It could have been a book, an ipad, a phone, camera, anything really... I wonder if the general design could be changed to help prevent anything from falling between the pedal and the wall...
Of course there's always something else that can go wrong, but a big part of why flying is so safe today is that they've gone through a lot of trouble to enumerate and mitigate everything that has gone wrong in the past
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
Further reading: https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/10/how-spatial-disorientati...
Of course as we've seen in the past that can introduce its own issues, for instance during the AF447 crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
>Confused, Bonin exclaimed, "I don't have control of the airplane any more now", and two seconds later, "I don't have control of the airplane at all!" Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft. He pushed his side-stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his side-stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered an audible "dual input" warning.
These aren't necessary characteristics of a fly-by-wire system, but its mere existence opens up the design space for them to exist.
Of course, I'm not arguing for removing the fly-by-wire system altogether ;)
However, whenever such fundamental paradigms are changed, great care must be taken to understand exactly how the new one differs from the old one.
In this case, the old direct input system afforded perfect communication of its state by default, but the new fly-by-wire system didn't. Care should have been taken to fully replicate the old behavior in the new system.
Here's the dual-input moment of this crash: https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?t=2876
> “Hopefully this accident will prompt operators to have a long hard look at all possible loose articles in cockpits and robustly securing valuable tools and sources of situational awareness like EFBs,” he told Vertical by email.
My understanding is that iPads are super popular for pilots, especially of non-commercial jets, because at the price point, plus buying a few apps, the experience and utility is pretty unmached. Aviation-grade equipment is super expensive because it goes through many regulatory hurdles which are, unfortunately, written in blood as this one might be. But I would hope to see regulators, if they do something, take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics.
[1]https://www.engadget.com/2013-06-24-ipad-now-being-used-in-e...
> take a pragmatic and balanced approach given the benefits of accessible electronics
A very solid ProClipUSA mount for an iPad can be had for under $200, so assuming a 3x multiplier for regulatory certification, I don't think that requirement would make anything less accessible. I hope that devices flopping about the cockpit like this is a practice that will be phased out.
But, yeah, either kneeboard[1] or "RAM" mount should at least be standard practice if not required. And removing the EFB from the mount once airborne should not be standard or allowed.
1 - https://www.67d.com/cdn/shop/files/KneeboardwithiPad11Pro-22...
its all relative, if the vehicle shifts place in the air relative to momentum, loose things get tossed around in the cabin/the cabin gets tossed around against loose items.
this was exacerbated by the tight cabinspace, and probably about a half second to get the obstruction out. i used to see a lot of something like, a beverage bottle, or a coffee mug, roll up under the pedals of a vehicle, after falling out of the beverage holder.
Also, if the battery pack were to come loose or the device would loose power in another way, I guess the pilot would rapidly take it off without much regard for where it ends up.
And of course, it would require a specialized version, as the pilot was already wearing a flight helmet.