While flying from San Jose International Airport to Portland International Airport we heard the following:
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/features/shortfinal/short-final-fl680
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/features/shortfinal/short-final-fl680
Monitoring does not improve safety.
Just google “Russian dash cam” if you need proof of that.
I agree that, privacy concerns notwithstanding, it’s a net positive. Make that Coors a Samuel Adams Boston Lager and I’ll join you!
Until the first time that data is used or wanted to be used in some kind of legal action whether it be a lawsuit or enforcement action. These are issues that are just starting to be dealt with in the automotive world with engine computers that can record data in crashes. Cockpit voice recorder recordings were supposed to be for NTSB use only until a civil suit involved with the LEX accident when an RJ tried to takeoff on a then too short runway. So therefore nothing is immune or restricted in the US legal world, as we all know anything can and will be used against you.
The other issue is cost. My former employer would have pilots manually record engine trend data even though trend data was available from manufacturer using already on board computer recorded data. I was told the cost from the manufacturer to decode the engine data was not worth it. This from an employer who has never had an turboprop engine failure.
I completely fail to see why anyone would object to this initiative, but I’m British. Robinson has had engine exceedance monitoring in the R66 from the get go. Some Americans appear to value individual freedom above all else, exhibiting a powerful distrust of their Federal government. This is seen in the Anti-Vaxxers; the protesters against lockdowns; those defending the right to carry arms; and the “preppers”. I wonder if this has its roots in the mythic cowboy past? But I’m viewing this at a distance and through the distorting lens of “news”, so this is a comment based on that only and not a judgement about the peoples of your wonderful country. There is no better place to fly GA in the world than the USA - unless you’ve been here, you wouldn’t believe what we have to contend with in the UK!
Do I see the oncoming landing light of a UAV? Shouldn’t be too hard to start the engine after checking the fuel. I’m not worried about my employer firing me in place of an autonomously piloted plane. However, the next generation growing up with self-driving Ubers may accept stepping into a plane with an empty cockpit.
There won’t even BE a cockpit.
All become concerned when company will use data to deny a warranty or insurance to deny a claim. The bottom line is folks are concerned when the information is used against them. Just as the movie Sully demonstrated, when a company wants to smear you, they will try many different ways to do it. In the end, if the information provides a safer airplane then we should look as safety first and then weave the privacy issue second.
>>Just as the movie Sully demonstrated
To be clear, that part of the movie was fiction. Necessary to move the plot along for a public theater audience.
The real NTSB was never after Sully like that, and in fact Sully himself forced the movie’s producers to change the NTSB characters’ names to fictional names so they didn’t use the real peoples’ names, because that’s not how the real investigators behaved in the real world.
I’m conflicted on this rush toward data on just about every part of my daily life. While it’s good to know if #4 cylinder is showing signs of wear, it isn’t necessarily good to know the whereabouts of an airplane or its pilot; that information has all sorts of implications. So it may be the answer lies in just what data is collected; the kind of data may clearly define purposes.
ADS-B is data enough, my flight planning/flight management software nosy enough to make the time in my traveling airplane a bone for all the geeks to chew. That makes time in my no-electrical-system, steel tube, dope and fabric bug smasher pure delight.
If privacy really is a concern, I don’t understand why pilots are up in arms about this system.
Already, by default, when you use Garmin Pilot - even just to upload database updates on the ground - the entire logging data is downloaded to your iOS device and then sync’ed with fly.garmin.com. That has been happening for years - and it includes position data and time stamps.
This new Cirrus IQ system just uses a cellular interface to upload that data to another cloud.
Any law enforcement agency could already tap the Garmin cloud for almost all Cirrus Perspective/+ pilots and get the same info.
Why the fuss now?
It’s amazing how everyone now agrees with your opinion in these comments. I am still profoundly uncomfortable but then I don’t have Alexa in my house and I keep exposure to Facebook et al to a minimum. The difference between Cirrus and the airlines is, if I fly for an airline they own the planes and pay me to fly. Cirrus doesn’t pay me and hence have no business monitoring my actions with “their” aircraft. They need to rethink their strategy.
