EFB versus paper charts and plates on checkride

[MAKG1]

My understanding is they can ask you to demonstrate any approach that the airplane is equipped to fly, so I would expect an NDB approach. I would probably get an "in op" sticker and place it on the ADF, but I am creative that way!

If you still have any NDB approaches anywhere near you….

I actually found a compass locator on my IFR cross country. I think it's the last one.

 

[Bonchie]

My understanding is they can ask you to demonstrate any approach that the airplane is equipped to fly, so I would expect an NDB approach. I would probably get an "in op" sticker and place it on the ADF, but I am creative that way!

Honestly, it's not a big deal. All the NDB approaches here are very simple, single navaid procedures. You go to the NDB, fly out, turn inbound and go to the MDA.

I'd almost rather him make me fly one of those then some of the VOR approaches with multiple fixes to define. VOR1 in the plane is in-op (although the glideslope and LOC work on it) so I have to use VOR2, flipping back and forth and twisting constantly, to find VOR fixes defined off two VORs.

It's a guarantee that one approach will be an ILS and another RNAV. So that 3rd approach will be the wildcard.

 

[petrolero]

My DPE encouraged EFB use and stated that he has jettisoned paper charts himself. We discussed backups and that was that.

This thread has morphed into discussing the risks inherent to GPS navigation itself, not of EFBs. A general GPS failure can happen but that is not a problem with EFBs, it's a problem inherent to the global positioning satellite system.

The DPE should expect us to know what to do if GPS fails. Other than that, the DPE would be wrong to penalize an applicant simply for using an EFB in its intended and approved manner. If one does, report him/her to the FSDO.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

I did my check ride yesterday with Fore Flight + Stratus 2 + Geo Referenced approach plates. He asked about the Stratus and I said I'm using all available resources to conduct a safe IFR flight. I further explained that if my iPad craps out, I have an iPhone 6 plus, paper IFR charts and all the approach procedures printed out as backups. He then asked if my G1000's database had expired, can I still fly the G1000? I said not for the GPS portion, but I can still use VOR function of the G1000. He then said, what about your iPad with GPS? I told you cannot legally navigate with ForeFlight on iPad, b/c it is for situation awareness only. He was happy with my answer but he did make me fly the first approach using only raw data and no GPS.

Ah yes thanks for the heads up on making sure that the Garmin GPS database is current before the checkride! True in fact one plane at KSEE technically is not airworthy and I won't fly that plane.

The GPS database does not have to be current. You can use an expired database assuming you have confirmed that the lat/long for the way-points being used is current. So just because the database isn't current doesn't mean you can't fly, and definitely doesn't mean the aircraft is "technically not airworthy."

 

[MAKG1]

The GPS database does not have to be current. You can use an expired database assuming you have confirmed that the lat/long for the way-points being used is current. So just because the database isn't current doesn't mean you can't fly, and definitely doesn't mean the aircraft is "technically not airworthy."

Is anyone going to believe you have checked the latitude and longitude of each possible waypoint you might use on your check ride?

If you told me that, I wouldn't believe you either.

DPEs aren't stupid, and it's a mistake to assume they are.

Updating a database on a 430 is really easy. Pop the old one out, and put the new one in its place.

 

[Ravioli]

My understanding is they can ask you about and have you demonstrate any equipment while you are demonstrating a skill area.

Taking it down to paper means you won't hear "how do you update your route?" when he gives you the diversion, how does that thing show "ads-b weather at our alternate?" when you're focusing on the procedure turn.

The list goes on... so the KISS principle makes a lot sense for the actual ride.

AND I also agree with everyone who says practicing the use of the EFB with a safety pilot is essential before you get into the soup with one.

 

[Blueangel]

Well today for my first flight here in San Diego, the cheapest 172 at only $90/hr wet rate did not have a GPS so we navigated via VOR and pilotage. Since I had to do an aircraft checkout at Plus One Flyers as a new member of the club, it worked out well to get familiar with the complex busy San Diego airspace with all kinds of Bravo shelfs. I have my smart phone, two tablets with dual GPS units, a Garmin 596 yoke mount GPS and paper charts. If I cannot navigate with these then I should not be a pilot. Anyways I did fine on my BFR and checkout landing at KMYF and KRNM airports. It was super hot at KRNM so we just did few touch and goes. Like northern California, soCal is super gorgeous place to fly! My CFII wanted me to experience looking outside the cockpit VFR for the checkout before I get heads down in the hood for IFR training.

