dmlad4u,
I find it odd that you preordered the Stratus, but plan to cancel it and wait, possibly months, for a device that has practically zero information from the maker... Including no screenshots nor confirmed software compatibility.
I've read Clarity's entire site (took about 13 seconds) and couldn't find out anything to say it will work with Garmin or Wingx.. come to reread - it doesnt even say foreflight.
regards,
Mike
I disagree with the word "smartly." In my mind, "smartly" would have been to give the user the option, maybe requiring them to actually read and agree to some sort of indemnification clause if FF is woried about their legal liability. If I understand the limitations, of if I actually have ADS-B OUT installed and want FF for backup or don't have ADS-B IN too, then I as the customer would like to have that data displayed to me. Actually, FF may be incurring liability if my plane gets hit be another plane that was seen by the ADS-B IN but that FF opted not to display. I don't know. I just wish they didn't take the "Apple" route of deciding what is good for me.
No. But they do show track lines that are helpful.
http://blog.foreflight.com/2012/07/16/storm-tracks-now-available/
Northern part of Colorado is undergoing ADS-B testing right now. The goal is later this year for full operations.
Actually, Kent, your argument is a good one for equipping with the mandated ADS-B OUT and using a much less expensive portable solution for ADS-B IN traffic. The ADS-B OUT can be done as a replacement unit for the transponder, not requiring any sort of an MFD.Grant,
It doesn't have anything to do with liability. It has everything to do with safety... Well, and user experience too!
I've explained the safety issue already. That will lead to these portable ADS-B devices seeming like they're not working. You go and spend $800 on a device promising traffic, and it only shows one of every twenty traffic calls you get from ATC, you'd be pretty unhappy with it!
Really, the ONLY safe way to use one of these devices as a traffic alerter is if you've got ADS-B Out - In which case, you probably have ADS-B In and are getting traffic on something in your panel anyway.
The problem with your idea of reading and agreeing to something to enable traffic is that nobody reads those things. Again, this is about safety, not liability. I'm glad that ForeFlight is choosing not to fill the skies with pilots flying along fat, dumb and happy with a false sense of security and not looking out the window.
I'm sure that by 2020, they'll have traffic - At that point, most aircraft will have ADS-B Out and thus the traffic picture will be fairly complete. Until a "critical mass" of aircraft owners spend the money for ADS-B, however, showing traffic on portable ADS-B devices is foolish and irresponsible.
Actually, Kent, your argument is a good one for equipping with the mandated ADS-B OUT and using a much less expensive portable solution for ADS-B IN traffic. The ADS-B OUT can be done as a replacement unit for the transponder, not requiring any sort of an MFD.
I think that this is one of those instances where we'll just need to agree to disagree. I think I understand your points, but weight the alternatives differently, arriving at a different conclusion.
Actually, some of FFs competitors have already incorporated the feature. Including, IIRC, Garmin!I'm with Grant. I'd only add that with the cost of installed avionics (see: Garmin's repair policy thread) & their being made obsolete in the future, there is a much stronger case for use of portable units. It may be that future ADSB-out installations will come with ADSB-IN, but they may not. It makes it much harder for the renter where the owner may not want to install ADSB-IN (or the required display).
So, I'll also have to disagree with you. Either we're pilots who have the ability to understand, process, and make decisions, or we're not (and someone else will make the decision for us).
One could make the same argument you've made with respect to weather services, too. It could be a safety matter if the WX service is provided.
I suppose, in the end, that the market will decide as I expect one of FF's competitors will incorporate the feature.
(note that I have and use TIS via Mode-S, which also has limitations).
Actually, Kent, your argument is a good one for equipping with the mandated ADS-B OUT and using a much less expensive portable solution for ADS-B IN traffic. The ADS-B OUT can be done as a replacement unit for the transponder, not requiring any sort of an MFD.
I think that this is one of those instances where we'll just need to agree to disagree. I think I understand your points, but weight the alternatives differently, arriving at a different conclusion.
I still wouldn't be very comfortable having people without ADS-B Out relying on it for traffic because it gives a VERY incomplete and misleading picture.
Nope, not just you!Maybe it's just me, but I don't "rely" on any of these informational devices (weather/nexrad, TIS, ADSB, stormscope, etc) because pretty much none of them give a totally complete picture. They are a tool, when properly applied, that can aid in risk mitigation. TIS misses some stuff (particularly aircraft that are not operating transponders or areas beyond the service area), Nexrad can be 10-20 minutes late & won't detect fast moving/fast growing storms. Stormscope won't show dangerous cells that have no lightning (and are prone to false positives). Etc. Etc.
Doesn't mean I don't want them as a tool, just that I have to exercise appropriate pilot judgement in the use of the tool. I'd rather make the judgement for myself rather than having someone else do it for me.
