MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
why?
CFIs: how do you "teach" with EFBs?
- Thread starter Ryan F.
- Start date
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Yup, especially since the difference seems to be whether grade school math is too much to ask of a pilot.
You have repeatedly held that it is not necessary to prove deeper understanding, even when presented with examples where the magic box is obviously wrong.
LongRoadBob
Cleared for Takeoff
As a student I couldn't agree more. I NEED to work these problems out in order to understand more deeply the relationships of forces, the vectors, the planning basics. I'm in the middle of ground school for navigation, and I have struggled about some concepts while others came more easily...some came easily until I found out I misunderstood. There is a deliberate, slow process that happens when learning Nav that for me is not enhanced at all by making it easier. It robs me of knowledge that I feel I need.
I'm also a programmer, and I sure as hell don't want to put my life in the hands of another one.
I have made mistakes in plotting, or wind triangle, or track made good, etc. that required me to go over what I think I know, and find my misunderstanding. Or how I screwed up. And why. That leads to knowledge. Basics. I simply cannot get that any other way. It's how one builds true knowledge. And physics is not just getting the answers but knowing how and why.
I don't want this to be easy, I want to know what, why, how...
I drill myself with repetition to plot wind triangles, etc. and then drill myself to use the (amazing, yet deceptively simple now...still elegant) E6B. I know for sure I am getting knowledge from this slow method. I'm moving towards the goal of understanding intimately the forces I have to know about to fly where I decide to and correct as needed.
"Easy and fast" is a cop out. Some here have the caveat that "yeah but as long as a student can explain.." But that is really bogus in my experience. The student could memorize the explanation, and yet not know it. To know something means spending time doing these kinds of things.
Later on, when I know I know the important points, I'm sure I would love to use an EFB, but for learning? No way.
I get the feeling that some here have gained true knowledge, but forgotten what it required to get there.
Another thing, I feel very strongly that I must be able to do some mental calculations with rules of thumb and ballpark numbers in order to double check any results from an app, or calculator. Or even E6B. Because of the possibility of accidentally entering in wrong values, or malfunction, etc. the ONLY way for me to be able to understand these ballpark evaluations is by having a good understanding of the basics, the baseline.
How could anyone argue anything else? First rule for me is I must be able to approximate the answers, to know if they are out of whack. Without deeper understanding, just a shallow one, that is pretty much impossible at least to be able to trust if I can't or don't know how to visualize what is really going on. That is the beauty of flying. You learn to master the forces. How can you master something that pops up on a screen?
I'm not a Luddite. Once I feel I have a good grasp, sure...I'd use an EFB. I wouldn't put all my trust in it, and I hope at least that I woud I review from time to time my basic skills for calculating things if fealt they we slipping.
I have so much respect for pilots that have gone through all of this, I would hate to feel like it was dumbed down and I think it would make pilots unsafe. You just cannot get the same thing out of an app that you can going through the process that requires understanding to complete?
Last edited:
citizen5000
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 855
- Display Name
Display name:
citizen5000
I made the point above that even the most proficient aviators among us have a tiny skim level of understanding of the real basics of flight and weather. There is no presumption that working W&B or a flight plan by hand qualifies as a "deeper understanding" necessary to fly safely.
Does a truck driver need to understand the math and physics behind the forces that propels him down the road in order to drive a truck from point A to point B? No.
And one on this thread keeps asserting he has found a bug in Foreflight yet has not proven that to be true. Nor indicated he has contacted Foreflight to verify that it is true.
Does a truck driver need to understand the math and physics behind the forces that propels him down the road in order to drive a truck from point A to point B? No.
And one on this thread keeps asserting he has found a bug in Foreflight yet has not proven that to be true. Nor indicated he has contacted Foreflight to verify that it is true.
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
There are ways to feel out if a student doesn't understand. But, an exam (formal or informal) is the wrong place for that; it's really too late.
Once you really understand navigation, there is nothing wrong with speeding it up with an EFB. You'll spot the BS, and that's the essential part. But as a student pilot, you'll only do a handful of nav logs for real.
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
I have NEVER said that. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly that a deep understanding should be the goal. I have simply held that you can prove proper understanding other ways than just paper and pencil. And AGAIN, the point is that NOT including EFBs runs the risk of inadequate training. But somehow, it got turned into EFBs instead of paper. Do both! I don't care. But there is no way that anyone can say that paper is the only way to adequately teach someone how to correctly calculate W&B, FP, etc...
Can anyone seriously say that properly used EFBs, when used by a pilot with proper understanding of all the principles, formulas, planning, and rules required for safe flight, does NOT increase SA? If we're going to use them, what's wrong with including at least the basics, as well as the risks associated with them as part of pilot training? For the life of me I cannot understand how that is an unreasonable request, nor can I see how that interferes with "deeper understanding."
