aviast
Well-Known Member
The thread on the Icon A5 has got me thinking... specifically the paragraph relating to the flight data recorder in the sales agreement. The response in that thread was unanimously negative but I think this subject is worth some deeper thought. I can see what Icon is getting at - the data collected by those devices is a goldmine - but I agree they've gone about it the wrong way. That's what I've been thinking about... what is the right way?
The last decade has seen a huge increase in the uptake of glass cockpits, which means digital data, which means it's easy to store. This has been used by accident investigators:
This kind of after-the-fact analysis of the data is good to have, but it would be even better to use the data proactively e.g. to improve flying skills, efficiency, etc. Icon is correct in that the data can be used to contribute to the "...safety of Buyer and others in the ICON pilot and owner community" but what's wrong with what they've proposed - and what's got people's backs up - is that they claim to retain ownership the FDR and all recorded data.
So I'm going to throw up a few ideas for a GA/sport aviation flight data analysis system, with the objectives of maximising safety outcomes while minimising privacy concerns.
That last point is - I suspect - going to be the main sticking point. If a pilot has breached a regulation (e.g. flying too low) then The System has evidence of the breach. Does this place some obligation upon The System to notify the regulator??? Would failing to do so constitute "aiding and abetting"? I think, for a system like this to work, it needs to be made explicit that the Regulator can request data if they have a reasonable suspicion that there was a breach, but they can't trawl through the data looking for breaches.
The last decade has seen a huge increase in the uptake of glass cockpits, which means digital data, which means it's easy to store. This has been used by accident investigators:
This kind of after-the-fact analysis of the data is good to have, but it would be even better to use the data proactively e.g. to improve flying skills, efficiency, etc. Icon is correct in that the data can be used to contribute to the "...safety of Buyer and others in the ICON pilot and owner community" but what's wrong with what they've proposed - and what's got people's backs up - is that they claim to retain ownership the FDR and all recorded data.
So I'm going to throw up a few ideas for a GA/sport aviation flight data analysis system, with the objectives of maximising safety outcomes while minimising privacy concerns.
- The FDR and all recorded data is the property of the aircraft owner.
- An "Open Flight Data" format is required so that all devices store the data in a consistent format.
- In theory the data could be analysed by software on the pilot's personal computer but that "decentralised" model poses issues with regards to developing analysis software for different operating systems and keeping the software up-to-date. So I would propose a cloud-based system ("The System") for analysing the data. I think in this day and age we're all sufficiently comfortable with that (???)
- After data is uploaded to The System the owner can access detailed reports about each flight (automatic log book!!!) including deeper analysis which may identify areas of concern (consistently getting too slow on the turn to final? Poor fuel management?)
- The owner has full control over what data is made publicly available (pilot's social media?)
- Data could be provided to specific groups (e.g. manufacturers, maintenance orgs, or "type" groups)
- The System can aggregate de-identified data and make analysis publicly available. For example by aircraft make/model to identify characteristics peculiar to each type.
- Accident investigation agencies and law enforcement agencies can request access to the full data for their statutory purposes only.
That last point is - I suspect - going to be the main sticking point. If a pilot has breached a regulation (e.g. flying too low) then The System has evidence of the breach. Does this place some obligation upon The System to notify the regulator??? Would failing to do so constitute "aiding and abetting"? I think, for a system like this to work, it needs to be made explicit that the Regulator can request data if they have a reasonable suspicion that there was a breach, but they can't trawl through the data looking for breaches.
