Short Final: FL680 - AVweb

News Discussion
41

On average, Cirrus sells about 350-400 airplanes per year. The data trends will only apply to Cirrus airplanes. Since IQ applies to new Cirrus airplanes produced in 2020 moving forward, the amount of data available will be useful only to Cirrus aircraft. These trends, as Paul points out, will not significantly decrease accident totals unless the predominant airplane crashed happens to be Cirrus produced airplanes manufactured during or after 2020 ( which will probably be a poor sales year). Since Cirrus airplanes are not falling out of the sky in significant higher numbers than any other airplane, or are involved in loss of control accidents on the ground more than the aggregate number of taildraggers for example, statistically, this data stream will only affect the folks flying a Cirrus. Even engine trends for the IO-550 will only apply to the Cirrus it is attached to, as its nuances are a reflection of that particular airframe and cowling design. So, another brand of airplane using the same engine, will not be able to use that captured data to support or refute any issues that apply to their airframe and/or cowling design.

Worried about “Big Brother” using the captured data stream for nefarious reasons? Don’t buy or fly a Cirrus. Even though Cirrus has outsold virtually all manufacturers since 2001, the largest portion of GA flying are flying “Edsels”. Even the 7,000 Cirrus airplanes sold since 2001, are “Edsels”. The vast majority of GA is flying 50+ year old airplanes. Many of us are flying airplanes older than the Edsel.

So, this invasion of privacy, this possible attack of personal freedoms, the ability of Cirrus IQ to invoke a constitutional threat is way down low on the priority scale compared to your electric “Smartmeter”, your current pilot app, ADS-B technology, DVD player, Alexis, FB, smart-phones, credit card usage, auto/truck ECU programs, and RC drones just to name a few. For those 350-400 folks capable of purchasing a Cirrus aircraft post 2020, maybe this blog and all of the concerns expressed will make you do what? Buy a G-36, or a Matrix, a Mooney? (oh yeah, they closed this year), because they don’t have factory trend monitoring?

Pretty much anything technologically significant causes a potential erosion of personal freedoms. But we like our creature comforts more than our freedoms. So, we we sound tough about losing our personal freedoms, but in practicality, we put up with the Smartmeters, we like our pilot apps and the data derived from ADS-B, we like our on-board navigation on our cars with the ECU driven FI, and even us driving our Edsels, use our smarphones with Google maps to drive to the next car show after texting our wives for permission.

Data mining from a few hundred Cirrus airplanes over the next decade? Chump change compared to what is being used in the average American home, by the average American pilot.

42

All that is true - Cirrus IQ is but one pixel in the big-picture of data gathering.

But, like the proverbial nose-of-the-camel, it sets precedent. And while Cirrus may have benevolent intentions, others may not. They’ll look at Cirrus and say, “hey - no one’s objecting to that Hoovering of data, we can get away with…”. To not question and/or push back on each nybble[sic] out of data ‘privacy’ is to give carte-blanche for the whole herd of camels to move into the tent.

Look at the privacy policies (such as they are) of many companies nowadays. Do you think they talk about safe-guarding your data, not selling your PII (Personally-Identifiable Information), giving you access to privacy controls, etc. out of the goodness of their heart?

Hardly.

They were dragged, their paid lobbyists kicking and screaming, into such a world by a bevy of privacy groups and consumer action. Facebook, for example, has added more and more privacy controls over the years, and not because they wanted to. Now, the results may not be as private as we’d like, but they’re far better than what the corporations wanted.

If each new data-mining technique is not met with analysis, questioning, or opposition (as needed) by privacy advocates, then the near-future will be so ‘open book’ as to make our current privacy seem quaint.

43

IMHO, this data collection should be used only at annuals with mechanics, not sent back to the manufacturer. That is the process that would make sense for owners and their machines.

44

Kirk W…You help make my point. We are all so worried about the proverbial camel’s nose in our collective tents, been worn down, and begrudgingly accepted, and now used to… the hundreds of invasion-of-privacy camels in their entirety cohabiting in our tents for years. We have more to get our underwear in a bunch with XM Sirius, Garmin Pilot, FB, and our local electric service than Cirrus IQ.