 

[Ravioli]

Sorry Scott...

I read checkride to mean a DPE ride for a rating... so my response is different if it's a club checkout. In that case, fly it like you normally would. They aren't looking for PTS limits and trying intentional distractions. They are there to help you sign off to safely fly their planes in their area.

 

[James331]

Shop for a DPE that is serious about the checkride and not his/her personal preferences in regard to technology. Paper charts are archaic, just as VORs are also old tech and can't be phased out soon enough...

What's your aviation background?

 

[Blueangel]

Right well my CFII I flew with today is ok with EFB after we do a few approaches with paper charts. I did hear back from a local San Diego DPE and will find out what her preferences are for EFB in the cockpit on instrument check rides. One nice thing about using EFB for approached plates is that is shows the miniature airplane on the chart to help with SA on setting up for the approach. Right now I am just doing the basic attitude flying to get the basics solid before VOR and ILS approaches and holds.

 

[James331]

Right well my CFII I flew with today is ok with EFB after we do a few approaches with paper charts. I did hear back from a local San Diego DPE and will find out what her preferences are for EFB in the cockpit on instrument check rides. One nice thing about using EFB for approached plates is that is shows the miniature airplane on the chart to help with SA on setting up for the approach. Right now I am just doing the basic attitude flying to get the basics solid before VOR and ILS approaches and holds.

If you have a 430 do you really need a GPS EFB for situational awareness, how does that work, if you have two moving screen GPSs you're like twice as aware?

For a checkride it shouldn't matter, you should be able to do just fine with only paper and the 430 with the moving map screen set to flight plan, if you can't do that you're really don't situationally aware and not ready for the ride IMO.

 

[Blueangel]

Some of the Cessnas in the club do not have a GPS. So having the portable Garmin and iPad with moving map are good backups to the VOR and ILS. I wanted to fly the cheapest 172 in the club just in case the others are booked or in maintenance so that when I do my checkered in few months I have it down familiar.

 

[MAKG1]

You do not want to depend on that tablet for anything.

They crash at the worst times, and aren't anywhere near as accurate as they claim.

The worst error I've seen is 20 miles AND it was on the wrong side of Class B airspace. On the iPad, 5 miles, while claiming 10m accuracy. A few tenths of a mile is more typical, still while claiming 5-10m accuracy (hey, what's a factor of 100 between friends?).

So, even if you're flying steam gauges and no GPS, make sure you can do it without the iPad.

If it's a backup, you need a backup to your backup.

If you're ever in a situation where you need an iPad to execute a flight safely, that's a no-go or a landing as soon as practicable. Especially IFR.

 

[Blueangel]

Correct MAKG. Paper and VOR with DME are reliable most of the time. Of course these can fail as well as radios.

 

[Bonchie]

What's your aviation background?

It doesn't matter.

It is a fact that the FAA is now emphasizing and encouraging the use of EFBs and they want them tested on the checkride. I've confirmed this with two separate DPEs.

If a DPE is not letting people use them because of his outdated personal preferences, then he's wrong.

Can he break the GPS on it? Sure. And any IFR pilot better know how to navigate without GPS. But not allowing them at all, even for charts/plates, is contrary to what the FAA wants at this point.

 

[petrolero]

You do not want to depend on that tablet for anything.

They crash at the worst times, and aren't anywhere near as accurate as they claim.

The worst error I've seen is 20 miles AND it was on the wrong side of Class B airspace. On the iPad, 5 miles, while claiming 10m accuracy. A few tenths of a mile is more typical, still while claiming 5-10m accuracy (hey, what's a factor of 100 between friends?).

So, even if you're flying steam gauges and no GPS, make sure you can do it without the iPad.

If it's a backup, you need a backup to your backup.

If you're ever in a situation where you need an iPad to execute a flight safely, that's a no-go or a landing as soon as practicable. Especially IFR.

I guess the word I conditionally agree with is "depend on". If, by that, you mean something like "exclusively and without backup" then OK - but navigation using a non-certified GPS when IFR is against the rules anyway.

But you can certainly use EFBs safely. I have never experienced the kinds of failures and errors you mentioned. Never. I know they can overheat and batteries can die and I have plans for those eventualities.

But I can look at an approach plate or map on my iPad just as easily as with paper and I'm far less likely to have a missing or out-of-date plate or map.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Honestly, it's not a big deal. All the NDB approaches here are very simple, single navaid procedures. You go to the NDB, fly out, turn inbound and go to the MDA.

