That wasn't what I was stating was your conjecture. Sorry for not clarifying.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Delta Employees 'Fought Hard for the iPad' as Microsoft Announces Surface 2 Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That wasn't what I was stating was your conjecture. Sorry for not clarifying.
That's only because Delta is just getting started, whereas the airlines with approval began their projects a while back.
Delta won't have to carry paper AFTER their EFB program is approved.
Of course, BEFORE the program is approved, they'll have to carry paper at the same time for at least six months... just like almost every other airline had to. United. American. Southwest.
The FAA is going to go into the cockpit and check out the installation and usage no matter what.
As for other tests, the FAA in many ways is like the FCC. Neither one does its own tests, but accepts the reports that are submitted. If a submitted report says a tablet (iPad, Windows, Linux or Android) doesn't electronically interfere, works after depressurization, and the cockpit mounts are electrically safe, they'll accept that.
More importantly, the hardware and apps are just a part of the overall application (and apps are pretty easy, since everyone's so far using Jepp for charts and PDF versions of everything else). The real scrutiny is not over the tablets and software... as such have been around for a very long time... but with the procedures that the airline puts into place. E.g. what to do if both tablets fail, or how a pilot knows the data is up to date, or what happens if an OS update goes wrong.
You keep forgetting that they've been approving Windows based EFBs that do a lot more, for over a decade and a half. The iPad is a latecomer to this party, and therefore would have been the type to get more scrutiny.
Last edited:
I have no doubt Delta's IT staff was "incentivized" to go with the Surface tablets but it makes total sense. These are "work" devices and the Surface allows for multiple user profiles and additional flexibility that the iPad doesn't currently offer. As an IT professional it makes total sense to me but I have learned implementing technology against employee wishes could backfire very easily. The Surface tablet could be the perfect tool for this situation but it likely won't end well without employee buy-in.
They do. They don't want Pilots using iPad Aviation Navigation software as a "backup" to the one on the aircraft...
Seriously. Its a tablet. It is capable just as much as an iPad, probably more since it can actually multitask. This is no reason to boycott an airline just because they chose somebody else's product over Apple's.
The weird thing is that Delta probably tested it and it works better for them than the iPads. But the idea that iPads don't work best for everyone just seems to be something that people can't fathom.
Maybe retina display, more stable mature OS, more developers/useful apps?
Easier to use OS? More stable hardware?
> Retina isn't that much better than the Surface 2
> Opinion, my RT isn't exactly unstable
> They don't need more apps, so this is meaningless to them
> Easier to use? So the fact that they can look at two apps (which makes their jobs easier) doesn't factor into this?
> And how can you know that?
Well, since they can't just "roll out a bunch of tablets" in airline cockpits, it wouldn't have sped up the lengthy process very much, if at all.
Btw, anyone know what JetBlue has decided on as their electronic chart supplier? Most airlines seem to have gone with Jeppesen. (I believe that ForeFlight uses government chart data, instead.)
Isn't that an oxymoron? Touch screen laptop missing a keyboard? Wouldn't that mean that a physical keyboard is only needed as an accessory?
there have already been varying approvals for having an ipad in the cockpit.
here is one: http://ipadpilotnews.com/2012/09/am...approval-to-use-ipad-in-all-phases-of-flight/
Yes sir, we know. It doesn't matter.
There's no such thing as a blanket approval for a consumer device.
When an airline wants to use an EFB, they have to go through the same lengthy approval process as every other airline. Much of that process is concerned with airline methods and procedures, not their device choice.
The only real shortening of time available, is if they'd already gone through an EFB approval before... meaning they have the procedures in place... which ironically would most likely have been for Windows based laptops or tablets.
Such previous EFB experience allows the airline to request a shorter period of having to carry both the new device and paper products, than the usual six month minimum.
Think of it as something akin to a hospital getting a new MRI machine. They don't just need to make sure the MRI is FDA approved, it also has to be set up correctly in its new location without causing interference, and the hospital has to make sure their staff is trained on how to use it. (With EFBs, you also have to prove your crew knows what to do if the devices fail.)
I consult a large hospital that started deploying iPads around 6 months ago. All clinical software runs on Windows servers using AD security - the standard way most enterprises using Windows run their internal websites.
