CFIs: how do you "teach" with EFBs?

citizen5000 said:
The argument: "The reason pilots should know how to calculate weight and balance by hand is by doing so they learn how things really work" falls apart for most pilots in most aspects of flying.

Why?

Few of us are degree'd in aeronautical engineering and physics to be able to truly explain the intricacies of aerodynamics, propulsion, avionics, materials, structural analysis and manufacturing and fluid mechanics. Or can do the calculations (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) needed to express these things.

Few of us are degree'd in mechanical engineering to be able to fully explain the design and maintenance of each component inside the engine. Nor the ability to truly detect or diagnose a subtle malfunction. And fewer still understand the science of metallurgy or could even explain the basics of a 4-stroke engine or a turbo-charger.

Few of us understand the chemistry of engine oil, fuels or other lubricating agents necessary to keep the plane in the air.

Few of us have a degree in Meteorology yet we munge thru the weather products believing we can predict and understand the weather well enough to stay out of trouble.

Few of us know the engineering and physics of GPS and GPS sats. How many truly know what RAIM and WAAS is?

How many understand Radar or the radio technology in our planes and in Navaids? Not how to use it but explain how the transmitters and receivers work (electronics and electromagnetic wave theory.)

And fewer still understand software technology which is more and more involved in aviation (in avionics, in the tablets, online).
Click to expand...
You seriously can't be equating doing a simple weight and balance for a 172 to Aeronautical Engineering? Does anyone want to put any effort into getting a PPL anymore. God forbid we actually have to think when we fly:rolleyes:
 
More overreaction to the thought of making a task both easier and more accurate. "If you can't do it with a paper and pencil, you don't deserve to fly!"

Gimme a break.
 
I mean maybe if you can't do simple arithmetic such as hand written weight and balance you will never be my PIC. The idea of a poster equating a hand calculated weight and balance to Engineering is just asinine. It's not puffing out my chest saying I'm a better pilot that you. We're taking about adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying 4 digit numbers.
 
citizen5000 said:
The argument: "The reason pilots should know how to calculate weight and balance by hand is by doing so they learn how things really work" falls apart for most pilots in most aspects of flying.

Why?

Few of us are degree'd in aeronautical engineering and physics to be able to truly explain the intricacies of aerodynamics, propulsion, avionics, materials, structural analysis and manufacturing and fluid mechanics. Or can do the calculations (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) needed to express these things.
Click to expand...

To safely fly an airplane and exercise good ADM does not require this advanced knowledge or the other skills you mentioned. We're not scuba diving, we're snorkeling. We've learned in pilot training to give the pilot the tools that matter. The knowledge you described doesn't fall into that category.

And fewer still understand software technology which is more and more involved in aviation (in avionics, in the tablets, online).
Click to expand...

This part of your statement contains a reasonable amount of merit. There certainly are issues in the pilot population with understanding the avionics. Understanding the interface, what the box does (and doesn't) do, when to use certain functions, when not to use them. I think that's a fair critique. That's part of what AC 61-98C gets at... issues with advanced avionics and automation in general aviation flying. As a whole we've got to get better at this.
 
The simple point I am trying to make is there is no good reason a student (or licensed PIC) should not be able to use a device/tool to do W&B. Understanding how the algorithms in G1000 or GFC700 A/P firmware work are not necessary to using and depending on their function IMHO.
 
citizen5000 said:
The simple point I am trying to make is there is no good reason a student (or licensed PIC) should not be able to use a device/tool to do W&B. Understanding how the algorithms in G1000 or GFC700 A/P firmware work are not necessary to using and depending on their function IMHO.
Click to expand...

Really?

The G1000/GFC700 has at least three bust buttons.

You have to understand how the automation works to use it successfully. Automation surprise is a huge risk with that combination, especially with coupled VNAV.

Quickly, what are your risks when using VS to climb? Now, ask a student pilot.

