Dropped iPad implicated in fatal Rotak Chinook helicopter crash(verticalmag.com)
verticalmag.com
Dropped iPad implicated in fatal Rotak Chinook helicopter crash
https://verticalmag.com/news/dropped-ipad-implicated-in-fatal-chinook-helicopter-crash/
183 comments
Near-crash due to dropped pen: Air show plane went into nose dive after loose pen in cockpit jammed the controls
https://archive.is/YmIgB
https://archive.is/YmIgB
There was a helicopter crash in Canada due to an unrestrained tool bag: https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/ottawa/20...
And this one in Ireland due to a rag: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/helicopter-crash-caused-by-c...
And this one in Ireland due to a rag: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/helicopter-crash-caused-by-c...
FOD? EFB? Any explanation of these acronyms for people outside the US military?
FOD = Foreign Objects and Debris
EFB = Electronic Flight Bag. A flight bag, traditionally, contains charts and checklists. EFB means you have a device that contains those documents
20 years ago, I was an avionics technician on F-16 fighter jets in the USAF. We had 'FOD Walks' daily, which involved slowly walking down the flightline while staring at the ground, and picking up any loose objects
Even a tiny object, when ingested into a jet engine, can cause catastrophic damage. And F-16s have intakes very low to the ground, making them a much higher FOD risk.
The worst FOD events were when something broke. We used bit drivers to remove aircraft panels, and the bits were fairly standard screwdriver bits. Sometimes, one of those bits would shatter when applying force to remove a stubborn fastener. If that happens, you have to retrieve every single piece of metal. If you return your toolbox at the end of the day and it is missing anything that can't be accounted for, the entire flightline could be shut down while a search is carried out.
Dropping things in the cockpit could sometimes be much worse. If it drops down into a void left by removing a control panel, then it could potentially fall to the 'bottom' of the aircraft. If that happens, you'll be taking off all the panels in that vicinity, you'll have multiple people looking with flashlights, borescopes, etc.
If something is dropped but can't be found, that's probably a multi-day event that will involve some fairly high ranking people.
FOD was considered a serious threat, and a tiny piece of metal broken off of a tool could hinder operations for days at a time
20 years ago, I was an avionics technician on F-16 fighter jets in the USAF. We had 'FOD Walks' daily, which involved slowly walking down the flightline while staring at the ground, and picking up any loose objects
Even a tiny object, when ingested into a jet engine, can cause catastrophic damage. And F-16s have intakes very low to the ground, making them a much higher FOD risk.
The worst FOD events were when something broke. We used bit drivers to remove aircraft panels, and the bits were fairly standard screwdriver bits. Sometimes, one of those bits would shatter when applying force to remove a stubborn fastener. If that happens, you have to retrieve every single piece of metal. If you return your toolbox at the end of the day and it is missing anything that can't be accounted for, the entire flightline could be shut down while a search is carried out.
Dropping things in the cockpit could sometimes be much worse. If it drops down into a void left by removing a control panel, then it could potentially fall to the 'bottom' of the aircraft. If that happens, you'll be taking off all the panels in that vicinity, you'll have multiple people looking with flashlights, borescopes, etc.
If something is dropped but can't be found, that's probably a multi-day event that will involve some fairly high ranking people.
FOD was considered a serious threat, and a tiny piece of metal broken off of a tool could hinder operations for days at a time
A reminder that the fatal crash of Air France Flight 4590, Concorde on takeoff from Charles de Gaulle airport, France, in 2000 was due to tire debris on the runway:
While taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate. Tyre fragments, launched upwards at great speed by the rapidly spinning wheel, violently struck the underside of the wing, damaging parts of the landing gear – thus preventing its retraction – and causing the integral fuel tank to rupture. Large amounts of fuel leaking from the rupture ignited, causing a loss of thrust in the left-hand-side engines 1 and 2. The aircraft lifted off, but the loss of thrust, high drag from the extended landing gear, and fire damage to the flight controls made it impossible to maintain control. The jet crashed into a hotel in nearby Gonesse two minutes after takeoff. All nine crew and 100 passengers on board were killed, as well as four people in the hotel. Six other people in the hotel were critically injured.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590>
The debris was a metal strip "435 millimetres (17.1 in) long, 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 in) wide, and 1.4 millimetres (0.055 in) thick", which had detached from a DC-10 which had taken off five minutes prior to the Concorde.
While taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate. Tyre fragments, launched upwards at great speed by the rapidly spinning wheel, violently struck the underside of the wing, damaging parts of the landing gear – thus preventing its retraction – and causing the integral fuel tank to rupture. Large amounts of fuel leaking from the rupture ignited, causing a loss of thrust in the left-hand-side engines 1 and 2. The aircraft lifted off, but the loss of thrust, high drag from the extended landing gear, and fire damage to the flight controls made it impossible to maintain control. The jet crashed into a hotel in nearby Gonesse two minutes after takeoff. All nine crew and 100 passengers on board were killed, as well as four people in the hotel. Six other people in the hotel were critically injured.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590>
The debris was a metal strip "435 millimetres (17.1 in) long, 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 in) wide, and 1.4 millimetres (0.055 in) thick", which had detached from a DC-10 which had taken off five minutes prior to the Concorde.
It is my understanding that, after the loss of the Concorde, one of the resultant advisories mentioned an automated FOD detection system, which did not exist at the time. There are now multiple companies selling such systems, using radar and optical sensors, and the FAA has advisories related to same [1] (pdf link)
The best possible outcome from a fatal crash is regulation that will prevent similar accidents in the future. I don't think automatic FOD detection is mandatory (at least, I can't find any evidence of a mandate) - but I assume that it will eventually be mandated, as costs come down.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
The best possible outcome from a fatal crash is regulation that will prevent similar accidents in the future. I don't think automatic FOD detection is mandatory (at least, I can't find any evidence of a mandate) - but I assume that it will eventually be mandated, as costs come down.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
Safety paved in blood
As is so often the case.
"Why would anyone make a dumb rule about X?" can almost always be rephrased as "how many souls wrote this rule?"
Mercaptan-oderised natural gas is one example that stands out to me. The 300 souls of New London School, Texas, authored that one, in 1930.
"Why would anyone make a dumb rule about X?" can almost always be rephrased as "how many souls wrote this rule?"
Mercaptan-oderised natural gas is one example that stands out to me. The 300 souls of New London School, Texas, authored that one, in 1930.
[deleted]
At least those people take security really serous!
Compare to usual practice around IT…
Broken IT can in today's world directly or indirectly cause death of people. Some current examples:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66130105
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-ef...
Still nobody cares!
Compare to usual practice around IT…
Broken IT can in today's world directly or indirectly cause death of people. Some current examples:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66130105
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-ef...
Still nobody cares!
Im onboard with examining the social costs around technology, and business should be held accountable for the harm and costs that they externalize in the name of quarterlies. That is long overdue.
But to shoehorn it into the actionable and very direct context around aviation safety is a bit disingenuous. When a server crashes, the normal result is that it costs money. When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.
It doesn’t seem that they make a good metaphorical pair.
But to shoehorn it into the actionable and very direct context around aviation safety is a bit disingenuous. When a server crashes, the normal result is that it costs money. When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.
It doesn’t seem that they make a good metaphorical pair.
> When a server crashes, the normal result is that it costs money.
