“ those defending the right to carry arms; and the “preppers”.
I mean really. When was the last time anyone was holed up in their homes with the need to live off what they had in their pantry. You’d think that they were preparing for a global pandemic or something.
Simply put, Senator Inhofe landed on a closed runway and had to undergo some remedial training in order to keep his pilot certificate. Well, that made the senator worried and he felt powerless as any of us would if we were suddenly getting scrutiny from any type of authority. We all love our freedoms and there was great public support for “The Pilots Bill of Rights”. Don’t get me wrong, I support the Pilots bill of rights but I also don’t think it is right to villianize the regulators for doing what is expected of them especially for this case.
The controversy was a very compelling part of the movie, but yeah, the NTSB was not happy with the way they were portrayed as it didn’t happen that way. Americans do love to hate their government more than the people of many other countries.
I’d say because that wasn’t obvious. This is bold and in your face, “We will inform your CFI for your next biannual where you need training”. While this would be great if we lived in a society that continuously evaluates and tests us in everything we do. Where do you draw the line on that? Many times over analysis on our behavior makes us worse versions of ourselves. When people are trained good from bad and then allowed the freedom to act on that knowledge, they typically choose to be good actors.
Well, if you believe that, maybe you can invent the device that does it. Maybe instead you are the kind of guy that funds stuff like this. I’m sure plenty of folks would be happy to work for you if you cough up the funds to support the research. It is a novel thought though.
Yes thanks Paul. This is a great article and we all should appreciate being in the know.
(Different Bob here…)
“Some Americans appear to value individual freedom above all else, exhibiting a powerful distrust of their Federal government.”
One could argue that the government has given all Americans, of all colors, origins, and persuasions, plenty of reasons to distrust it at various times in the past. It amazes me how many people will trumpet those wrongs from the past, and in the same breath clamor for bigger government and more government action… but I digress.
Back on topic, if a system like this is an option, fine. Let those who choose to use it do so. I’d rather make use of a service like SavvyAnalysis (not a paid promotion, I don’t even have a complete airplane yet, I just think the service sounds neat) where you control the data that’s uploaded, as they only get what you send them.
There are always going to be people who look at a new piece of technology and try to come up with ways that they can exploit that technology for their own benefit. For “the lawyers”, it’s to get access to as much data as possible to strengthen their case of blaming someone else (that is, after all, essentially their job). For “the regulators” (at least, the few of them who are in that field only because they get to stroke their own egos by throwing the book at others), it’s to get access to as much data as possible to strengthen their case of blaming the pilot flying the plane. And for the manufacturers, it’s to prove they weren’t at fault and that it was someone else.
But all of the above aside, I would much rather have trend analysis data show me that my aircraft requires maintenance of X to prevent something bad from happening in flight, or that I’ve been consistently flying in a certain manner that should be corrected to prevent something bad from happening. Done non-punitively, that is so much better than finding out a problem exists because there’s a smoking crater.
I have no particular problem with the concept of “IQ”. I don’t know how Cirrus is implementing it, but it would be the implementation–if anything–that should be scrutinized, rather than the concept itself.
I didn’t catch the byline at the top of this article, but as soon as I read the words “data nerd” I thought; “oh, this is Paul’s writing.” 
Personally, I would love to have the collective data set identifying potential safety issues, so that they can be proactively corrected. And whether those safety issues are an engineering design issue, an unforeseen wear problem, or a common pilot error, I want to know about it.
How can something like “you are consistently flaring your Cirrus too high and fast, and our data set shows that Cirrus pilots who do this are 34% more likely to have an off-runway excursion” not be viewed as helpful? I’d love to have data like this!
First, let’s not get confused about the real reception of the technology. Negative feelings are generally a much better motivator to comment than agreement.
I’m no great writer so I’m going with bullet points.
Enough I suppose.
When everyone who is paid by the taxpayer’s dime is required to wear a bodycam, has a dashcam or panelcam in their vehicle, Alexa feeds and Siri communications all uplinking 24/7 real time and accessible to any and all taxpayers (some of whom, rest assured, will record and store all this data), I might be persuaded to take a look at the kind of surveillance perpetrated by IQ to be present on a vehicle I have bought and paid for. And then I would reject it.
How’s that Edsel running, these days? 
Sorry, I don’t make the connection to which you refer?
I believe he was suggesting that if you want complete privacy, you’re in the wrong century. Data is already being collected in far more ways than many people realize. The least that can be done is turn the data into actionable information that we who generate the data can use.
Has anyone really thought through this argument about how we are already being watched so relax?
If someone’s daughter is heavy petting on dates, you don’t tell him not to worry about the rapist on the corner just because she’s already getting fondled by teenagers. Perhaps it wasn’t appropriate to jail the neighborhood boys or lock up the daughter, but that doesn’t mean the rapist looking fellow ought to be ignored.
Frankly, I think there have been serious violations of ethics and law already.
Demanding accountability is never outdated, nor is it appropriate for some but not others.
Cirrus Aircraft is wholly owned by China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co., Ltd. Do you really want to own any Cirrus aircraft knowing this?
Good point. The data on aircraft in the field is none of their business.
Loved the movie and appreciated the drama, imagined and real, to present a visual representation of what occurred. I like being immersed in movies but usually figure out what’s true and what’s over dramatized to deliberately create emotions - all part of the movie experience. I also regard the thoroughly dry NTSB final reports as a library of what not to do in aircraft. It’s unfortunate that many misinterpret movies based on actual events as 100% true with mistaken beliefs that the gov’ment is the enemy. And I’m only discussing adults missing the point.
I don’t have Alexa in my house too and I’m not fred d. but I see your point between a company owned a/c and a privately owned one. The trouble is that the FAA set regulations for the most part that have borne out suggestions for public air carriers above a weight class(?) or passenger number to have cvr and flight recorder. If this wasn’t mandated, there would be countless NTSB reports without a final determination. Studying flight data and cvr without survivors continues to set safety standards upwards ever since data acquisition started with that little red box thingy. As to privacy issues and owning a private a/c, I think the option for the owner to enable or disable data acquisition may be a good compromise but then we’re all flying in regulated airspace that just happens to be public (except for military airspace). Data acquisition for private a/c has been stewing with all the glass cockpits and Garmins already having the ability to save data. And more often than not, a crash has already shown any data saved from electronics is examined as another piece in determining failure occurred.
Some years ago when surveillance cameras were being put up in metropolitan cities, a strong protest was made about privacy issues. The fact that walking in public spaces is not private with well meaning protests, those protests have fallen by the wayside as the same cameras are used regularly as electronic eyewitnesses to a crime not one single victim has protested against. Some victims may even be the protesters against video surveillance. How ironic is that? I believe the naysayers about surveillance cameras in public invading ‘their privacy’ has fallen into grudging silence while proving cameras can serve the public in positive ways. We’re not anywhere near Skynet, yet. Personal a/c saving data does have its pros and cons but if the commercial airline business and public benefited with cvr and flight recorders, data acquisition should not be as alarming for privately owned a/c.