Anyone switch foreflight <==> FlyQ?

I have used Foreflight since 2011. I too have tried several other apps including Garmin Pilot, and have yet to find anything that beats Foreflight. Maybe with Boeing in the picture that will change.
 
Cruiser said:
Have you ever heard a pilot say "I use XYZ app but I hate it......" ?

Those that use Foreflight will say it is the best.
Those that use FlyQ will like it better.
Those that use FltPlan will say the same.
Keep in mind that the likes/dislikes are based on someone else's preference.

If you want to go with the crowd, Foreflight is by far the largest
If you are looking for value, check the others Foreflight is expensive.

A major factor to consider is how the company will update and support the product.
Features and improvements are important.
Do they fix glitches quickly when a new version is released.
It is not fun to have an app that doesn't work when you are in the cockpit.
Do they support open architecture? If the next new product you want isn't compatible (ADS-B) you might get locked into buying something you don't want.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is the human nature element that makes most people claim that the one they use is the best. This is kind of a Ford vs. Chevy kind of thing.

I have heard several people over the years make statements like “I would rather walk than drive a (fill in the blank.)” When asked well what year and model did you own that you had so much trouble with, you find that they never owned one, so they have no experience on which to make such a statement. Brand loyalty has always been very interesting to watch.
 
I don't disagree....yet I don't use FlyQ because I like it better than Foreflight. It came down to price paid\features used, while still being a fairly refined product, and simple to use .
More of a fit to my flying and wallet.
Sprinkle in some support the little guy mentality with that as well.
I've never really been a brand loyal person, but I do know it exists...and to the extreme. Hilariously so at times.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I know this post is a bit old but I’m trying FlyQ for a year after using foreflight for about 5 years. The Boeing acquisition was enough to push me over the edge to FlyQ but I’m currently planning on going back to foreflight after the year is up.

My biggest complaint right now is missing information where the sectionals stitch together.

In the attachments you can see that the tower height information is missing. The dotted line note is cut off which says pilots are requested to avoid flight in this area under 3000ft.

I emailed FlyQ and wasn’t impressed with their response. I never experienced this issue on Foreflight or even fltplan go. FYI this is near KDKX.

Response:

The FAA charts do vary between North/South sections or adjoining charts. This phenomenon went largely unnoticed until technology allowed the stitching of the charts. Having said that, our team is looking into ways to address this.

Double tapping on a object like a airport or navaid calls up the information.


——-

I also miss being able to scroll through altitudes to see winds aloft on the charts, weather planning info, lightning layer, glide advisor. Not a fan of the extra steps to get a “flight plan” on the map. Some of this may just be that I was used to foreflight. I am curious to see what the next version of FlyQ brings.
Click to expand...

I have to ask, how, in what way did the Boeing acquisition push you over the edge? Nothing to date has changed. Really curious, do you know something we don’t?
 
C-1 PILOT said:
I have to ask, how, in what way did the Boeing acquisition push you over the edge? Nothing to date has changed. Really curious, do you know something we don’t?
Click to expand...
Some people prefer to support small businesses. Foreflight quit being a small business when they sold out to Boeing.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
I have to ask, how, in what way did the Boeing acquisition push you over the edge? Nothing to date has changed. Really curious, do you know something we don’t?
Click to expand...

Boeing was the needle that broke the camels back in a sense. I did not love how FF kept coming out with new features in higher packages and kept trying to push people to upgrade. It felt like when they started out they were more GA friendly and were improving the base packages.

I just felt like they were moving more and more towards focusing on business and corporate clients and away from little guys like me. As a business decision it makes sense, that’s where the money is and likely why Boeing bought them.

The Boeing acquisition solidified in my mind a shift in the user base they are targeting and I just don’t see many upsides for the little guy.

At this point I may still go back to foreflight because I loved the UI and product. I’m trying explore other options in depth though.
 
I too felt the frustration of being pushed to more expensive packages. I bought synth vision for $25 per year then one day it didn’t work. I found out I had to pay $75 for the package. It wasn’t the money that bothered me as was the customer disrespect to do something like that, especially unannounced. I still use FF because it works best for me, but after that I was no longer an enthusiastic FF supporter and reference.

In 2011 ForeFlight had ten minute support and they always achieved that. I haven’t needed support much of late, but when I called about the synth vis issue, they were not as prompt and not nearly as friendly. I understand what leads to that because I statrted ground floor with two software companies and observed/experienced the growing pains up close. There are books such as “Inside the Tornado” and “Crossing the Chasm” that explain and analyze these issues.
 
