American Airlines to save $1.2 million shifting paper flight charts to iPad - Page 2

Nobody's suggesting otherwise. The fact still remains that it is the iPad that has been chosen in this instance and it is the iPad alone that right now has this capability.


I am sure you will agree that it is the responsibility of the pilot and his employer to ensure they meet the legal requirements of the area in which they are flying etc. I don't think it's reasonable to criticise Apple for being proud of the fact that one of their devices runs an FAA-approved application which seems popular amongst pilots. The FFA's raison d'être is ensure that such things are safe. If they can approve it, who are we to say it's not safe with less to go on?


Why is an iPad incapable of showing a moving map with approach overlays?


You are completely contradicting yourself. You aren't happy that an iPad is replacing your EFB but you think they should use a cheaper tablet as it's just a PDF reader? You seem to be criticising the choice of an iPad as it's not of the same quality as an EFB then suggesting something cheaper even than an iPad be used.


Your point loses power with your second sentence; the iPad is not consumer rubbish. It is extremely well put together and contains powerful hardware running an FAA-approved piece of software. To call it flakey is ridiculous. I'm not being a fanboy, I just cannot support such an epic exaggeration. Freezing? Running one app? Apps quitting, you mean one app? I'd certainly like to think that no member of the flight crew will be playing Angry Birds as they pilot a $300m aircraft.

I think bringing up iTunes passwords (whilst quite amusing) is simply facetious. What sequence of events would ever cause that to happen using this device for this purpose? The only time your password is ever asked for is when making purchases from the App Store or making in-app purchases, both of which I'd imagine wouldn't be on your landing checklist.

As for Barco displays, only their 17" and above equipment seems to have a resolution higher than the iPad's from what I could see with a quick scan. Granted, they are sunlight-readable but let's not pretend the iPad's screen is some dot-matrix Amstrad monitor by comparison.

Herein lies the problem!!! "Pretty reliable" .......that is not good enough! That is my whole point.

I guess you're capable of landing the plane "pretty much most of the time" too!

In aviation, you've got to get it right, first time, all the time. Perfection. "Pretty reliable" is not good enough!

FAA approved does not mean squat. It depends what it's approved for and how it fits to the work flow of that particular operating environment.

And fanboyism has no place there. Thankfully, most pilots are more professional than that.


You'd be surprised at the avionics reliability standards.

And on that note, the GPS in my phone and most dash-mounted GPS systems are pretty reliable too.
Doesn't mean that it's appropriate to navigate an airplane using them.

They're not completely getting rid of all paper. There will be one set of paper charts in each cockpit. Plus each pilot will be furnished with in iPad, which on long haul flights is four pilots. I learned with paper and a whiz wheel so I know where you're coming from, but I see how technology can improve safety, which after all our number one priority.

I have over 10,000 hours on the 777 alone and I've got to say, it's the most reliable airplane I have ever flown!

and how many pilots have been popped for busting ADIZ's using paper charts? Paper or glass, I doubt the the type of chart matters to the FAA when a pilot crosses into one.

Irony^2 alert. The iPad is mostly made not in the USA.

Careful, you're going to injure yourself doing backflips explaining why this doesn't reflect well on the iPad.

The FAA is irrelevant! AA is cheeping out! They should use something cheaper! Apple taking pride in how their device is being used is dangerous! Maybe there's some scenario that I can think of wherein this is disastrous! Probably pilots will be relying on iPads exclusively to land the plane, we're all going to die!

Oh, and anyone who notices you're kind of full of shit is a "fanboy."

Sure. And GA pilots have been using it awhile. I've even used the Foreflight app myself on one occasion. But that was a brief on the ground before a test flight. It has its uses. I get suspicious though when guys try to replace essential documents in the cockpit with it. The last thing you want is no charts onboard because the iPad failed.



Never said it was unsafe. Whether it's optimal or the most safe approach (and pilots always want the largest safety margins they can get) is the question.

Again, FAA certified doesn't mean what people think it means. You don't get blanket certifications. They are certified for very specific uses.



Because it's not certified to plug into an airplane's avionics (and I don't think Apple would have the stomach to do that much certification work).



EFB's and iPads are in two different categories. I was under the impression they were doing on a lot on this thing....in that case I'd prefer the EFB. But if it's just being used as a PDF reader (and there's no evidence that AA is buying the iPads to use ForeFlight) than my question was, what's the value judgement? For example, some have been using Kindles for approach plates for a while. They don't have the glare that an iPad has either. But I guess the certification is what's pulling it off. As soon as you get other tablets that are certified for Class 1, I'm sure there will be cheaper alternatives. I'm just wondering if this is a new application or AA just using these iPads as a Class 1 device.

In this particular case, it happened exactly because he was using an iPad. If I can find the report, I'll put it up later.

