Safety? We don't need no stinking Safety!
-
In the current training product I'm working on, the user sits in a virtual representation of a vehicle that is sitting on an 6 DOF motion platform. This thing is somewhat terrifying, the safety briefing we were given on it contained the words, "and then you will die", multiple times. It can fling the several thousand pounds of hardware bolted to it around quite dramatically and a squishy human won't slow it down much.
So, needless to say, there are a LOT of safeties built in. There are multiple E-stops in various locations that will shut it down. There are also safety interlocks in the user restraint harness and the virtual vehicle door, opening either of which will cause the platform to halt and lower gently to a 'neutral' position.
This is a GOOD thing. It stops people from being horribly, horribly, maimed.
Sadly, the people doing the customer's acceptance testing don't think so. Nope. They want a checkbox on the control application. A checkbox that disables the safety interlocks. Because reasons. So, of course, this became a priority 1 problem and it was implemented against our protests.
Someone is going to end up getting horribly injured, I just know it.
It's bad enough that management and the customer decided to go with software controlled safety interlocks (against the advice of the software team), but to blatantly disable the safeties? I'm just... I don't even know.
-
6 DOF motion platform
http://www.inmotionsimulation.com/images/frontpage/6-dof-rotary-table.jpg
To save others GISing it.
-
software controlled
So you're one bug away from being beaten to a pulp.
Hope it runs on Linux hardware.
-
A checkbox that disables the safety interlocks.
at least them add an "are you sure?" dialogue with an electronic signature that displays the user name next to the checkbox after you signed it.Then it would be as secure as my timesheet at least.
John Doe is taking responsibility if anything bad happens.
-
Oh come on!. Everybody knows that hacking into the System and disabling the "safeties'" is how the Hero saves the day. Because, again as we all know, the safeties have a hidden and dangerous flaw that makes them "hurties".
Humour aside. Yeah bit of a :WTF: Make sure your Name, Rank and Serial number are removed from anything to do with the project. Because sooner or later something that should have been "on" will be "off" and someone will be pate and there will be howls for blood.
-
@nullptr said:
software controlled
So you're one bug away from being beaten to a pulp.
Hope it runs on Linux hardware.
Some of it...
The motion base actually ran on XP. I think they gave us a Beta Linux version as the customer wouldn't accept XP as it didn't meet their security standards anymore.
Sadly the baseline this all runs in is about 20-25 years old and is full of some really... interesting... code.
-
XP.
Beta Linux
interesting... code
You're building a murderbot, aren't you.
-
It's bad enough that management and the customer decided to go with software controlled safety interlocks (against the advice of the software team)...
This is so bad that I would be willing to quit the job.
...but to blatantly disable the safeties?
And this is worse. I'd be out the door faster than your 6 DOF platform could throw me.
Make sure your Name, Rank and Serial number are removed from anything to do with the project.
Not good enough, I'd feel much better not working there at all.
-
squishy human
software controlled safety interlocks
horribly injured
Simon Travaglia, is that you
Although being serious the Therac-25 showed why software interlocks are never a good idea (not that hardware is infallible).
-
A checkbox that disables the safety interlocks.
they are called safety interlocks for a reason.
the only way they should be allowed to be disabled is with the simultaneous triggering of five key activated consoles each of which needs a different physical key to trigger, and further needs a different physical key to grant access to the input pad where the 32 digit code must be entered to unlock the bulletproof casing protecting the actual key socket that could potentially disable the safety interlocks.
Furthermore no one person is allowed on pain of being shot in the face of possessing more than one key or of possessing knowledge of any of the key codes while possessing a key to the system.
And even then the system should automatically reenable the safety interlocks the instant a human enters the building the device is installed in.
-
@nullptr said:
6 DOF motion platform
http://www.inmotionsimulation.com/images/frontpage/6-dof-rotary-table.jpg
To save others GISing it.
