iPad + Foreflight?

TheGolfPilot said:
The tablet has the paper maps in it, however, they don't show the map in its entirety unless you did through the settings. Ask a tablet pilot where to find the VFR routes on the LAX sectional and 7/10 will say "I dunno google" Ask a pilot with a chart in front of him and he will show you on the left. Although people don't know how to find the in either scenario, the paper pilot will run into it on the side of the map.
Click to expand...
LAX Terminal, not sectional. At least it is on the Denver Terminal.
A pilot needs to know how to use a paper map and use a paper calculator. That way they know where to look and what calculations are actually being done by the tablet when they use it.
Click to expand...
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How come in flying there is such a stigma about new technology?

We don't use slide rules and abacus.
We all have given up walking to the TV to change channels, None of us are faxing in our POA posts, while our old lady rubs the laundry against that metal thing in a wash bin.. You know that thing I am talking about?

Never understood how that worked.
Click to expand...
The TV and the laundry are not considered Mission Critical. One definition is "An activity, device, service or system whose failure or disruption will cause a failure in business operations. For example, an online business's mission critical is its communication system."

In the world of the DOD, MC means People Die. Or Don't Die.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not that convincing. When I do it, Foreflight advises: "No Joy"
Click to expand...
Well, one does have to disregard that message and fly the airway anyway, but that is, of course, the fault of the app, not the pilot or the type of training, isn't it?

The humorous thing about the anti-iPad arguments (aside from being mostly straw-man) is that they are not new.

Anyone who really thinks there weren't pilots complaining about how those newfangled ADF receivers and reliance on them were ruining pilots' ability to navigate (even IFR) with dead reckoning, clay pots, and listening for LF A vs N signal intensity is living in a fantasy world.

I can almost hear them: "Watch out for those 'Children of the Needle'!!"
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Well, one does have to disregard that message and fly the airway anyway, but that is, of course, the fault of the app, not the pilot or the type of training, isn't it?

The humorous thing about the anti-iPad arguments (aside from being mostly straw-man) is that they are not new.

Anyone who really thinks there weren't pilots complaining about how those newfangled ADF receivers and reliance on them were ruining pilots' ability to navigate (even IFR) with dead reckoning, clay pots, and listening for LF A vs N signal intensity is living in a fantasy world.

I can almost hear them: "Watch out for those 'Children of the Needle'!!"
Click to expand...

I generally agree you have to understand any technology's limitations. But I find some of these arguments unconvincing when I compare the accuracy of my non-certified GPS location to the accuracy of my certified VOR receivers. When you do your VOR dual checks, they are permitted to be as much as four degrees off of each other. That tells me that there is a lot of slop included in the FAA navigation system such that I am not going to sweat a little bit of alleged inaccuracy. I have a hard time believing that my non-certified gps is inherently less trustworthy than my 40 year old nav radios, which by regulation, can disagree with each other by 4 degrees on the same nav source. I have a hard time believing it's inherently less trustworthy than my certified ADF, which is affected by lighting, static, mountain effect, coastal refraction effect, nighttime effect and other anomalies. Certainly, the non-certified GPS can fail. But so can my AI. And an AI can fail with no warning, and give false attitude information after having done so. That doesn't stop me from using it. In short, I don't doubt the message, but its the context and perspective of these concerns that I think is out of whack.
 
The thing to compare your GPS to is not the enroute system, but approaches. That's where it gets critical. The error on a localizer is a LOT less than 4 deg, and VOR approaches are treated as a lot less precise than other types. Approach-approved GPSs are required to get 0.3 nm accuracy. That I saw that error on a routine flight should be cause for concern. I wasn't looking to maximize error; I just wanted to know where I was and had some 5 GPSs and two symmetrical cameras on the wing struts to verify. It was the iPad that was the outlier. It's likely that it exceeds the standard very frequently. It's also likely it varies with altitude and perhaps terrain (I've seen different consumer units rather obviously read reflected signals and generate enormous errors).

The problem with the tablet is that you don't really know how accurate it is. TSO'd GPS units have a required accuracy. Tablets don't. It could be anything and say anything, and it clearly doesn't include all its sources of error.

