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.
iPad App Issue Delays 'a Few Dozen' American Airlines Flights
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think there's something glaringly obvious here which people seem to have missed, oddly: How about a couple of SPARE iPads?
Everyone's so busy correcting everyone and quoting each other, that the obvious solution seems to have been missed; just another day at MR.
The app would have been deployed to the iPads with the IPA having been deployed with the Apple provisioning tool, the name of which escapes me.
Everyone's so busy correcting everyone and quoting each other, that the obvious solution seems to have been missed; just another day at MR.
The app would have been deployed to the iPads with the IPA having been deployed with the Apple provisioning tool, the name of which escapes me.
FAR 25.857 requires fire suppression in class C (baggage areas) this changed not long after Value Jet.
(c) Class C. A Class C cargo or baggage compartment is one not meeting the requirements for either a Class A or B compartment but in which --
(1) There is a separate approved smoke detector or fire detector system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station;
(2) There is an approved built-in fire extinguishing or suppression system controllable from the cockpit.
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-857.html
Yes sir, that was my point. Airlines calculate "acceptable risks" to passenger safety.
For years, both the airlines and the FAA ignored the NTSB's recommendation for smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in passenger plane cargo holds... because the $350 million installation cost would be more than double the $160 million (*) worth of lives that they estimated would be lost to fires.
That is, until ValuJet 592 caught fire inside its hold and mercifully dove into the Everglades at 500 mph to end its doomed flight. That was 110 lives lost at once in a horrible way, which finally tipped the FAA and airline monetary and political scales into it no longer being an "acceptable risk".
(*) Back then, the FAA used $2.5 million per life as the calculation as to whether or not a safety feature was needed. Now it's $3 million.
Well that was quite a long time ago, the fix has now been in place for many years.
You could say we all calculate risk every time we get out of bed, drive a car etc. living is a daily calculated risk. Do we all drive a new car, because they are safer than a few years old model, no the cost is the driver there too.
Aviation has a long history of learning from its mistakes, sometimes not as fast as it should, but if other industries learned as quickly as aviation it would be a good thing. (the constant recalls of autos etc. as an example).
They spent a long time studying and configuring the software on these first generation iPads, to make sure the custom modified iOS was stable. They have been working since 2013, and it would be negligent to upgrade willy-nilly as you suggest, to hardware and an iOS version that hasn't been as thoroughly tested.
If you look at the different flight management systems in commercial aircraft, from companies like Rockwell-Collins, Boeing, etc., all these systems are designed by organizations with a long history and specific expertise in avionics software development. Apple could not even begin to contemplate the infrastructure, culture, or scope of building a small element of these kinds of mission critical systems.
Tens of thousands of hours of design, development, and testing go into these critical systems that are built to a standard way above consumer grade solutions based on operating systems like Windows, MacOS, and in this case IOS.
Yes, I acknowledge the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) American Airlines is using on the iPad is not necessarily mission critical, but apparently the iPad based EFB is critical enough to prevent take-off, and as others have pointed out here, what if this problem occurred during flight (yea yea yea I know there are backup procedures for a failed EFB, the plane is not going to crash if the iPad EFB breaks). I also acknowledge the FAA approved American Airlines' use of an iPad based EFB, but as I said in an earlier post, the FAA appears to also drink some of the Apple cool aide.
My point is thus, using consumer grade systems based on something like IOS, is absolutely moronic. The FAA should not be approving flight related systems, be it an EFB or other flight management system, based on consumer grade operating systems and/or hardware. They should never allow this kind of consumer technology to work its way into commercial cockpits, period! Whats next, a complete commercial flight management system based on an iMac?
If you want to understand some of the other components of a commercial flight system, here are two links. Keep in mind, when you fly, your life is tied to these different systems to some degree or another so do you really want cutesy little Apple (and IOS) in the cockpit? Do you want your pilot and/or co-pilot being distracted in-flight while they screw around rebooting or whatever with their iPads? Bottom line, consumer grade systems do not belong in the cockpit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdiGzrb5Pmw&feature=youtu.be
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q1/3/
Tens of thousands of hours of design, development, and testing go into these critical systems that are built to a standard way above consumer grade solutions based on operating systems like Windows, MacOS, and in this case IOS.
Yes, I acknowledge the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) American Airlines is using on the iPad is not necessarily mission critical, but apparently the iPad based EFB is critical enough to prevent take-off, and as others have pointed out here, what if this problem occurred during flight (yea yea yea I know there are backup procedures for a failed EFB, the plane is not going to crash if the iPad EFB breaks). I also acknowledge the FAA approved American Airlines' use of an iPad based EFB, but as I said in an earlier post, the FAA appears to also drink some of the Apple cool aide.
