Why would one waste money (and weight) building a cockpit that was more than just utilitarian? It is a war machine which may get lost in war (or war practice).
Sounds like a design flaw if there is so much open machinery that a dislodged part can jam everything up. Stuff comes apart.
A general engineering design principle is that things degrade smoothly so that there aren't abrupt changes in performance.
The aircraft controls should be protected such that foreign objects should have a low likelihood of jamming them. That there aren't things preventing someone from clearing any blockages and there aren't places where they could lever themselves in.
My car has a design flaw with respect to the floor mats and the accelerator pedal (its not a Toyota). Between how the lever arm and the pedal surface itself are design and the aftermarket floor mat, if the mat slides forward it can jam the accelerator down. These are the deep groove mats for catching mud and water. The designers didn't think of this, if the pivot point for the pedal was further up the firewall. The pedal also has a hard square edge. Both of those things are in general a design flaw for pedals. The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) should and maybe they have (my car is old) the design of the pedal linkage and the shape of the pedal to reduce this kind of risk. The hooks for securing floor mats should also be standardized to help keep them in place.
The hard mount points for child seats are a great positive example of this.
> The hard mount points for child seats are a great positive example of this.
You're comparing child seats built for the greatest common denominator to high tech war machines that were built on the principle of "kill or be killed" for the best funded and most advanced armed forces on Earth. Every kilo of paneling is another kilo that slows down the aircraft, reduces its range, and changes its balance/maneuverability.
Aircraft technicians are just expected not to drop pens and other crap in cockpits and engines on a regular basis. It's a completely different operational context.
No I am not, your take is looking for an opening in the argument. My example was an engineering solution to a problem of mounting something.
Do better is not the solution. And we aren’t talking about aircraft technicians, I am talking about making designs robust against small parts. It could be a pen, a shoe, a piece of glass or a body part.
You make it sound like paneling, which I didn’t mention, some how has the capability to unbalance an aircraft.
One way to get lost, in war or otherwise, feels like someone dropping an iPad where no iPad should be. And these things aren't _generally_ exactly built on the cheap.
A general engineering design principle is that things degrade smoothly so that there aren't abrupt changes in performance.
The aircraft controls should be protected such that foreign objects should have a low likelihood of jamming them. That there aren't things preventing someone from clearing any blockages and there aren't places where they could lever themselves in.
My car has a design flaw with respect to the floor mats and the accelerator pedal (its not a Toyota). Between how the lever arm and the pedal surface itself are design and the aftermarket floor mat, if the mat slides forward it can jam the accelerator down. These are the deep groove mats for catching mud and water. The designers didn't think of this, if the pivot point for the pedal was further up the firewall. The pedal also has a hard square edge. Both of those things are in general a design flaw for pedals. The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) should and maybe they have (my car is old) the design of the pedal linkage and the shape of the pedal to reduce this kind of risk. The hooks for securing floor mats should also be standardized to help keep them in place.
The hard mount points for child seats are a great positive example of this.