Last edited:
I have tried the others, but am having trouble pulling away from FF. I am taking a wait and see attitude relative to Boeing’s acquisition. One thing for me is that I have a Stratus 2S that I would need to replace, since it is not compatable with most of the other apps.
 
Never done FF. They don’t support my ADSB solution (that I know of). FlyQ does and it works great for me. VFR only so far. As I start joining the IFR world we will see how that goes.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Boeing was the needle that broke the camels back in a sense. I did not love how FF kept coming out with new features in higher packages and kept trying to push people to upgrade. It felt like when they started out they were more GA friendly and were improving the base packages.
Click to expand...

ForeFlight has done this for a LONG time. Before Performance existed, the Pro package got a lot of new features first, because they cost a lot of money to develop and ForeFlight wanted to give the reward to those who were financially supporting them at a higher level. Many, if not most, of those features eventually trickled down to the basic version.

The Performance version definitely got its start aimed squarely at those who are operating turbine or turbo equipment, as choosing the correct altitude to get the optimum speed and/or fuel burn can make hundreds of dollars worth of difference for those people in a single flight. That doesn't mean that the old performance engine still in use for Basic or Pro is any worse, it just doesn't make a big enough difference to matter when you're going to end up in a relatively narrow range of altitudes anyway.

Now, of course, every business exists to make money, and so I see ForeFlight appearing to try to sell the Performance version to everyone, but they're doing the same thing they've always done: Add the biggest/coolest new features for those who cough up more money first. They *ARE* adding new features to *ALL* the versions with every release... But of course, they're hyping up the new features of the Performance version the most, because they would like you to give them more money. Again: It's a business.

What I think is kind of silly is that everyone is still getting new features, but because they don't get ALL the new features, they get mad. Did your version get worse? No. It got better, just like it always has. Do you want/need some of the new features now? Maybe try an upgrade. Again: It's a business.

In the grand scheme of things, ForeFlight, while they are (repeat after me:) a business, they have been excellent corporate citizens, supporting numerous aviation podcasts, scholarships, and other initiatives that are good for GA. They've had excellent support. They've been the leaders in the EFB market since day 1 because they're made up of GA pilots who are really enthusiastic about their product and use it themselves.

So, I continue to enthusiastically support them back. The Boeing acquisition hasn't changed a thing yet. Surely it will at some point, but until then I'll remain an enthusiastic supporter of a great product made by a great company.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Boeing was the needle that broke the camels back in a sense. I did not love how FF kept coming out with new features in higher packages and kept trying to push people to upgrade. It felt like when they started out they were more GA friendly and were improving the base packages.

I just felt like they were moving more and more towards focusing on business and corporate clients and away from little guys like me. As a business decision it makes sense, that’s where the money is and likely why Boeing bought them.

The Boeing acquisition solidified in my mind a shift in the user base they are targeting and I just don’t see many upsides for the little guy.

At this point I may still go back to foreflight because I loved the UI and product. I’m trying explore other options in depth though.
Click to expand...

So in reality, you are taking it out on Boeing, even though the changes and packages you speak of, came before Boeing’s acquisition of FF. That makes sense...NOT!

I’m neither a fan or hater of Boeing and until such time their direct input changes FF for better or worse, is when I’ll express an opinion. As another poster stated, nothing has changed yet.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
ForeFlight has done this for a LONG time. Before Performance existed, the Pro package got a lot of new features first, because they cost a lot of money to develop and ForeFlight wanted to give the reward to those who were financially supporting them at a higher level. Many, if not most, of those features eventually trickled down to the basic version.

The Performance version definitely got its start aimed squarely at those who are operating turbine or turbo equipment, as choosing the correct altitude to get the optimum speed and/or fuel burn can make hundreds of dollars worth of difference for those people in a single flight. That doesn't mean that the old performance engine still in use for Basic or Pro is any worse, it just doesn't make a big enough difference to matter when you're going to end up in a relatively narrow range of altitudes anyway.

Now, of course, every business exists to make money, and so I see ForeFlight appearing to try to sell the Performance version to everyone, but they're doing the same thing they've always done: Add the biggest/coolest new features for those who cough up more money first. They *ARE* adding new features to *ALL* the versions with every release... But of course, they're hyping up the new features of the Performance version the most, because they would like you to give them more money. Again: It's a business.

