
Fighter pilot breaks down every button in an F-15 cockpit [video] - Giorgi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zikI2fazPLo
======
systemvoltage
What a masterpiece of UX/UI. Holyshit.

So many amazing details. Notice how the texture of the trim knob is different
than other controls. When cost is no barrier, you can have mechanical
switches, toggles, flip-off guards, various shapes and sizes of knobs, levers,
color coding, hazard markings, etc. - all made from top notch materials and
you bet, the haptics were totally engineered for best possible way to reduce
ambiguity. Aesthetics take a back seat.

Also, props to the narrator. She was to the point and well informed.

I hope UI/UX designers (even for web design), industrial designers,
architects, ergonomicists, HMI designers be inspired from this with one major
take away - stop putting personal taste, aesthetics, decoration, marketing,
etc. before functionality and pragmatism. Especially those working in vehicle
interior design - people need to realize we drive a deadly 2-ton machine on
our roads. Make no mistake, modern regression of UI in cars is because of bean
counters - touchscreens are vastly cheaper than physical
encoders/switches/toggles, especially automotive grade ones. [1]

Can you imagine if you had to flip a toggle switch to turn bluetooth on in
your car? I know you're smiling from just the thought of it. People make the
case that UI needs to be simple for people to use at the expense of density,
but remember - we already look at the world which is very messy and navigate
it without a problem. Millions navigate through airports. People knew how to
use Yellow Pages (extreme density) and telephone books. Making UI more
understandable is orthogonal to information density.

Unrelated: It is a shame that SpaceX's dragon crew cockpit design ditched all
this in favor of a more sexier (arguable) looking sci-fi aesthetics. IMO it
looks like a cheap movie set including the space suits.

[1]
[https://www.mouser.com/ALPS/Electromechanical/Encoders/_/N-3...](https://www.mouser.com/ALPS/Electromechanical/Encoders/_/N-39xfc?P=1z13wb5)

~~~
avalys
> Especially those working in vehicle interior design - people need to realize
> we drive a deadly 2-ton machine on our roads.

This sounds very smart and serious, which must be why someone makes the same
point in literally every discussion of a control interface for some kind of
vehicle - but I challenge you to provide evidence that fixable UX problems in
modern automobiles have led to an increase in accident rates.

In fact, most modern vehicles use touchscreens to solve the very problem that
you are supposedly concerned about. Rather than a complicated cockpit full of
individual buttons and switches to control every single function, most modern
cars have a few easy-to-find buttons and switches for functions you might want
to access while driving (i.e. radio volume, climate temperature, fan speed),
and use the touchscreen to hide all the more complicated and lesser-used
settings out of the way!

Do you really think that putting your grandmother into a car that resembled
that F-15 cockpit would be a safer option? What happens if she forgets where
the button is to, say, turn on the A/C compressor? Is she going to read every
single label while cruising down the highway at 75 mph?

~~~
itsoktocry
> _What happens if she forgets where the button is to, say, turn on the A /C
> compressor? Is she going to read every single label while cruising down the
> highway at 75 mph?_

How are either of these things solved by hiding features behind touch screen
menus? Have you ever seen a 75 year old use a computer? I think physical
switches are more intuitive to someone that age.

~~~
systemvoltage
I have about 104 physical switches at my disposal that I use to type this
comment.

~~~
jfkebwjsbx
That is such a bad analogy. 104 buttons but it is mostly a single input.

It is like saying a touchscreen is thousands of switches just because it has
that many sensor points.

~~~
systemvoltage
> It is like saying a touchscreen is thousands of switches just because it has
> that many sensor points.

Huh? This is such a bad counter analogy. Allow me to expand and prove my
point.

First, let's clarify what type of an input a keyboard switch is? It is Single
Pole Single Throw or SPST. It is also momentary (meaning you have to keep the
key pressed to close the circuit). 104 keys on a keyboard, each key is a
momentary SPST switch representing the ASCII character set (let's simplify).

On a touch screen, if it had 104 boxes, each representing a monentary SPST,
then it is identical as far as the interaction is concerned. The finger went
down, pressed inside a box or a key, and a character appeared on the screen.
They are identical (in logical sense). The circuit element is the same, see
the symbol for SPST here [1].

You're comparing 104 individual options for character input to a pixel on the
touchscreen? Why? I don't follow and what point are you trying to make? The
action is taken as a press of a finger in a specific _area_ , not a single
pixel.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch#Contact_terminology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch#Contact_terminology)

~~~
jfkebwjsbx
The point is that it does not matter that keyboards have 50, 100 or 200 keys
dedicated to characters for text entry. That is something that came out of
biology and the average human capacity to coordinate their fingers, their
length, etc.; as well as the limits of technology at the time.