Yep, although bigger. It's an eMove eM6-640-3000, which can handle a 3000kg load and has electronic actuators instead of pneumatic. Cool kit.
-
loose:
Make sure your Name, Rank and Serial number are removed from anything to do with the project. Destroy any HR records have about you. Get one of those thingies from MIB and do the "memory" thing on your work colleagues. Leave through the shiny glass door, ensuring your arse print (but no DNA) is on it because your moving that fast. Beg, borrow or steal a fast car / boat / plane - don't buy unless you have cash - get the cash the same way you would have gotten the plane etc if you had no cash. Head off in one direction, randomly changing it after long intervals. When you get as far away as possible, ditch the transport. Grow a beard and hitch hike half way or some other random fraction back the way you come - using a different route............Not good enough, I'd feel much better not working there at all.
There! has that FTFY enough
-
Is that the 3 or 5 seconds, to input the 32 digit code, protocol?
-
It's an eMove eM6-640-3000, which can handle a 3000kg load
3 ton load and it can accelerate at over half a g, bloody hell. That's probably why the datasheet doesn't have the power consumption.
That and XPlane would be a great combination.
-
Must be they want to be like the Star Trek holodecks, where it seems that the safeties-off switch must be right next to the light switch or something.
-
Don't do it.
If they insist, quit.
Jesus man. I almost quit a job over a manager who asked me to fake supposedly objectively-measured data in a web analytics report (I was able to talk her out of it.) I can't imagine being asked to disable a safety feature that could kill a person.
Not only should you leave if you can't talk them down, you should write some letters to the New York Times. Because that's really fucked.
-
The motion base actually ran on XP.
Good. Windows hardware gives you an Undo button in case your machine kills someone.
-
Is that the 3 or 5 seconds, to input the 32 digit code, protocol?
1.5 seconds. and the pannel gives you a 15kva shock if you mistype it.
-
15kva shock if you mistype it
Ow!Also, I guess you'd never want to type that code
Nor would I, for that matter…
-
It's bad enough that management and the customer decided to go with software controlled safety interlocks (against the advice of the software team), but to blatantly disable the safeties? I'm just... I don't even know.
Are they planning on using it to mix paint or something? It seems like this would have to violate some legal safety standard somewhere.
-
Also, I guess you'd never want to type that code
you couldn't make me. i'd leave so fast the moment you mentioned wanting to put the code in i's create
the next season ofa Sonic Boom
-
They say that the best way to get car-related traffic injuries down to zero is to install a steel spike in the steering wheel, aimed at the driver. /me am thinking that disabling the safety interlocks should engage something similar - as a friendly reminder about what's at stake.
-
People say that, but I've had more motorbike accidents than car crashes, despite knowing full well that bikes are dangerous
-
That's another topic. Unless you are a military courier, a motorbike has no place on regular roads if traffic safety should be taken seriously at all.
-
I know I'm
'd about a dozen times, but:
-
I'm guessing this is something military; they tend to put a low priority on user safety. (I think I remember somebody posting previously about a tank simulator, but CBA to search.) Military personnel have already agreed (either voluntarily or as an obligation of citizenship in their country) to risk their lives for their jobs. I'd still be pretty unhappy about being asked to do this, but maybe they have a "good" reason.
If this is a commercial product, then quitting and whistle-blowing would be appropriate responses.
Also,
accelerate at over half a g
I didn't read the full data sheet, but the web page says 10m/s2. That's (just) over a full g, not a half. Yes, technically that's also over a half.
-
That's another topic. Unless you are a military courier, a motorbike has no place on regular roads if traffic safety should be taken seriously at all.
Troll/10, nicely done. I almost took the bait for a second.
-
a motorbike has no place on regular roads if traffic safety should be taken seriously at all.
Better than horses
-
Who says I'm trolling?
-
There are no problems with horses. As long as a guy with a red flag walks in front of every car to warn the riders.
-
They want a checkbox on the control application. A checkbox that disables the safety interlocks. Because reasons.
