Foreflight renewal approaching, iPad out of support - Is it time to go Android?

[MackMooney]

It’s much more than a few. Even such basics as loading an instrument approach into the flight plan aren’t there.

it's not that far, i use the apple and android versions every flight. it's true you can't do the actual approach on the android version but truthfully i only load the plates anway, i let the avionics handle the approach.

downloads work better on the android version, screen is better, i'd say 95% of everything else works the same between both versions, including the connext integrations between the avionics. they aren't different enough to really bother caring about

 

[ateamer]

Very interesting. So if I understand this correctly, a person can be using ADSB anonymous mode, flying over the countryside, and breach some type of imaginary airspace that Vector claims to own, and foreflight will help Vector send an unsuspecting aircraft owner a bill for airspace usage fees. if this is correct, this is rather interesting. Aside from all the questions of legality of this scenario, do other EFB's such as IFly also report aircraft information to Vector, or do we know? If other EFBs don't link with Vector, in my mind this would be a definite motivation to switch away from foreflight, toward EFBs that don't talk to Vector or other aviation fee collection scams.

Incorrect understanding.

Some Foreflight users pay to get an anonymized Foreflight callsign. If they land at an airport that charges a landing fee, the bill gets sent to Foreflight. Foreflight pays the toll, and then passes it along to the subscriber who incurred it.

Vector doesn’t claim to own imaginary airspace. The company is contracted to collect fees for some airports, and is legally authorized by the airport owner to act as their agent.

It’s distasteful, especially because it’s new and so many pilots fear change, but it is not a scam. It is a legally allowed fee. Public agency functions are often contracted to private vendors, usually because they can complete the tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost than the government can doing it firsthand.

It’s no different than bill-by-plate from a toll road authority. If you’re in a rental car, the car rental company may bill you for the toll.

 

[wsquare]

If I didn't know better, I'd say we have a bunch of foreflight and/or vector paid folks on line, hacking for the landing fee scam. If ya read the past 8 or so posts, all ya see is a bunch of gobble-d-gook.

Example: "The xamarin examples all looked like fairly sample things. I doubt Maui is much better.” What does this even mean?

Another example: "As I write this, there's a Gulfstream under Dotcom (N550VR) and seven aircraft under ForeFlight (A Gulfstream, a Premier, a Citation, a TBM, and three PC12s).” What the heck?

What does this stuff even mean? Let’s get some common sense in the discussion.

There are airports that are charging landing fees, that hide this fact. Example 5C1. It’s buried in their web page under Airport Information. The fact they charge landing fees is not referenced in the AFD. I have an acquaintance that experienced this little “surprise" first hand.

For the most part, people that are billed for services they agree to, are willing to pay the bill. No need to suggest that people on PoA are scofflaws. However, when bills for services, including landing fees, are received from some unknown corporation, that were not agreed to in advance, then it is common for people to question the nature of the billing, and perhaps even decline to pay, based on principle. Doesn’t matter if it’s disposable diapers, or landing fees. Common sense.

There is likely consensus, that for the most part, pilots are supportive of some type of mechanism to support small GA airports, which form the backbone of GA. Perhaps landing fees, as long as there is some "standard" method to determine if fees are collected (preferably during flight planning) at a given airport and the majority of the fees collected go to the airport, and not the fee collection agency/company. However, there is a compelling argument that fuel flowage surcharge is probably a much more efficient and fair method for small GA airports to secure needed funds. Thus, no need for landing fee scams.

Based on all the techie gobble-d-gook pertaining to foreflight, and passing information to/from vector systems, it does sound like there is a cozy connection between the two, and if even tenuous at this point for PIA purposes, it doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to imagine this “coziness” continuing to expand, and encompass all users of foreflight. What’s the saying “Camel nose under the tent”? Perhaps this really does help to answer the OP question (rephrased) - Is it time to ditch foreflight?

 

[ateamer]

You aren’t getting it. Foreflight isn’t passing information to Vector. If a plane using a Foreflight callsign lands at an airport that uses Vector to collect landing fees, Vector sends the bill to Foreflight. Foreflight then charges their subscriber who was using the callsign. It’s one-way communication from Vector to Foreflight.