What I think is kind of silly is that everyone is still getting new features, but because they don't get ALL the new features, they get mad. Did your version get worse? No. It got better, just like it always has. Do you want/need some of the new features now? Maybe try an upgrade. Again: It's a business.

In the grand scheme of things, ForeFlight, while they are (repeat after me:) a business, they have been excellent corporate citizens, supporting numerous aviation podcasts, scholarships, and other initiatives that are good for GA. They've had excellent support. They've been the leaders in the EFB market since day 1 because they're made up of GA pilots who are really enthusiastic about their product and use it themselves.

So, I continue to enthusiastically support them back. The Boeing acquisition hasn't changed a thing yet. Surely it will at some point, but until then I'll remain an enthusiastic supporter of a great product made by a great company.
Click to expand...


Woah dude, chill a bit. I fully understand that foreflight is a business and I don’t fault them for their strategy. I’m happy you continue to like the direction they are going and I’m not trying to make anyone else’s decisions for them.
 
EdFred said:
Some people prefer to support small businesses. Foreflight quit being a small business when they sold out to Boeing.
Click to expand...

Your view I get.

Somedudeintn’s view, doesn’t make sense.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
So in reality, you are taking it out on Boeing, even though the changes and packages you speak of, came before Boeing’s acquisition of FF. That makes sense...NOT!

I’m neither a fan or hater of Boeing and until such time their direct input changes FF for better or worse, is when I’ll express an opinion. As another poster stated, nothing has changed yet.
Click to expand...

In a sense I suppose you are correct. But I would argue that the Boeing acquisition was made possible by the changes in Foreflights direction. The acquisition led me to believe that that they will continue to devote more and more resources to corporate and less towards GA.

I could very well be wrong and I certainly haven’t written foreflight off. I’m just trying to test out some other EFBs before I go back to foreflight.
 
The cost of Foreflight does not bother me one bit. Even on the top package, it breaks down around $5 or $6 a week. I know people that spend ten times that on Starbucks each week.
 
I use FlyQ. I got a 3 year deal as opposed to the lifetime because I wanted to wait and see if there are any big changes over the next few years. But probably should have just bit the bullet and got the lifetime to save money long term.
 
Somedudeintn said:
In a sense I suppose you are correct. But I would argue that the Boeing acquisition was made possible by the changes in Foreflights direction. The acquisition led me to believe that that they will continue to devote more and more resources to corporate and less towards GA.

I could very well be wrong and I certainly haven’t written foreflight off. I’m just trying to test out some other EFBs before I go back to foreflight.
Click to expand...

Had you explained it this way, I wouldn’t have felt the need to comment. That makes sense.
 
I admit to all of the following..

1. Low time VFR pilot with only some training towards IFR rating.
2. Computer/device experience 80% PC, 19% Android, 1% Apple/iAnything
3. Lifelong bang-for-the-buck advocate, and willing to sacrifice ease-of-use for cheaper-to-use, as long as the end result is just as safe.

I have a Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, use Fltplan Go, and a Stratux I built w/ WAAS GPS and AHRS built in. Fltplan Go, despite their promising that they're working on it, still does not support AHRS on the Android platform, but other than that..

My CFI is very fond of showing me all that he can do w/ ForeFlight... but I have yet to see him demonstrate anything I can't do w/ Fltplan Go, except pay a lot of money for an Apple product and a FF subscription. That doesn't mean that there AREN'T things you can do, or things you can do more easily (for instance, it's a lot easier for him to pull up the FAR/AIM or other pdf publications.. I have to leave FltplanGo or do dual screen), but I have yet to see anything for a VFR or IFR-pilot-in-training that is not possible w/ FltPlan Go. Geo-referenced approach plates, in-flight weather, airport/frequency information.. it's there.

Sooo... other than a preference for a given user interface or the desire to spend a lot of money on Apple products and subscriptions, what am I missing?
 