I’ll admit to having a knee-jerk reaction against any (further) loss of privacy. To those people who say, “if you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem?” I respond with this: Don’t confuse secrecy with privacy.
For example, what happens inside of a bathroom is no secret. But it is private, hence people will continue to close the door even though they have “nothing to hide”.
I realize that in this modern age with smart-phones, modern OBD-II, ubiquitous public security cameras, etc., the fight to preserve privacy is akin to tilting at windmills. But I still believe the fight should go on to ensure such data capture is used for as benevolent a purpose as possible, with the fewest downsides. Otherwise, every device would be effectively “Mirandized”, i.e - “anything this device collects can and will be used against you.”
If this data is being generated by MY airplane, then I should have it. Give me access and the same tool to process it with that you’d use for the online version, and I’m all IN. But my rule is, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, and what happens in the airplane stays there or at least under my exclusive control. If a methodology requires someone else to be responsible for protecting MY data, then no, no matter the benefit. Even the most powerful and feared government agency is incompetent to do that. And if a dataset exists, no matter how bulletproof the user agreement is, as soon as some government agency really wants it – it’ll be GONE.
“I don’t recall that, Senator”
So, not only “no,” but “@#$% NO!”
Excellent example, Kirk W.! I’ll have to use that on my brother, next time we’re having a privacy discussion!
A funny story to start. This is an automotive story but bear with me. I have been developing methodologies and software for industrial companies to capture part data for 20 years. One the first implementations was for an oil and gas services company in Texas. We presented several training classes for engineers and would begin the class with this story. As you know, our company develops the part data that automotive repair shops and insurance companies use for collision repair. We capture and distribute all the part numbers and dimensional characteristics of the major automotive companies. You also have heard recently that the ECU (Electronic Control Unit) in an automobile captures the last several minutes of data such as speed, engine RPM, etc. This data is often used to assess an accident cause. I bet you didn’t know that some ECUs have voice recording capability just like an aircraft. It’s interesting to note that the most common words from pickup trucks in Texas are “Hey Bill, hold my beer, watch this”. Apologies to my Texas friends. Most of this story is true. Your automobile has been capturing and recording data on you for years. Companies such as GE, have been using AI software to predict locomotive and jet engine failure for years. A disabled locomotive due to an engine failure is almost unheard of. Same for jet engines. I have often wondered why we couldn’t have similar predictive capabilities for our aircraft engines. I would certainly like to know well in advance that an engine is sick before it decides to give up on take off at 400ft (true story). With all the cheap sensor hardware available and smart engineers, I’m sure there are ways to predict engine failures before it happens.
What would Cirrus have done if Halladay was flying an IQ equipped SR22 and doing the things he was doing in the Icon ?
Anyway on a lighter note anyone who is married should be OK with the plane recording what they are saying, after all they should be used to the concept that anything they say will be used against them ?
Assume the following.
In five years Cirrus makes some mistake and you are disabled because of it. You would like Cirrus to pay for that. Cirrus data shows that three times on 2022 you performed two operations in reverse order, which affects nothing whatsoever of safety, aircraft structure, etc. Would you like that transferred to their attorney so they can show you as unsafe pilot?
Scenario 2: Cirrus owner in China would like to disgrace you because you claim that China did something improper. would you like them to have access to such an error, or to let someone know that you had flown to a place that is advantageous to your business and nobody else’s?
In the medical world there is a strict protocol nicknamed “Helsinki” or Institutional Review Board (IRB) for each institute that signed up to that contract, to verify that collected data is depersonalized immediately after it is used for its intended purpose. After Cirrus commits to that in a 99.999999% irrevocable way with 99.999999% guarantee, including all its current and future owners and employees, this is a good idea. Not before.
Thanks Bob G., your comment reminded me of the structure of The United States of America Constitution. Our Constitution is all about checks & balances on the government NOT the people. The architects of this country did not trust the people who wield government power.
If the FAA can be trusted with information why did they create “The Pilot Bill of Rights”?
This sure beats the Halladay Crash. Thank god. You too Paul.