4 ms·
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
by andrewstuart2 3y ago
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.
- pc86 3y agoI 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.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoI 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-every-american-airlines-cockpit.html https://www.engadget.com/2013-06-24-ipad-now-being-used-in-e...
- kayodelycaon 3y agoMinor clarification as I was initially confused: The airline provides the iPads. Pilots aren't allowed to use their personal devices.
- xp84 3y agoIt 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.
- alistairSH 3y agoOne 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-2260_750x750.png?v=1687818196 https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
- greensoap 3y agoEveryone 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-savings-over-10-years-in-ipad-rollout/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/u-s-air-force-plans-50m-saving...