iPad data entry errors caused plane to strike runway during takeoff On the 1st of August, 2014, cabin crew aboard a 737 operated by Australian airline QANTAS reported hearing a “squeak” during takeoff. The crew's ears were good: the sound they heard was the plane's tail scraping the ground – a “tailstrike” - during takeoff. That's the conclusion of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) …
Probably a number of reasons.
1) They need a product that will last the trip, even if the charger dies.
2) They need a product with a rich and vibrant software ecosystem and numerous developers that are familiar with writing software for that device.
3) They need a device that is stable, not rebooting unexpectedly, throwing random driver errors, downloading so many patches it stops working because it filled up primary storage or any of the millions of other reasons why a stock Windows device will bite the dust where an iOS device won't.
4) They need a device which will work with $external_device or $external_interface; in the mobile world, that always means iOS support.
5) They need a device that anyone can use over the course of generations without retraining.
6) They especially need to never have to fear that a future update will completely change the UI, application compatibility or so forth in a radical fashion.
7) They doubly especially need to be able to trust that the device won't apply game-changing updates without permission or snuck in as "important" or "critical" updates.
8) They may have security concerns that require information entered to not be scraped and sent back to the mothership. The exacting details of a plane's takeoff, landing, flight path, etc all seem like things I'd like to keep secret.
I could go on, but those are the big reasons for using iOS over Windows for mobile devices for me. This despite the fact that I loathe the iOS UI. (Though not nearly as much as I loathe Metro.)
Also: many of the iPad typecovers are, in fact, quite a bit better than what Surface offers.
That being said, I am curious to hear what the reasons of the airline in question are for choosing iOS. It would be fascinating to read the procurement choice history for that. iOS devices are excellent tools for a huge number of different situations. Surface devices are merely failures looking for a place to happen.
I'm not sure why the downvotes for you Trevor. I do believe you're right. Also, the airline owns those iPads not the pilots so they can control updates and the software along with providing spares.
Each pilot has one and on some airlines the lead Flight Attendent also has one for entering data (such as final passenger count and anything deemed "unusual" as to carry-on weight, etc. There's some links on line mostly from years ago that explain the reasons they pick certain bits and pieces of this hardware. IIRC, it started with the MD-80 when the flight engineer was eliminated. Prior to that aircraft, the FE was entering the data into the aircraft's system. Not the same data mind you... different times.
I'm not sure why the downvotes for you Trevor.
The downvotes are because most, if not all, of Trevor's points do not apply. The iPads that are approved for use by the FAA are not your standard run-of-the-mill iPads. They are heavily locked-down, heavily customized, and can only be updated by technicians that have validated the software again and again and again.
They do not have access to the Apple app store, nor do they have Angry Birds installed. so any criticism from those that are anti-Surface are those with an unprofessional, untechnical anti-MS bias.
@Trevor Pott
1. Check, Surface Pro 3 should last the flight
2. Rich and vibrant, and no app store restrictions. Check, Surface Pro 3 passes here.
3. Check, no random reboots or lockups on my Surface Pro 3 in the last 12 months - and it goes weeks between planned reboots.
4. Check, standard USB interface, Bluetooth and Wifi, so an advantage over the iPad there, which would need a Lightning USB convertor - or for industry, both would need a Lightning / USB to RS232 converter.
5. I've been working with Windows, Mac OS and Linux since the mid 80s. Apart from the change to using a menu as opposed to rows of icons, Windows hasn't really changed that much that you need retraining - especially as we are talking about bespoke software here, so that would work the same regardless of the under operating system. Heck, with Windows you can boot directly into the application and not even see the Windows shell - in fact, you can set the application as the shell, so no chance of them playing games while they are waiting.
6. The last radical change to Windows was in 1995.
7. We are talking corporate devices here. WSUS (and similar tools) have been around for over a decade that allow you to control the roll-out of updates to corporate devices, so you test them on a select few devices, before rolling them out at your schedule to the rest of the fleet.
8. So, that discounts iOS, Android, OS X and Windows. Better use a custom Linux distribution.
The list you have given doesn't really stop the choice of any modern operating system. iOS, Android, Windows, Linux, MacOS or BSD would fulfil all of your requirements there. Some would be better suited than others, but the points in your list would be fulfilled by all of them.
6. The last radical change to Windows was in 1995.
Really? Where do you rank that POS called Metro/modern/????. If tiles are not a redical re-design then I'm Charlies Aunt
I'm with Trevor here. Metro is a steaming turd bolted on to something that was reasonably stable.
If you want stability in an OS then look at Z/OS. 3270 Rules Ok!
