For many companies, IT infrastructure is required, not optional. The complexities of running lean/efficient operations requires constant computational support; there is little possibility of a contingency plan working well enough to justify the expense of developing, training, and maintaining such a plan. You might as well criticize management for not having a contingency plan to operate during aircraft downtime. In many industries, however, spending on IT infrastructure has been under pressure for decades, without sufficient back pressure from "close calls" to for management to achieve a measured approach to cost containment. IT infrastructures can be built to be resilient, but that takes an appreciation for resiliency and what it costs. Brittle infrastructures are cheaper with no obvious wasteful redundancies, and their deployment is encouraged by relatively high MTBF numbers for all kinds of electronic equipment. When a piece of a brittle infrastructures fails, however, it i

(Written on 10/29/2021)(Permalink)

Smaller organizations are the ones less likely to have "good" security. Larger organizations have economy of scale going for them, along with more at risk. Standard security practice is to use a distributed directory system (such as Microsoft's Active Directory) for identification/authentication, disallow (through policy and audits) the use of "group logins" (accounts with passwords shared amongst a group of users), and to have an automated process that disables a person's login credentials when they are terminated. If electronic key cards are used to control physical access, then the same automated process can block the key card as well. Smaller organizations tend to have people wearing multiple hats, a higher level of implicit trust amongst employees, and a lack of will when it comes to having and enforcing the information security policies that mitigate the risk of a terminated employee sneaking back in and causing problems (through electronic or physical access). They also ha

(Written on 10/16/2021)(Permalink)

The first time I accessed the article, I was not asked to sign up. The second time I accessed the article (after reading these comments) I was asked to sign up. Perhaps it is based on past contact or random chance?

(Written on 10/08/2021)(Permalink)

On reflection and reexamination of the picture, I am less certain of my suggestion as it looks like the props are too close to the body of the aircraft where the landing gear serves to protect them. Hopefully someone who really knows can comment.

(Written on 03/26/2021)(Permalink)

I'm no expert, but the frames look like they reach somewhat lower than the circle made by the tips of the propellers. I think they have something to do with protecting the propellers from damage if the plane is tipped to one side or the other while it is on the ground. Whether this might occur while the aircraft is parked due to high winds, or might even be a risk while landing, I don't know.

(Written on 03/26/2021)(Permalink)

Safety is almost never an absolute - tradeoffs are almost always present. I worked as a urban/suburban local route bus driver (a long time ago) - safety was number one, and drivers were immediately terminated for an avoidable accident (regardless of amount of damage), not just an at fault accident. However, we were under pressure to maintain our schedule at the same time. A driver overly focused on safety while driving in rush hour traffic could end up slipping the schedule so much that the next bus would be immediately behind the cautious driver's bus. Drivers had to try to maintain the schedule but without dropping safety below the level that could result in an avoidable accident. In these marginal conditions, policies and procedures that mandate safety practices are important; they remove the need to make a "judgement call". The person who follows the policies and procedures is (should be/must believe they are) protected from blame for economic consequences, which can relieve

(Written on 02/15/2021)(Permalink)

If a computer is going to verify who you are, you have to present something to the computer through an interface, and the computer has to have a record of you for comparison purposes, such as facial recognition data. Rather than use a facial recognition system, it is quite possible for you to present your "something" to a system that then pulls up your data including picture on a screen that the human then verifies. All perfectly touchless, but without the magic "facial recognition" technology. Facial recognition technology is a very dicey technology, and it currently enjoys considerable consumer rejection pressure. The system in question can be built quite easily without "facial recognition", and have all of the "touchless" benefits touted. My perspective is that the "touchless" benefits are being used to gain acceptance of the facial recognition technology as if the one is dependent on the other.

(Written on 02/05/2021)(Permalink)

In security terms matching the person to their "id" at check-in is the process of authentication - proving that a claimed identity is correctly matched to the subject in question. Authentication can be performed by people or by machines in a touchless manner. From my perspective, the main gain here isn't the touchless benefit touted to gain public acceptance (touchless is a desirable benefit when faced with COVID experiences) but the automated benefit that reduces cost. However, the automated benefit requires the use of a technology that has significant resistance to adoption - facial recognition. Conflating the provision of a touchless benefit (to the customer) with the use of facial recognition technology that by itself isn't needed for the touchless benefit is what I was questioning.

(Written on 02/05/2021)(Permalink)

I don't understand why "facial recognition" technology is needed to make the airport experience more touchless. The last time I was screened in the airport, the screener did not reach out and touch my face. If the computer system has access to recognition data that is being used by the vision system to process me, why can't a human use that recognition data? This sounds more like an excuse to get "facial recognition" technology's foot in the door towards broader acceptance than it being the best tool for the job.

(Written on 02/05/2021)(Permalink)

The situation was outrageous, but it is easier to hold responsible the man who was clearly wrong in his behavior than to hold responsible the people and organizations that should have detected and corrected the problem much earlier. Needing to show some action, the judge perhaps overreacts to the individual in lieu of reacting to the more systemic problem. Hopefully there will be an internal review by the organizations involved that will lead to changes to prevent this situation as well as more significant threats to safety from occurring in the future.

(Written on 01/22/2021)(Permalink)