IT security isn't only about "not crashing servers".
> When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.
I've just showed examples where likely hundreds of people died because of missing impact evaluation on IT systems.
I think this is related.
As long as people don't see this nothing will change.
So yes, maybe my context switch is a little bit drastic. But this was the intend: To show similarities in outcomes and at the same time the hubris that things aren't taken seriously in the one case where they are taken very very serous in the other case, regardless of identical outcomes.
IT security isn't only about "not crashing servers".
> When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.
I've just showed examples where likely hundreds of people died because of missing impact evaluation on IT systems.
I think this is related.
As long as people don't see this nothing will change.
So yes, maybe my context switch is a little bit drastic. But this was the intend: To show similarities in outcomes and at the same time the hubris that things aren't taken seriously in the one case where they are taken very very serous in the other case, regardless of identical outcomes.
I’m with you on the impact, especially going forward, of overall data infrastructure integrity. Failures in this realm will increasingly put the well being of people at stake.
My objection was more of the “catastrophic IT failure rarely causes direct physical harm, whereas catastrophic failures in aviation almost always results in fatalities” variety.
But yes, data infrastructure integrity is definitely an issue that must be treated as critical, and increasingly, as a life safety issue in some cases.
Although I feel like referencing self harm is not really in good faith here , because if that was a rational connection we should also be talking about treating interpersonal relations and good manners as a life safety issue in the same way that we regulate aviation.
My objection was more of the “catastrophic IT failure rarely causes direct physical harm, whereas catastrophic failures in aviation almost always results in fatalities” variety.
But yes, data infrastructure integrity is definitely an issue that must be treated as critical, and increasingly, as a life safety issue in some cases.
Although I feel like referencing self harm is not really in good faith here , because if that was a rational connection we should also be talking about treating interpersonal relations and good manners as a life safety issue in the same way that we regulate aviation.
Foreign Object Debris (shit that’s not supposed be there) and Electronic Flight Bag (an iPad or some other type of device which replaces paperwork)
FOD = Foreign Object Debris
EFB = Electronic Flight ~Book~ Bag
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag
It's bag, not book.
EFB = Electronic Flight ~Book~ Bag
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag
It's bag, not book.
The article says the B in EFB is "bag." Seemed strange to me, but I'm not familiar with the term. Do you think the article got it wrong?
It used to be an actual bag full of paper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_bag
I could be wrong, for sure.
> The EFB gets its name from the traditional pilot's flight bag, which is typically a heavy (up to or over 18 kg or 40 lb) documents bag that pilots carry to the cockpit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag
It used to be an actual bag full of paper: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_bag
No it's not wrong. The EFB replaces the contents of a traditional physical flight bag: binders full of charts, manuals for the plane, Airline documentation etc.
Neither of these terms are unique to the US, or the military, or indeed the US military specifically.
FOD = foreign object debris... basically anything loose that can end up somewhere it doesn't and cause Foreign Object Damage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage
EFB = electronic flight bag ... basically using screens/displays (and more recently, the likes of iPads issued to Students / Flight Officers/ Pilots) which carry things like aircraft manuals, checklists, airport procedures, airport and aerodrome diagrams, etc. -- so called because they're designed to replace the "flight bag" that could be filled with over half a dozen (or more)heavy, chunky-as-heck books and binders containing the same information in paper form.
This becomes especially relevant when commercial aviation requires flight deck personnel to carry significant amounts of information like that with them, like train drivers can also have to do (rule books, locomotive / rolling stock manuals, track/depot diagrams, etc.)
Again, not remotely limited to the US military, or to the US or military in general -- these terms are common for those in aviation :)
FOD = foreign object debris... basically anything loose that can end up somewhere it doesn't and cause Foreign Object Damage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage
EFB = electronic flight bag ... basically using screens/displays (and more recently, the likes of iPads issued to Students / Flight Officers/ Pilots) which carry things like aircraft manuals, checklists, airport procedures, airport and aerodrome diagrams, etc. -- so called because they're designed to replace the "flight bag" that could be filled with over half a dozen (or more)heavy, chunky-as-heck books and binders containing the same information in paper form.
This becomes especially relevant when commercial aviation requires flight deck personnel to carry significant amounts of information like that with them, like train drivers can also have to do (rule books, locomotive / rolling stock manuals, track/depot diagrams, etc.)
Again, not remotely limited to the US military, or to the US or military in general -- these terms are common for those in aviation :)
In-cabin FOD can be things like loose pens (or even just pen lids/caps), iPads/books, etc. - which is why there are generally rules (admittedly more in the military, because they like that sort of thing) about ensuring things either meet certain FOD requirements/regulations (i.e. pens with screw-on caps, fitted in specific pen pockets, rather than one with a cap that could slide off, loose in a regular pocket), so ensure they don't end up interfering or blocking controls, etc.
As for outside the aircraft, FOD can cover anything from loose rubber / screws, etc. on the runway that could end up damaging the tires or being taken through the engines, to in-flight FOD risks like bird strikes and volcanic ash - which obviously are also foreign objects that risk damage to the aircraft.
As for outside the aircraft, FOD can cover anything from loose rubber / screws, etc. on the runway that could end up damaging the tires or being taken through the engines, to in-flight FOD risks like bird strikes and volcanic ash - which obviously are also foreign objects that risk damage to the aircraft.
Funny thing is that these terms are just as familiar outside the air wing of the military as civilian aviation. If you used these terms with infantry, they’d just look blankly at you.
FWIW these are aviation terms not military.
FOD = Foreign Object Damage, or in general, any object that could become a projectile when behind a jet or inhaled into it when in front of one.
EFB is actually defined in the article
EFB is actually defined in the article
FOD is foreign object debris. EFB, "electronic flight bag" is discussed in the article.
Foreign Object (Debris|Damage)
Electronic Flight Book
Electronic Flight Book
FOD? “EFBs are (IMO) a poor substitute due to the FOD concern here, the clunky touch screen interface (which you probably have to take gloves off for), the risk of getting locked out of important things like checklist and plates by BlackBerry, Foreflight licenses, passcode timers or other security layer etc.”???
This is basically just wrong. EFBs like ForeFlight are an incredibly rich and indispensable suite of tools from approach plates to a huge range of charts to log books to synthetic vision to adsb-in and much more. And operationally they’re very reliable and robust. I’m instrument rated, fly with a primary and backup iPad and have mine clamped to the yoke and it ain’t going anywhere.
ForeFlight licenses? What are you even talking about? In North America FF is almost a standard among GA pilots.
This is basically just wrong. EFBs like ForeFlight are an incredibly rich and indispensable suite of tools from approach plates to a huge range of charts to log books to synthetic vision to adsb-in and much more. And operationally they’re very reliable and robust. I’m instrument rated, fly with a primary and backup iPad and have mine clamped to the yoke and it ain’t going anywhere.
ForeFlight licenses? What are you even talking about? In North America FF is almost a standard among GA pilots.
The GP is talking about them in an operational military context, not a GA. I'm not too familiar with helicopters but see the L39 Alabtross or T38, for example. Even in trainer jets that are optimized for keeping students alive, the PIC can barely fit an iPad mini anywhere in the cockpit and there are tons of little places for things to fall and jam any number of mechanical linkages.