@Big_D
1. Surface 3 will not last the legnth of all flights. Sorry. Regional flights maybe. But many international it will not.
2. Sorry, but touch-interface ecosystem on Windows is garbage. The touch UI restrictions make the resulting apps horrible and there is not a huge ecosystem of developers who are skilled in making touch Windows apps.
3. Sorry, Windows does randomly reboot for patches. It also locks up when it gets bad patches. In general patch management is pretty awful and responsible for an overwhelming % of modern Windows problems.
4. Um, "standard USB interface" means nothing. There's way more mobile gear for Apple (using lightning or the audio jack) than there is for USB. This is a problem that plagues Android, Blackberry, Tizen, Windows and everyone else. Not only that, but the stuff for Apple tends to be better quality than the really bad knock-offs that end up in the USB ecosystem.
5. Your subjective opinion is irrelevant. Microsoft changed the UI dramatically. It tried to force it on everyone. It is now trying to force updates to an entirely different operating system on people in order to force it's now newer new UI on people. Microsoft cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent platform.
6. Wrong: Windows has had many radical changes. Silverlight. .NET. Metro. So on and so forth. From massive changes in API, to massive changes in UI, to changes in the behaviour of the update system to even the collection and personal data. Microsoft makes regular user/ecosystem/partner hostile changes and then randomly changes direction entirely, abandoning everyone who had invested in the previous regime.
7. Corporate devices in theory will allow you to control patches, etc. Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed. Microsoft has completely broken the faith and lost the trust of any rational or sane person when it comes to update management. When we are talking about devices that people's lives depend on, "trust me" doesn't cut it. Especially when the company saying "trust me" has proven repeatedly they cannot be trusted, nor have any interest in earning back the trust they have broken.
8. Actually, no. iOS can be trusted. By default it is set to collect and report back massive amounts of data. That said, this can be turned off and Apple has at no point turned it back on without permission. Apple has been above board with regards to data protection so far. They aren't angels, but they haven't purposefully broken trust either. They especially haven't broken it repeatedly, unashamedly, nor tried to blame it on users.
There are plenty of reasons to hate Apple, iPads, iOS and so forth. Hoovering up data against users' express configurations and sending that back to the mothership is not one of them. With Microsoft, this happens. Microsoft cannot be trusted with regards to privacy or data sovereignty, period.
Windows is not suitable for any application where trust in the operating system or the company supplying that operating system is required.
2. Sorry, but touch-interface ecosystem on Windows is garbage. The touch UI restrictions make the resulting apps horrible and there is not a huge ecosystem of developers who are skilled in making touch Windows apps.
An application doesn't have to be "modern" to utilize touch. In Point Of Sale sector the operating systems are typically Windows/Linux and the GUI exposed to the end-user works beautifully with touch.
3. Sorry, Windows does randomly reboot for patches. It also locks up when it gets bad patches.
No. Windows can be configured to patch and reboot on schedule.
I've had to fix iPhones and iPads that booted into recovery mode after an OS patch. Any device with a sufficiently bad patch can be hosed.
And Windows at least gets patches. The first iPad was supported for only two years before Apple dropped support.
4. Um, "standard USB interface" means nothing. There's way more mobile gear for Apple (using lightning or the audio jack) than there is for USB.
You've moved the goalposts. First talking about $external_devices and @external_interfaces, and now Apple mobile gear? This Pad is working in a cockpit, Starbucks Interface isn't needed here.
Are you seriously claiming that there are more devices available for iPad with their proprietary connector than for USB? RDF is strong with this one.
7. Corporate devices in theory will allow you to control patches, etc. Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed. Microsoft has completely broken the faith and lost the trust of any rational or sane person when it comes to update management
Please explain both sentences.
NB: iPads are fine devices.
@sandtitz
"An application doesn't have to be "modern" to utilize touch. In Point Of Sale sector the operating systems are typically Windows/Linux and the GUI exposed to the end-user works beautifully with touch."
A valid point, however, the people who code this stuff well tend to be few and far between. There are umpteen horrific implementations, mostly because the APIs and frameworks aren't really designed for touch. In mobile OSes there's a whole new generation of developers who are used to touch...and the APIs that make it easy. The iOS ones they grew up on.
"No. Windows can be configured to patch and reboot on schedule."
No. It can't. It used to be something you could do, and (mostly) trust that it would work, but this is no longer true. Even when it was "true", there are plenty of examples of patches that downloaded and installed on systems even when WSUS was controlling them and the patches hadn't been released yet. I've personally gotten stung by them.
But more to the point, the very design of Microsoft's approach to patching means you need to trust Microsoft that patching will work how they say it will work, and they won't fuck with it. They've broken that trust. That means they can't be trusted. Which means "Windows can be configured to patch and reboot on schedule" and everything else related to patching boils down to "trust Microsoft not to lie about this".
I wouldn't trust them under normal circumstances. I absofuckinglutely won't when lives depend on it. They have lost that trust.