Maybe I just don't need an instructor to "connect the dots on a piece of paper" for me to understand things. But I doubt I'm the only one.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
I've proven Foreflight gives a specific wrong answer. I could prove others. I do not need Foreflight engineers to tell me it is wrong. Do you have them do all your thinking for you, or just as an excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong?
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
I actually found it quite useful to compare my own calculations against. It also made me realize that one cannot depend on automation, and should have a solid understanding of the processes and knowledge involved. What irritates me is the time I spent after getting my PPL, learning the pitfalls of an EFB on my own, while flying, potentially exposing myself to additional risk, when this could have been avoided with about an hour of instruction in not how to USE the EFB, but about it's limitations and how to mitigate that risk.
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
I'm not saying that your example was wrong, as there was not enough information provided for me to make that judgment. But by the same token, your example did not prove that FF was wrong. (Although I suspect that you were correct in that assumption, based on my own experiences.)
LongRoadBob
Cleared for Takeoff
What it really comes down to for me is self defense. For me and my (eventual) passengers. I'm simply not willing to be at the mercy of an app. If I have the knowledge in my mind, sure..I can make a mistake, but it's self contained and I know what I know then. I can correct hopefully, at least I know what forces are at work.
I need that. It's getting to the point of "once you understand navigation" that seems to me requires a lot of actual thinking nd work. I know what I need to get there. Practice and knowledge. Deep knowledge.
Plus, it just feels more right. Again, I have nothing against using an EFB whenever I get to the point I judge that I "know" navigation, but that's in the future for me.
Hell, I'm amazed at all the incredible variation of instruments readings. My dad was a pilot and always told me things like the "altimeter tells us how high we are" so it's weird to find out that really most instruments are misleading us. Altimeters depend on ISA(I'm simplifying but you know what I mean...), magnetic compasses give wrong readings when accelerating, decelerating, banking, etc. airspeed is also not accurate until corrected, one (at least I'm learning) has to recalibrate the gyro DI against the compass every ten to fifteen minutes etc. Pilots have been using these incredibly instruments for so long now and because of their understanding of it all, successfully most of the time. The more I learn the more I am in awe of pilots and aviation history.
I want to learn the old school style, and then later on go modern and make life easier.
Last edited:
Comgratulations. Around here, many of the DPEs state "you've had a power failure, none of your portable electronics work. Keep flying"
denverpilot
Tied Down
This. People have followed electronics into mountains. Always think and ask if the picture it has of the world makes sense.
I'll say it. ForeFlight doesn't have a BUG but it uses an overly simplistic way to calculate time to climb and climb speed that is NOT correct for a climb to the lower teens from sea level.
If you don't understand why, grab a POH and look at the best rate of climb speed table that shows different altitudes. THIS is the kind of stuff the "pilot needs to understand the difference between what the tool spits out and reality of flying airplanes" folks are saying makes the EFBs great at some things and awful at others.
Now take that EFB into the Flight Levels with your pressurized personal 210... or whatever... and see how far off it is on the time to climb and speeds.
You DO need to know this stuff. And how to calculate it. The EFB won't do it correctly and it DOES make a difference. You going to trust ForeFlight that your airplane will make the required climb gradient on a SID in mountainous terrain? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. I can easily see that it's flat wrong.
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
Can no one see how all of your arguments are simply supporting the idea that the EFBs need to be part of training, so that new pilot's know not only how to use them, but also how not to use them? Do you really think that all student pilots are too stupid to learn both how to calculate by hand and how to use a digital tool?
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
denverpilot
Tied Down
No argument here. But is the student wiling to pay for that time and instruction when if they know the skill cold from their own head, they can easily teach themselves the good and bad of any new tool that comes along?
I'll happily spend hours teaching how to poke at an iPad but anyone with solid basics can teach themselves. When I started flying a fancy panel nobody could afford had a nice LORAN-C receiver in it and a few folks could call 1-800-WX-BRIEF from their new Motorola Brick Phone at $0.50/min.
Tech changes. The current crop of EFB apps will seem as quaint in another 25 years as the LORAN-C sounds now. The basics learned right from the paper sources have never let me down in learning any new aviation tech that has come along, and I didn't need to pay a CFI to teach it to me. Just get out the app and analyze it against what you KNOW is in your POH/AFM and against your navigation and flight planning skills in your noggin.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone teaches the basics, even the dullest pilot will be motivated enough to learn the majority of what some fancy new gadget from Sporty's can do for them when it comes out next year. And the next one the year after that. And another...
I remember seeing gadgets like the Hold Entry Calculator in one of my E6B apps on my phone and thinking, "Why didn't they just visualize a line across their DG?" There's some techniques that are timeless and some gadgets that aren't web worth the $5 worth of plastic they're printed on or the three hours coding and another couple hours debugging that the developer spent on them. I can visualize the line across the DG and enter the Hold in two seconds. How long would it take me to flip to the E6B app, poke numbers into it while bouncing in turbulence, and play target practice to hit the "calculate" button?
