWhat if A didn't hear B's response, and was reiterating their first instruction? B wouldn't respond because they think A is already at step 3 of the handshake, whereas A thinks they are at step 1. A thinks A has control of the plane, whereas B thinks B has control of the plane.
- jaywalk 4y agoEven if A says the same words (he probably wouldn't) it definitely wouldn't be in the same tone. B would understand that it was a repeated command and not an acknowledgement.
- hgomersall 4y agoThat seems tricky. Climbing, I was always taught to make the commands unambiguous. You never say "take in the slack" because on a windy day that can sound awfully like "I need slack". Each command should be distinct.
- chrisseaton 4y agoCommands that can only be disambiguated via tone sounds insane to me. Imagine being in an emergency, possibly listening to someone speaking while wearing an oxygen mask, in a smoke filled cabin, with alarms going off, and asking yourself - "wait did they say 'you ^have^ the controls', or 'you _have_ the controls'".
- inoffensivename 4y agoA is supposed to watch the other person and see their hands move to the controls.
- eternityforest 4y agoWon't A just repeat until he gets a response? A doesn't want control, if they think they have it, they will probably retry the whole thing, meaning the confusion is probably brief. He might also just see that B is making inputs and assume, if they are being lax, but I assume they wouldn't.
- yodelshady 4y agoThen you send a letter to Byzantine and ask the Generals if they have any bright ideas?
- tharkun__ 4y agoTCP got it right tho: SYN SYN-ACK ACK
- bombcar 4y agoYeah, I was trained to say: P1: Take the controls P2: I have the controls P1: You have the controls It’s basically syn:ack
- inamberclad 4y agoYeah, in flying this is usually called three way positive exchange of controls, with A repeating that B has the controls.
- avidiax 4y agoThere's no real reason to not have this exchange digitally/mechanically intermediated, in my estimation. A plane doesn't need to have both controls mechanically linked, or both active at the same time. You could have a nice big toggle in the middle of the cockpit that is either 2 or 3 positions (L/R/Both). Toggling it will announce "Left/Right in control" and activate the stick shaker on the dead side and re-announce if any input is received. Panic isn't something that you can remove by training nor train for. It needs to be factored into the design that only one set of inputs is effective at a time.
- colechristensen 4y agoPanic is absolutely something you can train for and the human factor of flight controls is a central part of the design. Accidents heavily inform this design and training and control characteristics are always on the table as a response to incidents.
- renewiltord 4y agoInevitably you will get "Plane crashed as pilot in command attempted to control plane while toggle was in opposing position" and someone will say "okay, you should add a warning light" and then the same thing will happen and someone will say "there are too many warning lights" and so on and so forth.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> A plane doesn't need to have both controls mechanically linked, or both active at the same time. If you have a switching control, mechanical or digital, it is a thing that can fail, and even if you assume it would be good before considering that, you have to consider the impact failure has on net utility, especially if a plausible failure mode renders both controls inoperable.
- russdill 4y agoMaybe instead some equivalent of the stick shaker that indicates your controls are being overridden
- NickNameNick 4y ago
- gonzo 4y agoSometimes you have to tack now. Then you’re lucky if you hear, “tacking!”
- isolli 4y agoCommunication was also the main cause of the Tenerife airport disaster [0], leading to an overhaul of communication protocols. "As a consequence of the accident, sweeping changes were made to international airline regulations and to aircraft. Aviation authorities around the world introduced requirements for standard phrases and a greater emphasis on English as a common working language." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster#Communication_misunderstandings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster#Comm...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]