The comparison with cockpits is meaningless because keyboards are not "104
switches", but a single method to deliver input text (for the most part). The
same way touchscreens are a method to deliver input, _not_ an interface on
itself.

~~~
systemvoltage
No one is talking about the method of input or classification of input device,
the response I provided to the parent comment if you scan back up is about
_switches_. To which I said a keyboard has 104 switches. That's all.

~~~
14
I think you are right and if they could use a simulator to practice it would
be very easy to learn all the buttons by heart. Certain controls will just
easily translate across any aircraft and the others you can just train on like
any other vehicle slowly learning until you master it. I don't think 200
controls would take much mental capacity with practice. In many aspects of
life we are taking in countless factors in what we do and make decisions
instantaneously based on those factors.

~~~
scarier
Absolutely--this is a standard practice in a lot of flight training. Some
places use "cockpit procedure trainers," which are basically plywood mockups
of aircraft cockpits, featuring all the switches in the right places but no
simulation capabilities. It only takes a few hours of practice to learn to
locate and identify an arbitrary switch or instrument in the cockpit with your
eyes closed. CPTs are fantastic for learning all kinds of procedures and
building good habit patterns without the expense of a full-blown sim or actual
flight.

------
ceocoder
That was awesome! Fighter planes are just so so cool as machines, being able
to fly an F-22 would be a dream come true.

Col. Themely did a spectacular job explaining all the subsystems and how they
worth together. I found this quote by her[0] rather inspiring,

 _What are you most important daily habits?

My vice wing commander, command chief, and I all subscribe to the “2-10-5-7
philosophy”, which is two hours of alone time, 10 hours of work, five hours of
family time, and seven hours of sleep_

That must require so much discipline - something to aspire to.

[0] [https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-
Display/Article/146...](https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Article-
Display/Article/1465972/womens-history-month-highlight-col-andrea-themely/)

~~~
heleninboodler
I find I'm more of a 2-10-5-9 myself. Living on earth is difficult.

------
snowwrestler
Video walk-through of the front (pilot) seat of the SR-71:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj9UwKQKE3A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj9UwKQKE3A)

~~~
freediver
"I watch this video once a week so if I'm ever in a situation where I need to
fly an SR-71 I'll be prepared."

------
ardy42
The video says the displays are classified, but this link shows the PAD
display showing some information:

[https://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/12/12/iee-to-
upgrade-f-15...](https://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/12/12/iee-to-
upgrade-f-15-displays/)

And this link looks like it shows some F-15 displays that a training simulator
company makes":

[http://www.dotwizards.net/dt/index.php/simulated-flat-
panel-...](http://www.dotwizards.net/dt/index.php/simulated-flat-panel-
displays/simulated-military-displays/f-15-simulated-displays.html)

~~~
FireBeyond
Those displays are duplicates of some of the flight systems (attitude, HSI,
etc). One of the guys on my shift at my fire department, who is a retired AF
Lt Col, who spent his career (and some post- in the Middle East doing
training) in F-15Es says most likely they were blanked out because (as
mentioned in the video) they were displaying motor (what they tend to call the
engine) parameters (which might give away some performance characteristics) or
weapon configuration.

------
sedatk
If you like this kind of content, I strongly recommend DCS flight simulator.
It's a brutally realistic flight simulator and you can play with every button
in cockpit. Everything works. There are DLCs for F-15, F/A-18 etc.

~~~
Buttons840
There's Also Falcon BMS for a more 90s experience, but it's just as deep if
not moreso.

~~~
ckozlowski
Second this. The BMS community is top-notch. Even though I play DCS, it's
amazing how long it's been maintained. The DCS Falcon still has a long way to
go before it will be feature complete next to BMS.

