FF vs. FltPlan for Instrument Rating?

woodchucker

woodchucker

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
1,840
Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
I've been out of the sky for a couple of years, and hope to get back up this summer working on my instrument rating. I used FF pro version previously so I'm used to that, but is there any significant difference between the $$$ app versus the free app regarding instrument flying? Will FltPlan work just fine for that purpose? Thanks in advance!
 
I flight plan and get times and burns on FltPlan, but use foreflight SV Pro for everything else.
 
FltPlan has some interface design issues, but it works fine. Better than the new FF NAV log (it took me 30 seconds to find a serious bug -- it gratuitously added 1000 miles to a trip from KRHV to KRNO and told me it would take over 11 hours; a more reasonable estimate is 1.5).

So does just about anything, including paper.

Just turn off your "own ship" on whatever it is you use, during training. You do not want to train dependence on that.
 
What do you plan to use the tablet for? In place of printed approach charts, etc? If so, check with the CFII on their opinion AND what the DPEs will allow.
 
In my opinion fltplan go serves the purpose of an EFB with geo-referenced approach plates. Is FF better? I think so. Is FF worth the price difference? Well I've replaced FF with fltplan go. It helps that I already had an ADS-B receiver that is compatible with fltplan go. It also helps that I never got addicted to Jepp plates.
 
I love FltPlan Go. Been trying out the free tiral versions of all the other apps and I always find myself coming back. The UI isn't as pretty as foreflight and some of the others, but once you use it for a while it all becomes pretty intuitive. I haven't flown instruments with it, but I can't see why it would be any worse or better than the other ones. All the plates are geo-referenced down to the airport diagram, and you can overlay them on whatever map you have up which is a nice feature as well.

As mentioned above too, the fuel and time predictions are always spot on. The NavLogs aren't too bad, but seem geared more towards the jet crowd instead of light GA. They still work just fine (and it's nice I can just quickly print them out or have them as PDF), but take some getting used to. I also find myself using the in-app weight and balance, density altitude calc, runway x-wind component, etc tools often as well which is another plus.
 
Just don't look out the windowsame and you'll do fine. I use paper, and my CFII weaned me off of the nice G430W. Expect yours to do the same regardless of what you use. Remember, they are all tools, don't let them become crutches!
 
murphey said:
What do you plan to use the tablet for? In place of printed approach charts, etc? If so, check with the CFII on their opinion AND what the DPEs will allow.
Click to expand...

IMO, if a CFI won't allow electronic charts, you need to find a new CFI. Technology in GA is only going to become more prevalent in the future.
 
murphey said:
What do you plan to use the tablet for? In place of printed approach charts, etc? If so, check with the CFII on their opinion AND what the DPEs will allow.
Click to expand...

Train with no one for Sport, Private, Instrument, Commercial or ATP who will not allow an EFB in place of paper charts. Make sure the DPE you choose is also okay with an EFB else don't waste your money with them either.
 
I love FltPlanGo. The payware EFBs are nice for sure but you get 95% of what they do for free with FltPlanGo. The UI is a little clunky at first but you get used to it. Geo-Referenced charts, rubberbanding, proc inserts, ADS-B/Nexrad weather, Traffic.

Things it doesn't have:
Synthetic Viz
Profile flight plan view (I hear this is coming)
Base maps. Most of the big payware EFBs have these now and are a big expense to maintain so I suspect this will never be a feature in FltPlanGo. But if you're fine with a sectional/low enroute charts it's a non-issue.

Edit: I did my IR using it with no issue at all.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
IMO, if a CFI won't allow electronic charts, you need to find a new CFI. Technology in GA is only going to become more prevalent in the future.
Click to expand...
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 the ownship, and be ready for failures. They DO fail at the worst possible times.
 