Maybe you wouldn't be so complacent if you understood that NO ONE IN THE UNIVERSE understands every detail about G1000/GFC700, or any other FMS. It's more than a million lines of code. Odds are, hundreds of them are wrong. Maybe thousands or tens of thousands (yes, some projects are that bad; I've no idea if this one qualifies, but trying to figure out what conditions require two VNAV button presses to execute has been an interesting exercise, as it's not repeatable -- there is probably a bug in there).

Now, I think it's truly stupid to go through this stuff while teaching a primary student. The airplane flies the same no matter what the automation thinks, and it is not at all obvious that this complex POS is an improvement in safety for a VFR pilot, over a much simpler airplane. And there are only so many brain cells to go around; using them up with all the useless complexity is a really bad idea while trying to teach a student how airplanes fly.
 
The analogy that a student must be able to do W&B by hand is similar to a student being asked to explain the algorithms in the G1000 firmware. How to use W&B and how to use the G1000 should be the emphasis not what is under the hood.

There are various levels of software testing since you brought it up. Software in a smartphone or a smartTV is not tested to near the level of software in a device that can kill you. The G1000 is over ten years old and is a well tested device.

Some of the problem in this debate does center around the notion that somehow technology is the problem and not the solution. Frankly it's too late to avoid automated tools and tech anyway. As the old planes and pilots fade into the sunset the days of doing things by analog, radio navaids and by hand are nearly gone too.
 
citizen5000 said:
The analogy that a student must be able to do W&B by hand is similar to a student being asked to explain the algorithms in the G1000 firmware. How to use W&B and how to use the G1000 should be the emphasis not what is under the hood.

There are various levels of software testing since you brought it up. Software in a smartphone or a smartTV is not tested to near the level of software in a device that can kill you. The G1000 is over ten years old and is a well tested device.

Some of the problem in this debate does center around the notion that somehow technology is the problem and not the solution. Frankly it's too late to avoid automated tools and tech anyway. As the old planes and pilots fade into the sunset the days of doing things by analog, radio navaids and by hand are nearly gone too.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't.

Just because a new way of doing things might come around does not make the old way go away. It takes decades, and sometimes it never happens.

Technology is not a pure good. All of it has cost, and that has to be weighed against benefit. For instance, now most of us have cellular technology and GPS in our cars. Have accidents gone down? No, they are up. Why? Distraction is the obvious reason.

I've been flying since 2011, and I'm still waiting for the old ways to go away. As you say, G1000 is 10 years old. Yet most of the planes are 30 or more.... and GPS approaches have been around for decades, yet they haven't replaced everything.

It's going to be a VERY long time before they are gone.

I've been around long enough to know the hype from reality. Just because something is new does not make it better. Usually, there is some benefit, and there is some cost. The hype completely ignores the cost. For VFR in a G1000, there really isn't much benefit, and a rather substantial cost in complexity and far more information than can be usefully digested. IFR, it's less obvious; but flying a coupled LPV approach is a very different beast from hand flying a VOR approach. The total workloads are comparable, but there are many more things that can go wrong with a coupled approach. Hand-flying a G1000 is a lot more work than hand flying a round dial, especially if you're not doing default sequencing (it's trivial to "activate" a leg on paper, or to switch approaches or IAFs), but that's what you have to do as soon as anything goes wrong.

Some people seem to assume that technology makes things work different. No, it makes things appear different. That's critical to understand.

The original complaint was W&B. If you can't compute that -- and it's grade school math -- you rely on gadgets too much. You simply must be able to spot when your gadget lies to you. And it will. The way you do that is knowing how it works by hand.
 
citizen5000 said:
The analogy that a student must be able to do W&B by hand is similar to a student being asked to explain the algorithms in the G1000 firmware. How to use W&B and how to use the G1000 should be the emphasis not what is under the hood.
Click to expand...

It's not similar because one is easy and the other isn't. Though it depends on which algorithms you're talking about.