[deleted]
For perspective, the thing EFBs primarily replace is paper charts and approach plates, which are probably a worse FOD hazard due to how many different ones you have to use on a long flight. Most military pilots are trained to “dummy-cord” or otherwise secure anything that can become a FOD hazard inside the cockpit. There are plenty of products out there that let you strap a tablet to your leg at least as securely as a traditional kneeboard or IFR strap.
> If you can't find it, the AC may have to be grounded and thoroughly searched/panels removed etc.
_Why_ is this? Weight reduction or something? On the face of it it sounds like a design flaw.
_Why_ is this? Weight reduction or something? On the face of it it sounds like a design flaw.
I think the article and this mishap is an example of the reason why - if you can't find a dropped and loose object in the cockpit then you can't fly the aircraft because it may move in flight to somewhere where it can interfere with the controls.
In writing this answer it struck me you might be reading AC as Air Conditioning, instead of AirCraft, which I suppose could have lead to your question asking about weight reduction.
In writing this answer it struck me you might be reading AC as Air Conditioning, instead of AirCraft, which I suppose could have lead to your question asking about weight reduction.
Out of context I read AC as "alternating current" with "grounded" taking on a totally different meaning.
Hopefully, we never need an aircraft to be fully grounded with a tethered cable. That'd be ridiculous. As a kid, I had a plane that was tethered and would only fly in circles. Oh, where the mind wanders on a Friday
Its standard to ground out a helicopter carrying a sling load before the load is touched/handled (it may even have a longer grounding cable that drags across the ground as it descends) because it can gather some pretty dangerous levels of charge.
[deleted]
> Hopefully, we never need an aircraft to be fully grounded with a tethered cable.
That’s one way of landing an helicopter on a boat in a rough sea. It works surprisingly well.
That’s one way of landing an helicopter on a boat in a rough sea. It works surprisingly well.
Speaking of grounding a helicopter, it reminded me of the Hunt For Red October scene of trying to get a person from a helicopter to a submarine. It always seemed like such a complicated something as opposed to just putting someone in the water to let a diver collect them, which is precisely what wound up happening anyways
When planes are on the ground, they usually are fully grounded with a tethered cable for ESD reasons.
[deleted]
Oh, sure, I get that if something gets lost you need to find it. My impression from the comment was that military cockpits were designed such that it was easier for stuff to get lost than it might be, tho, which is what I was curious about.
I worked on F-16 avionics (in aircraft maintenance, on the flightline), there are a lot of little nooks/holes/slots/gaps where small bits of FOD can fall and be incredibly difficult to extract, and the fear of that FOD causing a jam, flying around the cockpit, or getting wedged and causing unexpected wear on wiring harnesses and then shorting out (or worse, arcing) during flight was a _big_ deal. FOD in the cockpit was basically the worst thing that could happen during routine maintenance, because if you couldn't see it, and either couldn't get to it with a magnet (or the FOD wasn't metal), it might require pulling _a lot_ of stuff out of the cockpit before you could reach into the area where it fell. The worst case that could easily happen was having to have Egress come out and pull the ejection seat so you could get under it.
I always figured that all of those little gaps/etc. were due to a couple factors:
1.) the aircraft are constantly being upgraded/modified, so even if you designed the aircraft to be gap-free initially, there will inevitably be changes that introduce them. The cockpit itself is basically a frame with racks that hold all of the avionics, seat, etc.
2.) in conjunction with the above, ease of maintenance was somewhat important, so they tried to leave at least a little room to maneuver in the cockpit where possible (though there were plenty of places which were a nightmare to work regardless), but that comes at the cost of introducing areas where things can fall.
3.) some components have to be regularly removed and worked on outside the aircraft, or must be free of obstruction during flight, e.g. the ejection seat. So you end up with plenty of gaps where things can fall.
I always figured that all of those little gaps/etc. were due to a couple factors:
1.) the aircraft are constantly being upgraded/modified, so even if you designed the aircraft to be gap-free initially, there will inevitably be changes that introduce them. The cockpit itself is basically a frame with racks that hold all of the avionics, seat, etc.
2.) in conjunction with the above, ease of maintenance was somewhat important, so they tried to leave at least a little room to maneuver in the cockpit where possible (though there were plenty of places which were a nightmare to work regardless), but that comes at the cost of introducing areas where things can fall.
3.) some components have to be regularly removed and worked on outside the aircraft, or must be free of obstruction during flight, e.g. the ejection seat. So you end up with plenty of gaps where things can fall.
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.
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.
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.
We are talking about different things.
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.
We are talking about different things.
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.
Avoiding the need to ground and strip the aircraft every time someone drops a pen seems pretty utilitarian.
Military cockpits are a moving target in more ways than one. The cockpit of an aircraft like the B-52 is unrecognizable from when it was built.
You don't want a screwdriver, or anything else, pressed up against a control rod or a rotating component.
Because while the FOD might not be an immediate problem, it could bounce around and get caught in a mechanical linkage causing a fatal crash, could be rubbing against wires causing a fatal crash, could start on fire (if it has lithium battery) causing a fatal crash, could cause a huge delay when maintenance finds a random part bouncing around later on and they don't know what it's from... you get the idea.
I thought the question is not why this is a problem, but rather why is it possible at all for a loose object to end up in the depths of the AC to cause problems. Is there some reason we cannot avoid this?
From a laymans perspective I think of a car, where dropping something small while driving is unlikely to cause problems in the machinery.
From a laymans perspective I think of a car, where dropping something small while driving is unlikely to cause problems in the machinery.
Cars have a lot of trim/seals/insulation/carpeting to reduce road noise and be aesthetically pleasing, and military aircraft cockpits don't care about either of those things, and are largely just a metal tube with racks on which all of the avionics and other cockpit equipment are mounted, with holes in a handful of places where wiring harnesses enter/exit the cockpit. All of that equipment is regularly worked on, removed/replaced, and so it is necessary that it be (relatively) easy to access and remove.
The equivalent would be like if you had to pull all of the instruments, electronics, and seats out of your car every 1000 miles, clean them up, replace faulty bits, and then put it all back again. All of the fancy trim, carpeting, etc., just makes that job harder, so you would probably want a car that doesn't have any of that, and is designed to make doing that kind of work easier, better still if you can avoid having to remove everything, and only have to remove the bits individually that need to be maintained. The down side of course, is that without all of the fancy trim and stuff, there would be gaps where things could fall and be hard to reach, and holes where wiring travels to the engine compartment/trunk/etc. Of course, FOD presents way less of a danger in a car than it does an aircraft, so you might not care if you drop something there, but aside from that, I think the analogy holds up.
The equivalent would be like if you had to pull all of the instruments, electronics, and seats out of your car every 1000 miles, clean them up, replace faulty bits, and then put it all back again. All of the fancy trim, carpeting, etc., just makes that job harder, so you would probably want a car that doesn't have any of that, and is designed to make doing that kind of work easier, better still if you can avoid having to remove everything, and only have to remove the bits individually that need to be maintained. The down side of course, is that without all of the fancy trim and stuff, there would be gaps where things could fall and be hard to reach, and holes where wiring travels to the engine compartment/trunk/etc. Of course, FOD presents way less of a danger in a car than it does an aircraft, so you might not care if you drop something there, but aside from that, I think the analogy holds up.
Depending on your definition of “small” this is not true. I used to slide my flip flops off while driving until one got wedged under the break pedal and prevented me from breaking.
