Does side by side seating improve crew communication?

[apparition13]

I ask because aircrew interview had a live Q & A with an F-111 pilot, and when I put the question to him he said having side by side seating didn't help him. He would have rather had the line of sight a tandem cockpit provided.

Is it perhaps just "accepted knowledge" or "common sense" that isn't backed by research? Or maybe it's situational, it's useful for teaching someone to fly but unnecessary for a pilot and WSO/CSO/RIO/ECMO/RSO/whatever. But since it's useful for teaching, the untested assumption is that it's also useful for combat crews when it may be useful, have no effect, or even be detrimental to crew performance.

Which raises the question, have there been studies on whether side by side seating improves communication compared to tandem? If so, does anyone have a citation?

 

[Hood]

Even for training aircraft the choice has batted too and fro from one to the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages, neither has any particular outweighing feature to tip the balance one way or the other. It could simply come down to whatever the fashion is of the time and whatever fits the aerodynamics of the airframe better.

The use of an escape pod on the F-111 would have precluded a tandem arrangement to keep the pod to manageable size. Compared to TSR-2, the F-111 is smaller in all length and height, had a traditional tandem arrangement been used it would of lengthened the fuselage considerably. I can't think of any tandem-seat strike aircraft with a bomb bay - only the B-57 and the nosewheel was quite far back and the original Canberra was very much a cabin cockpit rather than a pure tandem set up.

 

[TomS]

I can't think of any tandem-seat strike aircraft with a bomb bay

Buccaneer. F-105F/G. A-5 Vigilante. (Also innumerable WW2 dive and torpedo bombers.)

 

[Hood]

Buccaneer. F-105F/G. A-5 Vigilante. (Also innumerable WW2 dive and torpedo bombers.)

Very true, I did forget the Bucc! The F-105 was designed as a single-seater originally, did the G even have an operable bomb bay? The Vigilante had a bomb bay indeed though of linear launch and the A-5 was actually slightly shorter than the F-111 (by 3ft) despite the tandem cockpit.

Since apparition13 was talking about the F-111 and presumably jet-age aircraft in general, I of course ignored piston-engined aircraft. The early pioneers of course used both side-by-side and tandem cockpits equally. There were a few side-by-side reconnaissance scouts in 1914-15 but soon the observer found a home in the nose or tail, not only for better visiblity but to give his machine gun decent arcs. It was not unusual for flying boats and heavy bombers to retain both tandem and side-by-side cockpits for pilots until the late 1930s, even with the advent of enclosed cockpits, especially in Italy and Japan in the latter years.

For the RAF, preference for side-by-side seating in trainers dates from trials in 1940-43 (lets put aside the whole 3-men in a trainer fad the RAF had for another day) and lasted until roughly 1968 for fast jet trainers, but was still hotly debated within the RAF during the late 1970s. Today tandem is in vogue for advanced trainers so that's all you can buy. Elementary trainers tend to be based on commercial light aircraft so sticking with side-by-side is inevitable and probably does benefit student pilots.

For the F-111, I have read similar criticisms of poor all-round vision from F-111 WSOs, rearward visibility is poor and neither crewman can fully see the out the opposite side. On the other hand it does build better crew cooperation and trust and they can cross monitor systems better.

 

[GARGEAN]

I think side by side have other benefits aside from pure communication. More space available allows for better habitability in long range runs for ex. As for specifically crew interactability - I imagine it being better but not to the level it greatly matters, especially with today's tech of cockpit handling.

 

[bob225]

SU-34 is the most modern i can think of with side by side, no bomb bay though.

 

[apparition13]

On the other hand it does build better crew cooperation and trust and they can cross monitor systems better.

That's really the question though. Does it actually build better crew cooperation and trust? Did F-111s and A-6s have better crew cooperation and trust than Buccaneer, F-15E, Rafale B, F-18F/G, F-4s, etc. crews? Or is it just folk wisdom without any science backing it up?

Granted what brought this about was one persons answer to the question, so there's no reason other pilots and WSOs might not have different opinions, but as his answer was dismissive of the crew cooperation idea, it raises the question. And "side by side seating is not better for crew communication than tandem seating" is a testable hypothesis.

SU-34 is the most modern i can think of with side by side, no bomb bay though.

Su-34 is an interesting case, but not from the cooperation and communications standpoint IMO. The cabin is big enough to stand and move around in, and lie down between the seats, which would be really useful for something like an El Dorado Canyon mission duration. That you can't do with tandem seats. I've even seen the suggestion that it has better ergonomics for long missions than does the B-2, although it's not a claim I have a lot of confidence in.

 

[AeroFranz]

this isn't going to help you, i'm afraid, but it's worth pointing out that the selection of side-by-side vs tandem might also be dictated by what's in the front and in the back of the cockpit. If for some reason you have a huge radar in the front and huge fuse centersection in the back, then it doesn't cost you anything to have side by side, it might even save some weight because the cross-section is already there and you don't need to lengthen the fuselage.
I wonder about side by side arrangements where the WSO/GIB was not in line with the pilot, like on an A-6, Mosquito, Vixen. can the crewmembers still talk to/see each other to make a difference?

 

[SIMONL]

This is a mission based Question-what each crew member needs to do during a specified sortie, how much data does he need to process to be effective during a mission etc.
For different operational scenarios, there is different data overload for a different length of time. Adding to this different flight profile (Speed, height, maneuverability) and threats - There will be, in some scenarios, an advantage for side by side configuration.
For instance: low speed, low height flight would benefit from a data distribution and analysis between the two members, allowing more efficient workload. As more and more decision making tasks are moving towards AI and autonomous systems, this allows the crew to move from "Technical" flight focused tasks to operational and tactical focus tasks. In this change--there would be an advantage to a side - by side configuration. In the UAS world this is already happening...