Essentially, he was not zoomed in properly. And he violated the ADIZ because he didn't realize he was navigating into it. I suppose you're right, it's more pilot error than iPad error. However, paper does not lead to pinch to zoom errors.

Thanks. Finally somebody who gets my concerns.

So what's the savings here then if they are keeping the docs onboard? Is this basically a cheaper alternative to an EFB? I guess it's certified Class 1, so it's an alright replacement for that. When you guys operate ULH, do you guys keep four sets of pubs though? And would this mean 3 ipads and one set of pubs? I'm just wondering what the savings are here.

Safety wise, I just hope they don't ever get rid of the pubs completely. That would be pretty worrisome I would think.

And none of this is to slight the iPad. It's a superb device.

Sunlight readability is not some small matter on a flight deck. It's far more important than resolution (at least at the distance your eyes are from the display). But then again, they are usually integrated in as PFDs, not as a Class 1 EFB.

It's for freakin' charts!
They will have a paper backup on board, as well as multiple iPads.
Imagine only having to get and manage one set of paper charts- only used as a backup.
iPad gets all the latest charts with just a download. Easy as pie to be up to date.

Nice way of spreading FUD. You want worry? Use an Android tablet instead. Being the junk that they are, I'd be sweating bullets if those were up in the cockpit. The iPad is a solid piece of engineering. If the FAA says it's up to snuff, I'm cool with it.

The penetration of the iPad in the enterprise proves it's not just a "consumer" device, nor is it a toy. Again, the toys in this case are delegated to 1st-class and business class. They are not worthy of being in the cockpit.

And your quality issues is ridiculous. I spend quite a bit of time working at an FBO which has one of the best avionics installation shops in the western USA. I'm surrounded by Garmin equipment and can say for certain that an iPad can certainly hold its own next to a dedicated unit.

Airplane failure rates for me personally is about 2.0 %. I've flown about 50 times as a passenger, most of those times to international destinations. Some years ago, one out of those approximately fifty times, a small piece of the engine or the wing came loose and the plane had to make an emergency landing in a completely different country than the intended destination. The plane ended up landing in Canada instead of the US.

As a Class 1 EFB perhaps. But Garmin's kits can do a lot more than iPad. An iPad is no replacement for your HSI or moving map display.

Good for them, now explain the lack of actual services that come with flights. I haven't had an interest in flying since the big changes have occurred. It's been a decade since I've taken a flight.

That's good for you. But your personal anecdote has nothing to do with the build or testing standards for avionics which require the probability of catastrophic failure for avionics (not the whole airplane), to be (1: 1*10^9). The last thing you want is to have the situation that you had, with a simultaneous avionics failure.

That said, if the iPad is being used as a Class 1 EFB, I guess it's no biggie if it craps out on the crew.

Hm. So what is your response when you lose both engines due to unforeseen bird ingestion?

ammmm - my response is that I don't want to be waiting for my iPad to load the right map or rescale the graphics as I try to find an appropriate place to land!!

And actually - minor correction - what you are referring to was an A320.

What does this have to do with having (or not having) an iPad in the cockpit?

What airline please. I don't want to fly on airline with a freak-out pilot.

That's a funny part. Samsung did everything, even customize their tablet, to have AA accept them. Sound like they aren't too confident in their own product.

He could be a new magicj. Rememeber "I'm an iOS dev"?

Yes, that's also my impression reading his posts but hey, he's young. He could not be that mature after all. (being anti-iPad (Apple) and all that for no reason.) I'm glad he flied military, not civilian. Doesn't really want any fanboyist pilot (in this case, Android) on my flight.

Xanthia01 sounds like one of those guys that went apoplectic when they first started introducing fly-by-wire systems...or even avionics in general.

I'm quite certain that the airlines are not going to introduce anything that would put their planes, crew or passengers at any serious risk. They know that the pay-out on that liability would quickly and easily exceed the $1M/year they're saving. And that's assuming they are simple, base, inhuman monsters who care only about their profits and nothing at all about the people in their planes.

Based on published data, the tests for the iPad did not simply include software testing (though that was part of it), there were also environmental tests dealing with decompression effects, temperature as well as 500+ hours of flight testing and impact of cockpit workload in result of software crashes. Based on the testing, it sounds like Level E software though a slight increase in cockpit workload if the iPad crashed durring take-off or landing might put it to Level D but I doubt the System Safety Analysis would support that.

So the question is, what tablet of the dozens will be chosen to go through environmental and flight testing testing? Will be on the market for more than 6 months before testing needs repeated? The rapid churn of Android hardware and strong Enterprise management features will keep Android out of the cockpit for at least another 18 months.