"I've had to fix iPhones and iPads that booted into recovery mode after an OS patch. Any device with a sufficiently bad patch can be hosed."
Absolutely. The difference is that iPads can be configured not to patch unless explicitly told to, and they will obey that configuration. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. Apple has never broken that trust. So patches can be held until well tested.
"And Windows at least gets patches. The first iPad was supported for only two years before Apple dropped support."
So? Why does this matter? Being "up to date" on patches simply doesn't matter anywhere near as much as having a stable, reliable system that you can trust. You can manage out-of-date systems many ways. Buying newer, up to date ones is a great example, and simple for the cost involved. Or you can build IDS and other security in at the network layer and implement policies that provide security for systems known to be out of date.
Being vulnerable to some security flaws is nowhere near as deadly or important as having a system that cannot be trusted to behave exactly as expected.
"You've moved the goalposts. First talking about $external_devices and @external_interfaces, and now Apple mobile gear? This Pad is working in a cockpit, Starbucks Interface isn't needed here.
Are you seriously claiming that there are more devices available for iPad with their proprietary connector than for USB? RDF is strong with this one."
I have not moved goalposts at all. I very specifically talked about mobile external devices and interfaces. You know, the sorts of small, low power things that you need in an aircraft cabin sensitive to EMF and where there is not a lot of room for things?
It doesn't matter if there are fleventy-five desktop-based USB dinguses out there. What matters is that the things needed are small, long-lived, low power, high quality and did I mention small? Because for this particular use case, that's the criteria.
"Please explain both sentences."
It's very simple: Microsoft cannot be trusted to provide software that does what they say it does. Do you need pictures? In crayon perhaps?
Patching systems are sacrosanct. You don't fuck with them. You don't abuse them to push advertising. You don't abuse them to push unwanted upgrades. You don't override them to make patches that were manually disabled reappear. You don't override them to push activation or DRM "updates" against the express corporate configuration.
Microsoft has done all of these.
Microsoft has violated the sanctity of their own patching systems and with it utterly ruined the trust any of us should have in those very systems. It does not matter whether or not Microsoft claim that you can control Windows patching using WSUS, System Center or anything else. Microsoft's word cannot be trusted in this regard and so the entire patching system cannot be trusted. As a result, Windows cannot be trusted for mission critical - especially life critical - tasks. Full stop.
You might trust them. You, personally. But the result of that isn't that Microsoft is trustworthy. It is that I will never trust any network where you have had input.
There are plenty of places where Microsoft's shenanigans and tomfoolery are perfectly fine. The systems don't perform roles where trust needs be an absolute. This is not one of those use cases.
"iPads are fine devices"
Actually, I hate them and think they're wretched. But that doesn't mean they aren't the best input device for the specific use case described here.
And for the record, I am presuming that they are not actually controlling the plane in any fashion, but merely passing inputs back to a computer stored elsewhere in the plane. One which doesn't have any other input device, because the plane was probably made 20+ years ago, overhauled several times, and there physically isn't any more room in that cockpit to put more keyboards and monitors. iPads, however, are self-contained keyboards and monitors and can be slipped in between the pages of a flight manual.
I'm also guessing the use the iPad for more types of input to different onboard systems beyond simply this one computer system. Hence the need for a device which lasts the entire flight.
"No. Windows can be configured to patch and reboot on schedule."
''No. It can't.''
Yes. It can. Provide proof if you want to be taken seriously.
"I wouldn't trust them under normal circumstances. I absofuckinglutely won't when lives depend on it."
You're implying that instead you trust Apple in a life-and-death situation. That's beyond stupid. And this even isn't a critical system.
"Hence the need for a device which lasts the entire flight."
Except that the device doesn't last the entire flight as you've been told.
"Do you need pictures? In crayon perhaps?"
Try not to insult at first.
"Yes. It can. Provide proof if you want to be taken seriously."
The proof is in Windows' own history. Even on systems configured with WSUS or System Center it has installed patches against the express configurations of administrators. I've seen this myself and there have been plenty of similar complaints to litter the net. Google is your friend.
In addition, Microsoft has very clearly and publicly violated the sanctity of the update process for non-enterprise versions of Windows. Repeatedly. And done so against the express configurations of users. The number of times that you need to "hide" Windows 10 patches (because some other patch unhides them and they then reinstall in the next go) is insane. For that matter, downloading and installing an entire operating system against your will is not cool. Doubly so over mobile connections.
A company that does these things can't be trusted to provide a patch system that installs what you want and only what you want and does so only on a schedule you provide.
And for the record "installing only what you want" is far more important than when it installs. If it installs things you haven't vetted and are 100% certain work you're hosed.
