Anyone using ForeFlight's AI Connector? I'm curious how it compares to a weather-focused tool I've built.

[1kashtanov]

I've been curious about ForeFlight's new AI Connector and how well it handles detailed, flight-specific weather questions.

I'm an independent developer building Jaffby, a conversational preflight weather investigation tool for GA pilots.

Jaffby takes a planned route, departure time, altitude, and aircraft performance, then calculates how relevant weather conditions relate to that specific flight. You can ask follow-up questions, investigate potential concerns, and explore alternatives like changing your departure time or cruise altitude.

I know ForeFlight already offers conversational access to weather and flight-planning information, and I'm not going to pretend my little project is somehow better.

But I'm genuinely curious whether a tool focused specifically on weather investigation can offer something different.

Is anyone here using ForeFlight's AI Connector and willing to compare the two?

I'd be particularly interested in trying the same flight and weather questions in both tools.

What does ForeFlight handle better? Does Jaffby reveal anything useful? What's missing? Where does either one get something wrong?

I'm interested in actual comparisons, not compliments.

Jaffby is free to try, doesn't require registration, and is still experimental. It's not a replacement for an official weather briefing.

https://jaffby.com

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone who's tried ForeFlight's connector, or anyone curious enough to compare them.

 

[Wagondriver]

My experience with AI, especially in aviation, is that it is not any better than asking a random non-aviation person on the street.

 

[1kashtanov]

My experience with AI, especially in aviation, is that it is not any better than asking a random non-aviation person on the street.

I understand the skepticism, especially when it comes to aviation. I wouldn't trust a generic chatbot to make flight decisions either.

That's actually why I built Jaffby a bit differently. The weather data comes from established aviation sources, and the route-specific calculations (distance, timing, altitude relevance, winds, etc.) are performed by code, not generated by AI.

The AI's job is to interpret those results and let pilots ask follow-up questions, not invent weather information or make go/no-go decisions.

Of course, that doesn't make it infallible, and it still needs real-world validation. But I think there's an interesting difference between asking a generic chatbot about aviation weather and giving it actual flight-specific calculations to reason over.

 

[Racerx]

I know talking to people is scary. But if you struggle to read a briefing you can still call and talk to a real person.

 

[1kashtanov]

I know talking to people is scary. But if you struggle to read a briefing you can still call and talk to a real person.

Absolutely, and I'm not suggesting pilots should stop using Flight Service or talking to a briefer.

Jaffby is more about getting a quick, flight-specific weather overview and having a second set of eyes on the conditions. You can ask follow-up questions, investigate potential concerns, or see what changes if you depart a couple of hours later or choose another altitude.

It's not about replacing a human briefer or pilot judgment. It's about making weather investigation quicker and more interactive, alongside the tools pilots already trust.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I asked a question about a trip I’m planning for Sunday and received 2 more questions asked back to me about needing more specifics. Ain’t got time nor patience for that. I’ll use prog charts and other tools, it’s faster and I can explore the bounds, which I can’t do with written word exchange. Pics are worth a thousand words. If I have questions, I’m sure not trusting my go/no-go to AI. Sorry (I really am); not trying to sound like an a-hole but it does sound like I am one.

-Curmudgeon

 

[1kashtanov]

I asked a question about a trip I’m planning for Sunday and received 2 more questions asked back to me about needing more specifics. Ain’t got time nor patience for that. I’ll use prog charts and other tools, it’s faster and I can explore the bounds, which I can’t do with written word exchange. Pics are worth a thousand words. If I have questions, I’m sure not trusting my go/no-go to AI. Sorry (I really am); not trying to sound like an a-hole but it does sound like I am one.

-Curmudgeon

Not at all, I really appreciate the honest feedback!

You're absolutely right about the friction. Jaffby currently asks for quite a few flight parameters because it uses them to calculate weather relevance along the route, including timing, altitude, winds, etc. But I understand that having to answer several questions before getting anything useful can defeat the purpose of making the process easier.

And I agree about graphical information. Prog charts and other visual tools let you explore the bigger picture much more naturally than a conversation alone.