You can get a Foreflight callsign if you are a subscriber to Foreflight’s highest level package, and wish to keep from having your N-number tracked. Foreflight is authorized to assign a Foreflight number for your use.

Same thing with FlightPlan, which is another flight planning app. They will assign a Dotcom flight number.

Fees absolutely should be published up front. The right thing to do would be for an airport’s website to have a clear link to the fee schedule right on the homepage. They should also make sure that Foreflight and the other major flight planning services have their fees. If the fees are provided to Foreflight, itks really easy to look it up.

 

[sonopoa]

New ipads are not cheap so yes

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If I didn't know better, I'd say we have a bunch of foreflight and/or vector paid folks on line, hacking for the landing fee scam.

Full disclosure: I have received one check from ForeFlight, for working at their booth at Oshkosh in 2010. I like their product. I do NOT like Vector.

Also, I like reality. You seem to be trying to form a connection between them that simply doesn't exist.

If ya read the past 8 or so posts, all ya see is a bunch of gobble-d-gook.

Example: "The xamarin examples all looked like fairly sample things. I doubt Maui is much better.” What does this even mean?

If you actually read the quoted posts above those statements, you get context. Those posts had nothing to do with Vector. In fact, this entire thread is not about Vector.

There is a thread about Vector elsewhere that might be a better place to air your complaints. Or start a new one. It seems everyone is complaining loudly about them the last few days - I joined a Facebook group called "Pilots Tracking Vector" and it has been VERY active.

Another example: "As I write this, there's a Gulfstream under Dotcom (N550VR) and seven aircraft under ForeFlight (A Gulfstream, a Premier, a Citation, a TBM, and three PC12s).” What the heck?

What does this stuff even mean? Let’s get some common sense in the discussion.

Maybe if you actually read and absorbed the entire post you would understand.

There is likely consensus, that for the most part, pilots are supportive of some type of mechanism to support small GA airports, which form the backbone of GA. Perhaps landing fees, as long as there is some "standard" method to determine if fees are collected (preferably during flight planning) at a given airport and the majority of the fees collected go to the airport, and not the fee collection agency/company. However, there is a compelling argument that fuel flowage surcharge is probably a much more efficient and fair method for small GA airports to secure needed funds. Thus, no need for landing fee scams.

Absolutely.

Based on all the techie gobble-d-gook pertaining to foreflight, and passing information to/from vector systems, it does sound like there is a cozy connection between the two, and if even tenuous at this point for PIA purposes, it doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to imagine this “coziness” continuing to expand, and encompass all users of foreflight. What’s the saying “Camel nose under the tent”? Perhaps this really does help to answer the OP question (rephrased) - Is it time to ditch foreflight?

No, because the connection you are trying so hard to create simply does not exist. ForeFlight gets a bill from Vector, ForeFlight bills the customer who incurred it. There is no business relationship at all, certainly not "cozy", and there's nothing to expand other than airports using Vector charging more.

For those who bothered to actually read and understand the "gobble-d-gook": I did look further into all the flights that I mentioned using the Dotcom and ForeFlight callsigns, and none of them were using a PIA. As a result, I would imagine that the number of aircraft that are getting a bill from Vector passed through ForeFlight is very close to zero.

 

[midlifeflyer]

it's not that far, i use the apple and android versions every flight. it's true you can't do the actual approach on the android version but truthfully i only load the plates anway, i let the avionics handle the approach.

I have absolutely no desire to “do” an approach on a tablet but I have them both too, so I guess we’ll disagree on the degree of difference. Might just be a user difference. I think FltPlan Go has more Android functionality than Pilot (Pilot has a better flow and interface).

But I do agree that if all one cares about is a chart viewer, there are pretty much no differences among any EFBs,

 

[midlifeflyer]

It’s buried in their web page under Airport Information.

Funny, a page called “Airport Information” is the very first place I look for “Airport Fees and Billing” to be “buried” when I travel somewhere.

Just an observation: the few airports I’ve looked at are like the one at 5C1. A full page describing the use of Vector and a listing of fees. It’s almost as if Vector is recommending a form of disclosure in an attempt to avoid a claim there was none.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Full disclosure: I have received one check from ForeFlight, for working at their booth at Oshkosh in 2010. I like their product. I do NOT like Vector.

Also, I like reality. You seem to be trying to form a connection between them that simply doesn't exist.