"You're implying that instead you trust Apple in a life-and-death situation. That's beyond stupid. And this even isn't a critical system."
No, you don't actually read entire posts. I am saying, and have said multiple times, that the iPad is the best of a bunch of terrible choices, and that I trust them far more than Microsoft. Trusting Microsoft ever is beyond stupid.
"Except that the device doesn't last the entire flight as you've been told."
Except that it does. We've been told by a pilot that these devices are used for more thank just initial input. Thanks, but go fuck yourself.
"Try not to insult at first."
Why not? You have no issues with it. Or are you just aiming for claiming some moral high ground because you have nothing to offer except your own personal (and misplaced) trust of Microsoft? Brand tribalism is a piss-poor reason to choose technology.
@BillG
Where am I evidencing brand tribalism, hmm? "iPad is the least worst amongst a bunch of options that are kind of all crap" is a hell of a long way from "Surface is trustworthy because Microsoft says it is and I trust them despite all the times they've broken their word".
"Even MS themselves say this in the quasilegal blurb of the EULA..."
Please don't troll. Apple is parroting the same lines in their EULA:
7.5 YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE iOS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE FAILURE OR TIME DELAYS OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN, THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE iOS SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS.
"Neither will any ipad. Luckily planes have power available."
You cannot assume that. Not for mission critical gear. The power bus the sockets run on could go for any number of reasons. If the pilots are, for whatever reason, required to lock down the cabin then they may not have access to a power port to charge from. You have to design for that...at least if the devices are critical.
It's be way the hell better for there to be non-computer backups to do everything that iPad does, however. That's the best means of dealing with power availability issues.
"You cannot assume that. Not for mission critical gear. "
Well yes, I would assume they also have access to paper and pencil.
Regardless of this, the current generation Surface 4 has about the same battery life as the vastly inferior Surface knockoff Ipad Pro (9-10 hours of continuous use)
"Regardless of this, the current generation Surface 4 has about the same battery life as the vastly inferior Surface knockoff Ipad Pro (9-10 hours of continuous use)"
Can't speak to the iPad pro, but the wife's iPad mini gets 16 hours of continuous use. Also: the iPad isn't inferior if the purveyor of Surface can't be trusted. And since Microsoft can't be trusted, a paper bag full of shit is superior. Just sayin'.
"Can't speak to the iPad pro, but the wife's iPad mini gets 16 hours of continuous use."
In comparable testing as per 'continuous use' for Ipad Pro and Surface (video streaming) the
Ipad Mini gets about 11 hours battery life. Hardly a big difference for quoting the example of such a vastly inferior product.
Ignoring for a moment that the Suface Pro 3 wouldn't have had time to gain approval from the Australian aviation authorities, there is no table in an aircraft cockpit. This renders any thought of the Type Cover void, you'd be better off with a standard laptop.
The device's primary purpose is as an eReader for aviation documentation (aircraft procedures, maps, approach and departure procedures etc), for which the iPad has proved its self in certified commercial operational use over the last four years. Your idea of what is a toy and what the airlines think of it don't match.
" there is no table in an aircraft cockpit. This renders any thought of the Type Cover void"
Surface works fine on a lap with a type cover. Although most aircraft do have tables available in the pilot area - how do you think they eat??
"Because the Surface 3 won't run the iOS apps that the airline uses."
There are more apps for Windows than IOS, and all the commonly used flight management ones are available.
@Medixstiff
Windows and Windows CE are not remotely the same thing. I don't have problems with Windows CE, as an OS. Though, the truth is that I don't trust Microsoft enough to run mission critical stuff on anything they offer, so I still wouldn't use it. But Windows CE was a great tool in its day.
"Windows and Windows CE are not remotely the same thing. I don't have problems with Windows CE, as an OS"
First part is right, but with the second one I can't agree. Windows CE is a horrible design: limited memory support, limited processes, no memory protection (!),...
> most GPS units and scanners running Windows CE?
Your information is out of date. That may well have been true a few years ago.
Also: just because it has a 'CE' sticker on the back does not mean it is running Windows CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking
"most GPS units and scanners running Windows CE?"
I've owned 8 SatNavs over the years. I only ever took one back as "not fit for purpose". It ran on WInCE and kept crashing and/or rebooting, particularly if I was leaving a parking spot and did a 3-point turn. All the rest have Linux and other OSS licences listed in the "About" menu section.
Firstly I would keep in mind that any essential flight equipment needs to be supplied and maintained by the airline. Using personal-use devices for essential flight procedures ia an automatic fail, whoever the supplier and whatever the device/OS. Using a pilot's personal BYOD as required flight equipment is open to all sorts of problems, whatever the device (though I concede some devices might be less so than others). If it's done properly, any such equipment would be supplied / maintained / configured by the airline and properly locked down and configured.