My goal isn't to replace those tools or have AI make go/no-go decisions. It's to offer an additional way to investigate flight-specific weather questions.

You've highlighted two things I need to improve: getting to a useful answer faster and providing better visual context.

Thanks again for actually giving it a try. This is exactly the kind of feedback I need.

 

[1kashtanov]

I asked a question about a trip I’m planning for Sunday and received 2 more questions asked back to me about needing more specifics. Ain’t got time nor patience for that. I’ll use prog charts and other tools, it’s faster and I can explore the bounds, which I can’t do with written word exchange. Pics are worth a thousand words. If I have questions, I’m sure not trusting my go/no-go to AI. Sorry (I really am); not trying to sound like an a-hole but it does sound like I am one.

-Curmudgeon

I fixed it, so it was easier to ask the first question for the very first time, now the test prompt is already in the text area, you can just press the 'Send' button now, or modify some parameters and after press send

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Am I having this exchange on POA with a human? Or AI? Or is the writing above polished by AI? Sure sounds like AI.

Maybe I’ll give it another try tonight.

-Skeptical Curmudgeon

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not sure of the goal, but all this information should not be needed for a weather briefing.

 

[1kashtanov]

I'm not sure of the goal, but all this information should not be needed for a weather briefing.
View attachment 155912

I understand your point, but there's a reason Jaffby asks for those parameters.

It's designed to perform detailed, flight-specific weather analysis, not just generate a general briefing. It models the aircraft's climb, cruise, and descent to estimate where, when, and at what altitude the flight may encounter relevant weather conditions.

For example, on a flight at FL290, ignoring climb and descent could mean overlooking significant portions of the actual flight profile.

Also, those details don't need to be entered every time. Registered users can save their aircraft performance information in their profile and reuse it. Once that's configured, a request can be as simple as “KAPA to KFNL in two hours at 5,500 ft.”

I understand that this approach won't suit everyone, but the detailed calculations are intentional. I'd rather preserve that level of analysis than simplify it by ignoring important parts of the flight.

 

[1kashtanov]

Haha, yes, you're talking to a real human

English isn't my first language, so I sometimes use ChatGPT to help polish my replies. But the project, the code, and the opinions are all mine.

I'm just an independent developer trying to build something useful for pilots.

And I'd genuinely appreciate it if you gave Jaffby another try. Feel free to be as skeptical as you want, that's completely fair. My instagram: 1kashtanov - I post videos there about the project with my face if anything.

Am I having this exchange on POA with a human? Or AI? Or is the writing above polished by AI? Sure sounds like AI.

Maybe I’ll give it another try tonight.

-Skeptical Curmudgeon

 

[Hang 4]

My experience with AI, especially in aviation, is that it is not any better than asking a random non-aviation person on the street.

pretty much any weather forecast you get today has model that utilizes AI to some degree.

 

[SkyHog]

the ChatGPT connector with ForeFlight has made a lot of basic tasks much faster - I look at it not as doing things better than I can do them myself, but rather quicker than doing all of it myself.

For example, I ask it to help me plan flights with the best fuel options along the route. iFlyEFB can do this right out of the box, but ForeFlight (the golden child of EFBs) can't. ChatGPT will spit out routing, altitudes for best wind, and stops along the way to get the lowest fuel price. All things I could do myself, but it takes AI like 30 seconds to get to the same. Then, as HITL, I review to make sure the information is correct and makes sense, and do it.

I haven't used it for weather yet, but would plan to do the exact same thing if I did - give it my route, ask it to help me find the quickest, weather free (or weather safe) route to get there, what I should be aware of from the forecasts, and where to find the relevant details - then using the results I'd review the sources to come to the same conclusion.

Your tool seems great, but its lacking the one thing about AI that makes me trust it - reference to sources and the ability to review and come to the same conclusion faster. I wouldn't use a tool that gave me an answer I couldn't quickly verify was correct.

edit: as an example, this should be a perfectly valid query without any of the additional details being asked:


I'd expect a tool like this to help pick altitudes and directions, routing, etc., to give the briefing with the best chance of good weather. Maybe I need to specify a "top altitude" or something that I can't outclimb, but that's about it.