You do know that once one takes a stance, facts no longer matter, right?

Do I need to disclose I received a check from ForeFlight for a flight review and IPC?

 

[farangutan]

To those that load approaches into their EFB flight plan. I'm just curious, is it mainly for situational awareness? I'm always looking to improve.
I got my Instrument rating back when it was all paper and I've noticed that I simply pull up the approach plate on the EFB and use as if it were paper. If I'm feeling really fancy, I overlay it on the map to see traffic and weather.

 

[Jim_R]

A little late to the party. In case anyone's still interested in EFBs rather than what Vector is doing...

It was the inability to pull common routes, and SID/STARS graphically that made me switch. I'm in Houston and even though they just vector a slow bugsmasher around, it's still nice to have an idea of which side of town they're going to send you.

(This was re: iFly EFB.) Dunno what you mean about "inability to pull ... SIDs/STARs graphically". I don't know how long ago you evaluated iFly, but it's had that capability for many years. I'm in Houston, too, and use that capability all the time.

I have been looking at both of those, I like the idea of the Tripltek in that its a better fit for non-aviation uses (non that I use my Ipad for anything else currently), but I have not been able to get solid specs about how it handles the heat.

Their specs are posted on their website, though they're cleverly hidden under the "technical specifications" area.
Ex, for the Tripletek 9:
And the Tripletek 8:

To those that load approaches into their EFB flight plan. I'm just curious, is it mainly for situational awareness?
I got my Instrument rating back when it was all paper and I've noticed that I simply pull up the approach plate on the EFB and use as if it were paper. If I'm feeling really fancy, I overlay it on the map to see traffic and weather.

A huge part of the utility of the moving map and flightplan/chart overlays of any EFB is situational awareness. Only a small fraction of users use an EFB to do something else, like drive an autopilot. So the simple answer to your first question is, "Yes".

But there's a lot wrapped up in that simple phrase. "Situational awareness" encompasses a lot. As long as the flight (i.e., pilot's workload/capability) is such that fiddling with an EFB is not a distraction, I think it can help reinforce in the pilot's mind what (s)he's about to do--I can see the magenta line overlaid on the approach plate, confirming I didn't fat-finger picking the IAF for instance. Also, because of the differences between how my panel-mounted GPS and EFB operate re: "Activate Final", they sometimes calculate the ETA at my destination a little differently, and the EFB is more conservative. Helps me better predict when I'm actually going to pull up to the FBO.

Also, for multiple reasons (the EFB isn't tied in to my autopilot, it's bigger/easer to see, it's easier to manipulate for an extended time, quicker to "flip through" approach options, etc.), it's easier to do "what-if" assessments on the EFB than on the panel GPS if I am considering diverting to another destination, including graphically viewing various approach options.

So I find a lot of "situational awareness" benefit in pulling up approaches in my iFly EFB.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To those that load approaches into their EFB flight plan. I'm just curious, is it mainly for situational awareness? I'm always looking to improve.
I got my Instrument rating back when it was all paper and I've noticed that I simply pull up the approach plate on the EFB and use as if it were paper. If I'm feeling really fancy, I overlay it on the map to see traffic and weather.

Yes, it's mostly for situational awareness - in flight that's all it can be. But it's also for the flight planning process. I plan what approach I am likely to get/ask for as part of my flight planning. I can look at a chart and enter the planned transition (and all the others) as an individual waypoint, but being able to load the approach as a whole gives me much more.

In flight, while both the iOS and Android versions will allow us to overlay the chart on the map, the loaded approach in the iOS version lays out the courses and altitudes for each leg of the approach - on both the map and the flight plan. How much it matters depends on what I am flying. If I'm flying a with an FMS/navigator, I typically have the flight plan page showing on the GPS and my EFB is the moving map. But not all GPS units have both altitude and distances displayed on the flight plan page, so my EFB takes that role.

 

[MackMooney]

I have absolutely no desire to “do” an approach on a tablet but I have them both too, so I guess we’ll disagree on the degree of difference. Might just be a user difference. I think FltPlan Go has more Android functionality than Pilot (Pilot has a better flow and interface).

But I do agree that if all one cares about is a chart viewer, there are pretty much no differences among any EFBs,

what other important feature do you think is missing? I use them both and can't think of anything meaningful.