Are all of yours on-field NDBs where the worst-case scenario of doing one poorly is homing to the airport. How bad that would be depends on how much crosswind there is. When you hear pilots complain about NDB difficulty, that's not what they are talking about.

Switch that to an off-airport NDB that you track outbound to the runway for about 8 miles. In addition to correcting for changing crosswinds, you can't home to anywhere and, even if you fly it perfectly, your DG precessed (or compass deviation uncorrected) by very little can put you miles to the side of the runway. IOW, this most imprecise of navaids actually requires more instrument and flight precision than an ILS.

If yours aren't off-airport, you can simulated it by flying a specific outbound bearing for 8 miles and see where you end. If you are talking about off-airport NDBs or do well with the simulation, consider yourself special. That's not being sarcastic; the folks who do very well with that set up, find the NDB intuitive in all directions, and have no problems at all visualizing the intercept to a bearing (inbound or out) are not what I've tended to see (my CFII was one of those and I hated him).

 

[flyingron]

They crash at the worst times, and aren't anywhere near as accurate as they claim.

You're mixing two issues: GPS and Electronic Charts.

Paper charts provide no positional information either.

If one is going to use any sort of GPS one needs to know the limitations. While the Private PTS doesn't address the matter, I know of many instructors (and probably a few examiners) who will want to see position determination with something other than the GPS.

 

[Bonchie]

Are all of yours on-field NDBs where the worst-case scenario of doing one poorly is homing to the airport. How bad that would be depends on how much crosswind there is. When you hear pilots complain about NDB difficulty, that's not what they are talking about.

Switch that to an off-airport NDB that you track outbound to the runway for about 8 miles. In addition to correcting for changing crosswinds, you can't home to anywhere and, even if you fly it perfectly, your DG precessed (or compass deviation uncorrected) by very little can put you miles to the side of the runway. IOW, this most imprecise of navaids actually requires more instrument and flight precision than an ILS.

If yours aren't off-airport, you can simulated it by flying a specific outbound bearing for 8 miles and see where you end. If you are talking about off-airport NDBs or do well with the simulation, consider yourself special. That's not being sarcastic; the folks who do very well with that set up, find the NDB intuitive in all directions, and have no problems at all visualizing the intercept to a bearing (inbound or out) are not what I've tended to see (my CFII was one of those and I hated him).

I'm not disagreeing. My comments were specifically about my checkride. All the NDB approaches around here are on airport (EZF and CGE specifically) and there's no terrain to worry about. So if the examiner wants to throw one at me, I can handle it.

Would I want to fly one in the conditions you describe? No. And I probably never will.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if the examiner chooses to forgo one of the many VOR approaches in the area (including at the departure airport) to go chase down an NDB approach.

 

[MAKG1]

You're mixing two issues: GPS and Electronic Charts.

Paper charts provide no positional information either.

If one is going to use any sort of GPS one needs to know the limitations. While the Private PTS doesn't address the matter, I know of many instructors (and probably a few examiners) who will want to see position determination with something other than the GPS.

Perhaps, but crashing affects them both.

Yes, there is much less that can go wrong if the "EFB" is truly being used as an EFB (that is, a chart holder). Still, there are failure modes and inconveniences.

I started instrument training using an iPad. I found I was doing a lot of pinching and sliding that I didn't need to if I used paper, so I switched. It's a particular issue during approaches, as the paper is a LOT easier to read, and requires essentially no management to brief. The one thing the iPad is better at in flight is digging out a plate you didn't plan for.

 

[LoxaBagels]

You're mixing two issues: GPS and Electronic Charts.

Paper charts provide no positional information either.

If one is going to use any sort of GPS one needs to know the limitations. While the Private PTS doesn't address the matter, I know of many instructors (and probably a few examiners) who will want to see position determination with something other than the GPS.

GPS is reliable, powerful, and standard on all new aircraft...like the Cirrus SR22, Piper and Cessna products.

VOR/ILS is being phased out, like LORAN and large painted arrows on the ground from the past.

 

[James331]

It doesn't matter.

It is a fact that the FAA is now emphasizing and encouraging the use of EFBs and they want them tested on the checkride. I've confirmed this with two separate DPEs.

If a DPE is not letting people use them because of his outdated personal preferences, then he's wrong.

Can he break the GPS on it? Sure. And any IFR pilot better know how to navigate without GPS. But not allowing them at all, even for charts/plates, is contrary to what the FAA wants at this point.

