Search results

Believe it or not, you do get better at this sort of thing. I flew some IFR proficiency today. One of the approaches (KCCR VOR 19R with the course reversal) is notorious as the highest workload approach in the area, due to a turn at the FAF. It also has a handoff from one approach frequency to...

He specifically said he would use Foreflight's course (incorrectly identified as heading) to navigate out of a panel failure. That's betting your life on it. And them he says I have no idea how he would use it, even though he said just that.

Nice straw man. To answer the objection to betting your life on a toy, you would either have to prove it is not a toy (which is beyond your expertise), or that there is insignificant additional risk. You are the first person to mention "real pilots" here.

The performance is fine. They are heavy. A 182T is 150 lb heavier than a 182R, with all the same performance and limitations. That's a whole adult. The older (N or P) models are even lighter.

It thinks I'm in New Zealand. GMT+11? There is a second WOOLY intersection about halfway between Australia and New Zealand. Foreflight apparently picks different ones in different parts of its code. I really hate debugging software I paid for. No excuse.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. The objection I have is depending on the iPad for a fake AI in case the real one barfs, or making the success of your flight dependent upon it. As long as you're skeptical about it. 11 hours to Reno? That one didn't pass the sniff test. Don't...

That's true, but every bit of automation you add creates new failure modes. You've never been behind an airplane like an "automation" surprise" while trying too hard to couple a complex approach can put you. There are a lot of hidden "features" in G1000s. Many of them prevent descent. Which...

No, I fly glass panels rather frequently. I have much less worry about them than the toys. They are actually used as intended. But they are NOT infalliable. And they are usually overkill for VFR flight, and can be for IFR flight under some circumstances.

Nope, it's not the "older folks." It's the engineers. Those of us how actually know how software is written don't trust our lives to a toy designed to fling imaginary birds at pigs.

It's not hard to find "heading" (actually course) errors big enough to be uncomfortable on an iPad, especially if you wake it up from sleeping. The right way to do that is with the mag compass (yes, I have done that for real, in the clouds, with an HSI failure).

If you're going to blame the user, you're going to have to provide evidence. I've been in the field long enough to know that's total BS. It plotted a correct track, and measured its distance more than 1000 miles wrong. Looking at the nav log, it's clear it duplicated waypoints along the...

WOW, you would trust FF to bail you out of an emergency with its untested and unknowable AI? How about practice partial panel like the rest of us? That will actually work. Considering FF can't measure the distance to the next state correctly within 1000 miles, there is NO WAY I'd trust it to...

I had that POS NavLog tell me that a flight from KRHV to KRNO (via V334 and V6) was over 11 hours. 1.5 would be more reasonable. Not ready for prime time.

If you really want to know, wait for the investigation. There is next to nothing now, and no one here has access to any physical evidence whatsoever. I see no reason at all to jump to the conclusion of a mid-air. Just an anonymous suggestion with absolutely nothing to back it up. Midairs are...

Assumes facts not in evidence. Just because YOU don't keep it up to date doesn't mean everyone doesn't. That's what subscriptions are for. Read the thread title.

I have a Pickett Microline 140 in my desk drawer. And you really shouldn't be using your Wang for that sort of thing. Makes you go blind. :D

Wait, REALLY? Plates (FliteCharts) on a G1000 MFD are next to unreadable due to pixelization. Light years, my behind.

Well, for one thing, they allow much larger dynamic range. Especially approach plates. Paper ones are easy to view all at once, especially viewing the planview and profile at the same time. iPads (especially minis) require a lot of pinching and zooming at the highest workload phase of flight...

IMO, if the CFI will allow magic moving maps, you need a new CFI. People use tablets for all kinds of dodgy things. Charts alone is benign, as long as there is a REAL backup (and most people do this incorrectly). But if you scrub a flight because your tablet is out, you have failed. Disable...