3 ms·

My first reaction was also “this seems like a really bad idea”, but it’s still a cockpit. You’re not going to need cloud access to actually fly the plane. From

My first reaction was also “this seems like a really bad idea”, but it’s still a cockpit. You’re not going to need cloud access to actually fly the plane. From the article: > cloud computing service that gives airlines and business aviation fleet operators the ability to automate their aircraft data acquisition and analysis process for quality assurance, maintenance and health trend monitoring So, it looks like the “cloud” connections are more for automated data collection and logging data necessary for maintenance. This seems like something perfectly rationale. But, the look of the cockpit on the other hand… while displaying a lot of information (and looking futuristic), I just hope those aren’t touchscreens. But sadly, from the GUI mock-up, I suspect they are. I just can’t imagine that being a good idea in a cockpit. Especially in a high stress scenario.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not a pilot, but a family member is, and I've spent my whole life kinda nerding out on aviation safety stuff - not plane disasters, but how pilots manage risk and safety - as well as reading several pilot's magazines - for decades. Regarding touchscreens: you're absolutely right that touchscreens are a nightmare from a usability standpoint in a plane (particularly in turbulence) but they're increasingly in everything these days from single engine Cirrus planes to fighter jets (of which the avionics are older than most people might think, given development cycles and military contractors preferring to massage old systems into new slightly shinier systems and thus having a lot of legacy bullshit trailing along.) I recall hearing that the pilots of newer military jets really don't like the touchscreens. Their main advantage is dramatically reducing mechanical complexity of controls, better use of space, and the capability of being customized to a task or context. Saab is sort of to physical interfaces in cars and planes what Apple is to software ones. That's why Saab's cars were really...special sometimes in their control layout and features. While I don't have a handy source, I'm pretty sure they were among the first to realize the problems with even in-button status indicators because you can't see the status when your finger is on the button, which is a big fucking deal when pushing a button might do some serious no-take-backs shit (in terms of flying the plane, not even starting to talk about weapons.) My knee-jerk reaction was the same as yours regarding the cloud stuff, but I read a bit more into the press release and while it's hard to tell from all the marketing bullshit being slung around, it sounds like they've moved more functionality into the display panels and away from avionics-deck units. Traditionally on big jets, there's a huge avionics compartment where the 'brains' and input/output functions of the brains live; the cockpit is almost entirely display devices. Given airplanes have (like cars) moved away from individual wires with individual purposes to stuff talking over shared communication busses, yeah, kinda makes sense to move more stuff into the panel? It also sounds like they are more tightly integrating stuff handled by the flight planning computer, which gets programmed with the desired route, how the plane has been loaded with people and cargo, wind patterns and so on. Programming it takes a substantial amount of time and data entry, and there's also stuff programmed by the ground crew after loading the plane, namely telling the computer where cargo is loaded for weight and Cg information. Garmin's newest glass panels used in smaller planes allow for automatically uploading a flightplan into the panel from a tablet or phone, reducing chance of data entry errors, and simplifying preflight procedures. I'm not sure how this is different from how Boeing and Airbus already have more tightly integrated flight planning into the avionics; my guess is that whereas Garmins' panels in a bizjet allow the pilot to push a flight plan to the panel from their phone, Honeywell is looking to allow the airline to push flight plans, cargo data, etc to the plane's avionics. The last bit sounds like they're extending the concept of live engine telemetry to monitoring the entire plane; think of it more like NASA and the shuttle, where the shuttle was a giant flying data collection machine and there was a lot of stuff ground-side monitoring that data. For a while now airlines have been "leasing thrust", which means they pay BE or RR a whole lot of money for a contract that says, basically, "you handle everything necessary to make our planes go vroom when the pilots want them to." To do that, the manufacturers have nearly live telemetry data from the engine computers, by means of satellite link (I forget if this is done via separate link or piggybacked on the airline's satellite network) which allows them to monitor for and predict or at least know about ASAP, maintenance and repair needs. Pilots can't monitor everything, and avionics software is slow-moving. So, sure, why not report airframe/system data back to the airline's "flight operations center" and have computers munging on the data, using algorithms and trend data across hundreds of planes to spot outliers or a creeping issue in the entire fleet? The somewhat scary bit is that they seem to also be talking about very tightly integrating the whole avionics package into satellite communications. That's a bit scary because historically the barriers between fleet/flight and infotainment has proven less that robust. There have been a few DEFCON talks about this. Not a lot of trust in this regard. The less scary part: the airline's chief pilots tend to be really tough customers when it comes to things they even perceive as getting between them and flying the plane. They're the ones who set how the planes are spec'd out, who touch a new plane model before anyone else does (possibly in a simulator before the plane exists in the configuration they are ordering), who write the airline's procedure manuals, set policies, etc. These systems will have to pass by them. Part of the problem with the 737-MAX was that Boeing hid a lot of shit from those top pilots. Hopefully there are some HNers with direct airline-level experience who can chime in with corrections and better insight?