Sometimes the deal with basics is that they're ubiquitous. If you can navigate from here to there with a chart, a stopwatch, and a compass, you have the base knowledge to know if any tool you choose to make that simpler is correct. And other times the tools are actually SLOWER than a basic skill that anyone can learn easily.
A CFI presented with limited time who values that you're paying by the hour, is going to go straight for the basics because they know if you nail those down, you can figure out most of your E6B in an evening in front of the idiot tube... er... flat panel LCD.
I remember when I was all excited that I could record "AM Weather" on PBS with the VCR to get a better look at the weather forecast for aviation than the awful dot-matrix printed text weather.
Tools get better. The basics don't change underneath the tools.
I gave the ForeFlight example in their W&B where it chooses an average of the fore and aft stations for pilot and passenger seats. It downloads the Cessna TCDS data and adds the two stations and divides by two. It tells you that it's doing this, but unless you know your aircraft POH/AFM *cold* you don't realize that it's putting the pilot at 41" aft of datum and Cessna says the typical pilot site at 39" and Cessna does their chart in the POH/AFM based off of THAT, not 41".
Is two inches going to be a safety of flight issue in a 182? Probably not... but the ForeFlight numbers will NOT match book numbers. And we fly airplanes by the POH/AFM, not the number this year's tool-du-jour spits out.
The source material for a chart is... a chart. The source material for he aircraft... is the POH/AFM. We teach source material because anyone can reference it and figure out if the gadget is good/right/has limitations.
When ForeFlight first came out, noticing that the charts all have "stitched" boundaries I asked where the pilot goes to find the frequencies and times of operation in the margins of a chart. Back then, it simply didn't have that data. It did not exist in FF. They added it almost a year later.
The time to climb and descend thing was in a competitor's product for YEARS before ForeFlight had it, and it was built to input the climb table data and was more accurate. That other product is DEAD and nobody uses it anymore but ForeFlight STILL doesn't do climb/descent data as accurately as their early competitor did.
Every new tool that comes along has new and good things in it and things that aren't so hot. The only way you can evaluate them is knowing your source material *cold* or being willing to take a few hours and do the manual calculations to convince yourself that your new and hot tech tool did what you already know how to do properly by hand, correctly. But you probably don't need your CFI for that if they taught you how to come up with the correct book answer.
Even the POH/AFM can be vague at times and has things like "add 10% for X". MOST tools don't account for such rules, but the pilot had better know that when X is "dry grass runway" and the 10% is being added to the ground roll, they'd better add it at the 3000' dirt strip at 6500' Density Altitude with 80' pine trees at the end... and maybe double it for the wife and kids. No big deal at the airport with a 10,000' runway and no obstacles at the departure end... use the gadget number and realize you used up 10% more runway and probably 20% for poor pilot technique, old engine, whatever...
In essence, you're asking to pay your instructor more than necessary for you to know how to fly safely. If you want iPad instruction most CFIs who use the gadgets will happily give it, and show the problems with the tools and gadgets. If you're self-supporting with a solid base of knowledge, spending that hour or two with your iPad really shouldn't be much of a big deal.
It's only when you don't know the underlying material that evaluating the answers an EFB gives, becomes difficult.
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
Finally a reply that isnt just "paper is the only way." All good and valid points succinctly stated. However my point was not necessarily to teach any particular EFB but rather to to teach the pro and cons of their use
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Except you don't seem to want to hear the cons....
Some of us have seen this in other contexts. You can't argue with a student who doesn't know what he doesn't know, but thinks he does. Well, I suppose you can, but it's not going to end well when you're charging $50/hour or more for it.
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
In my opinion there were many replies that weren't just "paper is the only way."
The original question was comprehensive as were many of the replies.
It is my observation that each EFB has its own pros and cons for their use.
The FAA is encouraging scenario based training that hopefully will expose a particular student’s weakness with using a particular EFB.
It is my observation that students are individuals and the lessons need to be tailored to the student and one approach does not fit them all.
In my opinion if they can’t learn to use an EFB to solve simple problems on their own they don’t understand the problem or are not well suited to becoming a pilot.
There are lots of less expensive, more effective training guides for EFBs than learning how to push the buttons from me.
I ask the questions and the client finds the answers.
citizen5000
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 855
- Display Name
Display name:
citizen5000
No you have not proven you found a bug because we cannot see your configuration setup and cannot determine how you got what you think was an error. Until you contact Foreflight and discuss it with their professionals the chances of it being YOUR error and not theirs is likely the case. You seem unwilling to find out but persist in repeating your claim without that verification.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Tell me. What answer do YOU get? Do you consider it plausible?