Keeping that in mind, to address your points:
1) They need a product that will last the trip, even if the charger dies.
If they're using it as a pre-flight data input, not necessary. If needed and essential through all the flight, there should be backup, whether it's an extra charger or extra device. Manufacturer / OS is irrelevant
2) They need a product with a rich and vibrant software ecosystem and numerous developers that are familiar with writing software for that device.
I'm sure there are plenty of developers for both iOS and Windows
3) They need a device that is stable, not rebooting unexpectedly, throwing random driver errors, downloading so many patches it stops working because it filled up primary storage or any of the millions of other reasons why a stock Windows device will bite the dust where an iOS device won't.
AFAIK Windows Surface devices are pretty stable and can be set up to not auto-update, and would be so set up as a corporate device. As I pointed out in the beginning, if it's a personal device that's an automatic fail anyway.
4) They need a device which will work with $external_device or $external_interface; in the mobile world, that always means iOS support.
Why?
5) They need a device that anyone can use over the course of generations without retraining.
That's as valid for Windows as it is for iOS
6) They especially need to never have to fear that a future update will completely change the UI, application compatibility or so forth in a radical fashion.
Surely the important thing is that the App and/or program has a consistent interface, not so much the device?
7) They doubly especially need to be able to trust that the device won't apply game-changing updates without permission or snuck in as "important" or "critical" updates.
See (3)
8) They may have security concerns that require information entered to not be scraped and sent back to the mothership. The exacting details of a plane's takeoff, landing, flight path, etc all seem like things I'd like to keep secret.
See (3)
Of course, there could be other reasons why iPads are the tablet of choice, my guess is first mover advantage, they started with iPads and kept on with them, the choice was already made long before a suitable Surface device existed (which does not mean that the latest Surface couldn't be used instead).
And to reply to the previous poster asking why not use Surface if easier data entry is required and accidental input is undesirable, I'm pretty sure that keyboards and covers exist for the iPad.
Bottom line, this has NOTHING to do with the device and EVERYTHING to do with incorrect procedures (no double-checking of the inputs) and human error.
@ James Micallef
First of all, nothing about iOS devices is "personal use". iOS devices are probably the most secure mobile devices currently available (though QNX might be better, Blackberry as a company is thoroughly compromised and cannot be trusted. No QNX mobiles are available without Blackberry intercepting everything.) iOS were crap for enterprise management. This is simply no longer true, and they are excellent enterprise devices for the few use cases where a mobile device is required.
"If they're using it as a pre-flight data input, not necessary. If needed and essential through all the flight, there should be backup, whether it's an extra charger or extra device. Manufacturer / OS is irrelevant"
How is a battery life that lasts an entire trans-pacific flight not a backup? And how do you know that even if the charger is available the electrical system/outlet/whatever will be online and able to power it? I think it makes a lot more sense to stick with the device that lasts as long as it is needed.
"I'm sure there are plenty of developers for both iOS and Windows"
I'm not. Not for apps that require touch input. Certainly the balance of good ones isn't on the side of Windows. Why don't you try actually hiring some and see how that goes for you. iOS developers that can make good UIs are cheep and cheerful. Windows? Not so much.
"AFAIK Windows Surface devices are pretty stable and can be set up to not auto-update, and would be so set up as a corporate device. As I pointed out in the beginning, if it's a personal device that's an automatic fail anyway."
Except this isn't true. Microsoft says that this is possible. Microsoft can't be trusted to tell the truth because they have broken trust by violating the sanctity of the update mechanism. You don't bet lives on a company saying "trust us". You analyze the actions of the company. And those actions say that they cannot be trusted.
Enterprise management for iOS, however, has moved from strength to strength over the years, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt patch management processes in iOS. Doubt the patches, fine. There have been some shit patches. But Apple has kept the fail on the patch system. Microsoft hasn't. Simple as that.
"They need a device which will work with $external_device or $external_interface; in the mobile world, that always means iOS support.
Why?"
Well, I'm starting from the assumption that they use this device for more than simply inputting flight data. My guess is that it is the interface to any number of computers that don't have keyboards and screens. Mostly because there physically isn't any room in the cockpit to put one for every single system, especially on jets that have been overhauled at least once, and whose computers have multiplied since the original design.
If this is the case, then as the input device of choice it probably hooks up to various diagnostic tools and sensors. I've seen iPads used on planes as the back end for ticket readers, amongst other things. I've had people examine my passport (along with my tickets) when moved up to first class. I imagine the iPads onboard might get pressed into similar service.
if not, hey, bonus. But "if you build it they will come". Hell, taxi cabs as festooned with any number of devices (up to and including fingerprint readers) that back on to iOS. It is not exactly a stretch of the imagination to think that some (or even many) of these items might get pressed into service in an airplane. Especially when space is at such an absolutely premium in a cockpit, and iPads (along with their accessory ecosystem) are designed to be small.