Aeroperú Flight 603, which crashed and killed all aboard due to nothing more than a blocked static port, is an example of why it's not enough to know how to merely use something.
 
citizen5000 said:
Why? The W&B tool is also part of the EFBs and using them means a pilot is more likely to check W&B before each flight since entering weight delta is easily done and gets reliably computed quickly without error.
Click to expand...

There are some errors built into the assumptions in some EFB W&B programs.

citizen5000 said:
The Garmin Pilot W&B tool allows configuring moment/ARM for each station in the plane including the baggage area. You enter weight for pilot, co-pilot seats, rear seats, and baggage area and the tool displays the result graphically. Less than a minute required before the flight.
Click to expand...

I decided to do my W&B with the new built in one in ForeFlight for my checkride today. Ran across some interesting things to note when looking at the numbers for a 182 P. Will explain below.

MAKG1 said:
You still have to understand what it's doing.

Having a computer do it all for you from day 1 prevents this.

Yes, it's quick, but garbage in, garbage out.
Click to expand...

Agreed. ForeFlight's W&B is good. Graphical. All that and a bag of chips, but here's gotchas I saw comparing it to the 182P POH...

- If you don't want to enter all of the data for an aircraft, an internet connection is required. ForeFlight pulls the TCDS data assumably from their own database for a new aircraft if the type is supported. Want to add an airplane quick sometime? Must have Internet. (Wifi or cellular.) No way do I see in there to pre-download that data.

- ForeFlight makes some assumptions about stations when the TCDS data has a range for a station. Example, in a 182P the pilot and passenger seats can both be slid anywhere from (from memory, book isn't here right now) the low 30" range all the way to 50" aft. (This is TCDS data. If your Cessna has seat stops installed you won't get to 50" but you'll still have a range.)

Cessna assumes the average pilot ends up at 37" aft or something like that. ForeFlight tells you it's making the assumption and puts both seats at the average, aft of 40".

IN THIS CASE I think it by dumb luck chooses a "safer" station location as a fixed station (further aft than Cessna) but your numbers will NOT match the book unless you account for their assumption on seat position.

Additionally ALL of the cargo area has a station range and discussion in the POH about loading, where the tie down hooks are, even an admonition to use "3/4 plywood flooring" if loading heavy weights in the back, say with the rear seat removed. Cessna is also kind enough in 1975 POH's to provide hard numbers on how to modify W&B for a rear seat removal. Without it, many opt to have their mechanic write up two official W&B forms.

ForeFlight can do NONE of that moving of things around. It also does NOT have the third optional rear loading of the optional child seat, not that I've ever seen one for the 182 in the wild, but they're out there. Somewhere. Three distinct pictures in the POH for different rear cabin configurations, ForeFlight assumes all of those stations are fixed. And further aft than Cessna assumes in their numbers and chart.

You also can NOT edit the stations easily in ForeFlight. You can only DELETE a station and re-add it manually or add another station and TURN OFF others with the checks on the left side.

(By the way, the checks make for an interesting way to do skydivers. Ha. Just click them off for what will happen when they all get out. Haha.)

ForeFlight also *correctly* offers "Audit mode" far right, bottom. This turns on a view of the math done. It's imperative you know what the math SHOULD be (e.g. done by "hand") to audit what it's doing with a new aircraft.

I actually went over some of this above with he DPE today as he's a ForeFlight user and fan and allows it on checkrides. I wouldn't doubt that he might incorporate some "interesting questions" about ForeFlight's assumptions into checkrides in the future. Up to him, but he was interested. I only really understood what ForeFlight was doing because book numbers DO NOT MATCH so my concern was that imported and averaged TCDS stations didn't match the "average location" stations in the POH text next to the charts and graphs, and I sat and proved it to myself with a paper and pencil not long ago.

In MY case, ForeFlight errors to the rear and generally it's hard to get a 182 too far forward, so... it's not a safety issue. But one could add a bunch more stations for the seats and baggage and use the most appropriate one, turning off the others, over and above the averaged ones that ForeFlight sets up automatically in a 182.