It all comes down to the System Safety Assessment. You put a software safety level on it of A, B, C, D or E. My guess is the iPad with Jeppesen software is Level E or D but that would be a question best posed to Jeppesen. The hardware will have to go through environmental testing and include things like decompression, temperature and EMI.

Based on published results, the system did not crash once in 250 flight test runs. Trust me, this is actually pretty damn good having been developing Level A and B software for flight avionics for 15 years.

Having worked on software and systems from the C-17, B-1B, 787 and several other comercial/private planes from BA to Embraer, I will guantee you the reliability is achieved more from backups than anything else. The issue is the volumes of the electronics are so low that reliability (typically at the design level) takes several years to actually get high.

For the first 3-10 years, there are almost always gremlins lurking in hardware, software, systems or weird timing interactions between the 3 parts. At sometime between 7-10 years after first flight, the systems reliability is really high.

That allays a lot of my fears. I was under the impression, they just certified the app and did some rough checks on the hardware. Good to know that it was actually tested as a system. Do you know where I can find the test results?



I could see somebody taking the OS and using it to develop a stand alone EFB, and still have it come out cheaper than the iPad. Nobody says that it has to be a COTS Android tablet. That said, I concur with your sentiment that it would be a while before we see an Android tablet in the cockpit. Especially if there's hardware testing involved as well.



My point was that there's no way somebody could suggest that avionics on an airplane are less reliable than an iPad. That was Apple ]['s suggestion. And you know as well as I do that the design standard and design methodolgies are completely different. That's not to say, Apple doesn't build amazing (and sturdy) products. But the design drivers for a consumer device are nowhere the same as something intended for use inside the flight deck.

Airplanes (even single engine Cessna) does have flight charts built-in the cockpit navigation systems. However, it is an FAA requirement to carry a backup not part of the airplane system itself just in case. Furthermore, there are dedicated electronic flight charts devices already but usually run Windows and cost hundreds more than the iPad.

I vote John Burdick and Steven N. the most level headed and knowledgeable posters on this thread.

1) WTF is your problem? I'm not anti-Apple. I own several Apple products.

2) I said there was no room for fanboyism on the flight deck. Apple or otherwise. Read my posts in this thread, I never once suggested an Android tablet as an alternative. I suggested paper and pencil instead.

My concern with technology like this is that trendy tech always has a nasty habit of finding its way into the airplane without proper testing or due consideration to the limits for which it was certified. What I loathe as a former pilot and as an engineer, is the guy who comes in thinking his iPad is cool and now decides it'll automatically work well in the cockpit because it works great for him at home.

I like to see reasonable arguments and data where safety is involved. At least Steven N. and John Burdick provided that. You're just an asswipe intent on slandering someone because they questioned the tech brand you're loyal to.

They also weigh a lot more. That's one of the reasons the iPad started gaining traction to begin with. Some guys were also putting their FLIPs on Kindles before.

No. That sounds to me that AA got a far more customized solution. I believe that AA already uses iPads in their First Class lounges. So they must have had a good reason (or several) to go for a different tablet for in-flight IFE. I suspect cost was one. Customization another. And perhaps the screen orientation too. It's a nicer experience watching movies on a 10 inch Galaxy Tab than an iPad, simply because the letterboxing is a lot less. For reading and games, etc. the iPad wins out.

The ability to play with the OS, will probably drive more airlines to use Android for IFE.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ru...onic-eyes.html

That's not to say the iPad is bad. it's just that airlines probably get more flexibility with an Android system. And that matters to airlines who want to push their brand.

All pilots would have an iPad. There would only be one set of pubs in each cockpit versus four now; basically to act as a backup. The cost savings come in weight saved (less gas used), plus you don't have to purchase three sets or pay to have them updated (we use ship sets, which means that the pubs stay in the cockpit and are updated by Jeppesen every two weeks).

Wow. I want to live in whatever parallel universe you're living in!


Exactly. As a passenger, I want a pilot who can stay calm and in control even in the midst of a worst-case-scenario (hydraulic failure, engine fell off, instruments went blank, etc.) and look for a way to get me safely to the ground—not someone who's going to go into "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" mode because his/her iPad EFB crashed. It's fine to have high standards of reliability, or to even wish for flawless perfection (don't we all want that?), but someone who needs "predictable perfection" in order to do their job is not someone I'm willing to trust with my life.

Wait, what does twin engine failure due to bird strike have to do with aircraft type? Are you suggesting that A330 wouldn't possibly have suffered that problem and that scenario is only valid on a A320?

Because anytime you go from a portable device to a built in FAA approved and certified instrument you go from a $500 device to a $15,000 device.

Your argument wouldn't make much weight if that said iPad is used solely for the purpose of navigating or as an aid in navigating a plane. Worrying only apply if pilots use them for entertainment purposes as well. I don't think that is warranted.

It was a reference to miracle on the Hudson.