There are many of a pilot who believe you should be proficient in the technology you are using. So if you are purposefully avoiding it to satisfy a mentality of "paper only", then when its time to actually do it, you're fumbling around in IMC. It's good to learn both ways so you know what exactly is going on with the charts and the procedural thinking behind it, but IMO you should be training on how you'll be doing it during the real thing.

For me, I use my ipad as primary, have a back up android, and if all those fails I'll be scud running
 
I don't think it matters either way. I used FF w/geo-referencing during my IFR training, but only in the beginning to help me understand how to track my position better, and understand my way through the charts. (This was all before I started formal lessons, and was just preparing on my own.) Once I started lessons, I turned off geo-referencing. Not because my CFII required it, but because I didn't want to develop a dependence on it. For my entire IR training, FF was nothing more than a digital chart and approach plate source. (I also used paper a few times, just to see what it was like.)
 
Thanks for the input all. I will probably play around with FltPlanGo and see how that works. Regarding the instructor, it will be my dad. He used to fly bush up in Canada in the early 70s so he is old school, but also flew freight up until not too long ago so he has experience with both paper and screen.
 
I pay for FF but I also use FltPlanGo as a backup app (because it is not good enough for anything else, I would not bet my life on this kindergarten project).
While FF is pricey, they have superb customer support and all people on the team are actually local pilots. Compare to third-world code monkeys from FltPlanGo and you get the idea.
FF also has support for AHRS which can save my life one day should my AI go belly up (and the TBC is utterly useless in turbulence).

FF has a trial period so you can test drive both and see which one you like.

Enjoy your instrument training, it is a lot of fun!!
 
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 keep the blue side up.
 
MAKG1 said:
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 the ownship, and be ready for failures. They DO fail at the worst possible times.
Click to expand...

You really think you need a new CFI if they allow the use of ForeFlight? One of the most well respected CFIIs in the Phoenix area here (I am doing my instrument training with him) has no issues with people using ForeFlight for charts, etc. He is no spring chicken either...probably older than most folks on this site.

I understand not being dependent upon it...heck I hardly ever look at mine even though it is right on the yoke. But seems like people blow the use of EFBs out of proportion. As if you should be using a slide rule and paper charts for the next 1000 years.
 
MAKG1 said:
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 keep the blue side up.
Click to expand...

It seems to plan your KRHV-KRNO perfectly fine. Often 'bugs' are actually user typos or other input errors. Not saying bugs are impossible, it's just funny how often the haters have all these problems that nobody else seems to ever encounter.
 
MAKG1 said:
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 keep the blue side up.
Click to expand...
I partially agree. The partial panel value of FF for me isn't the AHRS. it's the heading indicator which works fine without an AHRS.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
It seems to plan your KRHV-KRNO perfectly fine. Often 'bugs' are actually user typos or other input errors. Not saying bugs are impossible, it's just funny how often the haters have all these problems that nobody else seems to ever encounter.
Click to expand...

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 victor airways several times over. No, it did not do it under all possible circumstances. It also should not be possible under ANY circumstances to plot correctly and measure wrong, no matter what I type in.

It appears to be a result of including instrument procedures in the plot, but not in the nav log.

Here's an easy way to reproduce it. I know what they did, and it's STAHOOPID.

Enter the following flight plan on the map:

KRHV SJC V334 SAC V6 (SWR ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34L) KRNO

Notice the exit point of V6 is the entry point for the instrument procedure.

Then, "share" the flight with "Flights." Plot your nav log.

Then, tell me with a straight face that the resulting nav log is even close to reasonable.

And before you tell me it isn't reasonable to specify V6 without an exit point (even though I did specify it), it plots correctly if you delete the procedure, and figures out it's SWR anyway.

This isn't ready to go out the door. MANY instrument procedures start on airways. Most of them, in fact. It took me well under a minute -- my very first look at this nav log using a flight I've planned several times before -- to find a bug. This should not happen.
 
Last edited:
ZeroPapaGolf said:
It seems to plan your KRHV-KRNO perfectly fine. Often 'bugs' are actually user typos or other input errors. Not saying bugs are impossible, it's just funny how often the haters have all these problems that nobody else seems to ever encounter.
Click to expand...