As I said, maybe it's just me...
Maybe it's just me, but I don't "rely" on any of these informational devices (weather/nexrad, TIS, ADSB, stormscope, etc) because pretty much none of them give a totally complete picture. They are a tool, when properly applied, that can aid in risk mitigation. TIS misses some stuff (particularly aircraft that are not operating transponders or areas beyond the service area), Nexrad can be 10-20 minutes late & won't detect fast moving/fast growing storms. Stormscope won't show dangerous cells that have no lightning (and are prone to false positives). Etc. Etc.
Doesn't mean I don't want them as a tool, just that I have to exercise appropriate pilot judgement in the use of the tool. I'd rather make the judgement for myself rather than having someone else do it for me.
As I said, maybe it's just me...
Agreed. However, there are many pilots who rely solely on whatever the gadget du jour is for whatever thing and expect a complete, accurate, up-to-date picture. Only the good pilots, such as yourself, will take the time to understand the limitations of the system and work with them.
Also, in this case, it's not like TIS where you'll get most of the traffic and simply miss non-transponder traffic, below-radar traffic, etc... This will give you, at this point in time, literally next to nothing. I'd be very surprised if you ended up getting one out of every 20 possibly-conflicting planes. Portable ADS-B traffic at this point in time is worse than worthless. As I've said several times already, at some point in time ADS-B Out equipage will hit a critical mass, at which point I will agree with you. It's not even close to there yet.
When the system is so bad as it is right now, I'm glad that someone is willing to be the guy who stands up and says, "You know what, this just isn't going to work well enough" rather than adding a worthless feature to check a box. For every Bill Suffa or Grant Prellwitz in the world, there's twenty chuckleheads who will be head-down looking at their iPad for traffic and expecting that it'll keep them safe, and we're nowhere close yet. For that reason, I am willing to live without the traffic display myself for now, despite being one of the people who understands the limitations fully, simply to make sure that those twenty chuckleheads have their eyes outside and will have a better chance of seeing me if I miss them.
In addition, imagine yourself in customer service after someone has a close call that wasn't reported by your fancy new $800 gadget, and think about the repercussions of putting out a product that rarely works in today's internet-enabled (think "customer product reviews") world. This is the sort of thing that works so poorly right now that it'll incite plenty of negative comments from those who don't understand the limitations of the system.
If we were in Spin Zone, that would be called "Nanny State". It's not their job to protect folks from themselves. (Just wondering: given the issues with Nexrad, why do they support Nexrad when even the NTSB has issued a warning? Don't those same "chucklehead" pilots need to be protected from themselves? )
That said, it is ultimately the decision of the company as to whether they include it or not (except in the case of certified avionics, which this is not). Doesn't stop customers like us from either 1) requesting it, or 2) buying a product that supports it. I'd probably buy a Stratus and give WxWorx the heave-ho if traffic were supported. But it's not, so I'll stay with XM for now.
(Just wondering: given the issues with Nexrad, why do they support Nexrad when even the NTSB has issued a warning? Don't those same "chucklehead" pilots need to be protected from themselves? )
I'd probably buy a Stratus and give WxWorx the heave-ho if traffic were supported. But it's not, so I'll stay with XM for now.
From what I recall, ForeFlight never claimed that safety was the reason that they didn't include traffic--they basically said that traffic display wasn't reliable unless your aircraft was transmitting ADS-B Out.
ForeFlight seems to be fairly conservative and methodical when it comes to implementing features in ForeFlight, perhaps too much so. But when they do implement them, they seem to do it very well.
WingX isn't nearly as nice overall, but it's nicer to use in flight, with easier access to useful information and better navigation utility. However, it's missing the strengths of ForeFlight for planning (no Internet weather overlay, and no plans for it) and IFR operation (no SIDs, STARs, etc.)
Just about every time I write to ForeFlight, I get a nice reply thanking me for my suggestion and telling me that they'll put it on the list for future consideration. The problem is that sometimes I'm reporting a BUG, and not a feature request, and sometimes I'm reporting the same feature request that I've reported multiple times in the past. That gives me the feeling that they have canned answers, don't give two hoots about the feature requests, and basically do what they want. I'm sure they're listening to somebody, but it seems more likely that they're listening to the large corporate and educational buyers that they seem to be courting.
I think that ForeFlight wants to get bought (eventually).
Nexrad is still pretty close, though - ADS-B traffic, however, is a 5% solution at best.
Whoa... You'd spend that kind of money solely for a feature that would hardly ever actually work?