Another item to note, a common STC on the newest of the old 182 airframes is the paperwork bump of ramp and takeoff weight from 2950 to 3100 with a max landing weight of 2950. ForeFlight CAN handle this, but it WILL NOT know if the STC is applied to a particular airframe, of course. So you have to know and reconfigure it correctly for the older 182 airframes with this possibility.

citizen5000 said:
Once you set the tool up with the data from the manufacturer the only error you can make is putting in the wrong weights.
Click to expand...

Incorrect if the manufacturer's data includes movable stations with ranges. To really do that "right" you'd have to add a LOT of fixed stations to ForeFlight and from a brief peek at Garmin Pilot, same deal. See above.

I DO agree that folks will often do a proper W&B with takeoff, landing, and zero-fuel calculations with the modern tools and encourage their use, but you HAVE to look at your POH and know when the tools are introducing inaccuracies. There's a lot of information buried in the W&B descriptive text in most POHs.

(Just like there's descriptive info about runway surfaces and headwinds that are "off the chart" and such in Takeoff and Landing distance data, another one examiners love to ask about.)
 
citizen5000 said:
An EFB meets the standard for having a copy of a DP in the plane prior to takeoff. So paper is not required.
Click to expand...
True, but if you go paperless, you really need a backup device in addition to your primary EFB.
 
CFIs need to be flexible on EFBs and will need to be able to adapt to the needs of the prospective pilot(s). In the case of instruction beyond private pilot (which is 99% of what I do), the pilot-training for the next level has usually developed a preference for their EFB App before they show up. In my opinion, trying to get them to switch to my preferred EFB App could really set them back. It is incumbent on the CFI to become familiar with the 3-4 major Apps (all of which have substantial similarities), in the same manner as we adapt to avionics. I don't force them to use my preferred App. In training pilots for the instrument rating in particular, I have had several dump their Foreflight in favor of using paper for their check-rides. I don't there could be any argument against the assertion that the best instructors are those with a flexible and adaptive approach as opposed to those with a regimented "one-size-fits-all" approach.

In ground instruction, I still cover basic paper in flight planning (they need to know how to do it), then with the EFB and demonstrate the (usually) negligible difference. The EFB can be used to store and access all relevant FAA manuals for reference as well as the AIM and eCFR. Standard briefings are easy to access and view, but at least once, they should call up FSS for a briefing and to file a flight plan. Another feature of the EFB, is the ability to annotate charts and a good white board App to illustrate maneuvers.

In flight, the CFI needs to emphasize that the EFB is NOT a flight instrument. Rather, it is a fancy version of a kneeboard and, like the kneeboard, basically provides us reference data, enroute chart(s), Navlog, approach charts, and reference to our weather. In terms of aircraft control, it adds nothing for the pilot. In terms of safety, they can help out with NEXRAD and Traffic (the latter only being reliable with ADS-B out). Features such as built in AHRS, Synthetic vision, etc. are niceties. If your EFB is connected to Stratus, GDL-39, FlightBox, DualX-190, etc. that's great. However, remember that if these fail, you need to be able to adapt to using the device unconnected, with no little airplane crawling across the map, as a paperless kneeboard. There is nothing like the ability to have situational awareness without having to look at a picture.

Another thing that needs to be stressed, is that an EFB in the aircraft required redundancy. In my own flying, I use an IPAD Air2 as a kneeboard and a Mini on the panel as an MFD receiving ADS-B traffic and Weather via a connected device (and an ADS-B out transponder). The two EFBs provide complete redundancy and both are connected to aircraft power in flight.
New Panel 03-08-2017.png

- IS THERE A WAY TO STANDARDIZE ANY OF THIS? - Some basic guidelines for training, rather than a lot of minutiae would be good.

- IS THIS ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA? - Absolutely.

Happy Flying... Scott
 
SbestCFII said:
True, but if you go paperless, you really need a backup device in addition to your primary EFB.
Click to expand...

