Re: [no need to] communicate off the aircraft
"There's really no reason for them to, the control systems don't need to communicate off the aircraft. never mind receive information from the outside world."
Really?
What's all this about then:
"[The company] assumes all responsibilities for analyzing engine data in real time* to manage customers’ engine maintenance and maximize aircraft availability.
To meet the technology requirements of this initiative, [company] implemented Microsoft’s Azure IoT Suite to collect and aggregate data from disparate and geographically distributed sources. As documented by Microsoft, the types of data processed include:
* Snapshots of engine performance that the planes send wirelessly during a flight.
* Downloads of “black box”–type data, technical logs, and flight plans.
[etc]."
* What's the definition of real-time? Twice a flight (takeoff and landing?) Twice an hour? Twice a minute? As needed? Who knows.
Either way, you might think it's implausibe, unwise, or both. I couldn't possibly comment.
Quote taken from a 2016 article at
https://www.rtinsights.com/rolls-royce-jet-engine-maintenance-iot/
but plenty of similar claims around.
See also ACARS and related.
This kind of engine control/maintenance thing used to be communicated on a "where suitable comms coverage is readily available" basis, typically significant airports or similar. Better/cheaper satellite coverage is making it more practical to do it in near-real-time in many parts of the world, not just near airports. And "real-time" and "cloud" and similar sounds good, surely?
Whether calling a safety critical airline engine control system an IoT device and associating it with Azure is a sensible thing to do is a different question altogether. Shall we take a vote on it (like sensor inputs on the aircraft's systems are supposed to do when it's a critical signal...).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