------
netvarun
The accompanying ArsTechnica article was posted yesterday[0] but didn’t get
much traction.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690990](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690990)

------
technothrasher
Anybody who enjoyed this would likely enjoy the Fighter Jet Podcast by ex-Navy
pilot Vincent Aiello. Each episode is an approximately 45 minute interview
with a fighter jet pilot or other support crew, going step by step over pretty
much any and every topic that relates.

[https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/](https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/)

------
tome
What does she mean about the VMAX? They're "technically forbidden" to use it,
but it's understood that in a combat situation they may well need it to escape
an aggressor?

~~~
kens
This extra boost of power is also known as "War Emergency Power", and goes
back to World War II planes. In the P51 Mustang, WEP increased the horsepower
by 61%. But after using WEP, the engines needed to be inspected before flying
again, so it was only used when necessary.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power)

Related is the "Battle short" switch on Navy computers, which shorts the fuses
with copper bars and disables over-temperature faults, so you can keep the
computer running during a battle even if things are going bad.

~~~
dctoedt
> _In the P51 Mustang, WEP increased the horsepower by 61%._

In his youth, my late dad flew P51 Mustangs in the Korean War. He told the
story of how he and another guy were flying a photo reconnaissance mission (I
think it was) when the other guy was shot down by ground fire, crashing not
far in front of Chinese lines. My dad then shot it out with the Chinese ground
troops, hoping to keep them away from his downed colleague until help arrived.
Back at the base, my dad's best friend mistakenly heard that it was my dad
who'd been shot down; as my dad described it, his friend climbed into another
P51 and flew all the way across Korea at "full military power" (the term he
used) to get in the fight.

My dad's shot-down colleague was killed in the crash, it turned out. I vividly
remember my dad telling the story late in his life and getting pretty
emotional: He was certain that, in trying to protect his colleague, he had
killed scores of young men who had little choice about being there, who
probably were just farm boys like him and had parents and maybe wives and
children at home. I don't think he ever got over that.

------
gonzo41
The real advantage is that the only choice is seating and heating adjustments.
If VSCode or Eclipse had no options and everyone just did the same thing,
think how fast we'd fly :)

------
tomonocle
The Omega Tau podcast often does similarly detailed examinations of planes (as
well as almost anything and everything else):
[https://pca.st/episode/05c91470-2f6f-0135-52f9-452518e2d253](https://pca.st/episode/05c91470-2f6f-0135-52f9-452518e2d253))

~~~
errantspark
That podcast is absolutely amazing. I love getting engrossed in it on long car
drives.

------
garfieldnate
Are heat-seeking missiles going to be a thing of the past at some point? With
all the advances in computer vision and object recognition, I would think that
if you have the money to make a missile that you would also have the money to
put a camera on it for recognizing what a target looks like. Or am I
oversimplifying this?

------
rkagerer
Is there a reason she pronounced turbine as "turbin"?

Also I think she missed a few switches :-).

~~~
tonyarkles
That seems to be a relatively common second way to pronounce it. I’ve watched
a ton of aviation videos and I’d guess it’s 60/40 for tur-bine vs tur-bin

------
jiveturkey
Tesla version: one single large display with various modal dialogs.

------
doomrobo
Very cool! I wonder if this model is the one the US sold to the Saudi Air
Force to bomb Yemeni school buses.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/arms-deals-raytheon-
ye...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/arms-deals-raytheon-yemen.html)

------
ecf
I’m trying not to think about how many resources were wasted to design an
aircraft that only saw a little over 100 combat encounters.

~~~
larrywright
That’s only air combat (plane vs plane). These planes regularly engage in
plane to ground combat. Dropping bombs, firing missiles.

Also, not every engagement is a combat engagement. Example:
[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-
zone/22807/oregon-f-15s-scr...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-
zone/22807/oregon-f-15s-scramble-to-seattle-to-intercept-possibly-
stolen-q400-airliner)

~~~
zokier
F-15C shown here is pretty much as purebred air superiority fighter as
possible. They definitely do not regularly engage ground targets, unlike it's
multirole cousins (F-16 and F-18)

They did eventually (begrudgingly) develop separate strike variant (F-15E),
but those aircraft are conversely dedicated to that role.

