FF vs. FltPlan for Instrument Rating?

I'm a huge fan of Garmin Pilot. AFAIK there aren't any other apps out there besides hiring a dispatch service that gives you an extra layer of legal protection from things like accidentally filing an illegal alternate or filing without putting an alternate when one is required. There have been times where for example, changing my departure time by 10 minutes is the difference between legally needing an alternate and not. And if you need an alternate, you have to go searching for alternates, then read all their non standard alternate mins, see if they apply, then read the notams, see if those apply, etc. It's easy to accidentally file an illegal alternate, but the app will let me know if the alternate i'm trying to file is allowed or not. FF does not do this. I like that it keeps me legal when filing.
 
Sundancer said:
Ignore the noise - some here know what's best for everyone else, and while they would never fall into a bad habit, the rest of us pud knockers just don't have the smarts to avoid such.

Both products are fine, if diffrent. Either is a good tool to help you fly well. I bet you're smart enough to understand any of the electrons in the cockpit, panel mounted, or in your lap, or on your yoke, can fail. And I bet you'll learn what you need to know to handle a blank screen.

I ain't no Chuck Yeager, and I use FF as my primary nav, until the approach phase. And I have an autopilot and a G530 and two VORs. I somehow survived the loss of the AP and my iPad.

My opinion, and I could be wrong, is to train like you'll fly, and fly like you trained (stolen from my USAF days, "Train like you fight, fight like you train).

If you're gonna use FF or another app, I'd like to get it in the mix early.
Click to expand...

"I use FF as my primary nav". Prosecution rests.
 
I want the time machine to go back and listen to this same discussion when NDB started replacing radio range.

Personally, I believe unless you use a sextant and charts written with a blackened stick on papyrus, you are not a real pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I want the time machine to go back and listen to this same discussion when NDB started replacing radio range.

Personally, I believe unless you use a sextant and charts written with a blackened stick on papyrus, you are not a real pilot.
Click to expand...

If you have original aviation charts on papyrus there are some historians that would like to talk to you.
 
Paper? You're crazy. Carve those charts into the actual tree!
 
midlifeflyer said:
I want the time machine to go back and listen to this same discussion when NDB started replacing radio range.

Personally, I believe unless you use a sextant and charts written with a blackened stick on papyrus, you are not a real pilot.
Click to expand...
Nice straw man.

To answer the objection to betting your life on a toy, you would either have to prove it is not a toy (which is beyond your expertise), or that there is insignificant additional risk.

You are the first person to mention "real pilots" here.
 
MAKG1 said:
Nice straw man.

To answer the objection to betting your life on a toy, you would either have to prove it is not a toy (which is beyond your expertise), or that there is insignificant additional risk.

You are the first person to mention "real pilots" here.
Click to expand...
It's been implicit in such things as anyone who might choose to rely on a tablet in a pinch or an emergency is "betting their life on a toy." As though vacuum systems and VORs are the height of perfection and instruments never fail. Sorry, fella, I'd much rather use the tools I carry in the cockpit and live than worry about meeting up to your exacting standards of proper conduct.

Straw man? Exactly who creates an incorrect picture of what someone else is doing with their tablet just so they can criticize it? As I said earlier, you have no idea whatsoever what my earlier post was referring to.
 
When I am doing practice approaches I turn off the moving plane on FF and swap away from the moving map on the gps. Keeping the ability of being able to fly needles and know where one is on an approach plate WITHOUT a moving plane is incredibly important.
 
MAKG1 said:
Nice straw man.

To answer the objection to betting your life on a toy, you would either have to prove it is not a toy (which is beyond your expertise), or that there is insignificant additional risk.

You are the first person to mention "real pilots" here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how using ForeFlight or similar is "betting your life" on it. I use and enjoy Foreflight on my tablet, but I also have it on my phone as a backup, plus I have charts available independently on both the G600 and the GTN750, two nav radios, and a full steam 6-pack with HSI that's independent of any the glass. Heck, if it came down to it I could borrow a passenger's device and download a chart in-flight.

So it's not as simple as saying, "oh, you use ForeFlight, you're an idiot trusting your life to a toy". Sure, some might blast off with nothing but a single device, but those guys are also probably doing VFR or very light IFR where a failure is barely an inconvenience, certainly not a fatality.
 
Last edited:
ZeroPapaGolf said:
I'm not sure how using ForeFlight or similar is "betting your life" on it. I use and enjoy Foreflight on my tablet, but I also have it on my phone as a backup, plus I have charts available independently on both the G600 and the GTN750, two nav radios, and an HSI that's independent of any the glass. Heck, if it came down to it I could borrow a passenger's device and download a chart in-flight.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't have a "partial panel" option. Two EFIS displays, two alternators with a backup battery on the primary EFIS, 2 com radios, 1 nav, and a GTN625. If all that goes dark, the AI on Foreflight (with the Stratus II) should get me to VFR conditions. Wouldn't want to try an approach with it, but I suppose it's possible.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
I'm not sure how using ForeFlight or similar is "betting your life" on it. I use and enjoy Foreflight on my tablet, but I also have it on my phone as a backup, plus I have charts available independently on both the G600 and the GTN750, two nav radios, and a full steam 6-pack with HSI that's independent of any the glass. Heck, if it came down to it I could borrow a passenger's device and download a chart in-flight.

