Peter

http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-ge...id=enews102011

This is a bombshell for anybody trying to use the Ipad or Iphone for
something "serious".

I wonder if documents placed in Goodreader's Documents directory) PDFs
mostly) are immune from this undocumented deletion.

More here

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73183

Alan Browne

On 2011-10-22 09:25 , Peter wrote:
> http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-ge...id=enews102011
>
> This is a bombshell for anybody trying to use the Ipad or Iphone for
> something "serious".
>
> I wonder if documents placed in Goodreader's Documents directory) PDFs
> mostly) are immune from this undocumented deletion.
>
> More here
>
> http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73183

I've known it was only a matter of time before an issue popped up wrt to
the iPad on the flight deck. iPad, iOS and these Apps do not go through
the eye of the needle cert than avionics usually go through.
Eliminating paper charts is a beautiful thing - but the iPad and
aviation Apps are getting a pass because they are not appliances
integrated into the aircraft proper.

The positive note is that in the crew, with 2 iPads, the other probably
(possibly) did not get the same hit - but it could happen.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an
even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly
unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

— Captain A. G. Lamplugh,

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Davoud

Peter:
> This is a bombshell for anybody trying to use the Ipad or Iphone for
> something "serious".
>
> I wonder if documents placed in Goodreader's Documents directory) PDFs
> mostly) are immune from this undocumented deletion.
>
> More here
>
> http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73183

That's called circular reporting. You cite a second source which has
nothing new, but only refers back to the first source. Yet you think
that you have two sources to confirm your bogus alarm.

Unless the FAA and NTSB have made some changes of which I am unaware,
"Flying" magazine is not an authorized issuer of NOTAMS or other
official alerts.

Furthermore, you hyped this non-news, non-safety-related item by
declaring it to be a "bombshell." Tempest in a tea cup.

Don't fill your iPad (or any other data storage device) to the point
where there is little or no free space. There! Another major flying
safety hazard eliminated!

There is one other recommended step, and that is to identify those
pilots who were operating with iPads with no additional storage space
and who were nonetheless downloading additional apps or other data
in-flight. They can keep their iPads, but their pilot's licenses need
to be permanently suspended, as we just can't afford to have idiots
flying airplanes.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Peter

Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote

>Don't fill your iPad (or any other data storage device) to the point
>where there is little or no free space. There! Another major flying
>safety hazard eliminated!

Bollocks.

>There is one other recommended step, and that is to identify those
>pilots who were operating with iPads with no additional storage space
>and who were nonetheless downloading additional apps or other data
>in-flight. They can keep their iPads, but their pilot's licenses need
>to be permanently suspended, as we just can't afford to have idiots
>flying airplanes.

Idiot.

Bert

In news:221020111108270139%star@sky.net Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> Don't fill your iPad (or any other data storage device) to the point
> where there is little or no free space.

How many real operating systems will "delete files at its discretion if
it were to run low on space?"

--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

Alan Browne

On 2011-10-22 11:08 , Davoud wrote:

> Don't fill your iPad (or any other data storage device) to the point
> where there is little or no free space. There! Another major flying
> safety hazard eliminated!

Aviation safety is not based on hoary advice.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Todd Allcock

At 22 Oct 2011 11:08:27 -0400 Davoud wrote:

> Unless the FAA and NTSB have made some changes of which I am unaware,
> "Flying" magazine is not an authorized issuer of NOTAMS or other
> official alerts.
>
> Furthermore, you hyped this non-news, non-safety-related item by
> declaring it to be a "bombshell." Tempest in a tea cup.

To a point. If your usage scenario for your iPad only involves keeping
up with the latest episode of Modern Family or reading your Kindle library.


This will be fixed, but it's a potential problem for any "professional"
apps if the device is often used without connectivity (losing the ability
to reacquire lost documents.) It's certainly a non-issue if you have
ubiquitous connectivity.


> Don't fill your iPad (or any other data storage device) to the point
> where there is little or no free space. There! Another major flying
> safety hazard eliminated!


Blame the user! Of course, everyone should willingly leave storage space
they paid for unused just in case the OS wants to randomly delete files.
Here's a crazy idea-instead, why doesn't the OS stop downloading new
stuff and tell the user the device is full? (Oh that's right- it'd
require one of those "Windows-like" dialog boxes Apple hates so much,
because it requires the user to actually make a choice, ruining the
illusion the device is intelligent enough to do it for them.)

Here's a question: can you define "little or no space"? How much
headroom does a user need to protect their downloaded docs? Is a few
hundred MB enough? A GB? Where's the Apple tech bulletin with the
"official" amount? And how does one determine this in the field without
that helpful colored graph in iTunes on their computer?


