Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force Buys iPads To Replace Flight Bags
redletterdave writes "Following the precedent set by commercial airliners, the U.S. Air Force plans to buy up to 18,000 iPads for its Air Mobility Command (AMC), replacing heavy flight bags with light and efficient Apple iPad 2s for the crews that fly cargo aircraft. The devices will reportedly be used by the crews on the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster aircraft. There are several benefits to using electronic flight bags instead of physical versions. For one, the iPad can instantly update charts electronically, while the AMC would require flying charts get reprinted every 28 days to stay up-to-date. By cutting publication printing and distribution costs, and exchanging 70 pounds of paper for a 1.3-pound iPad, the Air Force can save some serious cash, including more than $1.2 million worth of fuel per year."
But printed charts and manuals don't have an 8-10 hour battery time ...
What about when they have to turn them off when the flight door is closed?
The people who have been sniffing around Apple's supply chain say that the iPad3 will have a 2048x1572 screen, etc ... so why not get the iPad2 cheaper, or get the iPad3 for its better display, etc.?
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
So that is what "Airplane Mode" does.
Wouldn't a device with e-paper (Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, etc) be a better replacement for books? Those devices have no glare, have all of the benefits listed, and all have a longer battery life.
That is only the fuel, you forgot the cost of printing those books, distributing them, making sure the latest version is on each aircraft, replacing damaged copies, etc.
Data entry device.
Yuck. Going back and forth between number and alpha keyboards on screen nearly caused a riot. I had to code custom on-screen touch-keypads to allow speedy, painless data entry. Nice as a readout device and OK with some interation, but be wary of using one for data capture.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
TFA specifies once that in truth, they are looking at tablets, not just iPads. Than it's back to Apple this and iPad that. If it indeed is a forgone conclusion, they should have explained why. That's some mighty fine journalism, there. Also, they mention iOS isn't certified yet; don't know if any tablet is.
The FAAs position with other carriers has been that there has to be an alternate source of the information, and at least one company has gotten by with a second ipad as that source. So, I imagine that the Air Force will have to either continue to lug around the paper, or the will have to have two ipads. Personally, i wouldn't find it worth the hassle and would just use the paper charts.
Alternatively, they could buy an actual piece of equipment designed from the ground up and rigorously tested for exactly this purpose and which is permanently in the cockpit and can also be updated via subscription services. But then they wouldn't have toy ipads to play with at taxpayers expense.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Lt. Col. Glen Roberts, clarified the report, stating the commend "is looking for a tablet device, not necessarily an iPad"
Seeing that there is custom DoD Android edition and clearances, where iOS has not . http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/28/pentagon-approves-android-device-for-department-of-defense-apple-still-awaits-clearance/ . There is even a DoD SDK.
But one thing about the Air Force there are different commands and they all make different decisions . ASFOC will make one decision, AMC another and the ANG another, and they never cooperate, costing tax payers millions.
sure, the ipad is a great way to replace paper. but clearly someone's forgotten what the flight bags are for. there are a few beautiful things about paper -- it's always there, it has zero dependencies, laminated it can withstand more than the human using it, and absolutely nothing can go wrong with it. it just can't break.
so since these things are consulted when the plane breaks, two engines die, and the power is out, it's nice to have the redundancy be a completely different technology.
so when the ipad hangs, is there tech support mid-flight? remember, paper has zero tech support requirements.
These are more for diagrams and maps. e-paper is best for text only.
I remember reading an article a while back by a retired USAF pilot where he wrote about the time spent making sure that all the manuals and other paperwork were up to date and the trouble he could get into if it wasn't when someone inspected the aircraft. So I'm guessing that could save more than $1.2 million dollars of aircrew time.
I have to say, it reminds me of the comment an ex-Signals guy doing his amateur radio licence at the local club made, along the lines of "a map with a bullethole in it is a map that's still mostly accurate, but a laptop with a bullethole in it is really just too big to be a useful paperweight"
Alternate source: So when the captain's iPad batteries go dead, you discover that the First Officer has been playing Angry Birds since departure.
Have gnu, will travel.
They are not cheaper than an ipad. In fact they are much more expensive. However, they are designed for use in flight environments, they have input methods specifically designed for use in flight, they are rigorously tested for interference with other devices and certified for cockpit use by the FAA. They also have larger, easier to read displays that are designed to be used in cockpits where it can be either very dark, or the sun can be shining directly on it. They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Like most other gadgets, the iPad can charge off of a USB port. That would be 5 Vdc.
Actually, the iPad can not be charged off a standard USB port while it is powered on. It draws 1.5 amps (more than the .5 amps of USB 2.0).
There are USB ports that will charge the iPad (if they support the Battery Charging v1.1 spec), but having those on a device is rare.
The iPad can charge slowly when it is asleep from a standard USB 2.0 port if there is nothing else drawing power.
I think the point is that if there are any power ports available--and I don't know if there are, but if they are--it shouldn't be difficult to make an adaptor that can peel off 5V DC and spit it out of a USB-shaped plug.
The CB App. What's your 20?