"They need a device that anyone can use over the course of generations without retraining.
That's as valid for Windows as it is for iOS"
iOS hasn't gone through a bunch of radical changes in UI. Nor are those changes forced on users. Nor is there even a the barest hint of a question of a trust issue with iOS that settings to deny major upgrades will be overridden and you'll end up in the shit against your will. While it is certainly possible that Apple could change the interface dramatically in the next release, this isn't probable. That cannot be said of Microsoft. They have proven this is not something about which they care.
"Surely the important thing is that the App and/or program has a consistent interface, not so much the device?"
Are you using it as a single use device with only one application? In a cockpit where space is at an absolute premium? How do you get to that application? Does the thing always have it up? Boot into it? What happens if the application crashes?
You know what? Excepting under pretty special circumstances (typically embedded systems where the critical bits are in ROM and it will, guaranteed, always boot up the same way, into your application), the device UI does actually matter.
Now, if you want to point me at an iPad-like mobile device running an embedded OS that has all the bits required to make great touchscreen apps (including the developer and gadget ecosystems), then by all means, that's way the hell better. (Oh, QNX, what you could have been. If only Blackberry didn't sell everything we did to any government who asked.)
But that device isn't a Surface.
"Bottom line, this has NOTHING to do with the device and EVERYTHING to do with incorrect procedures (no double-checking of the inputs) and human error."
Yes and no.
It is absolutely correct that procedures exist to check this sort of data. I agree with that 100%.
What I don't agree with is that "any device will do". There are devices that would make this fairly crappy situation worse. Devices running Windows are among them.
The iPad and iOS isn't the perfect device. Not by a long shot. But it's the least shit of the available options for this requirement set.
Well, I'm starting from the assumption that they use this device for more than simply inputting flight data. My guess is that it is the interface to any number of computers that don't have keyboards and screens
Don't start from that assumption. It is incorrect. Search for a flight manual for any modern aircraft to see what *is* provided - they're available on the Intertubes...
It is not exactly a stretch of the imagination to think that some (or even many) of these items might get pressed into service in an airplane
Not as part of the fitted avionics. The amount of work to certify any flight equipment is extensive; anything that goes in a cockpit is well-qualified and expected to work reliably for the lifetime of the aircraft. Consumer-grade kit just doesn't meet the grade.
There will always be a place for tools - I still carry my CRP-1 on most flights, even if I also carry a tablet running SkyDemon. But these are pilot aids only; it is the pilot's responsibility to assess the results from all of these tools and act appropriately - discarding anything he suspects to be erroneous.
But it's the least shit of the available options for this requirement set.
I really don't think you understand the requirements.
Vic.
"Not as part of the fitted avionics. The amount of work to certify any flight equipment is extensive; anything that goes in a cockpit is well-qualified and expected to work reliably for the lifetime of the aircraft. Consumer-grade kit just doesn't meet the grade."
Well, to be fair, most commercial-grade kit doesn't meet the grade either. Not for the stuff that's properly built in. But there are lots of things in any modern cockpit that a proper commercial pilot is trained to do without, but which are used on every flight anyway that aren't fitted in. I've seen laptops used as the sole interface to multiple systems for these sorts of systems (as those systems don't have inputs and displays of their own.) My assumption at the outset was that the iPad was replacing these. The laptops in use for this purpose were never really fit for purpose to begin with.
"There will always be a place for tools - I still carry my CRP-1 on most flights, even if I also carry a tablet running SkyDemon. But these are pilot aids only; it is the pilot's responsibility to assess the results from all of these tools and act appropriately - discarding anything he suspects to be erroneous."
Agree 100% with the pilot's responsibility bit. Though I do question the "always a place for tools". While I haven't been in any of the larger Airbus cockpits, the larger Boeings don't leave a lot of room (not for equipment that might become a projectile and thus must be secured.) Smaller cockpits offer even less room.
"I really don't think you understand the requirements."
Always possible.
"Have you actually been in an aircraft cockpit?"
Dozens of times. For commercial cockpits at least. I've never flown a commercial craft - my experience flying is limited to some dinky little Cessnas - but at one point I very seriously considered "pilot" as a job. I gave up when I realized there physically wasn't a lot of room to do anything, and I would spend my entire career banging into everything.
"No you haven't.
You have crossed over into fantasy-land. Please return to topics you know something about."
Yes I have. Back in the day the laptops themselves weren't powerful enough to do much, and there were systems on the aircraft which gathered (non critical) data. The laptops were the control interface. Now that interface was mostly "select between information sources" or "filter the data to deliver me this information", but that's what they did.