My point is thus, using consumer grade systems based on something like IOS, is absolutely moronic. The FAA should not be approving flight related systems, be it an EFB or other flight management system, based on consumer grade operating systems and/or hardware. They should never allow this kind of consumer technology to work its way into commercial cockpits, period! Whats next, a complete commercial flight management system based on an iMac?
If you want to understand some of the other components of a commercial flight system, here are two links. Keep in mind, when you fly, your life is tied to these different systems to some degree or another so do you really want cutesy little Apple (and IOS) in the cockpit? Do you want your pilot and/or co-pilot being distracted in-flight while they screw around rebooting or whatever with their iPads? Bottom line, consumer grade systems do not belong in the cockpit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdiGzrb5Pmw&feature=youtu.be
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q1/3/
What makes you think they don't have spare iPads? If your primary iPads have failed, and you're using the spares then you no longer have spares. So you don't take off until you have a full complement of iPads, both primary and spare.
If they were already in the air, perhaps they would have used a spare to complete the flight.
An two-engine aircraft can fly on one engine, but for a routine flight they would not take off if one of the engines appears faulty. The convenience of their passengers is not as important as their safety.
Highly unlikely. I'm an iOS engineer. Bugs associated with apps are the fault of the app developers 99% of the time.
Yes. Yes I do want iPads in the cockpit, and your cutesy little comment does nothing to change my serious opinion on the matter. These iPads aren't running the latest iOS version. They use a modified version that doesn't allow their use to play Angry Birds or Words with Friends. It was studied for its stability before being approved. Do I want my pilot being distracted by thumbing through 40 pounds of paper maps? That's crazy talk!
I would say, "yes." There comes a time when new technology must replace the old, "tried and true" systems, technology, ways of doing things in the past, etc.. In regards to manuals for air travel, that time is now. It may be uncomfortable at first. But this is necessary step for progress. Your apprehension will pass in time.
Maybe now they need to study a custom software / hardware solution so they can just plug the thing in if there needs to be an emergency update.
Might've been a connection, y'know.
Austin's airport is small (but with the Salt Lick BBQ joint, which makes it huge!) so direct flights can be hard to come by.
Don't twist my words, I never said to go back to a paper flight bag. I said an EFB based on consumer grade operating systems and/or hardware has no place in a commercial cockpit.
Yes, on second read you seem right. So hard to tell one's mindset around here w/o a emoticon or </sarc> tag because there are people that think Apple should be blamed for everything under the sun just because.
See above article. The key sentence is
the issue was rooted in an problem with software application on iPads.
it was not an IOS issue I'm hearing.
You are correct without a doubt. However safety measures usually are only actually needed a small percentage of the time. The problem is you don't ever know when that time is. Most safety measures are a pain but in the case of a plane filled with hundreds of people an extra 40 lbs is worth it. Hell, for the sake of saving money why don't the plane companies cut down on the preventive maintenance. They could save a ton on that!!
Apple? None. An Apple product? Possibly a lot. My point was that immediately, within ten posts, people tried to eliminate the iPad being the reason. It could be the servers, or it could be a bad app, or one person joked a conspiracy by Apple competitors. Anything but the fact that iOS 8 caused more problems with apps than any version before. >_>;
Astronauts on the International Space Station use "consumer-grade" laptops. Much commercial software runs on "consumer-grade" operating systems.
The iPads used for the EFB are running on a locked-down (i.e., not consumer-grade) version of iOS, and the software, hardware, and OS combination was tested thoroughly for stability and dependability.
I suppose the airlines and the FAA could get together and create a bespoke operating system that is only understood by the people who created it, and could only run on special tablets that cost tens of thousands of dollars each, because every component and protocol was screened to ensure that it was not used in any "consumer-grade" device. That would be a good way to paint themselves into a technological corner.
I once (in the early 90s) toured an air traffic control center where they were using hardware and software built and written in the early 1970s to make sure that 1990s aircraft didn't collide in the sky. One problem they had was getting parts for this specialized system, and finding people still working who knew how to fix it. Another problem was that the software wasn't designed to handle the amount of traffic it was supporting.
I understand the need to use proven technology (which is why the EFB software runs on first generation iPads rather than newer models), but to take it to the level of avoiding a good platform because some blog commenters think it's "cutesy" is taking it too far.
These first-generation iPads were, with 100% certainty, not running iOS 8. We can eliminate iOS 8 from the discussion. Also iOS 7 and iOS 6 can be eliminated.
The devices are running a customized version of iOS. Possibly iOS 5.