It depends on where your priorities are, if you have the time and do not want to spend the money then Android tablet with FltPlan Go is what you should get. If you do not mind spending money on an easy to use quality product like ForeFlight that runs on a very stable platform, Apple, then spend the money. Whatever you do, try to be an expert and know your EFB.
What I like about FF is that it just works and is very polished and will be around for the next 5-10 years. I hope that FltPlan Go is still around, I think that the competition is good, but I have my doubts.
I have tried both FltPlanGo and FF, and FF is just more intuitive for me, it’s ease of use and AHRS adds to safety as well as showing where other adsb-out aircraft are located on the split screen really helps in trying to see the other aircraft. Also having the same program and flight plan sync seamless between the iPhone and second iPad just adds redundancy in safety.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Woah dude, chill a bit. I fully understand that foreflight is a business and I don’t fault them for their strategy. I’m happy you continue to like the direction they are going and I’m not trying to make anyone else’s decisions for them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as aggressive in any way. I'm chill. ;) I just wanted to provide some of the history of what some other folks have been complaining about, because it really doesn't indicate that ForeFlight has "given up" on small GA in any way.

I just want everyone to remember: "They" are us! The founders of ForeFlight, Tyson and Jason, are small-GA pilots like the rest of us. Tyson bought a Diamond Star a few years ago once ForeFlight got profitable; I believe Jason had an SR22 prior to founding ForeFlight. When I was down in Houston for Christmas, I went for a $100 hamburger with Josh Berman in his Lance. ForeFlight isn't some big faceless corporate entity, they are a group of GA pilots just like us who are lucky enough to have a career building and supporting a product for GA. Yes, they've added features for military and commercial users (and even have separate versions of the product for them), but that's what you do for your business to thrive so you can continue to have fun building the thing that you use yourself when you have fun as a GA pilot.
 
This is an old thread, but thought I would still add a comment. I got my PP in 1989 and flew a bunch until I had a family and moved around. In 2012, I started flying again and purchased a plane. I got the free trials for Garmin Pilot, Foreflight, and FlyQ EFB. After trying them all, FlyQ came out on top. I got the lifetime VFR/IFR package that year on Black Friday, and I've never regretted it. It's fantastic, and is always getting better. I'm sure FF is great, I just found FlyQ more intuitive and they are highly responsive to adding features and continuing to innovate.
 
I started with FQ, and bought their lifetime membership. I talked to the developers at AOPA. I like it a lot. It would be my choice for VFR. But for IFR, you can't beat FF. I like the weather presentation of FQ better. It has the bigger wind arrows on the map which make it easier to figure out which way to land. The color coding of the airport circles is better. FF has the airports color coded, but where some of the airports remain blue ever when the airport is clear and a million.

If you are interested in flying approaches and departure/arrival procedures, there is nothing better than FF.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sorry, didn't mean to come across as aggressive in any way. I'm chill. ;) I just wanted to provide some of the history of what some other folks have been complaining about, because it really doesn't indicate that ForeFlight has "given up" on small GA in any way.

I just want everyone to remember: "They" are us! The founders of ForeFlight, Tyson and Jason, are small-GA pilots like the rest of us. Tyson bought a Diamond Star a few years ago once ForeFlight got profitable; I believe Jason had an SR22 prior to founding ForeFlight. When I was down in Houston for Christmas, I went for a $100 hamburger with Josh Berman in his Lance. ForeFlight isn't some big faceless corporate entity, they are a group of GA pilots just like us who are lucky enough to have a career building and supporting a product for GA. Yes, they've added features for military and commercial users (and even have separate versions of the product for them), but that's what you do for your business to thrive so you can continue to have fun building the thing that you use yourself when you have fun as a GA pilot.
Click to expand...
This post didn't age well. :eek: :p
 
LesGawlik said:
I started with FQ, and bought their lifetime membership. I talked to the developers at AOPA. I like it a lot. It would be my choice for VFR. But for IFR, you can't beat FF. I like the weather presentation of FQ better. It has the bigger wind arrows on the map which make it easier to figure out which way to land. The color coding of the airport circles is better. FF has the airports color coded, but where some of the airports remain blue ever when the airport is clear and a million.

If you are interested in flying approaches and departure/arrival procedures, there is nothing better than FF.
Click to expand...

If my primary consideration for an EFB was just flying approaches/stars/sid, I wouldn’t waste my money on ForeFlight.
 
LesGawlik said:
.

If you are interested in flying approaches and departure/arrival procedures, there is nothing better than FF.
Click to expand...

You're basing this on only using FlyQ and FF? Might want to try all the options out there before making that statement. Especially since it's almost impossible to put an iPad at eye level scan unless you strip everything out of the panel. Unless you think turning your head or looking down while hand flying in IMC is the best way to do things.
 