And why would that even be a bad thing? It's just burying the extra oomph in a wall somewhere. Now, that was long enough ago that it wouldn't apply today. Your average phone has more than enough heft to do all that and more besides. It can listen to a dozen satellites, broadcasts and what-have-you and parse the data for display without breaking a sweat.
Wasn't always the case though. Mind you, back then, it was more of a novelty, and people still used paper books, manuals and charts a lot more.
Yes I have
For crying out loud, Trevor, cut out the bullshit. Earlier, you thought pilots were flying planes through their iPads.
What you are suggesting is nonsensical. Aircraft are not designed to have laptops plugged into them[1]. Even if you can find a diagnostic port, you're not going to get to it without stripping out quite a bit of the interior, and even then you're not going to know how to control anything through it.
Aircraft interiors are designed to be comparatively familiar throughout. Controls are, by and large[2], in simiar positions and do similar things. Labelling is very similar across all aircraft[3]. Instruments do the same things. No aircraft designer permits anyone to come in and plug laptops into the avionics because of the trouble that would inevitably cause.
Vic.
[1] Years ago, I did some work in avionics. Our entire processing cycle was 12.5ms. If you haven't processed all tasks in the queue in that time, the watchdog fires and blows the circuit breaker. Do you really imagine we'd put anything into that to allow remote conmtrol from a laptop?
[2] There is some variation with aircraft like the Airbus family using a side-stick rather than the yoke favoured by Boeing. But the operation of the control is just the same.
[3] We have some very old aircraft in the museum where the instrumentation is fractionally different from "normal" - it has evolved since they were built. But I teach people to fly a 1940s trainer, and the instrumentation is sufficiently similar to the aircraft I fly today that there can be no chance of misinterpreting any of it.
"For crying out loud, Trevor, cut out the bullshit. Earlier, you thought pilots were flying planes through their iPads."
No I didn't. You're full of shit, Vic.
"What you are suggesting is nonsensical. Aircraft are not designed to have laptops plugged into them[1]. Even if you can find a diagnostic port, you're not going to get to it without stripping out quite a bit of the interior, and even then you're not going to know how to control anything through it."
Not something like an ODBII port, no. But depending on the plane there absolutely are external sensors and diagnostics that will get plugged into laptops.
A plane's core bits that are required to fly the thing will always be built into the plane itself. Usually with redundancies. I never argued otherwise, and in fact have argued a few times here that this is how things are properly done.
That said, new things are added over time to make the lives of pilots easier, or to add non-critical features. These can - and do - get piped through things like the aforementioned laptop. Let me give you some practical examples.
1) On a smallish aircraft that did runs up to the diamond mines the plane was refitted to carry some fairly nasty chemicals. Sensors were added to detect these chemicals and the computer that detected issues buried alongside the other computers. This computer had no primary display (other than a warning light) and no input directly. Detailed information was accessed and filtered entirely through a laptop. This was the same laptop that held mapping information, handled weather reports (which, incidentally, was actually handled by another computer buried in the plane, and merely displayed and filtered by the laptop) and also was used to receive text alerts from the local mining camps when the plane was in range. (I have no idea what the alerts were for, or how the plane received them.)
2) I remember a laptop being used as the interface to a new (IIRC it was a prototype and still in testing) security system for a plane. There were all sorts of sensors in the cargo hold that were beyond what was originally fitted. The thing also (for reasons I do not understand) was tied into bathroom usage. Again: the computer vacuuming up the data wasn't the laptop itself. It was merely how you got at the data in question.
" Do you really imagine we'd put anything into that to allow remote control from a laptop?"
No. I don't. I never did. In fact, I expect you'd use an analogue computer or a really hardened real time embedded digital computer. I can think of no modern commercial OS or system I'd trust to run avionics.
So get bent, mate. At no point did I say anyone flew a plane using a laptop. I said they were used as the primary interface to systems that were typically added after the fact. By this very definition that can't be critical to flying the plane because the bits required to fly the plane are the things that there will be controls for.
Adding more computers to a plane doesn't make those computers essential to flying the plane. You don't need a computer to fly most planes. (Well, not a digital computer, in any case. The need for analogue ones in some circumstances has been well proven.) Those planes that do need computers (analogue or digital) absolutely have every control you need to access and interface with those systems available without third party interface required.
That doesn't mean those third party systems which are used only to access "extra data" don't eventually become mission critical, in spite of themselves. Might I also suggest that as someone who flies light aircraft as a hobbyist you're more likely to do things the old fashioned way and take pride in maintaining the pen-and-paper skills?
A commercial pilot - especially ones who are on the "work is a pain in the ass" side of the spectrum might come to rely on the theoretically non-critical third party tools too much making them more mission critical than originally designed. Which is something that anyone doing IT design needs to account for.