So it's not as simple as saying, "oh, you use ForeFlight, you're an idiot trusting your life to a toy". Sure, some might blast off with nothing but a single device, but those guys are also probably doing VFR or very light IFR where a failure is barely an inconvenience, certainly not a fatality.
Click to expand...
He specifically said he would use Foreflight's course (incorrectly identified as heading) to navigate out of a panel failure. That's betting your life on it.

And them he says I have no idea how he would use it, even though he said just that.
 
Clip4 said:
"I use FF as my primary nav". Prosecution rests.
Click to expand...
When they find the wreckage, my IFR flight plan will/will be in my G530 (or at least the next waypoint). And if there isn't any wreckage, then it's not gonna come up, is it? Either way, nothing to "prosecute". . .

Seriously, I am not/not the only one here who does it all on FF first, then reaches over the the Garmin afterwards; enroute IFR, I look at the Garmin, check it against FF; heck, I even tune a VOR if it's real IMC, or marginal VFR.
No one suggested using a single source IMC, and attacking that idea is kinda silly.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
When I am doing practice approaches I turn off the moving plane on FF and swap away from the moving map on the gps. Keeping the ability of being able to fly needles and know where one is on an approach plate WITHOUT a moving plane is incredibly important.
Click to expand...
I personally don't see a reason to shut off a panel GPS moving map when flying a GPS approach, but I have done the blank plate multiple times. Even better than intentionally turning off "own ship" are there times it simply disappeared. As an example, there's a nearby ILS approach that changed in a way that it was no longer georeferenced. Didn't know that until (a) it did not appear as a "plate over map" and (b) no little airplane when I switched to the chart page. Much more realistic than intentionally turning it off :)
 
Sundancer said:
No one suggested using a single source IMC, and attacking that idea is kinda silly.
Click to expand...
waitaminnit! You mean your EFB use DOESN'T mean you use it all the time, exclusively, as sole source, and without either understanding its limitations orT having the knowledge and skill to use certified cockpit instruments?

You did make an error though. You referred to it as "primary nav" which has a special meaning. I understood what you meant but it is exactly the type of semantic mis-step which will of course get righteously jumped on immediately.
 
midlifeflyer said:
waitaminnit! You mean your EFB use DOESN'T mean you use it all the time, exclusively, as sole source, and without either understanding its limitations orT having the knowledge and skill to use certified cockpit instruments?

You did make an error though. You referred to it as "primary nav" which has a special meaning. I understood what you meant but it is exactly the type of semantic mis-step which will of course get righteously jumped on immediately.
Click to expand...
:) Roger-roger! Though in the interest of full disclosure, and, hopefully, anonymity, I may be breaking the rule, as I rely on FF mostly, and use the other panel mount stuff to confirm it's making sense. Maybe that's a gray enough area that it doesn't matter? I'm not even sure someone in the right seat would be cognizant. If I get a clearance change, it goes into FF first, I get organized, make the turn, whatever, then catch up the G530 after that.

I think I'm observing the spirit of the rule - if I lost the G530 IMC enroute, I wouldn't plow on as if nothing happened, and use FF for a GPS approach. I'd fess up, get an ILS or non-precision somewhere.
 
Sundancer said:
:) Roger-roger! Though in the interest of full disclosure, and, hopefully, anonymity, I may be breaking the rule, as I rely on FF mostly, and use the other panel mount stuff to confirm it's making sense. Maybe that's a gray enough area that it doesn't matter? I'm not even sure someone in the right seat would be cognizant. If I get a clearance change, it goes into FF first, I get organized, make the turn, whatever, then catch up the G530 after that.

I think I'm observing the spirit of the rule - if I lost the G530 IMC enroute, I wouldn't plow on as if nothing happened, and use FF for a GPS approach. I'd fess up, get an ILS or non-precision somewhere.
Click to expand...
I can't say whether in the scheme if things it matters if not. I can say that I consider an EFB primarily an enhanced navigation chart and not a flight instrument, and treat it that way.

In the days when paper charts and VOR were king and was given an instruction to a fix that was unfamiliar, I would look at the chart, not only to get the frequency but also the general direction. That's a basic reality crosscheck.

I do the same with an EFB. I used to add it to my course line on the tablet before the panel mount, but eventually found it easier to just get the spelling, put it in the real box first and update the chart at my leisure. Sometimes I don't even bother since I often cover my tablet altogether en route as a way of saving battery and preventing overheating.
 