And for Mark's objection, I'm virtually certain that all the navigation systems he mentioned were misused and overused when new. There are many tales of air mail pilots biting it from flying in conditions the navigation couldn't support.

You must know your technology's limitations, and big red lights should be going off when their accuracy is being hyped. Maybe that will improve with time, but I doubt it. Sound quality from cell phones still sucks after decades. It's just not what the consumer market demands.
 
MAKG1 said:
The thing to compare your GPS to is not the enroute system, but approaches. That's where it gets critical.
Click to expand...
If you are saying, fly the certified equipment, not the consumer product, I absolutely agree.

But he was talking about accuracy, not use...

He also mentioned NDB approaches and it only takes one approach to convince anyone (well, almost anyone) a circa 1998 handheld Lowrance AirMap 300 is more accurate than an ADF in a wider variety of weather conditions and will keep you on the FAC better.

And while admittedly, I fly the certified panel while performing an approach and not my iPad, I do glance at it from time to time. More so when someone else is flying an approach. Last time I actually looked very closely because I was testing the functioning of my very inexpensive Android EFB backup. Even with that one and certainly with my iPad, I have uniformly seen zero difference in position information, GS, distance from fix, etc accuracy when compared to the certified equipment.

That is not a recommendation to forego certified equipment and rely on an iPad. That consumer product is simply not intended or tested to be as reliable as certified equipment, whatever it's actual reliability is, so should not be relied on for primary navigation.

Well, maybe except in an emergency when the other stuff doesn't do the job - talk about critical!
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How come in flying there is such a stigma about new technology?
Click to expand...

Simple. Some like to project an air of superiority and if you're not using a pencil and paper map and a whisky compass whilst navigating by stars, you're an inferior pilot.

Thankfully these types are not allowed to dictate the equipment I use.
 
MAKG1 said:
The thing to compare your GPS to is not the enroute system, but approaches. That's where it gets critical. The error on a localizer is a LOT less than 4 deg, and VOR approaches are treated as a lot less precise than other types. Approach-approved GPSs are required to get 0.3 nm accuracy. That I saw that error on a routine flight should be cause for concern. I wasn't looking to maximize error; I just wanted to know where I was and had some 5 GPSs and two symmetrical cameras on the wing struts to verify. It was the iPad that was the outlier. It's likely that it exceeds the standard very frequently. It's also likely it varies with altitude and perhaps terrain (I've seen different consumer units rather obviously read reflected signals and generate enormous errors).

The problem with the tablet is that you don't really know how accurate it is. TSO'd GPS units have a required accuracy. Tablets don't. It could be anything and say anything, and it clearly doesn't include all its sources of error.
Click to expand...

Who's advocating solely using Foreflight for IFR use? :rolleyes:

Anyone with a brain knows and advocates the EFB be supplemental to the certified equipment in the panel. Nobody is shooting the ILS with Foreflight synthetic vision and nothing else. And if they are, they're stupid.
 
midlifeflyer said:
If you are saying, fly the certified equipment, not the consumer product, I absolutely agree.

But he was talking about accuracy, not use...

He also mentioned NDB approaches and it only takes one approach to convince anyone (well, almost anyone) a circa 1998 handheld Lowrance AirMap 300 is more accurate than an ADF in a wider variety of weather conditions and will keep you on the FAC better.

And while admittedly, I fly the certified panel while performing an approach and not my iPad, I do glance at it from time to time. More so when someone else is flying an approach. Last time I actually looked very closely because I was testing the functioning of my very inexpensive Android EFB backup. Even with that one and certainly with my iPad, I have uniformly seen zero difference in position information, GS, distance from fix, etc accuracy when compared to the certified equipment.

That is not a recommendation to forego certified equipment and rely on an iPad. That consumer product is simply not intended or tested to be as reliable as certified equipment, whatever it's actual reliability is, so should not be relied on for primary navigation.

Well, maybe except in an emergency when the other stuff doesn't do the job - talk about critical!
Click to expand...


Thanks for this. This is essentially what I was going to say.

And for what it's worth, I am not using an I-Pad GPS chip. I am using a WAAS gps, which adds greater accuracy in North America.
 
Real world, I tend to use the iPad (with an external GPS receiver) as primary while en route, most of the time, and cross-check it with the panel mount.