 

[midlifeflyer]

what other important feature do you think is missing? I use them both and can't think of anything meaningful.

If there's nothing meaningful for you, then there's no difference. It's that simple.

I can't give you a list. If you are really interested in discussing the differences others see, your best bet is to join a Garmin Pilot user group and ask. It's actually pretty funny to watch self-described Apple haters talking about buying iPads just because of the differences. From my standpoint, having used EFBs for almost 14 years and tried most if not all in the US market, if I decided to make Android primary, it would not be Pilot. I'll use my portable ADS-B device with something better like iFly.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Funny, a page called “Airport Information” is the very first place I look for “Airport Fees and Billing” to be “buried” when I travel somewhere.

Just an observation: the few airports I’ve looked at are like the one at 5C1. A full page describing the use of Vector and a listing of fees. It’s almost as if Vector is recommending a form of disclosure in an attempt to avoid a claim there was none.

There have been some Vector-using airport managers who have posted comments on the Facebook group I mentioned. One of them said that it was a requirement of the contract with Vector that their fees are disclosed on the airport website.

It doesn't say how prominent that disclosure needs to be, though... And I don't think visiting the airport's website is generally in the flight planning flow for most pilots. They generally don't have any more info than you'd already have in your EFB, and usually far less, and they're often not up to date with info they do have. Plus you have to go hunting to find it.

To those that load approaches into their EFB flight plan. I'm just curious, is it mainly for situational awareness? I'm always looking to improve.
I got my Instrument rating back when it was all paper and I've noticed that I simply pull up the approach plate on the EFB and use as if it were paper. If I'm feeling really fancy, I overlay it on the map to see traffic and weather.

I got my IR in the paper days too, but I've used EFBs since the beginning and so I've gone through the transition of not having the approach in the plan and just being able to see the plate, to having the plate show up on the map, to having the flight plan be able to load into the flight plan.

In ForeFlight at least, it puts altitudes at each waypoint and thus gives you an extra way to check that you're flying the right profile. It calculates fuel more accurately if it knows the entire flight plan, and of course it's a bit of extra situational awareness.

 

[MackMooney]

If there's nothing meaningful for you, then there's no difference. It's that simple.

I can't give you a list. If you are really interested in discussing the differences others see, your best bet is to join a Garmin Pilot user group and ask. It's actually pretty funny to watch self-described Apple haters talking about buying iPads just because of the differences. From my standpoint, having used EFBs for almost 14 years and tried most if not all in the US market, if I decided to make Android primary, it would not be Pilot. I'll use my portable ADS-B device with something better like iFly.

i'm just trying to get an idea of the important features i'm missing. yes approaches are different but I use the geo referenced approach plate anyway so seeing the tablet drawn lines means nothing.

 

[TCABM]

i'm just trying to get an idea of the important features i'm missing. yes approaches are different but I use the geo referenced approach plate anyway so seeing the tablet drawn lines means nothing.

Except if you are able to transfer those lines on the EFB to the active flight plan in the navigator.

Especially if that navigator is a GNS series navigator.

 

[MackMooney]

Except if you are able to transfer those lines on the EFB to the active flight plan in the navigator.

Especially if that navigator is a GNS series navigator.

I have a gnc355 so maybe its a bit different for 430's and such but
yes, that's mostly how it works, in my flow i select the approach on the navigator which transfers to the tablets/phones automagically. ON the tablet is official georeferenced approach plate with all the same altitudes and such. truthfully by the time i reach the iaf, i know the altitudes, catmissed once i turn inbound and i'm good.

 

[TCABM]

I have a gnc355 so maybe its a bit different for 430's….

Yes, 430s/530s are a different menu structure and there’s a lot of knob twisting that you don’t have to deal with on your 355.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In ForeFlight at least, it puts altitudes at each waypoint and thus gives you an extra way to check that you're flying the right profile. It calculates fuel more accurately if it knows the entire flight plan, and of course it's a bit of extra situational awareness.

Yes, Pilot does that too, but not in the Android version.

 

[midlifeflyer]

i'm just trying to get an idea of the important features i'm missing. yes approaches are different but I use the geo referenced approach plate anyway so seeing the tablet drawn lines means nothing.