The best backup for portable EFB is Avare on a cell phone unless you also want to carry a second tablet. Or if you have a G1000 for example the primary is the G1000 and the backup is the tablet. And still you can carry a smartphone with Avare on it to back both of those up.
 
citizen5000 said:
The best backup for portable EFB is Avare on a cell phone unless you also want to carry a second tablet. Or if you have a G1000 for example the primary is the G1000 and the backup is the tablet. And still you can carry a smartphone with Avare on it to back both of those up.
Click to expand...
G1000 doesn't have everything you need unless you subscribe to FliteCharts (and then, they are illegible).

Conspicuously absent are critical details for IFR procedures such as minima, notes, altitudes during holds or procedure turns, departure procedures, minimum safe altitudes, minimum enroute altitudes, all NOTAMs, and so on. Those might (well, should) be on your EFB, but now you need a backup.

If you carry two EFBs, you have to preflight both of them, and design a charging schedule so they do not run dry at the same time.
 
Yes, G1000 with Jeppesen FileCharts. And you can also get Jeppesen Mobile FliteDeck IFR for a tablet too: http://ww1.jeppesen.com/aviation/products/mobile-flitedeck/index.jsp

A little cheaper with G1000 U.S. FliteCharts from Garmin. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/shop-by-accessories/maps/avdb/g1000-u-s-flitecharts-/prod6977.html

The charts are complete. And georeferenced, at least on the Cirrus Perspective with G1000.

Carrying two tablets is not harder than carrying one tablet. And as I said, Avare on a Smartphone is a great way to get a free backup on a third device.
 
Kudos to Scott for his attitude of incorporating EFBs into his teaching.

Agreed that EFBs require redundancy and preflight prep. I carry a mini on my yoke, which is my primary, and a full size iPad on my console as a backup, and to display moving map and traffic. Both are plugged into power, which keeps them fully charged during flight. (They are also connected to my Stratus II, which is also plugged into power.) In addition, I have FF running on my iPhone. So, in essence, triple redundancy. I also have a "night before" checklist, that includes making sure that all three devices are charged, have the latest updates, and are sync'd and ready. So I'm pretty sure that I'm better protected against failure than those carrying just a piece of paper. Even better, I can zoom in to make things easier to read.

I agree that we should all be taught to do it on paper, first. But once you have proven that you can, I think it would be better if you were taught to use the electronic aids as well, so that you are not turned loose and end up trying to figure out your EFB on the "fly" so to speak.
 
There is really no reason for a private student to have or use a EFB during training and I do my best to discourage those students who want to use them.
 
Ive seen several references to the "need for backup" to electronic charts...is this a regulatory requirement, or are we simply not willing/able to find suitable alternatives in the event of a failure?

While I've had very few paper chart failures over the years, I haven't had a second set in the airplane when they happened.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Ive seen several references to the "need for backup" to electronic charts...is this a regulatory requirement, or are we simply not willing/able to find suitable alternatives in the event of a failure?

While I've had very few paper chart failures over the years, I haven't had a second set in the airplane when they happened.
Click to expand...
You're not required by regulation to have charts at all, except for a couple of very specific instances.

But you're responsible for information on them if your battery dies or the app has a bug or the unit overheats or reboots or "bricks," none of which can happen with paper.

I've had about half a dozen EFB failures over the years, and no paper failures at all.
 
Ive seen several references to the "need for backup" to electronic charts...is this a regulatory requirement, or are we simply not willing/able to find suitable alternatives in the event of a failure?
Click to expand...

Under part 91, you're not technically required to have charts onboard. Of course, that's a technicality; there aren't many cases in which it's appropriate to be flying without current charts, whether they're made of paper or electrons.

Nor is there a requirement to have a backup. I think most pilots recognize it's a good idea to have one, however. Since Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, etc. allow up to three devices to use the software at no additional charge, in most cases it's pretty painless to have a backup with you all the time. In most cases the backup is a smartphone.
 
