this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
31 points (86.0% liked)

Technology

34569 readers
272 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 36 points 3 months ago (7 children)

These should be USB sticks, but otherwise this is preferable to something like wifi.

You do not want to stop requiring physical access to avionics for updates and reprogramming.

The fewer surfaces for entry into the avionics systems the better and if that means an engineer schlepping a database update on a thumb drive to the cockpit that's what you want.

I spent the better part of a decade on avionics, and while this as a headline sounds bad it's one of the few things Boeing shouldn't be mocked for right now.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the article argues against physical access though.

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

load more comments (5 replies)