I also have a Flightstream. So the flight plan goes from FF on the iPad to the GNS 530. This system is ideal for me. I have another iPad on the copilot side set up identically. The Flight Stream echoes the flight plan to the copilot where she monitors the flight. If anything goes wrong with my iPad, I have another one within reach that is set up identically to the one in front of me. The ability to modify flight plans on the fly in FF is fantastic. I usually have the Flight Plan bubble up in FF, and it's just a swipe or a little typing to make changes. I can't imagine an easier way to fly IFR without having a mind reading device.
 
EdFred said:
You're basing this on only using FlyQ and FF? Might want to try all the options out there before making that statement. Especially since it's almost impossible to put an iPad at eye level scan unless you strip everything out of the panel. Unless you think turning your head or looking down while hand flying in IMC is the best way to do things.
Click to expand...
That's neither a Foreflight nor FlyQ not even iPad specific issue so...I have flown IFR with a tablet for the past 11 years in the same position on the yoke as I used to put paper approach plates in a clip. That's on all of the IFR singles I've flown except for Diamond and Cirrus (no yoke). I haven't had a problem with important instruments being blocked or needing to strip things out of the panel.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's neither a Foreflight nor FlyQ not even iPad specific issue so...I have flown IFR with a tablet for the past 11 years in the same position on the yoke as I used to put paper approach plates in a clip. That's on all of the IFR singles I've flown except for Diamond and Cirrus (no yoke). I haven't had a problem with important instruments being blocked or needing to strip things out of the panel.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I am not using a tablet whatsoever. Not android, not apple. I've been flying for the past 12-1/2 years with a "panel mount" EFB. I also don't fly with an A/P so keeping head movement to a minimum is the most important thing for me as to not induce spatial disorientation. It's in my heads up field of view. To say "there is nothing better" without trying everything out is disingenuous. Especially since, well, there are options out there that are. If there weren't there would only be FF and nothing else. I guess if by best, one means the best at bribery, I can't argue that. (Paying off Garmin so it will only interface with FF and no other competitors except GP)
 
Last edited:
LesGawlik said:
I also have a Flightstream. So the flight plan goes from FF on the iPad to the GNS 530. This system is ideal for me. I have another iPad on the copilot side set up identically. The Flight Stream echoes the flight plan to the copilot where she monitors the flight. If anything goes wrong with my iPad, I have another one within reach that is set up identically to the one in front of me. The ability to modify flight plans on the fly in FF is fantastic. I usually have the Flight Plan bubble up in FF, and it's just a swipe or a little typing to make changes. I can't imagine an easier way to fly IFR without having a mind reading device.
Click to expand...

I know I am in the minority here, but all I need from a software is to show an airplane icon on the map. The simpler the interface the better. I am no expert on FF, but every student I have flown with who uses FF struggles to find things because it has so many options and menus. One student offered to buy me an iPAD and FF subscription so that I can learn it and teach it to him. I didn't take up on that offer.
 
I’ve been using ForeFlight for 2 years for both VFR and IFR. Before that, I had been using FlyQ since 2012 (with 5 year flying hiatus in there). I have similar total time in both apps. As with most things, each product has its own strengths and weaknesses, and I don’t think either one is the definitive answer for everyone.

Here are some of the items that I find important in my apps and how they stack up against each other in ForeFlight vs FlyQ.

1) Synthetic vision - In ForeFlight, the refresh rate and overall visual quality of the synthetic vision is so good that it provides a plausible backup to whatever backups you have built in the plane if crap really hits the fan. In FlyQ, the module is just too slow to use in any scenario, IMHO.
2) Audible alerts - ForeFlight has all the alerts you would want. FlyQ is missing audible *traffic* alerts.
3) Seamless integration between my saved flight plans between iPad and iPhone using Foreflight. The flight plan saving on FlyQ is a bit less reliable and just feels more clunky and slow but not a total deal breaker.

So far, the above favor Foreflight. Here are things that I find to be stronger in FlyQ.

4) VFR map clarity. The text and lines just look clearer and sharper when partially zoomed out on FlyQ. If you like the Aeronautical vector based maps, then Foreflight is for you, but if you like the VFR map, I like FlyQ better.