Clip4 said:
There is really no reason for a private student to have or use a EFB during training and I do my best to discourage those students who want to use them.
Click to expand...

That's why this thread is useful to new and existing students. So they can discern between old school and new school and decide how they want their training proceed.
 
Rykymus said:
There is really no reason for a private student to have or use a EFB during training and I do my best to discourage those students who want to use them.
Click to expand...
so you're saying private pilots shouldn't use EFBs?

Or are you saying that they can, but are not allowed to get instruction in using them?
 
I didn't say that. Clip4 did. And quite honestly, it makes me rather sad that students today are still subjected to that type of thinking.

I am amazed at how many people on here honestly believe that their way is the only way. It's no wonder that GA progresses so slowly.
 
As silly as this sounds, knowing how to solve the flight planning problems of course, wind direction, speeds, fuel, and time is important. How else would you know that iJunk or andro-thing is correct?

Sure, the toys are handy and save time, but they should not replace your knowledge.

Oh, if you haven't read it before, I don't think they should be allowed for PPL Students. Play flight simulator at home, not in an airplane.
 
MauleSkinner said:
so you're saying private pilots shouldn't use EFBs?

Or are you saying that they can, but are not allowed to get instruction in using them?
Click to expand...

I am saying if you are a primary student and show up with a EFB, I will allow you to use it. I will not advise you that you should have one or are required to do so.

If you do not have one and inquire, I will explain that an EFB is an expenditure that is not required to complete the course.

I will caution that electronic devices can and do fail and are prone to over heat in hot cockpits.

I will explain that an EFB is not allowed for the written test.

I will explain that all preflight planning and performance calculations for their XCs are required to be completed with low tech paper charts, a plotter, and the performance data in the AFM.

During XC training, I advise they must be able to determine your position at all times using a paper chart.

For the XC stage check, I advise the check instructor will also make them determine their position using paper.

I will explain the practical flight test in part is a dead reckoning XC and they will not be allowed to use the map with positioning running or other panel mounted navigation eq. used. I advise the examiner can fail an EFB any time during the flight test.

I will advise them the ACS requires their ablility to operate all equipment in the aircraft and be able to describe all the systems for the flight test. I advise them not to dwell learning the functions on their EFB because being able to use their EFB is not a test item.

After all those disclosures, they can use their EFB. If they desire instruction on how to use it, my normal ground rates apply.

When they finish training, I tell them to feel free to use an EFB to their heart's content and learn all it's functions. When they come back for instrument training they will use that EFB to its full extent with a second EFB or paper for back up.
 
Last edited:
I would tend to disagree with that approach, as it seems to be a "train for the test, and only for the test" approach.
 
Consider this reality check. In 25 years half of all jobs now done by humans will be done by androids (machines with IQ well over 200). Some of the jobs going bye bye? Airline, Medflight and cargo pilots, MDs and Nurses, Accountants and Lawyers (already law firms are hiring IBMs Watson to do legal research), combat soldiers and pilots, autonomous ships, trucks and cars (freight, local delivery (drone), taxis), agriculture labor, most factory labor, fast food and service staff, ATC, construction (houses 3D printed), and even judges.

The glass panels and EFBs of today will look like a tinker toy 25 years from now (assuming GA is still around given commerical crowding of the sky).
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I am saying if you are a primary student and show up with a EFB, I will allow you to use it.
I will caution that electronic devices can and do fail and are prone to over heat in hot cockpits.
I will explain that an EFB is not allowed for the written test.
I will explain that all preflight planning and performance calculations for their XCs are required to be completed with low tech paper charts, a plotter, and the performance data in the AFM.
During XC training, I advise they must be able to determine your position at all times using a paper chart.
For the XC stage check, I advise the check instructor will also make them determine their position using paper.
I will explain the practical flight test in part is a dead reckoning XC and they will not be allowed to use the map with positioning running or other panel mounted navigation eq. used. I advise the examiner can fail an EFB any time during the flight test.
I will advise them the ACS requires their ablility to operate all equipment in the aircraft and be able to describe all the systems for the flight test. I advise them not to dwell learning the functions on their EFB because being able to use their EFB is not a test item.
After all those disclosures, they can use their EFB. If they desire instruction on how to use it, my normal ground rates apply.
Click to expand...