Well, for starters, cars are designed to only travel in two dimensions, so that limits the problem quite a bit.
Because the missing device might cause something similar to this crash but instead with a internal mechanism. You really don't want loose stuff around moving mechanisms.
EFB (Electronic Flight Bags) have introduced all kinds of usability issues with aircraft that pilots must account for, and not just for mechanical reasons. Objects getting jammed into flight controls isn't an ipad phenomenon - clipboards, water bottles, etc all have contributed to mishaps.
One major issue with EFBs is many pilots extensive reliance on them for navigation and traffic avoidance, and their failure in flight since they are commercial off the shelf products. A very common issue during the summer months is for an iPad to very easily overheat and just shut down. Another is battery life. iPads are consumer electronic devices and aren't held to even a semblance of tolerances that aircraft avionics are held to, but they are relied upon as critial tools in flight now.
I've directly seen instances of aircraft that have violated airspace, gotten lost, and other issues that contribute just one more hole to the "swiss cheese" model of a catastrophic loss.
One major issue with EFBs is many pilots extensive reliance on them for navigation and traffic avoidance, and their failure in flight since they are commercial off the shelf products. A very common issue during the summer months is for an iPad to very easily overheat and just shut down. Another is battery life. iPads are consumer electronic devices and aren't held to even a semblance of tolerances that aircraft avionics are held to, but they are relied upon as critial tools in flight now.
I've directly seen instances of aircraft that have violated airspace, gotten lost, and other issues that contribute just one more hole to the "swiss cheese" model of a catastrophic loss.
There are stories of maintenance going behind the instrument panels in airliners and finding all sorts of lost paperwork.
My ipad shut down today on the ground while taking off due to extreme heat. Luckily I'm not an idiot and have backups in the cockpit.
The ill-fated submersible Titan has been routed for its use of consumer grade hardware in displays and controls. I doubt it’s the only vessel to rely on this class of electronics.
I wonder what it means that despite the risks involved these products continue to make it into mission critical workflows at sea and air.
I wonder what it means that despite the risks involved these products continue to make it into mission critical workflows at sea and air.
The Titan had multiple failsafes to drop ballast and return to the surface under its own buoyancy. One such failsafe was time-delayed by material corrosion in seawater so it would eventually ascend without intervention.
The cabin electronics weren't essential to its safety. The hull might have been, though. Hard to say.
The cabin electronics weren't essential to its safety. The hull might have been, though. Hard to say.
On the USS Indiana you can seem them proudly highlighting the US of an Xbox controller: https://youtu.be/0StWrXoN8nI?t=509 (Also note the insane amount of screens in the control room).
But highlighting the gamepad on the Titan seems like more of a "gotcha" that journalists have latched onto than a legitimate concern. It almost certainly didn't fail because of consumer grade hardware - it failed because of poor engineering of its hull.
But highlighting the gamepad on the Titan seems like more of a "gotcha" that journalists have latched onto than a legitimate concern. It almost certainly didn't fail because of consumer grade hardware - it failed because of poor engineering of its hull.
Using a witeless gamepad as the primary maneuvering controls of a manned undersea vessel without an onboard backup is one (of very many) indications of reckless corner cutting, but, yes, not particularly likely the critical failure point.
Come now, the Titan should never have been built, the primary cause of loss was the carbon fiber laminate which is simply the wrong material for a submersible. This is not hindsight, there's a five year old terse answer on Quora of all places stating this: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-feasible-to-build-submarine-hull... and again three years ago https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-military-navy-using-carbo...
> Carbon fiber’s compression strength is poor. Its shear strength is low. It doesn’t dent; it either splinters or returns to shape and hides severe damage in the laminate.
> Carbon fiber’s compression strength is poor. Its shear strength is low. It doesn’t dent; it either splinters or returns to shape and hides severe damage in the laminate.
For anybody that liked the style of this sort of analysis, let me strongly recommend Dekker's "Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'": https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error...
It focuses on air crash investigations. But it's very useful to tech people in understanding the right way to approach incident investigations. It can be very easy to blame individuals ("stupid pilot shouldn't have dropped his iPad", etc), but that focus prevents improving safety over the long term. Dekker's book is a great argument for, as here, thinking about what actually happened and why as a systemic thing. Which provides much more fertile ground for making sure it doesn't happen again.
It focuses on air crash investigations. But it's very useful to tech people in understanding the right way to approach incident investigations. It can be very easy to blame individuals ("stupid pilot shouldn't have dropped his iPad", etc), but that focus prevents improving safety over the long term. Dekker's book is a great argument for, as here, thinking about what actually happened and why as a systemic thing. Which provides much more fertile ground for making sure it doesn't happen again.
The "Accidents in North American Climbing" series is a great intro to this style of analysis, too. A number of compelling, short accounts, usually with actionable analysis at the end. You get the added bonus of learning new things, like what an "air hammer" is, and how getting knocked out of your tent by one can help save you from an avalanche.
https://www.amazon.com/Accidents-North-American-Climbing-202...
https://www.amazon.com/Accidents-North-American-Climbing-202...
That’s sad. I can only imagine the amount of panic they must have went through.
I wonder what other fatal accidents have been caused by dropped electronics such as iPads and iPhones getting stuck under accelerators and brake pedals in cars and long haul trucks as an example.
There’s obviously distracted driving as well which is a major problem.
I wonder what other fatal accidents have been caused by dropped electronics such as iPads and iPhones getting stuck under accelerators and brake pedals in cars and long haul trucks as an example.
There’s obviously distracted driving as well which is a major problem.
My neighbor, a photographer, was on a tour group which took three helicopters up and only two returned. [1] They had an aftermarket restraint system to tether the passengers in and they were required to cut the restraint to free themselves in case of emergency, or unbuckle the tether from behind them which was time consuming. One passenger's restraint accidentally engaged the emergency fuel shut off lever, and by the time the pilot figured out what had happened it was too late to correct things and he was forced to land in the river.
None of the passengers were able to cut the restraint to free themselves, and all five drowned.
It's not really the same as dropped electronics but it's an example of a safety system gone awry.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_New_York_City_helicopter_...
None of the passengers were able to cut the restraint to free themselves, and all five drowned.
It's not really the same as dropped electronics but it's an example of a safety system gone awry.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_New_York_City_helicopter_...
I want to emphasize the point here that the cause of the accident was itself a component of a safety system.
One point that repeatedly gets lost in considerations of risk and security is that more complex systems intended to compensate for other risks will themselves become part of the risk and/or threat profile.
I've both read of this many times in the case of incidents which occur elsewhere, and have seen it firsthand myself where some system or method itself intended to compensate for a risk turns out to be the cause of an incident.
Power backup systems, fire suppression systems, failover / load-balancer devices, and many cases of safety or audit code, just off the top of my head.
One point that repeatedly gets lost in considerations of risk and security is that more complex systems intended to compensate for other risks will themselves become part of the risk and/or threat profile.
I've both read of this many times in the case of incidents which occur elsewhere, and have seen it firsthand myself where some system or method itself intended to compensate for a risk turns out to be the cause of an incident.
Power backup systems, fire suppression systems, failover / load-balancer devices, and many cases of safety or audit code, just off the top of my head.
