<story><title>Dropped iPad implicated in fatal Rotak Chinook helicopter crash</title><url>https://verticalmag.com/news/dropped-ipad-implicated-in-fatal-chinook-helicopter-crash/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>the__alchemist</author><text>Some loose thoughts:&lt;p&gt;Military aircraft cockpits sometimes don&amp;#x27;t have a great concept of &amp;quot;inside&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;outside&amp;quot;, the way a cell, waterproof device, the aircraft&amp;#x27;s pressure seal etc do. If you drop something (FOD), there may not be a clearly defined boundary to where it can end up, or it may not be possible to see or get to it while strapped in etc. Rudder pedals, or the various mechanical and electrical connections around them, as indicated in the article, are a great example of this. If you can&amp;#x27;t find it, the AC may have to be grounded and thoroughly searched&amp;#x2F;panels removed etc.&lt;p&gt;Military avionics may be missing basic things that an EFB can help with, including maps, nav point and airport databases, weather info, ADSB info etc. EFBs are (IMO) a poor substitute due to the FOD concern here, the clunky touch screen interface (which you probably have to take gloves off for), the risk of getting locked out of important things like checklist and plates by BlackBerry, Foreflight licenses, passcode timers or other security layer etc.&lt;p&gt;You might have a jet that&amp;#x27;s 30 years old, just got retrofitted with a really nice radar etc, but the funding didn&amp;#x27;t make it through for a database, better displays&amp;#x2F;UI etc that would be better integrated with a jet, so you lean on the EFBs.&lt;p&gt;There are sometimes EFB mounts that can attach to a canopy via suction cup, clip onto various surfaces etc.</text></comment>
<story><title>Dropped iPad implicated in fatal Rotak Chinook helicopter crash</title><url>https://verticalmag.com/news/dropped-ipad-implicated-in-fatal-chinook-helicopter-crash/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>wpietri</author><text>For anybody that liked the style of this sort of analysis, let me strongly recommend Dekker&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;Field Guide to Understanding &amp;#x27;Human Error&amp;#x27;&amp;quot;: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error&amp;#x2F;dp&amp;#x2F;1472439058&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;It focuses on air crash investigations. But it&amp;#x27;s very useful to tech people in understanding the right way to approach incident investigations. It can be very easy to blame individuals (&amp;quot;stupid pilot shouldn&amp;#x27;t have dropped his iPad&amp;quot;, etc), but that focus prevents improving safety over the long term. Dekker&amp;#x27;s book is a great argument for, as here, thinking about what actually happened and why as a systemic thing. Which provides much more fertile ground for making sure it doesn&amp;#x27;t happen again.</text></comment>