That’s the point. You have both. You can see the differences if you use a feature in one that’s not in the other. If you don’t see a difference, it most likely means you don’t use the feature. You don’t see as important the same things others do. You don’t use or care about the features one has which the other doesn’t. That’s true for everyone. I see, receive, and answer questions about features I care little or nothing about myself.

None of them are necessary, not even the EFB itself. They are all just enhancements to the paper many of us used for years with no big problem except carrying the weight and organizing the clutter. I suspect most of us would be thrilled if the technology stopped at electronic chart reader as a solution to those two.

If you are satisfied either way, that’s all that matters.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is a thread about Vector elsewhere that might be a better place to air your complaints. Or start a new one. It seems everyone is complaining loudly about them the last few days - I joined a Facebook group called "Pilots Tracking Vector" and it has been VERY active.

I just took a look. Wow! Browsing the comments, the only useful information is the tracking - the updated listing of airports using Vector services. Otherwise, there is far more that the usual misinformation and attack rhetoric in an aviation group. Many like this one. A fairly accurate statement followed by an attack on the messenger. This is one of the milder ones I saw.
(I'll say "fairly accurate" since it would not be at all surprising if Vector is acting as a fee advisor/consultant to the airports.)

​

 

[midlifeflyer]

I suspect most of us would be thrilled if the technology stopped at electronic chart reader as a solution to those two.

For example, here is a thread from 2010 talking about using a Kindle DX (introduced a year earlier) for approach charts. I remember people being very excited about that (although there is some discussion about that newfangled app for the new iPad - Foreflight).

Anyone else remember SkyCharts? Early iPad app that had only one real function - displaying digital charts. The app is actually still around, and now does Android as well, and the charts get updated. Just under $50 per year. Might be all someone needs.

 

[Steamflyer]

Foreflight won the competitive EFB war when there was still competition. Enough to be sold for a princely sum to I think Boeing. Garmin Pilot is a captive app whose main appeal is that you can update databases for a Garmin navigator through it, something FF can't do.

For IFR, FF on an iPad is the reference standard. It's what everyone who routinely flies to unfamiliar destinations uses. I.e., a flight with an approach at the end you've never done. Whether in a jet or a 182.

For VFR, anything will work since one is primarily using the fact that any EFB that puts a blue dot over the current position on a sectional is already 99% better than a paper chart for SA, which is where many of us started.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Foreflight won the competitive EFB war when there was still competition. Enough to be sold for a princely sum to I think Boeing. Garmin Pilot is a captive app whose main appeal is that you can update databases for a Garmin navigator through it, something FF can't do.

Foreflight definitely won the competition wars. But I think Pilot has two appeals. One is, as you say, the ability to update Garmin databases. The other (iOS version, anyway) is form and flow similarity to the units you are updating. That's going to be attractive to some newer users who don't find technology particularly intuitive although that's going to be a fairly limited sample for several reasons.

There's a lot of functional parity between FF and GP. And some tings one does better than the other.

I used the home menu but could as easily grabs pics of the flight plan page.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Another thing GP can do that FF cannot: run on Android.

 

[172andyou]

Another thing GP can do that FF cannot: run on Android.

Yeah, but badly. Even GP is better on IOS.

 

[MackMooney]

Foreflight won the competitive EFB war when there was still competition. Enough to be sold for a princely sum to I think Boeing. Garmin Pilot is a captive app whose main appeal is that you can update databases for a Garmin navigator through it, something FF can't do.

For IFR, FF on an iPad is the reference standard. It's what everyone who routinely flies to unfamiliar destinations uses. I.e., a flight with an approach at the end you've never done. Whether in a jet or a 182.

For VFR, anything will work since one is primarily using the fact that any EFB that puts a blue dot over the current position on a sectional is already 99% better than a paper chart for SA, which is where many of us started.

I also used FF for awhile, didn't find significant difference between it and GP for my flying. Maybe the apps have all matured to where they are all approaching feature parity.

 

[wsquare]

One option that hasn’t been mentioned is Garmin Aera 760. It appears to have some advantages, and a disadvantage (price). Not sensitive to heat and bubble type canopies. Bright display. Robust and stout construction. It is possible to capture the magenta line datastream, and connect datastream to an external device. Other advantages? Other disadvantages? Anyone have first hand experience? Opinions?