Some people are just very anti-tech (generally the older folk). If it wasn't developed in the early 1900s when they were born, it is junk. These youngun's developing software are idiots. I get it - being able to do things using multiple methods is important, not just relying on electronic methods. I still enjoy doing problems on my mechanical E6B.

There is a particular fellow who I swear has claimed that every piece of electronic equipment he owns has failed on him in flight...I think he has a terrible terrible curse upon him.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I partially agree. The partial panel value of FF for me isn't the AHRS. it's the heading indicator which works fine without an AHRS.
Click to expand...
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).
 
CC268 said:
Some people are just very anti-tech (generally the older folk). If it wasn't developed in the early 1900s when they were born, it is junk. These youngun's developing software are idiots. I get it - being able to do things using multiple methods is important, not just relying on electronic methods. I still enjoy doing problems on my mechanical E6B.

There is a particular fellow who I swear has claimed that every piece of electronic equipment he owns has failed on him in flight...I think he has a terrible terrible curse upon him.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am an engineer. Seems to be working well for thousands of pilots! Must be a personal issue.

Just curious are you anti glass panel as well? (I've only flown glass panel once). Or is this just an iPad/ForeFlight issue that you have?
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Spoken like a child of the magenta line.
Click to expand...
You don't think technology will continue to expand in GA? By the way, I learned with paper, plotter, and pencil behind steam gauges, but I'm not too blind to see when something new is an improvement.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
You don't think technology will continue to expand in GA? By the way, I learned with paper, plotter, and pencil behind steam gauges, but I'm not too blind to see when something new is an improvement.
Click to expand...

Same here. Doing my IR with dual VORs, no GPS, steam gauges, etc as well.

I see this same resistance to change mentality in engineering all the time too. Great to see some fresh young minds coming into our engineering department lately.
 
CC268 said:
I am an engineer. Seems to be working well for thousands of pilots! Must be a personal issue.

Just curious are you anti glass panel as well? (I've only flown glass panel once). Or is this just an iPad/ForeFlight issue that you have?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The way I see it there are different failure modes for both steam and glass. That's a fact of life.
 
CC268 said:
I am an engineer. Seems to be working well for thousands of pilots! Must be a personal issue.

Just curious are you anti glass panel as well? (I've only flown glass panel once). Or is this just an iPad/ForeFlight issue that you have?
Click to expand...

This Engineer trusts certified electronics and WAAS GPS. I do not and will not fly dependent on any consumer-grade electronics. I enjoyed my iPad Mini, and I'm now enjoying my Samsung Galaxy Tab A. They're even good for flight planning. But I don't use them in the air, the screens are too shiny and reflective, and require zooming in way too close to get the writing the same size as on my sectional. They are also hard to mount in a way that is consistently visible without blocking something else.

No, yoke mounting doesn't work for me, I use my yoke clock (which has a non-moving set of red hands) to remind me when to switch tanks. I also don't like digital clocks and airspeed / altitude tapes, as I can glance quickly at a pair of hands and know what they say, but must look at the digital numbers long enough to read and understand them.

I also don't trust things that randomly switch to advertising, or get hot in the sun and turn off . . . It's my life in the air, not just another game . . .
 
Hank S said:
This Engineer trusts certified electronics and WAAS GPS. I do not and will not fly dependent on any consumer-grade electronics. I enjoyed my iPad Mini, and I'm now enjoying my Samsung Galaxy Tab A. They're even good for flight planning. But I don't use them in the air, the screens are too shiny and reflective, and require zooming in way too close to get the writing the same size as on my sectional. They are also hard to mount in a way that is consistently visible without blocking something else.

No, yoke mounting doesn't work for me, I use my yoke clock (which has a non-moving set of red hands) to remind me when to switch tanks. I also don't like digital clocks and airspeed / altitude tapes, as I can glance quickly at a pair of hands and know what they say, but must look at the digital numbers long enough to read and understand them.