Approach phase, I tend to reverse that. Not a plan I made or anything, just fell into it as a convenience.

Foreflight's geo-referenced approach plates aren't as "granular" as the Garmin 530, as in, they don't scale in-and-out. I sorta want to be more precise than that on an approach in IMC. I just kinda stop looking at the iPad, and switch to the Garmin.

En route, Foreflight has a much better interface; just much easier to make changes there first, then update the G-530 at leisure.
 
Sundancer said:
Real world, I tend to use the iPad (with an external GPS receiver) as primary while en route, most of the time, and cross-check it with the panel mount.

Approach phase, I tend to reverse that. Not a plan I made or anything, just fell into it as a convenience.

Foreflight's geo-referenced approach plates aren't as "granular" as the Garmin 530, as in, they don't scale in-and-out. I sorta want to be more precise than that on an approach in IMC. I just kinda stop looking at the iPad, and switch to the Garmin.

En route, Foreflight has a much better interface; just much easier to make changes there first, then update the G-530 at leisure.
Click to expand...

Just curious, with your panel mounted gps, is it connected to a CDI? I would think that that would make it much easier to use as a primary, whether en route or on the approach.
 
The iPad + Foreflight combo is amazing. I fly with it all the time. Not using an EFB (even without a GPS position source) would be ridiculous. There's so much information readily available at your fingertips. It makes flying much simpler.

I'm also an advocate of using it during pilot training. It's just another tool as is ADF, VOR, panel GPS, pilotage, etc. Ask your CFI if he/she will integrate it at the proper time during your training.

Say you even turn off geo-referencing: You still have electronic maps which are much easier to manage that paper maps all over the cockpit. I can easily find a frequency, or check the map and then put my eyes back out the window where they should be instead of fumbling with paper.

Like any technology, understand its limitations. Learn it well so you don't get caught with your pants down.
 
PPC1052 said:
Just curious, with your panel mounted gps, is it connected to a CDI? I would think that that would make it much easier to use as a primary, whether en route or on the approach.
Click to expand...
It's really such personal preference.

We're not (I hope) talking "primary" in the sense of primary navigation instrument for IFR navigation (call it a PNI). That's always the CDI or other raw data instrument (even in a certified moving map display if I recall the rule correctly).

I think he's using "primary" in the English language sense of what we look at most of the time. As a primary situational awareness (SA) tool. A paper chart is used that way by those who prefer it. The primary nav instruments give raw information; the SA tool gives the raw data context and meaning.

Assuming we are on the same page, I also use my iPad as the primary SA tool. In fact it may the one thing I like most about flying with an EFB. For example, the lack of clutter on an en route chart is definitely great for certain purposes but, most of the time, I prefer looking at a sectional. Not only does the EFB enhance the chart by locating my airplane on it but I can also flip back and forth between the sectional and en route with two taps.

In the comfortable low-workload environment of en route IFR, it works well. And, like Sundancer does, I sometimes (not always) locate a fix when receiving an amended clearance on my tablet first for exactly the same reason others do it on a paper chart. It gives me an immediate "it's over thataway" heads-up on the general direction I need to go. (In fact, FWIW, despite all the bells and whistles, I still think of my tablet primarily as an enhanced paper chart.)

But on the approach, it's reversed. High workload, less room for error. It's "primarily" about maintaining course alignment. The tablet continues as an enhanced chart, of course, allowing me to monitor progress in a general way and as a reference for the next step.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Just curious, with your panel mounted gps, is it connected to a CDI? I would think that that would make it much easier to use as a primary, whether en route or on the approach.
Click to expand...

Yes, CDI is connected to the G-530. When en route, I usually have the STEC autopilot tracking the 530. Truth be told, I'm not really giving either of them, CDI or 530, much attention. I think I glance at the G-530 occasionally, to confirm Foreflight is O.K. I doubt I look at the CDI much at all. I am changing freqs on the 530, of course - it may be that's when I cross-check it against Foreflight. Just more convenient to tap-swipe than page navigate. So, semantics aside, from my point of view, Foreflight is my nav reference, and the 530 is backing it up.

Once I have an approach activated, I switch back to the CDI and 530 as primary, and Foreflight becomes my approach plate display. If geo referencing is available for the approach, I think I usually notice it, but don't give it much attention.