> ground crew were responsible for attaching and detaching a locking carabiner to the back of each passenger's supplemental harness at the start and end of each flight.
ugh, so short sighted!
ugh, so short sighted!
Not only were the supplemental harnesses nearly impossible to get out of by yourself in an emergency situation, but the supplemental harness is what triggered the crash in the first place, by getting stuck on the fuel shutoff lever.
I wonder how many lives those supplemental harnesses have saved, versus the 5 they cost here.
I wonder how many lives those supplemental harnesses have saved, versus the 5 they cost here.
> I wonder how many lives those supplemental harnesses have saved, versus the 5 they cost here.
If the story were changed and a handful of people accidentally fell out of a helicopter, we'd be asking why they weren't strapped in.
If the story were changed and a handful of people accidentally fell out of a helicopter, we'd be asking why they weren't strapped in.
For me, the aspect of that accident that never gets enough attention is the partial failure of the floats.
I think everyone understands that asking people who have never drilled a helicopter water escape to take special actions in an emergency, let alone reach behind them and cut a tether, is just never going to work, certainly not in the few seconds they had. If the floats had functioned as designed, according to the investigation, everyone would have survived. Instead, either because the pilot did not fully activate them, or due to some malfunction, the right float did not inflate, causing the helicopter to capsize.
It's not completely clear to me, but I don't think they ever completely identified the malfunction that resulted in this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a malfunction in a safety-critical system that caused deaths, and I'm surprised it's not the primary highlight of this accident.
I think everyone understands that asking people who have never drilled a helicopter water escape to take special actions in an emergency, let alone reach behind them and cut a tether, is just never going to work, certainly not in the few seconds they had. If the floats had functioned as designed, according to the investigation, everyone would have survived. Instead, either because the pilot did not fully activate them, or due to some malfunction, the right float did not inflate, causing the helicopter to capsize.
It's not completely clear to me, but I don't think they ever completely identified the malfunction that resulted in this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a malfunction in a safety-critical system that caused deaths, and I'm surprised it's not the primary highlight of this accident.
Right, they would have had the time to remove the tethers if it hadn't sank. Like everything else, I'm sure that they require some amount of maintenance and I wonder if that's the sort of thing which can be tested without destroying it. I trust that my car's airbag will deploy if it's in an accident, but I really can't check that. A non-trivial number of airbags fail to deploy when they, in fact, should.
I'm not surprised that the tether is the focus, though -- it's the reason why the helicopter crashed to begin with and also prevented the passengers from escaping.
I'm not surprised that the tether is the focus, though -- it's the reason why the helicopter crashed to begin with and also prevented the passengers from escaping.
> I wonder what other fatal accidents have been caused by dropped electronics such as iPads and iPhones getting stuck under accelerators and brake pedals in cars and long haul trucks as an example.
Toyota recalled 38m cars because of potential for mats stuck under gas pedals. With at least one fatal incident:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/09/toyota_recal...
Toyota recalled 38m cars because of potential for mats stuck under gas pedals. With at least one fatal incident:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/09/toyota_recal...
The linked article says 3.8 million, a difference of one order of magnitude.
I flew recently and part of the pre-flight announcement now is if you drop a phone or other electronic device between seats, do not try to retrieve it. Call a flight attendant and let them retrieve it.
Apparently, people have dropped their phone then while trying to retrieve it, moved the seat and bent the phone, puncturing the battery.
Apparently, people have dropped their phone then while trying to retrieve it, moved the seat and bent the phone, puncturing the battery.
In this case it was not the attempt to retrieve the tablet that caused the accident, it was being unable to reach it to remove it from being jammed in the pedals.
I did this a few years ago during taxi before take-off, in a business class seat on a flight to Tokyo (I’m not bragging, it’s literally the only time in my life I’ve ever not flown economy)
I had to move to another seat when I wanted to recline it for sleeping, because the crew (quite rightly) didn’t want my iPhone getting chewed up in the mechanism.
Despite me using my Apple Watch to make the “find me!” ping sound, nobody could find it during the flight, so they had to partly dismantle the seat when we landed. It was all very embarrassing, I had to stand there for 20 minutes watching ground crew take it apart.
I didn’t dare tell anyone that I didn’t turn it onto airplane mode before I dropped it.
I had to move to another seat when I wanted to recline it for sleeping, because the crew (quite rightly) didn’t want my iPhone getting chewed up in the mechanism.
Despite me using my Apple Watch to make the “find me!” ping sound, nobody could find it during the flight, so they had to partly dismantle the seat when we landed. It was all very embarrassing, I had to stand there for 20 minutes watching ground crew take it apart.
I didn’t dare tell anyone that I didn’t turn it onto airplane mode before I dropped it.
While the consequences are less severe, losing them in the seat is one reason I absolutely will not use wireless earphones when flying. I did drop a phone once into a seat but the flight attendant was able to recover it.
> didn’t dare tell anyone that I didn’t turn it onto airplane mode before I dropped it.
I try to remember if only to preserve battery life but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people don't.
> didn’t dare tell anyone that I didn’t turn it onto airplane mode before I dropped it.
I try to remember if only to preserve battery life but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people don't.
My wife dropped her engagement ring in to a China Airlines seat. Luckily, since it was a flight to Taiwan, we were able to use chopsticks to retrieve the ring from inside the seat!
Don’t feel bad. I once almost superglued my hand to a seat while deplaning.
(And partly superglued my pants to my leg).
Pressure changes have interesting impacts on “sealed” containers!
(And partly superglued my pants to my leg).
Pressure changes have interesting impacts on “sealed” containers!
Imagine walking around for a while with a Lego 2x4 glued to your palm... not that I would know anything about that.
Can't remember where I read it, but I heard a theory a long time back that people freaking out about spiders and insects in their cars could account for a significant number of unexplained car accidents. I wonder if we've ever had an aircraft accident because of that.
Quiet plausible... a long time ago i took my motorcycle out for the first ride after a long pause, as soon as i left the town where i live in and a moment before i would yank the throttle open an ABSOLUTELY GIANT (so perhaps a few milimeter) spider crawled on the inside of my helmets visor. I panicked hard, brought the bike to a screaching halt, yanked the helmet from my head and threw it astaundingly far away into the wheat field where i stood next to.
I was lucky, would this have happen while riding at 250 km/h or knee down in a curve... no, i don't want to think about...
Finding the helmet afterwards was interesting enough...
I was lucky, would this have happen while riding at 250 km/h or knee down in a curve... no, i don't want to think about...
Finding the helmet afterwards was interesting enough...
I had a wasp fly into my motorbike helmet one time. The visor was down but cracked open slightly to stop it fogging up, and it was just big enough for one unlucky bug. Luckily it didn't sting me and I was able to come to a controlled stop and take the helmet off, but if I'd been in mid-corner and it stung me, it would have been bad news.
I was cycling with loose shorts once and a bee flew up the leg and stung my upper inner thigh. I'm sure if there was anyone else on the path when that happened, I would've crashed into them.
Last month, I got a speeding ticket because I was distracted by a mosquito...
I once had a wasp hiding near my center console start stinging my arm as soon as put my arm down as I started driving. Fortunately, I was still in my residential neighborhood so I was able to pull over and jump out of the car without causing an accident but it's easy to imagine the poorer consequences had I been a little further in my journey.
