[alexjplant]

> Many procedures were vague, and drawings were hard to understand. The Navy has a feedback system for this, but it often takes months/years to resolve.

When I worked for a DoD contractor I worked on a system that was designed to tighten one such feedback loop. The publicly-available copy regarding this unclassified effort [1] says that it was

> [a] framework for an end-to-end Change Request (CR) workflow system that will improve turn-around time and speed to the fleet. We are leading the innovation of a paperless cockpit through the design and development of an eFC mobile application that will provide responsive, reliable information for our aircrews on mobile devices at the touch of a button.

I thought that it was a pretty novel idea - it was certainly the most technically-progressive project I worked on when in defense contracting by a country mile. When I attended a program picnic at the Captain's house, however, I found no shortage of people who were skeptical of what we were building. When I pressed them for reasons why it basically amounted to "I learned what we have years ago and I don't want to change". Institutional rot is very real.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240821032432/https://webdev.am...

[Cthulhu_]

That said, there's something to be said about being resistant to change; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I don't know what "eFC" means, but "mobile application" implies they would need a new device with everything that entails.

[psunavy03]

As a career military aviator (about half and half flying and non-flying air ops jobs), there are definitely a surprising amount of Luddites in green flight suits. But there are also legit security concerns bringing modern mobile devices into a cockpit for the same reasons as the concerns around bringing one into a SCIF.