@Vic
Being a pilot doesn't seem to have gifted you with reading comprehension. Pity.
That said, I wish I was a "bullshit artist". I've met a few. Those who are good enough to properly earn the title "artist" seem to be quite wealthy. I think I'd rather like being that wealthy.
Unfortunately, you see, I'm really not all that clever. I learned a long time ago that telling lies means you have to track those lies. It makes life terribly complicated. With my ADD that's a really bad plan. So I tend to stick to the truth as much as possible. For varying values of truth, of course. Human memory, for example, is highly fallible. See: eyewitness testimony. But as a general rule, I tell the truth as I see it. Makes life easier, albeit rather less affluent.
I am happy to leave my veracity up to individuals capable of actual reading comprehension. They'll be perfectly able to see that while I may have been wrong about some details of how iPads are current used. (I assumed they were used for slightly more tasks than they currently are, based on how I have seen laptops used in various situations in aircraft before.) I did state my assumptions in various posts, along with the history behind the rationale for those assumptions, but at no point did I lie about anything.
Within the context of those assumptions - that the devices perform tasks which are technically non critical to flying, because backup procedures or skills should theoretically exist to compensate - I stand by my original assessment of why the Surface is not a good choice. Mostly because even if device is filling a technically non-critical role, lazy or overworked pilots absolutely can become dependent on that device anyways. It behooves the IT nerds then to presume criticality and pick the least worst option available.
Unfortunately for me, bullshit artistry isn't something that is easily learned. I don't think I'll be a millionaire on the back of my ability to bamboozle. Fortunately, reading comprehension is something that can be taught fairly easily, so there's hope for one of us.
@trevor_pott
Thanks for the clarification, I understand at least where you are coming from with iPad being 'least worst' solution.
As a general concept I'm still confused about this, though. The planes were generally flying fine before additional upgrades, additional computerisation etc. I would presume that any additional computer gubbins added later will have been tested to airplane-safety standards, including any interface between the plane and any external device.
I bloody well hope that Being, Airbus etc don't just allow a tablet to connect and give control inputs, there's got to be some well-engineered spec on the aircraft side. In which case why aren't the plane manufacturers providing a custom interface (something like the center console screen on a Tesla) rather than allow tablet + apps to control their systems?
Or are there a host of on-board computers that are developed / maintained separately by airlines or 3rd party providers that the plane manufacturers have no control over?
The alternative is that, as some other posters mentioned above, is that the tablets are used for pre-flight checks, easy access to documentation etc. So, if the tablets are really being used only for non-critical stuff, iPad and Surface are equally good. If they are being used as control screens for critical flight computers, then neither is good enough.
I bloody well hope that Being, Airbus etc don't just allow a tablet to connect and give control inputs
They don't. These pilot aids do not form any part of the aircraft systems.
Various aspects of the flight require planning - things like "how much runway am I going to need?" These can be calculated on a piece of paper - which we had to do for one of the exams. But the calculation is easier and *generally* less error-prone if you use a tool on some sort of computer. I've got several on my phone. These tools are simple calculators; they do not constitute avionics, and it is the pilot's legal responsibility to ensure that they come up with appropriate numbers.
Vic.
@ James Micallef
Well, based on some input from actual pilots for what these devices get used for, I understand better which systems they are augmenting and replacing. The short version is: no, they aren't replacing systems that are critical to flying.
The long version is that despite them technically not being "mission critical", they in reality are mission critical. Many of the things that pilots have for decades done manually are being done on this iPad. Especially things that required a lot of maths.
Every pilot - even the non-commercial ones - is trained to do this stuff by hand. The problem is that if you do this with the assistance of a computer often enough, the "do it by hand" is no longer second nature. And that becomes an issue, especially in stressful situations.
In the past, this sort of thing was done by a (typically not very reliable) laptop awkwardly bolted into whatever space it would go in the cabin. It was never a good fit. And the computers that this laptop served as an interface to were not the sorts of things that controlled the plane. They provided information (maps, positioning, even weather updates, calculated course corrections,) to the pilots. I can absolutely see how an iPad is eleventeen times less awkward.
The iPad isn't used to control the plane directly. Despite this, I can see how it easily becomes a very heavily relied-upon tool.
So that a grey area. Properly trained pilots who maintain their skills despite having more convenient tools available to deal with the miserable stuff won't have problems if the iPad goes kablooie. That said, we live in a world where pilots aren't paid enough and work stupid hours.
I argue neither the iPad nor the Surface are adequate for the task. Given the task to hand, however, I believe the iPad to be the least worst choice and thus the logical choice. The Surface may in fact be the worst choice (though, TBH, Android probably is the worst choice), as it is most likely to go completely fucked from an official mechanism (not an application going bonkers.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
