▲ 31 ▼ Boeing 747s still get critical updates via floppy disks (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think the article argues against physical access though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) It doesn't, that's just a very common reaction to these types of articles. I recall having some very intense discussions around stuff like iPads in cockpits. I'm on the "not a fan" side, but I'm also not making avionics software anymore either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) iPads used as an electronic flight bag beats having a huge stack of papers to shuffle through. There’s only one disaster I’m aware of caused by an iPad, and that’s on a military Chinook. It got wedged below the pedals because they didn’t stow it as they should have. https://alert5.com/2023/07/15/ntsb-finds-ipad-interference-contributed-to-ch-47d-helicopter-crash/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not the iPads themselves, it's the addition of Bluetooth and/or wifi to support them. I agree that they can alleviate a lot in terms of paperwork reduction etc. My issue is the additional exposed surface. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* Wireless isn’t a requirement and connectivity seems slow to be adopted anyhow according to this source. https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/data-connectivity-for-efbs-part-2/ If we agree that connectivity is a good thing, why has the adoption rate been so slow? … The first required piece is an actual connection between the device and the airplane. This connection can be wired or wireless. It’s now possible to have a wireless access point that’s dedicated to the crew. A wireless connection will need to include security capabilities so users can prove their identity to the wireless network. Let’s not forget that security must also be practical for in-service use. A wired connection is generally seen as more secure, since there has to be physical access from the flight deck, which is considered a secure domain. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) It doesn't, that's just a very common reaction to these types of articles. I recall having some very intense discussions around stuff like iPads in cockpits. I'm on the "not a fan" side, but I'm also not making avionics software anymore either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) iPads used as an electronic flight bag beats having a huge stack of papers to shuffle through. There’s only one disaster I’m aware of caused by an iPad, and that’s on a military Chinook. It got wedged below the pedals because they didn’t stow it as they should have. https://alert5.com/2023/07/15/ntsb-finds-ipad-interference-contributed-to-ch-47d-helicopter-crash/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not the iPads themselves, it's the addition of Bluetooth and/or wifi to support them. I agree that they can alleviate a lot in terms of paperwork reduction etc. My issue is the additional exposed surface. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* Wireless isn’t a requirement and connectivity seems slow to be adopted anyhow according to this source. https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/data-connectivity-for-efbs-part-2/ If we agree that connectivity is a good thing, why has the adoption rate been so slow? … The first required piece is an actual connection between the device and the airplane. This connection can be wired or wireless. It’s now possible to have a wireless access point that’s dedicated to the crew. A wireless connection will need to include security capabilities so users can prove their identity to the wireless network. Let’s not forget that security must also be practical for in-service use. A wired connection is generally seen as more secure, since there has to be physical access from the flight deck, which is considered a secure domain. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) iPads used as an electronic flight bag beats having a huge stack of papers to shuffle through. There’s only one disaster I’m aware of caused by an iPad, and that’s on a military Chinook. It got wedged below the pedals because they didn’t stow it as they should have. https://alert5.com/2023/07/15/ntsb-finds-ipad-interference-contributed-to-ch-47d-helicopter-crash/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not the iPads themselves, it's the addition of Bluetooth and/or wifi to support them. I agree that they can alleviate a lot in terms of paperwork reduction etc. My issue is the additional exposed surface. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* Wireless isn’t a requirement and connectivity seems slow to be adopted anyhow according to this source. https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/data-connectivity-for-efbs-part-2/ If we agree that connectivity is a good thing, why has the adoption rate been so slow? … The first required piece is an actual connection between the device and the airplane. This connection can be wired or wireless. It’s now possible to have a wireless access point that’s dedicated to the crew. A wireless connection will need to include security capabilities so users can prove their identity to the wireless network. Let’s not forget that security must also be practical for in-service use. A wired connection is generally seen as more secure, since there has to be physical access from the flight deck, which is considered a secure domain. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not the iPads themselves, it's the addition of Bluetooth and/or wifi to support them. I agree that they can alleviate a lot in terms of paperwork reduction etc. My issue is the additional exposed surface. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* Wireless isn’t a requirement and connectivity seems slow to be adopted anyhow according to this source. https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/data-connectivity-for-efbs-part-2/ If we agree that connectivity is a good thing, why has the adoption rate been so slow? … The first required piece is an actual connection between the device and the airplane. This connection can be wired or wireless. It’s now possible to have a wireless access point that’s dedicated to the crew. A wireless connection will need to include security capabilities so users can prove their identity to the wireless network. Let’s not forget that security must also be practical for in-service use. A wired connection is generally seen as more secure, since there has to be physical access from the flight deck, which is considered a secure domain. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* Wireless isn’t a requirement and connectivity seems slow to be adopted anyhow according to this source. https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/data-connectivity-for-efbs-part-2/ If we agree that connectivity is a good thing, why has the adoption rate been so slow? … The first required piece is an actual connection between the device and the airplane. This connection can be wired or wireless. It’s now possible to have a wireless access point that’s dedicated to the crew. A wireless connection will need to include security capabilities so users can prove their identity to the wireless network. Let’s not forget that security must also be practical for in-service use. A wired connection is generally seen as more secure, since there has to be physical access from the flight deck, which is considered a secure domain. permalink fedilink source parent