Automakers Ignoring Lessons Learned From The Airline Industry When Is Comes To Driving Automation

Recently, I interviewed Christopher Hart, member and former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, for the Autonocast podcast, and his insights into the consequences of automation are a beacon of clarity in a growing sector filled with misinformation. In this article, Hart looks at the oft-ignored relationship between automation in aviation versus self-driving cars, and he makes many points—especially about data sharing—that the self-driving industry continues to ignore.—Alex Roy

Because more than 90% of the crashes on our nation’s streets and highways are attributed to driver error, the potential for automation in motor vehicles to save lives and prevent injury and damage is amazing. However, introducing automation into—and removing the driver from—such a complex human-centric environment will be a massive challenge. Commercial aviation began incorporating automation decades ago, in a much less complex and more structured environment than our streets and highways, and that industry, which is still learning about what works well and what does not, has not yet to remove the pilot. What are the lessons the auto industry can learn from the process of introducing automation into aviation?

Read Article

TheSteve - 8/31/2017 2:41:22 PM

+5 Boost

Automakers also ignore what we've learned from the aviation industry pertaining to user interface (UI) design. This is especially true in military aircraft, where a suboptimal UI design can get someone killed. The military is extremely sensitive to the pilot in command being able to quickly, intuitively, and unambiguously execute the required sequence of controls and inputs.

The auto industry focuses instead on "cool factor" and visual appeal, because that's what demos nicely in ads and commercials, and what results in unit sales.

carloslassiter - 9/1/2017 7:59:04 AM

-7 Boost

According to TheSteve, cars should not have radios in them since that will only serve as a distraction to the driver from his primary task of piloting the vehicle safely down the road.

TheSteve - 9/1/2017 7:21:04 PM

+3 Boost

carloslassite: Nah, that's just YOUR straw-man argument, which YOU dreamt up.

carloslassiter - 9/3/2017 10:48:00 AM

-2 Boost

Your the one making a bizarrely irrelevant comparison between military aircraft cockpit design and the dashboard of a Chevy Cruz.

TheSteve - 9/3/2017 2:13:47 PM

+3 Boost

carloslassiter: The comparison I make, which you fail to see, is as follows:

1. The operator must interact with the vehicle's user interface (UI) in order to translate the operator's intentions into UI inputs, and get the desired outcome.

2. When the UI is of a suboptimal design (visual layout, ergonomics, ease of use, instinctive/intuitive interaction, etc.), it requires more of the operator's attention to accomplish a specific task, and during that process, the operator's focus is diverted from the primary mission. The longer the diversion, the more intense operator thinking required, the greater the risk of making an error and/or experiencing undesired consequences.

3. The military takes UIs very seriously, because their primary objective is to (a) keep the operator out of harm's way, and (b) successfully complete the mission. The auto industry, however, is focused on making sales, so they create UIs that look appealing in ads and demos. Automakers' UI focus is NOT on (a) keep the operator out of harm's way, and (b) successfully complete the mission. That's why it can take a dozen steps to do something as simple as turning down the bass in a car's infotainment system... all the while, the car's operator's attention is diverted from the primary task of safely operating the vehicle.

I hope this clears up your confusion in not seeing how important UIs are, and the deep connection between the military's understanding of the vital importance of a good UI, and how that relates to the auto industry's lack of a similar mindset.