It's not a considered or planned method, just what's evolved for me that works best.
 
I am a VFR pilot in a perfect (for 1993) IFR package... Twin KX155's--one with GS, King DME and the King Ballgame/Rush Limbaugh receiver/pointer.

My typical mission is KBFL VIS HYP ECA O20. I primarily use foreflight, and don't save the 3 miles by flying direct (I like the availability of airports every 10 minutes on my route with a wife and 4 year old on board)

But I fly the VOR's to stay sharp and use the FF as an aid/EFB/cross check for my wonky DG.

I trained with a crusty ****ole of a CFI who banned iPads...but when I was on my Long XC, the turbulence was so bad and the plane was acting up I snuck it with me to follow along so I didn't punch the big R boxes on either side of my route between HII and NYL....

I see the value of being able to use ALL the equipment at my fingertips. I actively use NAV 2 to make sure it's always working as well.

This year. I get the IR... Old school... All /A not /G


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, for IR flight, a panel mount GPS opens up a lot of approaches you wouldn't otherwise have. You'll quickly discover you're much more precise when flying the CDI, especially on the approach. But training the situational awareness to know where you are with two VOR receivers and nothing else can only help you backing up that GPS so you aren't screwed by a RAIM alert.

People do fly IFR even around the Bay in /A aircraft, though.
 
I just have a moral dilemma installing a panel mount GPS in a $50k plane that functions just fine /A. If I were to sink any money into avionics... I'd go with a nice A/P


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Forget this was said :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
CC268 said:
I have no idea what you guys are talking about now with this fancy /A /G lingo haha...guess I will learn soon enough
Click to expand...

Yup, you will. It's only marginally relevant for VFR. It's pretty important for IFR, as it says what instruments you have in the airplane. The equipment suffix goes in the flight plan, right after the aircraft type.

There are more than a dozen codes, but the common bugsmasher ones are /U, /A and /G, as mentioned above. Even older airliners often have additional avionics we don't, such as inertial navigation.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yup, you will. It's only marginally relevant for VFR. It's pretty important for IFR, as it says what instruments you have in the airplane. The equipment suffix goes in the flight plan, right after the aircraft type.

There are more than a dozen codes, but the common bugsmasher ones are /U, /A and /G, as mentioned above. Even older airliners often have additional avionics we don't, such as inertial navigation.
Click to expand...

Ahh thanks for the in depth explanation..interesting
 
art-pga-620x349.jpg
 
CC; the equipment suffix is something used by ATC to help them to help you. When they know how your aircraft is equipped, they can provide the correct level of service.

If basically equipped, they can only route you along certain paths and must keep a larger "bubble" of separation.

If equipped with more advanced equipment, then they can route you off of the airways (aka direct) and reduce the amount of separation between you and other aircraft.

As MAKG said, it's not hugely important for you at this stage. But something you need to acquaint yourself with so if a controller asks you, you know what he is referring to and how to properly answer.
 
It's real common for ATC to offer me "direct", after I get clear of the Washington DC area, especially heading south to NC. I guess seeing the /G makes that happen?

I probably wouldn't do an IR all /A now; if it feels right to you, that's cool, knock 'em dead; for me, with a Garmin 530W, there are so many more options - even as a backup on non-GPS approaches. But no reason you can't do it your way - lot's of people did back in the day. . .
 
Sundancer said:
It's real common for ATC to offer me "direct", after I get clear of the Washington DC area, especially heading south to NC. I guess seeing the /G makes that happen?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not necessarily. I've done flights where ATC has offered direct to an airport while /A and /U.

I think ATC has expected most aircraft to have GPS of some sort on board for a good number of years now and don't bother worrying about the equipment codes.
 
CC268 said:
I have no idea what you guys are talking about now with this fancy /A /G lingo haha...guess I will learn soon enough
Click to expand...

There's one reason why memorizing the written test questions and taking the written before ever sitting in a cockpit is generally regarded as a less than ideal order of steps in earning your certificate.
 
Catalo said:
Technology can fail the same way paper can fly out the window. Nothing is fail proof just prepare the best you can.
Click to expand...

True statement!!