When Apple released iOS 7 all iPads accessing the patient information suddenly didn't work due to a bug in the iOS update, Safari was unable to log onto AD secure websites. One month has passed since the iPads were locked out and we still have no word of when Apple will fix this.
In November I'll be consulting a large airline on what tablets they should deploy to their pilots and mechanics. They are a Windows shop, do you think I should recommend iPads?
When Apple released iOS 7 all iPads accessing the patient information suddenly didn't work due to a bug in the iOS update, Safari was unable to log onto AD secure websites. One month has passed since the iPads were locked out and we still have no word of when Apple will fix this.
In November I'll be consulting a large airline on what tablets they should deploy to their pilots and mechanics. They are a Windows shop, do you think I should recommend iPads?
It's interesting how times have changed.
I've been doing embedded field tablets for fifteen years. Until the iPad came out, most companies would spend the extra money to either buy an already ruggedized tablet, or have one custom designed.
That way, they could have their own special needs addressed, such as perhaps having a serial port to communicate with instrumentation, or a screen heater so the LCD wouldn't freeze up in super cold conditions.
The buyer could also have a totally custom OS image installed, with their own logo, custom apps, custom login/VPN, custom controls, custom lockdowns... stuff that is attempted to be done by third party apps like Good nowadays. In any case, the buyer totally controlled the OS and its updates.
That was how it used to be done. Nowadays, the beancounters are in charge, and managers want less expensive, off-the-shelf devices, that require as little support as possible.
That's quite understandable, but as with anything, you get what you pay for.
To answer your question, if I were you, I'd bring in two options, an iPad and a well researched Windows choice. That way, you look good no matter who's really in charge... the managers or the IT shop.
Surface 2 hasn't been released so who know if it really is better than retina. Display quality is about more than resolution
How often will they actually need to look at two apps. At the exact same time. And what negative effects might that shared screen have. Like reducing image and text size and making them harder to read. In an emergency that could be a major deal
Considering the app thing, two at a time, is one of the reasons why they chose it as opposed to iPads? I get the feeling it's pretty important.
Why assume that you know better than the management who actually looked at their use cases?
MANAGEMENT thought it was important. If the pilots were fighting for the iPad that is a strong suggestion it isn't. Not to the folks actually using the devices in real time
I think the hospital issue was because of poor implementation of iOS 7. They should have tested a few select iPads to see if there was any kind of issue running iOS7 first before upgrading all of them. I assume based on your comment that didn't happen.
With any OS update you take the chance of some kind of incompatibility. That is why you test first, implement on a large scale after the results have been identified and either no issues are apparent or they do not impede the use of the device to where it is a work stoppage.
We don't know why the pilots fought hard for the iPad. For all we know, it's because they really liked iPads. We know that the management has laid out a great case for why the Surface 2 was chosen. The simple fact is that Windows devices work better in a Windows environment than iPads do.
There are no special benefits to using an iPad and there are benefits to using a Surface 2 in this scenario for these people. The iPad isn't the end all be all, it isn't the best tool for everyone.
Users can upgrade the iPads by themselves without asking anybody, that is causing the problem. A doctor has an iPad and because the iPad prompts him to do so he upgrades it to iOS 7. The IT department is unable to stop users from fiddling with their tablets without building up additional "Apple Enterprise" resources.
Also Apple simply didn't test AD integration. This is the second time this bug has occurred iOS (4.3 previously) so obviously something is lacking in their testing process. (Unless they consider Windows enterprise environments to be non critical).
The problem is that the new Windows 8.1 tablets are now almost on par with the iPads as devices and much better suited for Windows environments.
At home I use an iPad and still consider it to be the best computer device ever made. I recommend it to all my friends and still develop for it in my spare time.
In an enterprise environment though I will be recommending the new Windows tablets.
Apples and Oranges.
What makes you even think the pilots are even in a position to make a judgement on what is the best device for the company?
The pilots are end-users and by definition do not have a clue about the requirements regarding corporate integration. They know how the single device operates in their hands, as a user, but they have no idea how it needs to be integrated in the corporate back-end systems. It is outside their pay grade. Just like 99% of the clueless responses in this thread that don't seem to be able to grasp that these devices are not individual standalone products you can screw around with.
Thank God my users have nothing to say about corporate IT solutions..