If configuring an app requires interaction with the developers, there is NO WAY it is worth $150/year. Nor is it worth basing anyone's flight training on. You would consider that acceptable?
It's configured correctly. But as Nate said, it isn't a bug. It's a poor spec and works as designed. I've been down this road before, and my time is worth a lot more than that.
You just might have to trust that a guy who has written a flight planner knows how climbs are calculated.
I'm pretty sure I know exactly what they did, and why it's wrong. Hint: read your POH and tell us what rate of climb and TAS do as you climb at max climb power.
citizen5000
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 855
- Display Name
Display name:
citizen5000
Let me phrase this differently and see if I can't convince you to contact Foreflight. I was a software engineer out of college and started working at Intel way back in the day. During the 80s I was a software contractor and consultant. Most of my clients were in Silicon Valley or the military.
The cost to develop code is partly dependent on how critical that software is and whether it can hurt someone if it's got serious errors (bugs).
If you think you have truly found a bug in Foreflight and that bug could potentially cause someone to get hurt it really is incumbent on you to report it to Foreflight and verify that it is in fact a bug so they can fix it. You do this not because you will be proven right or wrong, but because it may save someone grief using the product and you will be helping all Foreflight users.
You say you have found several bugs. Then that would make it even more important for you to contact them and give them a heads up.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
You're having a reading comprehension problem or you're trolling on purpose.
Multiple people have now told you that it's NOT a BUG, it's a DESIGN issue and WORKING AS DESIGNED in ForeFlight, but it will NOT give you the correct answer for time to climb and speed when compared to the AUTHORITATIVE source for the aircraft: The POH/AFM.
There's no need to "contact ForeFlight". They know what they wrote and it's a tool that gets "close" but when TEACHING (the entire point of your complaint), the CFI *MUST* show you how to get the CORRECT answer from the authoritative source that will be used by your examiner. Period. It's a mandatory requirement f the CFI.
If the tool will NOT give the correct answer, we can discuss it and see how far off it is, but you MUST KNOW how to calculate the correct answer if asked. It is not optional.
You can spend all the time you like defining where every tool ever released from the day you pass your Private checkride either gets the book answer right, or doesn't, and how far off of the POH/AFM it is, and even stick it on your blog or YouTube channel or here or wherever you like AFTER you know how to calculate the correct answer per the manufacturer's approved manuals for your aircraft.
Does this make it clearer? "We", meaning instructors, HAVE DONE this work and know the problems with the tools. YOU get to do the work yourself AFTER we show you (in the limited time available at a relatively high hourly instructional rate for a hobby) how to do the calculations correctly to PASS YOUR PRACTICAL EXAM.
You'll know enough and have enough experience to fiddle with whatever tools you like all on your own after that day.
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
MAKG1: I DO want to hear the cons. In fact, until this thread, and your post, I was NOT aware how far off Foreflight COULD be. I did realize that it's navlog calculations were not exactly the same as I would get from my POH, but in my case, they were close enough to be safe. (For the flying that I was doing at the time.) This, again, reinforces my point that the basics of using EFBs SHOULD be part of basic instruction. Not INSTEAD of anything, but in addition. That way, every new pilot is aware of these potential problems. After all, the lure of never having to fill out a paper navlog again is very appealing. I now know what to look out for, and for that, I thank you immensely. But it still doesn't change my position about including EFB instruction in pilot training. After all, we are taught about the additional risks involved with glass panels and autopilots.
dell30rb
Final Approach
I am not a CFI... but if I were I would have my students go through the PPL with no efb to speak of. Charts only. You need to use a calculator, compass and stopwatch to learn the basics. Fuel burn, w&b needs to be hand calculated.
Instrument and commercial, have at it. Maybe limit use on a non precision approach. But you can't use foreflight as a crutch for flying an ILS to minimums, or performing a textbook chandelle.
Instrument and commercial, have at it. Maybe limit use on a non precision approach. But you can't use foreflight as a crutch for flying an ILS to minimums, or performing a textbook chandelle.
denverpilot
Tied Down
And I don't think any CFI here wouldn't happily teach you some things about your EFB *after* they've built a basic and required knowledge of what's on paper. You're also really well equipped by that point to know if you NEED the instructor and paying for their time, to do it, at that point. You probably don't.
By the way... There ARE some fancy bizjets that have FACTORY approved mobile apps for aircraft data calculations. You're just not going to find one in the smaller GA fleet. Yet, anyway.
If the instructor sticks to the source material they know you've learned what you have to learn. If you feel like paying them to figure out what a gadget is good at it bad at after that, you get to decide. The hourly rate for ground time stays the same. Want more? Nobody here will argue with you if your checks don't bounce... you see how that works? ;-)
And if I don't know a particular app du-jour, I'll happily refer you to another instructor who uses/likes that app. I won't waste a student's time watching me learn their app.