I have unpredictible behavior when spiders or roaches are crawling on me, it’s an automatic reaction I can’t seem to control. Im not really afraid of spiders or roaches so no phobia involved. Once I almost broke my arm, I hit it really hard to a wall to get the thing off.
Is there any hope for me to tame these reactions?
Is there any hope for me to tame these reactions?
If you're serious about it, the way that I (accidentally) found that works is to keep some spiders and roaches as pets. I used to be the same way, involuntarily flinching whenever a large enough insect would crawl on me until I adjusted to being around them all the time. The roaches and smaller spiders don't trigger any kind of involuntary reflex anymore. I do still flinch when the largest spiders (> 5 inch leg span) move very quickly while I'm doing maintenance but I'm pretty okay with that, especially because one of them could put me in the hospital.
> it's easy to imagine the poorer consequences had I been a little further in my journey.
The wasp would have been fine.
Makes you wonder how many cause unknown single vehicle crashes where the driver dies are the result of insects.
The wasp would have been fine.
Makes you wonder how many cause unknown single vehicle crashes where the driver dies are the result of insects.
Some people may view this scene[0] as overly dramatic, whereas I think it's perfectly understandable once it happens to you.
[0]https://youtu.be/nJ_pVgV1EZQ?t=216
[0]https://youtu.be/nJ_pVgV1EZQ?t=216
Ever have that feeling of extreme preparation in a car when you feel a sneeze coming on?
Tangentially related, there’s Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. The flight crew unwittingly crashed the plane while preoccupied with a burnt out landing gear confirmation light.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401
In most cases with highly trained professionals, panic is very unlikely. Too busy working the problem in front of them to panic.
Somewhat related: An Icon A5 amphibious airplane [1] came down [2] because the occupants left a bluetooth speaker on top which hit the propeller upon take-off... You have to treat aircraft a bit more carefully than cars. (No fatalities, fortunately.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5
[2] https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/236728
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5
[2] https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/236728
Both sets of pedals are of course linked so that the second pilot could never have brought the helicopter out of this predicament. Would an input monitoring and control system like on large airplanes have avoided the crash?
There’s an answer [0] on Quora that describes helicopter instructors having to deal with students frozen out of fear and wrestling for control of the inputs. Nightmare.
[0]: https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-the-pilot-and-copilot-...
There’s an answer [0] on Quora that describes helicopter instructors having to deal with students frozen out of fear and wrestling for control of the inputs. Nightmare.
[0]: https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-the-pilot-and-copilot-...
> Would an input monitoring and control system like on large airplanes have avoided the crash?
Not at all, for example Airbus aircraft "helpfully" average out the inputs. There's a dual input warning, but warnings are weak at preventing accidents.
Some instances where the awful UX around the handling of dual input by aircraft contributed to incidents:
- https://youtu.be/6tIVu0Dpc2o?t=1754
- https://youtu.be/V2mMs-h4qGE?t=949
- https://youtu.be/Dl-Fl66Jfao?t=977
- https://youtu.be/tXGET4-N9FA?t=983
- https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2259 & https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2876
IMO, this is a critical design flaw with all current aircraft that should be addressed ASAP but what do I know :)
Not at all, for example Airbus aircraft "helpfully" average out the inputs. There's a dual input warning, but warnings are weak at preventing accidents.
Some instances where the awful UX around the handling of dual input by aircraft contributed to incidents:
- https://youtu.be/6tIVu0Dpc2o?t=1754
- https://youtu.be/V2mMs-h4qGE?t=949
- https://youtu.be/Dl-Fl66Jfao?t=977
- https://youtu.be/tXGET4-N9FA?t=983
- https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2259 & https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2876
IMO, this is a critical design flaw with all current aircraft that should be addressed ASAP but what do I know :)
True, though at least they are not physically linked and you can disable the averaging.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick
Memorys. My sister once left a candle in the car. When i was driving down from a mountain (Oberalppass, Switzerland), the candle rolled under the break peddal just before a hard u-turn. Super scary feeling when you hit the break and nothing does happen. I hit the break a second time with full force, the candle got pushed away and the ABS safed me.
*brake
It could have been a book, an ipad, a phone, camera, anything really... I wonder if the general design could be changed to help prevent anything from falling between the pedal and the wall...
But if you know there's always going to be an iPad around the cockpit, you can advise the pilots to have a fixed method of securing it
Of course there's always something else that can go wrong, but a big part of why flying is so safe today is that they've gone through a lot of trouble to enumerate and mitigate everything that has gone wrong in the past
Of course there's always something else that can go wrong, but a big part of why flying is so safe today is that they've gone through a lot of trouble to enumerate and mitigate everything that has gone wrong in the past
A lanyard securing it to airframe or wrist, with a quick-disconnect in case of entanglement?
It common to use a "kneeboard"[1] to secure an EFB to the pilot's thigh. I'm surprised it's not standard practice and that a loose EFB is ever acceptable.
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
Some people don't like knee boards because you have to move your head up-down-up-down to use it, and that can be disorienting, especially in poor visibility conditions (when external visual references are minimal). There are other types of mounts available, such as suction mounts, that mount the device closer to eye level, but while robust these are not as secure as built-in equipment. The overheat problem is real as well, but having your iPad shut down in flight is nowhere near as big a deal as having it jam in the rudder pedals.
Further reading: https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/10/how-spatial-disorientati...
Further reading: https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/10/how-spatial-disorientati...
When I used to fly (pre-iPad) I used a kneeboard for my paper charts, pencils, etc. Great to know that everything is right there and isn't falling on the floor.
My software dev mind went elsewhere, I wonder if the long term solution might not be to make all these controls inputs to some computer ("fly-by-wire") that could be toggled to some failsafe mode if the physical devices jam somehow. You could decouple the pilot's inputs from the copilot for instance.
Of course as we've seen in the past that can introduce its own issues, for instance during the AF447 crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
>Confused, Bonin exclaimed, "I don't have control of the airplane any more now", and two seconds later, "I don't have control of the airplane at all!" Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft. He pushed his side-stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his side-stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered an audible "dual input" warning.
Of course as we've seen in the past that can introduce its own issues, for instance during the AF447 crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
>Confused, Bonin exclaimed, "I don't have control of the airplane any more now", and two seconds later, "I don't have control of the airplane at all!" Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft. He pushed his side-stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his side-stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered an audible "dual input" warning.
Ah, the dual input nonsense, see my other comment on just that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36729484.
Here's the dual-input moment of this crash: https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2876
Here's the dual-input moment of this crash: https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2876
This story is horrifying, but it seems more like catastrophic pilot error than a problem with the fly by wire system.
Unless the plan is to remove pilots altogether, this line of thinking is just going to lead to more incidents.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36725176
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36725176
That's not my point. I don't see where the fly by wire system specifically caused the problem in this particular accident. Maybe there was insufficient cockpit indication that the aircraft switched to alternate law? Maybe the pilots were insufficiently trained on the scenario of icing leading to auto pilot disengagement? Maybe the pitot tube design was problematic and led to excessive ice buildup? Maybe the pilot was having a psychological problem, or was too fatigued? Etc
I see. Hypothetically, if there was no fly-by-wire system on that airplane, both pilots' input controls would be coupled to each other, eliminating the possibility of confusion as to what inputs are being made. In fact, all potential UX issues in regards to communicating the current input state to the pilots would be designed away: averaging the inputs, hiding the input of one pilot from the other, the possibility of dual input.