Your experience matters because it indicates what level of experience you're speaking from. With your statements I'd wager you arnt exactly a high time ATP.

Knowing how to use the latest tech is important, being able to fly the damn plane without said tech is even more important.

Forget breaking the GPS, how about something realistic that has occurred before, "your ipad has just overheated, where's your chart"

 

[James331]

GPS is reliable, powerful, and standard on all new aircraft...like the Cirrus SR22, Piper and Cessna products.

VOR/ILS is being phased out, like LORAN and large painted arrows on the ground from the past.

That's why large airport always advertise the ILS well before a GPS approach on their recorded ATIS.

I've had more then a few RAIM and other GPS failures, I've never had a issue with a whole bunch of VORs just going down.

 

[Clark1961]

That's why large airport always advertise the ILS well before a GPS approach on their recorded ATIS.

I've had more then a few RAIM and other GPS failures, I've never had a issue with a whole bunch of VORs just going down.

I've had the localizer be down and the tower unaware of it...

 

[flyingron]

GPS is reliable, powerful, and standard on all new aircraft...like the Cirrus SR22, Piper and Cessna products.

Yeah right. You let me know which Cirrus, Piper, or Textron product comes exclusively with GPS and no VOR or LOC.

 

[flyingron]

I've had the localizer be down and the tower unaware of it...

But you're supposed to be aware of it. That's what that nasty beeping that you turned off on your radio.

 

[MAKG1]

VOR/ILS is being phased out, like LORAN and large painted arrows on the ground from the past.

Myth.

If it EVER happens (and it won't unless something else shows up), it will be decades.

Without redundancy, one nasty solar storm can ruin your whole day.

Some redundancy is being shaved from the VOR network, but it isn't anywhere near the LORAN shutoff, nor are there any plans for a phaseout to happen.

Can you give any examples of ILSs that have been permanently shut off? There might be one or two for faltering or remote airports, but it's not common.

 

[petrolero]

Your experience matters because it indicates what level of experience you're speaking from. With your statements I'd wager you arnt exactly a high time ATP.

Knowing how to use the latest tech is important, being able to fly the damn plane without said tech is even more important.

Forget breaking the GPS, how about something realistic that has occurred before, "your ipad has just overheated, where's your chart"

No his experience isn't required, nor is it relevant, to evaluate what he stated - that the FAA is allowing, even encouraging, people to use EFBs legally on their check rides and that he has met two DPEs who stated as much. You can deal with that statement without needing to know his aviation resume.

It doesn't make lick of difference if he's a high time ATP to evaluate whether that's true or false in your experience.

To be more specific, it's a logically fallacious appeal to authority. In this case, just because someone is less experienced doesn't necessarily mean that person's statement is incorrect.

 

[petrolero]

GPS is reliable, powerful, and standard on all new aircraft...like the Cirrus SR22, Piper and Cessna products.

VOR/ILS is being phased out, like LORAN and large painted arrows on the ground from the past.

No that's not true. Yes, some VORs are being decommissioned and far more GPS and even LPV approaches are being created than ILS but that doesn't make the converse true: that ILS is being phased out. The FAA has not ever said that to my knowledge.

They have put forth a VOR decommissioning plan and it still calls for around (IIRC) 500 VORs at the end of the plan which is far in the future. They said nothing about "phasing out" ILS, although I would imagine smaller airports would not choose the expense of installing ILS when they can certify an LPV approach far more cheaply.

 

[fiveoboy01]

This happens ALL over the place when an aircraft is usually used for VFR.

Part of your preflight check should be to check that the database is current. Every time. Alongside your 30 day VOR check.

What are the implications if the GPS databases aren't current?

Obviously you can't legally do RNAV approaches and you could only use the GPS for VFR use... anything else?

If the unit is certified but the databases aren't current, can the DPE use that as grounds to "cancel" an IFR checkride?

Your frequent tablet failures are curious. In 25 or so hours of flying since I got my airplane, the 430W and the ipad are dead nuts the same, all the time, position wise. I was using the internal GPS and recently(maybe the last 5 hours or so) I've been using a Stratus 2S. I wonder if there may be something wrong with your tablet to get the frequency and severity of failures that you claim.

 

[Clark1961]

What are the implications if the GPS databases aren't current?

Obviously you can't legally do RNAV approaches and you could only use the GPS for VFR use...

Are you sure about that?