I'm a low time student pilot. I was on my 2nd solo lesson a couple days ago. After takeoff, as soon as I turned crosswind, the passenger side window popped open on the C172. I immediately released the throttle and moved my hand towards the open window. Then I immediately put my hand back on the throttle and dealt with the open window after I was level on the downwind. Nothing flew out but it could have. Damn 42yo airplanes.
 
Lachlan said:
There's one reason why memorizing the written test questions and taking the written before ever sitting in a cockpit is generally regarded as a less than ideal order of steps in earning your certificate.
Click to expand...

I didn't memorize the test questions. Not very fair to assume that someone memorized test questions just because they took the exam beforehand. If you don't have anything positive to say, then don't respond to the thread.
 
Last edited:
I did the written exam before I did my training... and I turned out okay.... (narf!)
 
CC268 said:
I didn't memorize the test questions. Not very fair to assume that someone memorized test questions just because they took the exam beforehand. If you don't have anything positive to say, then don't respond to the thread.
Click to expand...

You seem rather defensive about it. That's ok. I figure you're probably a pretty smart guy who will do well with flight training, but you don't have the knowledge now that you will have later in training, when all of the stuff on the written will make more sense. You did very well in the written, but you will forget all of the fine details by the time they are part of you actual flight training. I bet 5 Pesos that I could baffle you with three easy questions from the written if you promised not to look the answers up anywhere, and it's because the material is meaningless without correlation. Most CFIs discourage taking the written until well after flight training is progressing along, and most suggest eating until the XC phase. Relax- you're going to make a great pilot, but if you were admittedly stumped by /A and /G then there are some major holes in your knowledge base that would otherwise have been addressed during flight training, had you waited to take the written. 6 months from now (or less) will it make a difference? Nope. :)
 
CC268 said:
I didn't memorize the test questions. Not very fair to assume that someone memorized test questions just because they took the exam beforehand. If you don't have anything positive to say, then don't respond to the thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry but he's right... If you don't know at the least why the /# letters exist, you definitely have a hole in your knowledge if you already did written test prep and passed. That's a very basic thing. Memorizing what each letter means isn't necessarily required, but knowing why they exist is. Study up:)
 
Lachlan said:
You seem rather defensive about it. That's ok. I figure you're probably a pretty smart guy who will do well with flight training, but you don't have the knowledge now that you will have later in training, when all of the stuff on the written will make more sense. You did very well in the written, but you will forget all of the fine details by the time they are part of you actual flight training. I bet 5 Pesos that I could baffle you with three easy questions from the written if you promised not to look the answers up anywhere, and it's because the material is meaningless without correlation. Most CFIs discourage taking the written until well after flight training is progressing along, and most suggest eating until the XC phase. Relax- you're going to make a great pilot, but if you were admittedly stumped by /A and /G then there are some major holes in your knowledge base that would otherwise have been addressed during flight training, had you waited to take the written. 6 months from now (or less) will it make a difference? Nope. :)
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying - but not everyone has the time to do ground school + full time job as an engineer + flying + studying for practical + everything else that goes along with it. I am not saying I couldn't have done it that way, but it would have been quite a bit tougher to squeeze it all in. Of course there is stuff that will be understood better once I am flying, but I think I have retained the information I have learned quite well. Reading the PHAK and AIM goes over a lot of the same stuff - so some of this material I have read 3 times.

Anyways, I think things will be just fine - I guess sometimes it is best to leave things off of the online forum and just do it.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Sorry but he's right... If you don't know at the least why the /# letters exist, you definitely have a hole in your knowledge if you already did written test prep and passed. That's a very basic thing. Memorizing what each letter means isn't necessarily required, but knowing why they exist is. Study up:)
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you - this wasn't covered at all in the King Course.
 
Don't worry about it. You will do fine. Just review the materials occasionally as you progress with flight training. Study a little more before your oral/practical. The examiner will not expect you to know everything. He will expect you to show you will be safe and have an idea where to go to look things up. Getting your ticket is a license to keep learning!
 
CC268 said:
I don't know what to tell you - this wasn't covered at all in the King Course.
Click to expand...

Equipment suffixes were certainly covered. I used the King course.

It's not really a big deal but it is something you need to know. Equipment suffixes should have been covered in the private pilot training as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top