It could have been a book, an ipad, a phone, camera, anything really... I wonder if the general design could be changed to help prevent anything from falling between the pedal and the wall...
But if you know there's always going to be an iPad around the cockpit, you can advise the pilots to have a fixed method of securing it
Of course there's always something else that can go wrong, but a big part of why flying is so safe today is that they've gone through a lot of trouble to enumerate and mitigate everything that has gone wrong in the past
It common to use a "kneeboard"[1] to secure an EFB to the pilot's thigh. I'm surprised it's not standard practice and that a loose EFB is ever acceptable.
Some people don't like knee boards because you have to move your head up-down-up-down to use it, and that can be disorienting, especially in poor visibility conditions (when external visual references are minimal). There are other types of mounts available, such as suction mounts, that mount the device closer to eye level, but while robust these are not as secure as built-in equipment. The overheat problem is real as well, but having your iPad shut down in flight is nowhere near as big a deal as having it jam in the rudder pedals.
When I used to fly (pre-iPad) I used a kneeboard for my paper charts, pencils, etc. Great to know that everything is right there and isn't falling on the floor.
My software dev mind went elsewhere, I wonder if the long term solution might not be to make all these controls inputs to some computer ("fly-by-wire") that could be toggled to some failsafe mode if the physical devices jam somehow. You could decouple the pilot's inputs from the copilot for instance.
>Confused, Bonin exclaimed, "I don't have control of the airplane any more now", and two seconds later, "I don't have control of the airplane at all!" Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft. He pushed his side-stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his side-stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered an audible "dual input" warning.
That's not my point. I don't see where the fly by wire system specifically caused the problem in this particular accident. Maybe there was insufficient cockpit indication that the aircraft switched to alternate law? Maybe the pilots were insufficiently trained on the scenario of icing leading to auto pilot disengagement? Maybe the pitot tube design was problematic and led to excessive ice buildup? Maybe the pilot was having a psychological problem, or was too fatigued? Etc
I see. Hypothetically, if there was no fly-by-wire system on that airplane, both pilots' input controls would be coupled to each other, eliminating the possibility of confusion as to what inputs are being made. In fact, all potential UX issues in regards to communicating the current input state to the pilots would be designed away: averaging the inputs, hiding the input of one pilot from the other, the possibility of dual input.
These aren't necessary characteristics of a fly-by-wire system, but its mere existence opens up the design space for them to exist.
Of course, I'm not arguing for removing the fly-by-wire system altogether ;)
However, whenever such fundamental paradigms are changed, great care must be taken to understand exactly how the new one differs from the old one.
In this case, the old direct input system afforded perfect communication of its state by default, but the new fly-by-wire system didn't. Care should have been taken to fully replicate the old behavior in the new system.
The fact that it was an ipad and not a book probably contributed to the fact that they could identify the gouge marks. If it was a book this might still be more of a mystery. The takeaway in the last paragraph seems to be a good one:
> “Hopefully this accident will prompt operators to have a long hard look at all possible loose articles in cockpits and robustly securing valuable tools and sources of situational awareness like EFBs,” he told Vertical by email.
My understanding is that iPads are super popular for pilots, especially of non-commercial jets, because at the price point, plus buying a few apps, the experience and utility is pretty unmached. Aviation-grade equipment is super expensive because it goes through many regulatory hurdles which are, unfortunately, written in blood as this one might be. But I would hope to see regulators, if they do something, take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics.
I think some airlines are now requiring iPads for their pilots since it can replace all of the paper manuals and charts that need to be in the cockpit[1].
It seems like if there's a device important enough to warrant being in the cockpit, it ought to be secured semi-permanently to a purpose-built mount while the aircraft is in motion.
> take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics
A very solid ProClipUSA mount for an iPad can be had for under $200, so assuming a 3x multiplier for regulatory certification, I don't think that requirement would make anything less accessible. I hope that devices flopping about the cockpit like this is a practice that will be phased out.
One of the advantages of an EFB is its portability. The pilot can load/edit plans prior to boarding.
But, yeah, either kneeboard[1] or "RAM" mount should at least be standard practice if not required. And removing the EFB from the mount once airborne should not be standard or allowed.
I think it's unlikely that there be any additional regulations from this, especially in the Part 91 / GA arena (which this flight was not), but I've been surprised before.
in an aircraft, its best to minimize the number and type of unsecured items.
its all relative, if the vehicle shifts place in the air relative to momentum, loose things get tossed around in the cabin/the cabin gets tossed around against loose items.
this was exacerbated by the tight cabinspace, and probably about a half second to get the obstruction out.
i used to see a lot of something like, a beverage bottle, or a coffee mug, roll up under the pedals of a vehicle, after falling out of the beverage holder.
Also, if the battery pack were to come loose or the device would loose power in another way, I guess the pilot would rapidly take it off without much regard for where it ends up.
And of course, it would require a specialized version, as the pilot was already wearing a flight helmet.
Of course there's always something else that can go wrong, but a big part of why flying is so safe today is that they've gone through a lot of trouble to enumerate and mitigate everything that has gone wrong in the past