Slashdot Mirror
Aviation Instruments Encrypt Engine-Monitor Data
kitplane01 writes "Airplanes engines need to always work, and are monitored by engine monitors. JP Instruments' engine-monitor units have begun to encrypt the data output of its monitors so it can't be read by third-party software. Whether this is to protect itself liability-wise or to discourage competitors is unclear. It seems the company is working on a fix, which may require a fee from users to translate the file format."
As long as the auto industry doesnt follow. There was a big deal over the use of car makers to provide info to third parties for the onboard electronics. I dont know what the status is now, I heard a while ago that the information is disorganized and hard to utilize. Auto dealers love it because it forces you to use their facilities at highly marked up prices, and puts 3rd party auto mechanics into a corner.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Not really a whole lot different that PACE Anti-Piracy's latest crap.
I use some software that is protected using PACE's Interlok system. Unfortunately, the anti-piracy software is stopping me from legitimately using the software, refusing me the ability to serialize it on my machine.
PACE's response? Send us the encrypted log file! They won't tell me what's in the log file, nor will they allow me to see it before sending it.
Any amount of personal information could be in there, so I refuse to send it to them.
Since when doesn't everything need to be encrypted to keep legitimate users from reading it?
Jory
The Gemini goes about data-logging quite differently. When you want to see what's been happening, simply point the supplied Hewlett-Packard HP200LX palmtop at the Gemini's faceplate and the information will be transferred by infrared link. The information remains encrypted in the HP200LX--it cannot be altered by the user- -so it may be more useful to resolve a warranty dispute or to see how renter-pilots are treating your leaseback bird.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I don't know much about these kinds of systems, but I would've always assumed that partial unencrypted data would be much easier to recover in a plane crash situation. I guess it would pretty much instantaneously stop transmitting from the engine in question when the system failed.
However, wouldn't encrypted data bring with it the risk that you couldn't get the data back? What happens if you have partial encrypted data in the system? Is there a risk that the encryption could make piecing together accidents more time-consuming or render the data useless to the investigation?
In theory, could it even assist denying responsibility if the engine itself was the cause of a crash?
Why would engine monitor data need to be encrypted? All it is is fuel flow rates, its pressure and temperature, FTIT, etc. The pilot needs to see this data anyway to monitor in-flight. Maybe they're talking about when this information goes through engine diagnostics or is stored for looking at later? Oh, and do these guys just do civilian aircraft, or military too? I'd think no one would buy their engine monitor units if they couldn't look at the logs to monitor their own aircraft statistics [think nascar]. Could be a good way to lose customers. What do you think?
I know there are laws in place to keep automobile manufacturers from doing the same thing (since I make auto scantools for a living). That's one of the main reasons why the industry moved towards OBDII - to be compliant with the disclosure law.
Maybe the rules apply to aircraft as well, and there's already a legal fix?
I won't be able to ask anyone at work about which laws are in place until Monday, but this article has me curious about the legality of encrypting this kind of data for non-automobiles. If I find anything out, I'll post it here.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's simple, really.
"Can you say, with absolute certainty, that no third party fault detector would have found the problem with your engine?"
"No, but..."
"So, you intentionally embarked on a development program that hid problems with your engines. Thank you."
This exchange, vaguely hinted at by FAA, would be quite enough.
The problem is, I already own one; next time I send it for a firmware upgrade to get bugs fixed I can never download data from it again. (Without using their crappy "EZPlot" program.)
It's too bad, (1) because I had wanted to get my EDM-700 upgraded to the EDM-800, which has fuel flow data as well; (2) because I spent money getting a serial port installed in my instrument panel so I could download the data easily, and that money has now gone to waste.
If JPI (or someone else) was to provide info on the format of the encoded data there would be no news story.
If you don't know how a datafile was created, it may as well be encrypted, since it's meaningless to you. I fail to see the distinction.
It's funny how insulting Slashdot gets the most illogical of posts rated up.
This is to stop people from modifying the data to cover up the fact that they are saving money by not following the maintenance schedule.