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a pilot, but a family member is, and I've spent my whole life kinda nerding out on aviation safety stuff - not plane disasters, but how pilots manage risk and safety - as well as reading several pilot's magazines - for decades. Regarding touchscreens: you're absolutely right that touchscreens are a nightmare from a usability standpoint in a plane (particularly in turbulence) but they're increasingly in everything these days from single engine Cirrus planes to fighter jets (of which the avionics are older than most people might think, given development cycles and military contractors preferring to massage old systems into new slightly shinier systems and thus having a lot of legacy bullshit trailing along.) I recall hearing that the pilots of newer military jets really don't like the touchscreens. Their main advantage is dramatically reducing mechanical complexity of controls, better use of space, and the capability of being customized to a task or context. Saab is sort of to physical interfaces in cars and planes what Apple is to software ones. That's why Saab's cars were really...special sometimes in their control layout and features. While I don't have a handy source, I'm pretty sure they were among the first to realize the problems with even in-button status indicators because you can't see the status when your finger is on the button, which is a big fucking deal when pushing a button might do some serious no-take-backs shit (in terms of flying the plane, not even starting to talk about weapons.) My knee-jerk reaction was the same as yours regarding the cloud stuff, but I read a bit more into the press release and while it's hard to tell from all the marketing bullshit being slung around, it sounds like they've moved more functionality into the display panels and away from avionics-deck units. Traditionally on big jets, there's a huge avionics compartment where the 'brains' and input/output functions of the brains live; the cockpit is almost entirely display devices. Given airplanes have (like cars) moved away from individual wires with individual purposes to stuff talking over shared communication busses, yeah, kinda makes sense to move more stuff into the panel? It also sounds like they are more tightly integrating stuff handled by the flight planning computer, which gets programmed with the desired route, how the plane has been loaded with people and cargo, wind patterns and so on. Programming it takes a substantial amount of time and data entry, and there's also stuff programmed by the ground crew after loading the plane, namely telling the computer where cargo is loaded for weight and Cg information. Garmin's newest glass panels used in smaller planes allow for automatically uploading a flightplan into the panel from a tablet or phone, reducing chance of data entry errors, and simplifying preflight procedures. I'm not sure how this is different from how Boeing and Airbus already have more tightly integrated flight planning into the avionics; my guess is that whereas Garmins' panels in a bizjet allow the pilot to push a flight plan to the panel from their phone, Honeywell is looking to allow the airline to push flight plans, cargo data, etc to the plane's avionics. The last bit sounds like they're extending the concept of live engine telemetry to monitoring the entire plane; think of it more like NASA and the shuttle, where the shuttle was a giant flying data collection machine and there was a lot of stuff ground-side monitoring that data. For a while now airlines have been "leasing thrust", which means they pay BE or RR a whole lot of money for a contract that says, basically, "you handle everything necessary to make our planes go vroom when the pilots want them to." To do that, the manufacturers have nearly live telemetry data from the engine computers, by means of satellite link (I forget if this is done via separate link or piggybacked on the airline's satellite network) which allows them to monitor for and predict or at least know about ASAP, maintenance and repair needs. Pilots can't monitor everything, and avionics software is slow-moving. So, sure, why not report airframe/system data back to the airline's "flight operations center" and have computers munging on the data, using algorithms and trend data across hundreds of planes to spot outliers or a creeping issue in the entire fleet? The somewhat scary bit is that they seem to also be talking about very tightly integrating the whole avionics package into satellite communications. That's a bit scary because historically the barriers between fleet/flight and infotainment has proven less that robust. There have been a few DEFCON talks about this. Not a lot of trust in this regard. The less scary part: the airline's chief pilots tend to be really tough customers when it comes to things they even perceive as getting between them and flying the plane. They're the ones who set how the planes are spec'd out, who touch a new plane model before anyone else does (possibly in a simulator before the plane exists in the configuration they are ordering), who write the airline's procedure manuals, set policies, etc. These systems will have to pass by them. Part of the problem with the 737-MAX was that Boeing hid a lot of shit from those top pilots. Hopefully there are some HNers with direct airline-level experience who can chime in with corrections and better insight?