5) Pre-flight planning: ForeFlight has maps in “Imagery,” and FlyQ has maps in “Weather/Gallery” with no real advantage between the two offerings. In terms of the briefing process, while ForeFlight has a graphical pre-flight weather briefing, I find that it requires way too many button presses, and the buttons required to press are either too spaced out or too close together. I would rather just be able to swipe through. FlyQ is a text-based briefing only which is a minus but works for me, but the real advantage which I don’t think is a popular workflow out there is the integration with 1800wxbrief.com. I just love filing a flight plan and receiving updates via SMS or asking for updates via my Amazon Alexa devices. Plus, the lack of in-app graphical weather briefing in FlyQ is offset by the graphical briefing linked to Leidos which I truly feel is way superior to ForeFlight due to the ease of navigation and clarity of presentation. I don’t think I’m going to get many agreeing on this point, but I just want to put it out there for those that have not already been indoctrinated in the ways of ForeFlight.

6) FlyQ allows you to split the screen and display two maps simultaneously, map+approach plate, map+saved document, etc. ForeFlight reserves the split screen for Synthetic Vision only. FlyQ wins here fore sure, and this is a very helpful feature that I wish ForeFlight would offer.

After using ForeFlight for two years, I will not be renewing my subscription. The two main reasons I switched to ForeFlight was for the added safety of audible traffic alerts and synthetic vision. However, I am now upgrading to a glass cockpit so those ForeFlight advantages become less important. In truth, I have never really enjoyed using ForeFlight as much as I have FlyQ due to the number of button presses to get many common tasks done; in this regard, FlyQ is simply much better thought out in my opinion.

In short, everyone should take advantage of the trial periods in the apps that are out there. There is something out there for you, and you’re not crazy or misinformed whatever you choose as long as it works for you.
 
sarangan said:
I know I am in the minority here, but all I need from a software is to show an airplane icon on the map. The simpler the interface the better. I am no expert on FF, but every student I have flown with who uses FF struggles to find things because it has so many options and menus. One student offered to buy me an iPAD and FF subscription so that I can learn it and teach it to him. I didn't take up on that offer.
Click to expand...
Foreflight has free instruction videos online. I found them easy to follow. Using ForeFlight without understanding all of the features is silly IMHO. Things in there like glide advisor, wx info, obstacles, etc could save you.
 
Most FF users all say that nothing beats it.

Does that still ring true when the iPad overheats, poops, and goes dork up?
 
sarangan said:
I know I am in the minority here, but all I need from a software is to show an airplane icon on the map. The simpler the interface the better. I am no expert on FF, but every student I have flown with who uses FF struggles to find things because it has so many options and menus. One student offered to buy me an iPAD and FF subscription so that I can learn it and teach it to him. I didn't take up on that offer.
Click to expand...
That's actually all I require from my backup - basically approach plates and georeferenced is a nice plus. I used to have more but I downsized last month when I realized I've needed to use an EFB backup once in eleven years.

Not suggesting you get the subscription but I have a pretty good idea why those students are struggling - for the same reason they would struggle with a GTN or GNS or, for that matter, VOR or NDB. Nobody to teach them. You'd be doing them a service by making a referral for a few lessons.

BTW, unrelated, sort of. I'm giving training in a SportCruiser. Dual Dynon Skyview HDX. Full set of sectionals, airport diagrams, even low enroute and approach charts even though it's a VFR-only aircraft. Fortunately, they have someone to teach them but the more interesting point is that even though most of the pilots have EFBs, none has pulled their tablet out yet. Not even for a cross country.
 
Cloudhound said:
Most FF users all say that nothing beats it.

Does that still ring true when the iPad overheats, poops, and goes dork up?
Click to expand...
Can't you say that about every system in your airplane that you rely on?

I don't say nothing beats it - that's individual user preference. But for me, I've had one failure in 11 years and it wasn't an iPad overheating and going dark. It was actually a Foreflight bug [GASP!]. IFR in actual during the approach phase. Non-event.
 
FF is gearing itself to kerosene. FQ is gasoline all the way.
 
Therookguy said:
Foreflight has free instruction videos online. I found them easy to follow. Using ForeFlight without understanding all of the features is silly IMHO. Things in there like glide advisor, wx info, obstacles, etc could save you.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing that FF has useful features, but people did fly without these features in years gone by. GPS and ADS-B are super useful. No argument there. But if you already have a 430/530 on your panel, there really isn't a compelling reason to use a tablet. For IFR, I have been trying to tell students to stop messing with their tablets and focus more on the panel. A human brain has only so many cpu cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top