Quite a standoff. What's fun about home building and doing your own panel is that you design something that's matches your priorities. A few random notes on my RV10:
- no mag compass anywhere.
- a dual battery, dual alternator, dual bus electrical system. Considered overkill by many but it makes me very happy for a variety of reasons. (There are a few more backup batteries as well).
- the main certified avionics unit is a G430w. The 3 glass MFDs and all backups are 'experimental'.
- Having once watched a Vacuum powered AI fail makes me think much of this old school partial panel bravado is BS. Fact is, surviving the slow failure of an old school AI at a critical moment is more difficult than handling any number of bugs uncovered in any experimental or laptop toy I've played in the soup with. Give me high tech bugs over the inevitable failure of vacuum powered equipment.
- I'll do better flying in turbulence with the digital readout of a GPS than anyone can do with a whisky compass... oh unless the GPS system goes offline.

That GPS thing is going to bite me in the ass one day, yep.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bill Watson said:
- Having once watched a Vacuum powered AI fail makes me think much of this old school partial panel bravado is BS.
Click to expand...
Not too many "old schoolers" have bravado about partial panel. Loss of vacuum instruments in an aircraft so equipped is an emergency, period. The goal, whether using traditional or new tech methods, is to learn to recognize the loss and perform well enough to extricate oneself from the situation as safely and expeditiously as possible. Way too many examples of those who didn't.
 
Skid said:
There are many of a pilot who believe you should be proficient in the technology you are using. So if you are purposefully avoiding it to satisfy a mentality of "paper only", then when its time to actually do it, you're fumbling around in IMC. It's good to learn both ways so you know what exactly is going on with the charts and the procedural thinking behind it, but IMO you should be training on how you'll be doing it during the real thing.

For me, I use my ipad as primary, have a back up android, and if all those fails I'll be scud running
Click to expand...
Old thread, but this is a great point, and well worth reinforcing. Yes, it's important to train for unusual situations, but if an instructor spends most of their time training for those unusual situtions, they produce students who are pretty incompetent with the tools they'll be using 99.9% of the time, and that's poor teaching.

We had a fatal crash a couple of years ago when a young, inexperienced pilot working on his commercial cross-country went up at night in a 152 with an unreliable NAV radio, got lost, and ran out of fuel over the big black hole of Algonquin Park. It turns out the pilot had a phone in his pocket with an aviation app, and the phone was still charged and working after the crash, but in the pressure of the emergency he never thought to take it out--probably because some misguided "old school" instructor had insisted that using an app is "cheating". We really have to learn to train better.
 
Last edited:
ZeroPapaGolf said:
You don't think technology will continue to expand in GA? By the way, I learned with paper, plotter, and pencil behind steam gauges, but I'm not too blind to see when something new is an improvement.
Click to expand...
I think it’s important for someone to have a CFI that will teach the proper time and use of an EFB. Let’s face it if your talking about it, might as well learn about it. I’d hate to see you go through learning and passing without it and say one in IMC on your own pulling that EFB out and fumbling around.
My CFI introduced it later in the training just before our long XC. We spent a lot of time reviewing its place in the cockpit as well as limitations. I have a stratus 3 with FF and one thing that was neat to see was the delay rates in weather.
He preferred paper approach plates with EFB as a backup. I fly that way now. But have caught myself having to use a different plate I didn’t print but felt comfortable loading and referencing plate for the approach
 
FltplanGo lost me after I had downloaded the updated charts, even turned off WiFi to confirm they worked, then got in the plane and found I had no charts.

It isn't a bad app for the low price of free, but I didn't find it stable enough for serious use. Probably fine for VFR, but if I'm hard IFR I want a little more reliability.
 
Piperonca said:
Don't forget the Viking sunstone. More reliable than those newfangled sextants.
Click to expand...
Also, no need to check those online weather thingies. Turn until you're facing into the wind, extend your left arm, and it will be pointing to where the centre of the low-pressure system is.

(Exceptions: wind affected by obstructions, bodies of water, terrain, heating or cooling, gust fronts from CBs, .....)
 
midwestpa24 said:
FltplanGo lost me after I had downloaded the updated charts, even turned off WiFi to confirm they worked, then got in the plane and found I had no charts.

It isn't a bad app for the low price of free, but I didn't find it stable enough for serious use. Probably fine for VFR, but if I'm hard IFR I want a little more reliability.
Click to expand...
Too bad you had a negative experience. Consumer phones and tablets aren't super-reliable platforms no matter what software you're running on them: they're built to be light, affordable, and disposible, not robust and reliable (the way, say, a purpose-built portable aviation GPS is). I've found FltPlan Go highly stable and dependable on my various Android devices over the last couple of years, but I'd never fly with just one aviation app and/or one mobile device without paper backups (which I have). Every app on every platform will let you down sometimes--it doesn't matter if it's iOS or Android, FF, GP, or FltPlan Go—so you need redundancy.

Even your panel-mounted avionics can go dark sometimes, like my whole stack did this past Sunday (in IMC, of course, thanks to Murphy's Law).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top