If this iPad app is FAA approved, then I don't really see the problem if I wanted to furnish my entire fleet of planes with it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Apple
That may be true, as I am obviously not familiar with electronic flight bags. I do use my iPad every single day though, and I find it to be pretty reliable.
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.
I get all that. I just wonder about trading all the binders in for 1-2 iPads. Imagine certain situations(like smoke in the cockpit). Has the iPad been tested so it won't crap out on you when you're trying to read the AOIs with smoke, etc.?
Maybe I'm old school (odd, cause I'm young), but I've always considered paper, pencils and a wize wheel to be the most reliable tools in the cockpit when everything goes belly up.
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!
His anti-Apple comments aside, you have no idea what goes on in the cockpit either.
And there is a huge difference between an iPad and an Electronic Flight Bag certified for the deck. I, sincerely hope this isn't AA cheaping out.
What worries me is that it's getting quite dangerous when Apple portrays this device (like they did in the keynote) as something that's widely used in aviation. It's leading to situations where some morons are actually substituting authorized maps for iPads and getting into trouble (they've had ADIZ violations in DC from a guy using a map on an iPad).
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
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 FAA'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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
Why is an iPad incapable of showing a moving map with approach overlays?
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 a big worry. Consumer rubbish has no place in the cockpit.
I'm a pilot - the cockpit is a place where everything is perfectly designed, perfectly reliable and responds immediately to commands, exactly as intended.
The iPad is far from this. I can think of nothing worse than battling with a flaky consumer device (freezing, apps quitting, et al) while trying to fly the plane.
One little "flake-out" and the plane (and people/structures on the ground) are at risk. I don't have time to battle with device resets or force-quitting or "Please verify your iTunes account password" when I'm trying to intercept the glide slope! Is this a joke?
I won't take to the air without the paper! Sorry - no way. Thankfully, I don't work for American.
I'm all for electronic maps, but they've got to be on a specialised device that is as reliable as the flight avionics. And the display quality has got to be capable of displaying the detail we need - something like a 4HD Barco display.
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.
You'd be surprised at the avionics reliability standards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You have no idea?! Fact is, consumer devices flake out. What you suggest makes a mockery of CRM. What do you fly? 707s? I fly A330s internationally - I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
Hm. So what is your response when you lose both engines due to unforeseen bird ingestion?
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.
You have no idea?! Fact is, consumer devices flake out. What you suggest makes a mockery of CRM. What do you fly? 707s? I fly A330s internationally - I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
What airline please. I don't want to fly on airline with a freak-out pilot.
Comments
I find it to be pretty reliable.
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!
If this iPad app is FAA approved, then I don't really see the problem if I wanted to furnish my entire fleet of planes with it.
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.
That may be true, as I am obviously not familiar with electronic flight bags. I do use my iPad every single day though, and I find it to be pretty reliable.
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.
Military. Flew trainers. I'm a maintainer now.
I get all that. I just wonder about trading all the binders in for 1-2 iPads. Imagine certain situations(like smoke in the cockpit). Has the iPad been tested so it won't crap out on you when you're trying to read the AOIs with smoke, etc.?
Maybe I'm old school (odd, cause I'm young), but I've always considered paper, pencils and a wize wheel to be the most reliable tools in the cockpit when everything goes belly up.
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!
His anti-Apple comments aside, you have no idea what goes on in the cockpit either.
And there is a huge difference between an iPad and an Electronic Flight Bag certified for the deck. I, sincerely hope this isn't AA cheaping out.
What worries me is that it's getting quite dangerous when Apple portrays this device (like they did in the keynote) as something that's widely used in aviation. It's leading to situations where some morons are actually substituting authorized maps for iPads and getting into trouble (they've had ADIZ violations in DC from a guy using a map on an iPad).
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 alert. "American" airline gives customers Korean tablet.
I wonder how much better our economy would be by the simple application of "buy local."
Irony^2 alert. The iPad is mostly made not in the USA.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 FAA'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?
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.
Why is an iPad incapable of showing a moving map with approach overlays?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a big worry. Consumer rubbish has no place in the cockpit.
I'm a pilot - the cockpit is a place where everything is perfectly designed, perfectly reliable and responds immediately to commands, exactly as intended.
The iPad is far from this. I can think of nothing worse than battling with a flaky consumer device (freezing, apps quitting, et al) while trying to fly the plane.
One little "flake-out" and the plane (and people/structures on the ground) are at risk. I don't have time to battle with device resets or force-quitting or "Please verify your iTunes account password" when I'm trying to intercept the glide slope! Is this a joke?
I won't take to the air without the paper! Sorry - no way. Thankfully, I don't work for American.
I'm all for electronic maps, but they've got to be on a specialised device that is as reliable as the flight avionics. And the display quality has got to be capable of displaying the detail we need - something like a 4HD Barco display.
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.
You'd be surprised at the avionics reliability standards.
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.
I'm surrounded by Garmin equipment and can say for certain that an iPad can certainly hold its own next to a dedicated unit.
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.
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.
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.
You have no idea?! Fact is, consumer devices flake out. What you suggest makes a mockery of CRM. What do you fly? 707s? I fly A330s internationally - I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
Hm. So what is your response when you lose both engines due to unforeseen bird ingestion?
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.
Hm. So what is your response when you lose both engines due to unforeseen bird ingestion?
What does this have to do with having (or not having) an iPad in the cockpit?
You have no idea?! Fact is, consumer devices flake out. What you suggest makes a mockery of CRM. What do you fly? 707s? I fly A330s internationally - I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
What airline please. I don't want to fly on airline with a freak-out pilot.