Tablets and EFBs do not overheat in a cockpit anymore than they overheat on your desk at home. Tablets are just as robust if not more than the electronics in the panel and plane.
EFBs are not allowed on a written because the written provides all chart exhibits. An electronic E6B is allowed to do W&B, TAS etc calcs.
No XC planning has to be done by hand nor are paper charts required by the FAA or a DPE.
Flying by dead reckoning and pilotage can be done using any chart, including an electronic one.
No DPE will fail anyone for using an EFB.
An EFB is superior in every way to a paper chart and being proficient on one means you are a better and safer pilot.

You are not making disclosures. You are reflecting a bias that should steer students away from using your services.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
Consider this reality check. In 25 years half of all jobs now done by humans will be done by androids (machines with IQ well over 200). Some of the jobs going bye bye? Airline, Medflight and cargo pilots, MDs and Nurses, Accountants and Lawyers (already law firms are hiring IBMs Watson to do legal research), combat soldiers and pilots, autonomous ships, trucks and cars (freight, local delivery (drone), taxis), agriculture labor, most factory labor, fast food and service staff, ATC, construction (houses 3D printed), and even judges.

The glass panels and EFBs of today will look like a tinker toy 25 years from now (assuming GA is still around given commerical crowding of the sky).
Click to expand...
Damn, it's 1965 again.

Are you Isaac Asimov's reincarnation?

How do you measure IQ of a machine?

Sorry, dude. Off the deep end.
 
citizen5000 said:
Consider this reality check. In 25 years half of all jobs now done by humans will be done by androids (machines with IQ well over 200). Some of the jobs going bye bye? Airline, Medflight and cargo pilots, MDs and Nurses, Accountants and Lawyers (already law firms are hiring IBMs Watson to do legal research), combat soldiers and pilots, autonomous ships, trucks and cars (freight, local delivery (drone), taxis), agriculture labor, most factory labor, fast food and service staff, ATC, construction (houses 3D printed)...
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. Pilotless airliners are probably 75-100 years away, if not more. Automation will appear in the jobplace but only to replace dangerous jobs which can be done by machines capable of following a strict and precise instruction set. Doctors, nurses, pilots, accountants, lawyers, soldiers, ag labor, ATC, construction personnel, etc. aren't going anywhere.

and even judges.
Click to expand...

Judges? If you're serious, it's hard to take you seriously.

The glass panels and EFBs of today will look like a tinker toy 25 years from now (assuming GA is still around given commerical crowding of the sky).
Click to expand...

GA will be around in some fashion or another. I don't think the panels will look radically different. Maybe some different interface implementations... but basically similar instrumentation.
 
Tablets and EFBs do not overheat in a cockpit anymore than they overheat on your desk at home

iPads will indeed overheat. The upper temperature limit for an iPad is 95F. Do you charge your iPad in flight? That makes it hotter.

Come down here to Texas this August, it's easy to demo an overheat.
 
citizen5000 said:
Tablets and EFBs do not overheat in a cockpit anymore than they overheat on your desk at home. Tablets are just as robust if not more than the electronics in the panel and plane.
EFBs are not allowed on a written because the written provides all chart exhibits. An electronic E6B is allowed to do W&B, TAS etc calcs.
No XC planning has to be done by hand nor are paper charts required by the FAA or a DPE.
Flying by dead reckoning and pilotage can be done using any chart, including an electronic one.
No DPE will fail anyone for using an EFB.
An EFB is superior in every way to a paper chart and being proficient on one means you are a better and safer pilot.

You are not making disclosures. You are reflecting a bias that should steer students away from using your services.
Click to expand...