That was always a good idea on Star Trek, so I don't see why not.
After all, nothing bad ever happened to anyone there, so why should real life be any different?
-
I'm guessing this is something military; they tend to put a low priority on user safety. (I think I remember somebody posting previously about a tank simulator, but CBA to search.)
It is, and that was me.
Yeah, I didn't put the code in to disable it, someone else did. I'm trying to stay as far away from the motion platform code as possible.
-
What is the purpose of the machine and why does the platform need so much power?
Are you building this?
-
Blood Angels Dreadnought with assault cannon and power fist.
Yeah, I'd run if I saw that coming at me
-
What is the purpose of the machine and why does the platform need so much power?
Are you building this?
I've actually tried to get my project lead to let us write a Mech game for it. He's all for it, but we don't have time at the moment. :(
-
I'm trying to stay as far away from the motion platform
codeas possible.
ISTM that would be a good idea, too, given the lack of safety.
-
/me am thinking that disabling the safety interlocks should engage something similar - as a friendly reminder about what's at stake.
Except it won’t be, because the person disabling the interlocks isn’t in the simulator — and even if the switch were in there or the person who disabled them will be the one using the simulator, it doesn’t look less safe when they’re off. People wearing seat belts drive less safely than ones who aren’t (on average) because they “know” that if they have an accident, the belt will protect them, and they get clear feedback that affirms this because they feel the belt against their bodies. Similarly, if you want people to drive more slowly, require a certain minimum road noise level inside the car.Also, and unrelated to safety (I hope), if you start your sentence with /me, finish it in third person singular, not first :)
-
Sadly, the people doing the customer's acceptance testing don't think so. Nope. They want a checkbox on the control application. A checkbox that disables the safety interlocks. Because reasons. So, of course, this became a priority 1 problem and it was implemented against our protests.
I would refuse to implement this. If it meant me changing jobs I would do so.
-
I was thinking that the control box should sprout the spike. Not as effective since the operator is (hopefully) not in motion, but still quite eye-catching.
-
I'm guessing this is something military; they tend to put a low priority on user safety.
Lower than in civilian life, in many ways, but they place quite a lot of emphasis on safety in others. It’s more about drilling people to do things the safe way than making the things themselves inherently safe — largely because this is often impossible, or would be too involved and so lead to greater risks on the battlefield instead.I doubt, for example, that civilian safety inspectors would allow someone to move heavy stuff around in a confined space where heavy machinery moves up and down, and occasionally backwards and forwards, while the whole working space itself moves around, sometimes violently, with the person in it. Yet this is pretty much the job of the loader in a tank. There could be extensive safety screens to protect him, but they’d get in the way so he’d need to spend more time on loading each round, which means the tank doesn’t fire as quickly, which means it might not get a second shot off before the enemy returns fire. So instead, the loader has only a small safety shield, the gun won’t fire unless it’s deployed, and he’s simply taught to stand out of the way when the gun recoils.
-
There are no problems with horses. As long as a guy with a
red flag walks in front of every car to warn the riderswheelbarrow and a shovel follows the horse.FTFY
-
That would just teach the operator to lean back before clicking. Oh, and to go get his buddies to show what cool things happen when you click that particular box.
-
That was always a good idea on Star Trek, so I don't see why not.
After all, nothing bad ever happened to anyone there, so why should real life be any different?
Well, unless they're wearing a red shirt...
-
-
I am so glad I'm not you right now.
Except he seems to have the best toys of any of us...
-
-
-
No, you get an anvil dropped on your head.
And then someone plays an Alanis Morissette song, because if you hadn't disabled the interlocks, an anvil wouldn't have fallen on your head.
-
didn't read the full da
Sorry quote reply is still broken as shit on mobile, that was the most I could get after a billion attempts.
Yeah, I saw that first but the data sheet says that's only on one particular motion. For most of them it's 0.64 so I put more than half.
-