These aren't necessary characteristics of a fly-by-wire system, but its mere existence opens up the design space for them to exist.
Of course, I'm not arguing for removing the fly-by-wire system altogether ;)
However, whenever such fundamental paradigms are changed, great care must be taken to understand exactly how the new one differs from the old one.
In this case, the old direct input system afforded perfect communication of its state by default, but the new fly-by-wire system didn't. Care should have been taken to fully replicate the old behavior in the new system.
These aren't necessary characteristics of a fly-by-wire system, but its mere existence opens up the design space for them to exist.
Of course, I'm not arguing for removing the fly-by-wire system altogether ;)
However, whenever such fundamental paradigms are changed, great care must be taken to understand exactly how the new one differs from the old one.
In this case, the old direct input system afforded perfect communication of its state by default, but the new fly-by-wire system didn't. Care should have been taken to fully replicate the old behavior in the new system.
The fact that it was an ipad and not a book probably contributed to the fact that they could identify the gouge marks. If it was a book this might still be more of a mystery. The takeaway in the last paragraph seems to be a good one:
> “Hopefully this accident will prompt operators to have a long hard look at all possible loose articles in cockpits and robustly securing valuable tools and sources of situational awareness like EFBs,” he told Vertical by email.
My understanding is that iPads are super popular for pilots, especially of non-commercial jets, because at the price point, plus buying a few apps, the experience and utility is pretty unmached. Aviation-grade equipment is super expensive because it goes through many regulatory hurdles which are, unfortunately, written in blood as this one might be. But I would hope to see regulators, if they do something, take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics.
> “Hopefully this accident will prompt operators to have a long hard look at all possible loose articles in cockpits and robustly securing valuable tools and sources of situational awareness like EFBs,” he told Vertical by email.
My understanding is that iPads are super popular for pilots, especially of non-commercial jets, because at the price point, plus buying a few apps, the experience and utility is pretty unmached. Aviation-grade equipment is super expensive because it goes through many regulatory hurdles which are, unfortunately, written in blood as this one might be. But I would hope to see regulators, if they do something, take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics.
I think it's unlikely that there be any additional regulations from this, especially in the Part 91 / GA arena (which this flight was not), but I've been surprised before.
I think some airlines are now requiring iPads for their pilots since it can replace all of the paper manuals and charts that need to be in the cockpit[1].
[1]https://www.engadget.com/2013-06-24-ipad-now-being-used-in-e...
[1]https://www.engadget.com/2013-06-24-ipad-now-being-used-in-e...
Minor clarification as I was initially confused: The airline provides the iPads. Pilots aren't allowed to use their personal devices.
It seems like if there's a device important enough to warrant being in the cockpit, it ought to be secured semi-permanently to a purpose-built mount while the aircraft is in motion.
> take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics
A very solid ProClipUSA mount for an iPad can be had for under $200, so assuming a 3x multiplier for regulatory certification, I don't think that requirement would make anything less accessible. I hope that devices flopping about the cockpit like this is a practice that will be phased out.
> take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics
A very solid ProClipUSA mount for an iPad can be had for under $200, so assuming a 3x multiplier for regulatory certification, I don't think that requirement would make anything less accessible. I hope that devices flopping about the cockpit like this is a practice that will be phased out.
One of the advantages of an EFB is its portability. The pilot can load/edit plans prior to boarding.
But, yeah, either kneeboard[1] or "RAM" mount should at least be standard practice if not required. And removing the EFB from the mount once airborne should not be standard or allowed.
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
But, yeah, either kneeboard[1] or "RAM" mount should at least be standard practice if not required. And removing the EFB from the mount once airborne should not be standard or allowed.
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
Everyone in aviation is moving to electronic flight bags. Military, commercial, non-commercial. The US Airforce moved to iPads 10 years ago -- https://www.zdnet.com/article/u-s-air-force-plans-50m-saving...
[deleted]
in an aircraft, its best to minimize the number and type of unsecured items.
its all relative, if the vehicle shifts place in the air relative to momentum, loose things get tossed around in the cabin/the cabin gets tossed around against loose items.
this was exacerbated by the tight cabinspace, and probably about a half second to get the obstruction out. i used to see a lot of something like, a beverage bottle, or a coffee mug, roll up under the pedals of a vehicle, after falling out of the beverage holder.
its all relative, if the vehicle shifts place in the air relative to momentum, loose things get tossed around in the cabin/the cabin gets tossed around against loose items.
this was exacerbated by the tight cabinspace, and probably about a half second to get the obstruction out. i used to see a lot of something like, a beverage bottle, or a coffee mug, roll up under the pedals of a vehicle, after falling out of the beverage holder.
I think it would be SOP to have all objects mounted or restrained in a helicopter cockpit.
Maybe Apple Vision Pro (sometime in the future)?
The military version of this is basically the F35 helmet: https://www.radiantvisionsystems.com/blog/worlds-most-advanc...
The pilot could drop its battery pack.
Also, if the battery pack were to come loose or the device would loose power in another way, I guess the pilot would rapidly take it off without much regard for where it ends up.
And of course, it would require a specialized version, as the pilot was already wearing a flight helmet.
Also, if the battery pack were to come loose or the device would loose power in another way, I guess the pilot would rapidly take it off without much regard for where it ends up.
And of course, it would require a specialized version, as the pilot was already wearing a flight helmet.
I know nothing about helicopters, but just from driving a car I'd imagine there are a variety of ways the pedal can jam even without something falling in that space. Does a helicopter have an equivalent of shifting your car into neutral? (Which, given you're in the air, might not be a good idea ha. But hopefully you get my gist.)
Does a helicopter have an equivalent of shifting your car into neutral?
There really isn't. A helicopter is a coupled collection of parts and power that is working in concert to not immediately return to the ground in a violent manner. And a helicopter's power profile is also working in more dimensions than a car.
Each of the flight controls are critical components that work together. You take one out of the equation and things exponentially get more complex.
There really isn't. A helicopter is a coupled collection of parts and power that is working in concert to not immediately return to the ground in a violent manner. And a helicopter's power profile is also working in more dimensions than a car.
Each of the flight controls are critical components that work together. You take one out of the equation and things exponentially get more complex.
The thing about helicopters is they are maintained to an insane level from an outside perspective. Parts have lifespans where you replace them when they’re expired regardless of condition, they go through intense inspections, pilots are experts. Things tend to not just “jam”.
There is a concept of disconnecting the engine from the rotors, but it’s not the kind of thing that happens accidentally.
There is a concept of disconnecting the engine from the rotors, but it’s not the kind of thing that happens accidentally.
The automobile equivalent would be something jamming your steering wheel to one side - even if you decoupled the motor from the rotor (and tried to auto-gyro to safety), the helicopter would still be stuck in a sideways spiral.
Yea, autogyro (which I only know about due to this vid[1]) sounds like the answer to OP's question, but that would not (and clearly _did not) save this Chinook from what happened.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiTuwQGImNo
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiTuwQGImNo
The autogyro is a type of airplane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro
You mean autorotation, I believe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro
You mean autorotation, I believe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
Ah, yea.
An example often given (UK) is a drinks can being stuck under the brake pedal.