> There is one other recommended step, and that is to identify those
> pilots who were operating with iPads with no additional storage space
> and who were nonetheless downloading additional apps or other data
> in-flight. They can keep their iPads, but their pilot's licenses need
> to be permanently suspended, as we just can't afford to have idiots
> flying airplanes.


That's certainly one option. Because anyone who trusts their computing
device to actually store their files *after* an OS upgradethe same way it
did *before* the upgrade must be some kind of idiot. I'm no computer
genius, but I don't recall any device I've ever owned using the FIFO
method to deal with full storage except my DVR, and even it lets me
protect files.

Again, Apple will fix this. This is more iCloud teething troubles (the
issue stems from Apple's guidelines to store in-app downloaded content in
cache folders to prevent upload to iCloud. Unfortunately those cache
folders are cleared in low-storage garbage collections.) Apple will
likely create a new class of storage folder in the next .dot update that
doesn't sync to iCloud, and doesn't get cleared like the cache does.
This will require apps to be updated to use the new folder-type but the
problem will go away.

I guess Apple was right to hide file management from end-users. It's
apparently so complicated even the device can't manage it properly!

Jumbo Jack

"Peter" <nospam@nospam9876.com> wrote in message
news:2ug5a71a6ajicglo4ts3e0bgm77vuo77i1@4ax.com...
> http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-ge...id=enews102011
>
> This is a bombshell for anybody trying to use the Ipad or Iphone for
> something "serious".
>
> I wonder if documents placed in Goodreader's Documents directory) PDFs
> mostly) are immune from this undocumented deletion.
>
> More here
>
> http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73183

Is the iPad approved for aviation use by the aviation authority?

JF Mezei

Alan Browne wrote:

> Because the iPads are not integrated into the aircraft, they face the
> very lightest of requirements wrt certification (basically none).

They may not be "aircaft" equipment that are certified along with the
aircraft, but as they replace an FAA mandated flight bag (set of books
detailing aircraft ops, specs, maps of airport etc), the airline must
show to the FAA that its iPad version of the flightbook works , is
reliable , available/usable even in emergencies etc.

And because it was not tested by the aircraft manufacturer at the time
the aircraft was certificated, the onus is on the airline to make
necessary tests to show the FAA that the introduction of an iPad in the
cockpit does not interfere with any of the aircraft's electronics or
radio equipment.


Soe of the newer aircrafts such as the A380 newer 777s and the 787 have
embedded electronic flight bags. Those were tested as part of aircraft
certification.

It will be interesting to see if an airlines such as United choosed to
deploy iPads even on those aircraft (since pilots would be familiar with
the iPad already from having flown smaller/older aircraft) or whether
they will use the Boeing provided one.

Alan Browne

On 2011-10-22 14:22 , nobody@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
>
>>> Is the iPad approved for aviation use by the aviation authority?
>>
>> Yes. Basically the FAA delegates approval to the airline training,
>> engineering and aircrew certification departments. The FAA monitor,
>> provide input but likely only object if they see a major discrepancy.
>>
>> How pilots "administer" flight (procedure, technique) is the
>> responsibility of the airline, not the FAA. FAA is responsible for
>> standards, licensing, regulations and so on. Operations and training is
>> the resp. of the airline. As long as the airline meets the standards,
>> the FAA is a monitor, not an actor.
>>
>> Because the iPads are not integrated into the aircraft, they face the
>> very lightest of requirements wrt certification (basically none).
>>
>> I bet most aircraft will be carrying at least one paper copy of the
>
> I am a pilot (FAA and JAA Commercial/Instrument) and I suspect that

Me too. Not as well certified. Instructor, most of my instrument, not
multi. Haven't flown PIC in 10 years+ though.

> the recent flurry of announcements from airlines is really just
> storing *aircraft documents/manuals* on an Ipad.

They have enroute, plates, SIDS/STARS, etc. ad nauseum. And use them.
Source is Jepp, etc. Really, if both iPads went, a single set of paper
plates would get you on the ground. Absent a complete comm failure you
could even get your vectors and freqs from terminal to start an ILS
approach. (When's the last time anyone completed an IFR flight to
minimums with a complete comms failure? The 70's maybe?).

> They are not likely to be storing the approach plates for the flight,
> and the briefing pack, on an Ipad, because if the Ipad packed up, you
> would be stuffed.

Which is why they still have the bag and it's full.

> The real saving in weight of paper (some huge figures have been quoted
> in the press) is going to come from not carrying the big manuals. The
> pack for the flight is very small.
>
> This new Ipad problem is very serious because it means you have to
> have a way of verifying database integrity, which is not going to be
> possible for any ad hoc data which you just transferred to it (PDFs
> etc). So you can never be sure that something important has not been
> lost.
>
> Apple have been incredibly stupid in this case.

Has nothing to do with Apple (unless you mean the arbitrary file cuts -
which is stupid). The use of iPads in flight is airline/pilot driven.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.