 

[fiveoboy01]

No, I'm not. Just getting into my IFR stuff.

Feel free to help if you wish, rather than being cryptic.

 

[Clark1961]

No, I'm not. Just getting into my IFR stuff.

Feel free to help if you wish, rather than being cryptic.

I'd rather be cryptic.

 

[EdFred]

Your frequent tablet failures are curious. In 25 or so hours of flying since I got my airplane, the 430W and the ipad are dead nuts the same, all the time, position wise. I was using the internal GPS and recently(maybe the last 5 hours or so) I've been using a Stratus 2S. I wonder if there may be something wrong with your tablet to get the frequency and severity of failures that you claim.

I'm wondering that as well. I have over 300 hours flying with my EFB/GPS and haven't had a single crash. Also, not an Apple product.

Probably PEBTAP error.

 

[mkosmo]

True in fact one plane at KSEE technically is not airworthy and I won't fly that plane.

How not airworthy?

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

[MAKG1]

What are the implications if the GPS databases aren't current?

Obviously you can't legally do RNAV approaches and you could only use the GPS for VFR use... anything else?

If the unit is certified but the databases aren't current, can the DPE use that as grounds to "cancel" an IFR checkride?

Your frequent tablet failures are curious. In 25 or so hours of flying since I got my airplane, the 430W and the ipad are dead nuts the same, all the time, position wise. I was using the internal GPS and recently(maybe the last 5 hours or so) I've been using a Stratus 2S. I wonder if there may be something wrong with your tablet to get the frequency and severity of failures that you claim.

Well, all I can guess is that I check it with precision. Most recently, photographically. The iPad claimed 5-10m accuracy, and disagreed with a G1000 and a strip of georeferenced nadir photographs, by an amount that grew steadily from 0.1 to 0.3 miles, over about 30 minutes, at 1000 AGL. It has all the hallmarks of an uncorrected systematic. The G1000, two separate georeferencing data loggers, and the photographs themselves all agreed to within 100 feet. The iPad was a definite outlier, and claimed its accuracy was much better than it was.

I guess if you don't look critically, you won't find it.

Crashes don't happen that frequently with Foreflight, but Garmin Pilot was another story, on two different platforms. When it crashes in the air, it can be disruptive and is certainly distracting.

 

[James331]

No his experience isn't required, nor is it relevant, to evaluate what he stated - that the FAA is allowing, even encouraging, people to use EFBs legally on their check rides and that he has met two DPEs who stated as much. You can deal with that statement without needing to know his aviation resume.

It doesn't make lick of difference if he's a high time ATP to evaluate whether that's true or false in your experience.

To be more specific, it's a logically fallacious appeal to authority. In this case, just because someone is less experienced doesn't necessarily mean that person's statement is incorrect.

Ok.

So next time you think something's wrong with you, you'll hold the opinion of a first responder who just completed his cert, to the same level as a MD with over a decade experience?



So, no, it doesn't mean their opinion is incorrect, just not based on much experience or knowledge, kinda like the news station "aviation experts" reporting about all those Airbus 747 crashes

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, I'm not. Just getting into my IFR stuff.

Feel free to help if you wish, rather than being cryptic.

If you read the AIM guidance on the use of GPS for IFR, you will find that it permits use without a current database so long as the pilot verifies it's accuracy in some other way. See table 1-1-6 in AIM 1-1-17.

OTOH, interestingly enough, unless it recently changed, the instrument PTS does require a current database.

 

[taters]

It doesn't matter.

It is a fact that the FAA is now emphasizing and encouraging the use of EFBs and they want them tested on the checkride. I've confirmed this with two separate DPEs.
.

Ya well these DPE's should come see how many hoops a certificate holder gets to jump through to add a very demanding EFB Op Spec...not to mention the 6 month testing and survey period tested across the entire pilot group....all that vs selecting an off the shelf OpSpec that can be signed almost instantly with paper. I wouldnt exactly call that "encouraging the use."

 

[AlanM]

If you read the AIM guidance on the use of GPS for IFR, you will find that it permits use without a current database so long as the pilot verifies it's accuracy in some other way. See table 1-1-6 in AIM 1-1-17.

OTOH, interestingly enough, unless it recently changed, the instrument PTS does require a current database.

Oops, you're looking at an outdated AIM. The ASA 2015 edition has the table in AIM 1-1-18 and it's Table 1-1-5. Same concept, just a different reference source.

Didn't look up the IR PTS.