 

[1kashtanov]

the ChatGPT connector with ForeFlight has made a lot of basic tasks much faster - I look at it not as doing things better than I can do them myself, but rather quicker than doing all of it myself.

For example, I ask it to help me plan flights with the best fuel options along the route. iFlyEFB can do this right out of the box, but ForeFlight (the golden child of EFBs) can't. ChatGPT will spit out routing, altitudes for best wind, and stops along the way to get the lowest fuel price. All things I could do myself, but it takes AI like 30 seconds to get to the same. Then, as HITL, I review to make sure the information is correct and makes sense, and do it.

I haven't used it for weather yet, but would plan to do the exact same thing if I did - give it my route, ask it to help me find the quickest, weather free (or weather safe) route to get there, what I should be aware of from the forecasts, and where to find the relevant details - then using the results I'd review the sources to come to the same conclusion.

Your tool seems great, but its lacking the one thing about AI that makes me trust it - reference to sources and the ability to review and come to the same conclusion faster. I wouldn't use a tool that gave me an answer I couldn't quickly verify was correct.

edit: as an example, this should be a perfectly valid query without any of the additional details being asked:
View attachment 155919

I'd expect a tool like this to help pick altitudes and directions, routing, etc., to give the briefing with the best chance of good weather. Maybe I need to specify a "top altitude" or something that I can't outclimb, but that's about it.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, unfortunately Jaffby's current functionality is limited to exact route with exact parameters, the question you asked is a bit too flexible, I know that at the end it would be very cool to see Jaffby helping with such requests, but I intentially started implementing it step by step from the most accurate version first, I think accuracy is more important than amount of functionality, I better approach everything carefully, regarding verification, I intentionally made it that way so all the responses could be verified manually, I think that's one of the disadvantages of Foreflight AI Connector, let me provide to you how it would reply if you asked more accurately about your flight:

 

[1kashtanov]

Anyone else managed to give it a try? Very interested in any opinion!)

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

As promised, I gave it another shot. When I accessed it, it already had a prompt with the needed info. I just replaced the info in the prompt with my own flight info. The output seemed reasonably useful. I now see this as another tool, not a replacement of any existing tool.

I could see myself becoming lazy and using something like this and accessing some other existing preflight info less. It’s in the same category of using AI for doing school work. Eventually the learning process stops. The preflight weather planning aspect of “license to learn” could come to a halt.

 

[1kashtanov]

As promised, I gave it another shot. When I accessed it, it already had a prompt with the needed info. I just replaced the info in the prompt with my own flight info. The output seemed reasonably useful. I now see this as another tool, not a replacement of any existing tool.

I could see myself becoming lazy and using something like this and accessing some other existing preflight info less. It’s in the same category of using AI for doing school work. Eventually the learning process stops. The preflight weather planning aspect of “license to learn” could come to a halt.

Thanks for giving it another try, I really appreciate that. And I think your point about becoming too dependent on these tools is completely fair. The last thing I want is for pilots to stop developing their own weather interpretation skills or blindly accept an AI-generated conclusion. That's partly why Jaffby lets you inspect the underlying weather data and calculations. My hope is that pilots can use it to investigate and question the weather, not just receive an answer and stop thinking. I see it as a supplement to the learning process and existing briefing tools, not a replacement for either. Thanks again for the honest feedback! Attaching the raw tool result that could be verified every time AI gives a response as well, it's located below AI response, I guess it's related to the question you asked, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[oskrypuch]

Best to understand the weather, and all else, and review it yourself.

* Orest

 

[1kashtanov]

Best to understand the weather, and all else, and review it yourself.

* Orest

Absolutely agree. Pilots should always understand the weather themselves and make their own decisions.

That's not what I'm trying to replace with Jaffby. The idea is to make it easier to investigate weather for a specific flight, ask follow-up questions, and review the supporting data and calculations.

I see it as an additional tool to help pilots understand the weather, not something to think or decide for them.