In particular, any computer needs to be built in the west, with chips from the west, to be trusted.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
exactly. The west is destroying itself by trusting goods coming from China. Instead, the west's military should require that all electronic be secured by west manufacturing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I work in the corporate aviation side and deal with EFBs on a regular basis, including iPads. EFBs are nothing new, and the iPad certainly isn't the first such device on the market - in the past they have been mostly Windows tablets. The main benefit of iPads is the ease of use and support. Windows based EFBs are a support nightmare just like any other Windows machine (user malfunctions mostly), and the iPads make this much easier as they are fairly idiot-proof.
And that's where the benefits end. They simply are not designed for the rugged environment of a cockpit and flight crews tend to be about as dainty as gorilla. My biggest complain is the proprietary connector - it's weak, flimsy and breaks easily, and then is a challenge to replace as it is not a standard connector. The screens are decent for 'consumer grade' devices, but sunlight readablitly is not as good as some of dedicated EFB products out there. I'm also not aware of any 'Made for iPad' devices that allow interfacing with a ship's avionics to acquire weather, flight plan and position data as we do with Windows tablets.
Now I hate Windows EFBs with a burning passion, but I just don't think iPads are appropriate for professional aviators. We've been supporting them in the field for less than a year and they are simply not holding up. IMO a rugged Android tablet with appropriate Android Open Accessory avionics interfacing would be a much better solution, but I don't know what is out there to this end. Everyone wants their iPads and doesn't care to hear about anything else...
In keeping with established tradition, my company has still not provided the promised EFB (electronic flight bag). we have been told literally "any day now" since 2004. Many studies, prototypes and vendors have been examined, but finally, as of October 2011, a commitment was made to procure the iPad. The new promise was November, then mid-December. And still... no device. Current issue is regulatory and infrastructural. At any rate, the advantage is mostly one of convenience. For someone with near vision issues, it will be very helpful. But the real gain will be that the paper won't have any more coffee stains on them. What it will not provide is depiction of aircraft position, but that may actually be good as you'd want one source for that- on-board navigation. Some of the relevant issues: *Who's responsible for equipment (if stolen, broken, not charged, etc.) *Can we use it below 10000' (not trivial to FAA) *How will data be updated (do I provide access to server or company) *can the device be incorporated as "aircraft permanent equipment" *can I watch porn on it or jailbreak/root it (of course not) *can they monitor what they do with it (not unless required by law, but they certainly will...)
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
So, go ahead and find me a USB port on the flight deck of a C-17. I'll wait <crickets> I thought so. ...
Did you forget that *you* wrote that 28 Vdc was available.
... Whatever they're doing to keep their pads charged beyond normal battery endurance, it'll be a workaround hack (issuing external USB-connected battery packs along with the pad) or some significant auxiliary systems re-engineering of in-service military transport aircraft.
Or it will be a simple DC/DC converter, simpler than the AC/DC converter that every iPad already ships with.
"Lt. Col. Glen Roberts, clarified the report, stating the commend "is looking for a tablet device, not necessarily an iPad."
Does Apple actually make a MILSPEC iPad? If not, what are their plans for what to do if the "big one" finally happens and all consumer electronics are fried?
Interesting that you should mention that. I happened to be reading more about this issue and found that the approval process is actually quite involved. Since the FAA does not control the building of ipads and the source of components is not controlled, each individual serial number to be used in that environment must be certified independently. Not all of them pass, either. I would have to guess that the cost of the testing of each one is probably higher than the cost of the actual unit.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Adapters for 28V dc aircraft environments already exist: http://www.lonestaraviation.com/Power-Adapter-USB-Socket.html
Really? Slashdot is going to argue over whether the military can figure out how to charge an iPad on a C-17? Really?
They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.
Which means that the iPad is replacing the paper copies as a backup system to start with. So, if the main system breaks, the iPad needs to work only long enough to find a reasonable field to land at, and not necessarily provide a full-flight's worth of operation. Considering that both pilots will have one, there will be two backups.
Yeah right, because in all these utility aircraft we operate every day, over thousands of flights, it has never occurred to anyone that someone might need DC power for something. Besides which, these things are largely for flight charts, rest calculators, etc. It's not like they're moving all their avionics to an ipad.
But it's good thing we've got the slashdot crowd around to point out these devastating flaws.
I had a hard time believing they'd go for an iPad over a more rugged device, but the article says Special Operations Command already did so. iPads are consumer hardware. From Apple's specs:
* Operating temperature: 32 to 95 F (0 to 35 C)
* Nonoperating temperature: -4 to 113 F (-20 to 45 C)
* Relative humidity: 5% to 95% noncondensing
* Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet (3000 m)
Even for a cargo plane, that seems pretty limited. I know they have at least some climate control in flight, but don't they park the planes in arctic and desert environments too? Don't they need the checklists before they start the plane up? Or do they keep them running all the time and only shut down at their home base?
Visit the
Always. In it's most simple case the AC needs to be converted to DC before being converted again to DC.
In the most common case the DC is smoothed by capacitors that need to withstand 400V and a high ripple.
In the most ideal case (anything larger than that cheap $5 chinese crap you normally get with a phone) you need to isolate the output from the input via a small transformer, and often feedback through optical isolation.
In every case DC-DC converters are simpler than AC-DC converters.
And now if you'll circle back to the start of the discussion you'll see that a converter does have to be specially made because you aren't going to find a standard household powerpoint on a military aircraft.
And you'd be wrong. The C-17 has several "standard household powerpoints" conveniently located at the feet of the passengers seated in the "jump-seats". I'm sure there are even more on the flight deck.