Cirrus IQ, from a technology, eavesdropping point of view is pretty antiquated already. 50% of the GA “Edsels” already have all cylinder engine monitors whose information can be downloaded providing similar engine trend information as Cirrus IQ other than potential stick skills. I don’t believe any other aircraft manufacturer is using Cirrus as a poster boy for what not to do, nor a bunch of ne’er-do-wells thinking they will adopt something similar to gain additional information about airplane owners lifestyles, flying habits, and engine operations to an evil end. Even the bad guys know that FAA certification is expensive, takes years to approve, and that statistically, the numbers of new GA airplanes in addition to Cirrus sales is less than one pixel in the invasion of privacy universe. So why would they(whoever they are), the global corporate machine, FBI, CIA, DEA, EAA, AOPA, Pepsi, NFL, Boeing, ABC, FOX, INFOWARS, the Chinese, Putin, and Rocket Man spend any time investing time and money in data mining of a few hundred airplanes with such limited information compared with FB, XM satellite services, FB, ADS-B, pilot apps, traffic surveillance cameras, drones, electric meters, and smartphone opportunities that affect millions if not billions of the global population.

I believe the average Joe, including Joe pilots, feels so violated privacy wise, yet now so accustomed to the daily use with the conveniences provided by privacy invasion devices and services that have been data mining for decades now, to have any remote feeling of control regarding general life, reacts to something like Cirrus IQ as a citizenry duty to sound another warning of freedom erosion. It makes us feel good as if we have some control of the privacy of our lives. We don’t. We are arguing about closing the barn door long after the camels have escaped, have poked their noses in our tents, and are now living with us as part of our everyday family. The precedence’s have long been set well before Cirrus IQ.

Aviation, particularly general aviation flying, was, is, and will be an enjoyment, thrill, with the accompanying satisfaction gained from a rewarding sense of accomplishment only a relative few will enjoy. It has been that way since Wilbur and Orville. My suggestion is to savor each flight, be thankful for the technology that has made and will make flying even more safer than now, and concentrate on removing a few of the camel herd that is currently living in each and every American home. The Cirrus IQ nose is not any precedence, it is a late-comer camel who is trying to join the vast herd already in our homes.

45

Jim H.,

True, where we are today in terms of (lack of) privacy is quite different from the days of the Edsel.

However, it is far away from China. There, the government is forcing their citizens to put an app on their phone to insure they follow quarantine. If the phone travels outside of your house, or you don’t send a daily selfie of yourself in lockdown to the authorities, you’ll find yourself in trouble. And it is for that reason that I support public review, questioning, and push-back on any further loss of privacy. The situation we have now in this country is the result of a compromise between the citizenry and the government and corporations. Like any compromise, the result is not wholly satisfying to either party.

If you think the privacy fight is already over and we should no longer bother, ask yourself this…
…does your medical insurance company use your DNA to set your individual insurance rate?
…does EZ-Pass send you a speeding ticket if they think the time between two toll booths was too short?
…does the state/federal government download your car’s OBD-II data to bill you highway taxes for the miles traveled? Does it also ask for GPS data so that each jurisdiction can get their “fair share”?

These are just three examples off the top of my head of where private-data access was successfully blocked. No, we’re not living in Mayberry, R.F.D any more; but we’re not living in Wuhan, China, either.

46

Kirk…we are basically in agreement. The disagreement is which battle should we be concentrating on regarding the invasion of our privacy and resulting eroding freedoms.

In my mind, the Cirrus IQ is a potential battle, but relatively insignificant privacy wise. Could be a benefit to the Cirrus owner, Cirrus equipped flight school, etc. The potential for over reach is always there including using the data for FAA enforcement issues especially in potential litigation scenarios for the blame game. I just think there are far bigger fish to fry with a much better return on investment than Cirrus IQ when it come to data mining, invasion of privacy, and eroding freedoms.

However, it has been a good, thoughtful debate. Happy flying!