Just about every time I write to ForeFlight, I get a nice reply thanking me for my suggestion and telling me that they'll put it on the list for future consideration. The problem is that sometimes I'm reporting a BUG, and not a feature request, and sometimes I'm reporting the same feature request that I've reported multiple times in the past. That gives me the feeling that they have canned answers, don't give two hoots about the feature requests, and basically do what they want. I'm sure they're listening to somebody, but it seems more likely that they're listening to the large corporate and educational buyers that they seem to be courting.
Wait, what? I thought WingX had weather overlays?
They do care about the feature requests - And usually whatever people are asking about most at Oshkosh (or Sun'n'Fun, or xxx) this year, will be out by whatever fly-in next year. Most importantly, it'll be done right (see above).
I wouldn't be so sure. I've never gotten that vibe when talking to Tyson or Jason. They care a lot about their product and they're passionate about making it better. If all they wanted was to get bought out, they'd be brochure-box-checking like mad.
Normal for a company their size now. They outgrew personal responses to individual customers at least a year ago.
There are at least a few user interface elements that suck for in flight use, including the airport pop-up window on the map page (which often chooses to pop up crammed into one tiny corner of the screen, when the rest of the screen is freely available), and the fact that the nav log and "HUD" are on opposite ends of the screen.
If you pull up the wrong approach plate, you have to start all over again to get back to the plates from the map page, or MANUALY search for the airport on the airport page, or MANUALLY set up a plates binder beforehand.
I can't figure out how to create a user waypoint fom my present GPS position.
I'm still trying to figure out why their density altitude calculations are 200-300 feet off from the local AWOS stations.
And if you create a flight plan with an altitude in the route box, the altitude will transfer into the Altitude Advisor box (and oddly does not disappear from the route box), but it won't use winds aloft calculations in your route plan until you reconfirm the altitude in the Altitude Advisor (this is a known bug which they initially blew off until I pressed them to acknowledge it.). So even some of what they do implement isn't as clean as it could be.
WingX has overlay for ADS-B weather, but not for Internet weather, I suspect because they do not have a source for the data. ForeFlight has contracted with a private party for their Internet weather data.
and the fact that the nav log and "HUD" are on opposite ends of the screen.
If you pull up the wrong approach plate, you have to start all over again to get back to the plates from the map page, or MANUALY search for the airport on the airport page, or MANUALLY set up a plates binder beforehand.
I can't figure out how to create a user waypoint fom my present GPS position.
So even some of what they do implement isn't as clean as it could be.
Well, I'm not SURE of course, but I'm basing that assessment on the historical backgrounds of the founders and what I've observed of their business model. "Brochure box-checking," by which I assume you mean feature competition, is for amateurs. Smart companies who want to be acquired build valuation, often by securing market share along with a nice stream of recurring revenue, which appears to be what they're doing. Their intentions in this regard really don't matter, but it may help to explain decisions regarding product direction.
Na, they're still a tiny company from what I can tell. And you can still get personal answers and acknowledgement, even from the co-founders, but you have to push. At this point, a database of feature requests and known bugs would probably help the front line respond more appropriately to suggestions and bug reports, because unless you get to Jason Miller or one or two others, the rest of the support staff seems to fumble around as though they're not sure. So they smile and thank you for the suggestion and are off to the next email.
I do like the email support model. I'm not sure if ForeFlight has a phone number, but I've never needed to look for it. Hilton Software, on the other hand, seems to prefer phone support over email. I've sent perhaps several emails to WingX support over the past month and haven't received a response to a single one of them, but all of my calls have been returned. Not quite as convenient as email for me.
JKG
Weird... Seems like such a core feature that I just automatically thought they'd have it. To me, that's way more important than a lot of other things that WingX does have.
Go to the plates binder, tap add plate - I think that's maybe the easiest way to get right to the airport in question, assuming it's part of your active route. I do kinda wish the plates could be a separate tab on the airports popup, I don't like scrolling all the way down on the "info" page.
Tap and hold on the airplane, then tap the "+" button to the right of "add this coordinate to route".
Well, ForeFlight happened to be first to market. They were also regularly featured in the "most expensive apps ever" kinds of lists before in-app purchase allowed for subscriptions. Back then, there wasn't any mechanism for recurring revenue and people didn't want to buy a $75 app and then decide they didn't like it. I think that limited sales greatly. So, now they're on a subscription model which allows for a try-before-you-buy experience, and I'd be willing to bet that downloads greatly increased at that point. So, I don't think they've gone into this with the idea that their goal is to sell it off.
JKG,
Happy to speak with you on the phone anytime. We've obviously done (or not done) something to drive the assumptions and conclusions you've made about us.
My email is tyson@foreflight.com. Send me your phone number and happy to ring you up. We could go round and round debating things on the forum, but phone is probably more efficient, more personal and more interactive.
All of us here put in long hours, most weekends, and sacrifice a lot personally working to make great software for pilots to use and working to build a company people have affection for.
-tyson
Co-founder / CEO