Reminds me of the time I helped fish a mechanical pencil out of grand piano. It was dropped in _just_ the right spot that it jammed the sustain pedal open, but was completely unreachable, and the pianists sort of made the problem worse. Ended up using some mountain bike tools to get it out ironically (Park Tool IR-1.2).
It's very sad to see a tragedy like this caused by something so simple :(
It's very sad to see a tragedy like this caused by something so simple :(
There was some F1 driver a long time ago whose throttle jammed just as he was about to enter a turn. It cleared up after exiting, but now he realized that he could safely take that turn at wide open throttle and went on to win the race.
Eliane Rodrigues had something like that happen, she dealt with it in the most graceful and hilarious way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbRTRBY4D4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbRTRBY4D4
A former coworker had a bad car crash after his cat jumped down between his feet!
When I took driving lesson, my instructor painted a vivid picture of the consequence of a crash while transporting heavy unsecured objects behind me - that lesson has stayed with me for over 30 years.
When I took driving lesson, my instructor painted a vivid picture of the consequence of a crash while transporting heavy unsecured objects behind me - that lesson has stayed with me for over 30 years.
I've only flown RC helis, more like, attempted to fly them before inevitably always crashing. At least whenever it was a full-blown "collective pitch" model.
Can't imagine how mortifying it must have been to have any of the controls jammed up like that. These things require constant corrective inputs to remain airborne in anything resembling stable flight. And close to the ground loading water from a stream, with all that turbulence? Nightmare fuel.
Can't imagine how mortifying it must have been to have any of the controls jammed up like that. These things require constant corrective inputs to remain airborne in anything resembling stable flight. And close to the ground loading water from a stream, with all that turbulence? Nightmare fuel.
The Navpad is a simple device that secures gadgets to your thigh.
https://www.diblasi.com/aviation.htm
Stuff gets dropped. Suction cup mounts have the habit of coming loose at inopportune times.
https://www.diblasi.com/aviation.htm
Stuff gets dropped. Suction cup mounts have the habit of coming loose at inopportune times.
What an unfortunate accident. I'm surprised anything loose in the cabin isn't tethered in whether it's a tablet or a clipboard.
A common checklist item is to secure any "FOD" (Foreign Object Debris"). For example some pilots will strap their clipboard or iPad to their legs as a "kneeboard".
I used to be in military SAR and the powers that be required helo crews to keep their EFBs/iPads in a clip with suction mounts, similar to what you see in cars for phones.
Those regs are well established. Whether these guys were following them remains to be determined.
Those regs are well established. Whether these guys were following them remains to be determined.
Oof. Suction cups? I can already hear it coming loose and hitting the floorboards.
I’d be pushing for something more robust like a clamp-on/bolt-on RAM mount or something. We put RAM mounts on forklifts for iPads and barcode scanners, and they’re nigh indestructible.
I’d be pushing for something more robust like a clamp-on/bolt-on RAM mount or something. We put RAM mounts on forklifts for iPads and barcode scanners, and they’re nigh indestructible.
The mounts we used went through an airworthiness and crash survivability review. The ones I'm familiar with had dual suction cups and the cups themselves were pretty significant.
Suction cups are extremely secure when used correctly (clean flat smooth surfaces). GoPro advertises theirs as secure in a 150MPH wind when used correctly.
I would hope they are something really robust like the suction cups used to move large pieces of glass around. Still seems like an odd choice given the variety of temperatures and pressures experienced in flight.
The cockpits are environmentally controlled- otherwise the equipment inside could overheat or freeze.
[deleted]
Echoes of RAF Voyager ZZ333, where a camera jamming against a control caused an uncontrolled pitched down.
Reminds me that it happens quite often that e.g. a water bottle or a jar of apple sauce gets lodged under the brake pedal of a car.
Didn’t this happen on an Airbus at least once? I seem to remember hearing that pilot’s iPhone got wedged behind the joystick and pushed the nose down until he could knock it loose.
It was an RAF Voyager (Airbus A-330) I think you are referring to and a DSLR camera (Nikon D5300) that became wedged as you say[0].
The item didn't get knocked loose, it was the plane automation that saved the flight. The auto-pilot self-corrected and levelled off when it detected prolonged dangerous pitch down input[1].
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-i... [1] Page 37 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The item didn't get knocked loose, it was the plane automation that saved the flight. The auto-pilot self-corrected and levelled off when it detected prolonged dangerous pitch down input[1].
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-i... [1] Page 37 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> The auto-pilot self-corrected and levelled off when it detected prolonged dangerous pitch down input
this makes Airbus the opposite of Boeing
this makes Airbus the opposite of Boeing
Mini Air Crash Investigation: How A Camera Sent This Passenger Jet Into A Terrifying NoseDive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VGsnztTo4A
Probably a better video from MentourPilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl-Fl66Jfao
There's not really anywhere for an iPhone to get wedged around the side stick on an Airbus.
I think that was a camera
I'm surprised they wouldn't have had that strapped to a thigh, or mounted.
Always check your equipment for F.O.D.
FOD = Foreign Object Debris
*Damage
The use of Debris is a recent corruption of the term, apparently in an attempt to nounify the acronym.
It's also tautologous; if it's a foreign object then implicitly it's debris.
The use of Debris is a recent corruption of the term, apparently in an attempt to nounify the acronym.
It's also tautologous; if it's a foreign object then implicitly it's debris.
In the context of TFA, debris seems more appropriate? Anyway I was just sharing something I quickly looked up, and this was the first meaning that made sense.
I learned the definition as 'Foreign Objects and Debris' when I was trained in the USAF in 2001, but I recently read an FAA document that used a different definition. I'm not sure there is agreement on what this acronym actually stands for.
Was he possibly using it as a dashboard of sorts? Edit: I didn’t read the article fully and was guessing, I have been corrected by the comments
The article itself discusses this:
>Apple iPads and other so-called electronic flight bags (EFBs) have become common equipment in aircraft cockpits, used for flight planning, as a supplemental navigation aid, and to replace paper documents, among other purposes.
>Apple iPads and other so-called electronic flight bags (EFBs) have become common equipment in aircraft cockpits, used for flight planning, as a supplemental navigation aid, and to replace paper documents, among other purposes.
ah, I didnt see that part. Thanks for that
Military aircraft cockpits sometimes don't have a great concept of "inside" and "outside", the way a cell, waterproof device, the aircraft's pressure seal etc do. If you drop something (FOD), there may not be a clearly defined boundary to where it can end up, or it may not be possible to see or get to it while strapped in etc. Rudder pedals, or the various mechanical and electrical connections around them, as indicated in the article, are a great example of this. If you can't find it, the AC may have to be grounded and thoroughly searched/panels removed etc.
Military avionics may be missing basic things that an EFB can help with, including maps, nav point and airport databases, weather info, ADSB info etc. EFBs are (IMO) a poor substitute due to the FOD concern here, the clunky touch screen interface (which you probably have to take gloves off for), the risk of getting locked out of important things like checklist and plates by BlackBerry, Foreflight licenses, passcode timers or other security layer etc.
You might have a jet that's 30 years old, just got retrofitted with a really nice radar etc, but the funding didn't make it through for a database, better displays/UI etc that would be better integrated with a jet, so you lean on the EFBs.
There are sometimes EFB mounts that can attach to a canopy via suction cup, clip onto various surfaces etc.