I also don't trust things that randomly switch to advertising, or get hot in the sun and turn off . . . It's my life in the air, not just another game . . .
Click to expand...

I use FF for frequencies (and even then I usually write them on my kneeboard before I even get in the air) and charts. That is really all I use the iPad for. It's just a situational awareness tool not a crutch. I don't see anything wrong with that. Oh and the electronic logbook and weight and balance sometimes.
 
CC268 said:
Fair enough. The way I see it there are different failure modes for both steam and glass. That's a fact of life.
Click to expand...
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 is great if you haven't started an approach yet, but highly problematic if you're halfway down one among the terrain and below MVA and MSA. For instance, it won't descend in a procedure turn or hold on VNAV.
 
CC268 said:
I use FF for frequencies (and even then I usually write them on my kneeboard before I even get in the air) and charts. That is really all I use the iPad for. It's just a situational awareness tool not a crutch. I don't see anything wrong with that. Oh and the electronic logbook and weight and balance sometimes.
Click to expand...
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 believe the glide distance either, as it seems rather obvious that it's a zero-wind solution. It does know about terrain, though.
 
MAKG1 said:
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 believe the glide distance either, as it seems rather obvious that it's a zero-wind solution. It does know about terrain, though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Quite frankly if my engine quits I am looking out the window and not at my iPad anyways
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
You don't think technology will continue to expand in GA? By the way, I learned with paper, plotter, and pencil behind steam gauges, but I'm not too blind to see when something new is an improvement.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think technology will expand in every part of our lives, but you need to be able to navigate IFR without the assistance of any moving map displays and back up your RNAV with VORs in flight. While GPS is nice, it can still be turned off if national security issues warrant and solar events can ruin your day
 
Clip4 said:
Yes, I think technology will expand in every part of our lives, but you need to be able to navigate IFR without the assistance of any moving map displays and back up your RNAV with VORs in flight. While GPS is nice, it can still be turned off if national security issues warrant and solar events can ruin your day
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with EFBs or GPS. You don't forget how to use a VOR just because you have more technology available. Your point is accurate, but your application is not.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Which has nothing to do with EFBs or GPS. You don't forget how to use a VOR just because you have more technology available. Your point is accurate, but your application is not.
Click to expand...

You fail to learn how to solely use a VOR for situational awareness when other is tech available and situational awareness skills without moving map are perishable with non use. Any goof ball can navigate with their position show on a chart and panel display.
 
Ignore the noise - some here know what's best for everyone else, and while they would never fall into a bad habit, the rest of us pud knockers just don't have the smarts to avoid such.

Both products are fine, if diffrent. Either is a good tool to help you fly well. I bet you're smart enough to understand any of the electrons in the cockpit, panel mounted, or in your lap, or on your yoke, can fail. And I bet you'll learn what you need to know to handle a blank screen.

I ain't no Chuck Yeager, and I use FF as my primary nav, until the approach phase. And I have an autopilot and a G530 and two VORs. I somehow survived the loss of the AP and my iPad.

My opinion, and I could be wrong, is to train like you'll fly, and fly like you trained (stolen from my USAF days, "Train like you fight, fight like you train).

If you're gonna use FF or another app, I'd like to get it in the mix early.
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL, I bet it would not be hard to find you making errors in the first seconds after you are woken up from sleeping either.

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).
Click to expand...
First, you clearly have no idea what I meant. Second, the "right" way do do "that" (whether your "that" or mine) anything is method works best for the individual.
 
Last edited:
woodchucker said:
I've been out of the sky for a couple of years, and hope to get back up this summer working on my instrument rating. I used FF pro version previously so I'm used to that, but is there any significant difference between the $$$ app versus the free app regarding instrument flying? Will FltPlan work just fine for that purpose? Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
I used paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top