I may be bias because I have been looking every where on a paper and I still can't find that "10% battery life remaining" message.
 
Clip4 said:
I may be bias because I have been looking every where on a paper and I still can't find that "10% battery life remaining" message.
Click to expand...
So your bias is based on not wanting to put forth the effort to make sure you don't run out of battery?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So your bias is based on not wanting to put forth the effort to make sure you don't run out of battery?
Click to expand...

In good conscience, I cannot send a primary student on a cross country where their knowledge skills rely on their EFB work properly. They have to demonstrate basic airmanship skills. And let's be quite frank here. The longest cross country completed by a primary student requires one leg to be more than 50 miles. If you can't fly without an EFB or any other electronic nav aids on a <60 mile leg, maybe you shouldn't be doing that cross country.
 
citizen5000 said:
Consider this reality check. In 25 years half of all jobs now done by humans will be done by androids (machines with IQ well over 200). Some of the jobs going bye bye? Airline, Medflight and cargo pilots, MDs and Nurses, Accountants and Lawyers (already law firms are hiring IBMs Watson to do legal research), combat soldiers and pilots, autonomous ships, trucks and cars (freight, local delivery (drone), taxis), agriculture labor, most factory labor, fast food and service staff, ATC, construction (houses 3D printed), and even judges.

The glass panels and EFBs of today will look like a tinker toy 25 years from now (assuming GA is still around given commerical crowding of the sky).
Click to expand...

Huh. I heard this in the 80s and 90s and it didn't happen. Color me skeptical. Others have pointed out they heard it in the 60s, and 70s, too.

** A large number of the mainstream press reports of robots taking over the planet keep coming from Ray Kurzweil (sp?) and while Ray is probably fun at parties, his predictions haven't had a good track record. But he gets interviews.

The number one thing that has to happen is a significant jump in software quality and consistency far above where we have hung out since the 90s, for any of the above to happen. The machines mimic the creators of the machines and humans are a mess. And machines don't adapt. An automated burger flipper will happily keep flipping burgers while the building burns down around it.

I've said it before: I'll ride on a fully automated aircraft the day after the ENTIRE engineering and design team goes for a ride in bad weather with no qualms and not forced to do it as a publicity stunt to keep their jobs. And that's the "trust factor" or level of trust needed before people will accept it.

Plus, get real about the economics of it. Dumping all the pilot salaries and tooling up to replace them all with a significant sized operational engineering and support staff to maintain and fix the automation, is essentially, a wash.

If we see fully automated aircraft it'll be two things: A brand new business entity, so if it flops it won't take down a larger company eating resources as it dies... and secondly, it'll be cargo only.

Until that venture gets to where it's actually threatening profits of the big cargo haulers (companies that already count the number of left turns their ground drivers make and try to eliminate them, because they're THAT focused just to keep up with their competition) and one of them ACQUIRES that cheeky little upstart and scales it up... it won't be anything but a novelty.

The current groups operating self-driving cars are carefully squelching and pooh-poohing the accident rate. It's getting better, but you're still not going to stick your mom in one on a snowy day. 25 years is enough to get them to the "this thing now works most of the time in most conditions" (way above where they are at now) but not to "robotics everywhere".

They're not even at the "close but no cigar" level yet. Walk before run. Don't even have an autopilot that's smart enough to fly around the giant red blob on the radar screen yet.
 
Many seem to be unable to understand that an EFB is no more a crutch than paper charts, chart supplements, and a mechanical E6B. If you disable the GPS on the EFB, it's nothing more than a digital version of the aforementioned items. Yes, they are a little more complex to learn to use (but definitely not more so than most aviation GPS's), and require that additional steps be taken to mitigate the risk of failure. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. And the extra steps needed are no more difficult than making sure you have a paper chart for every potential situation and destination during your journey.

I argue that as long as a student demonstrates proper understanding of the principals involved in flight planning and navigation, it should not matter what devices they used to learn these principals, and to perform those tasks, as long as they demonstrate competency. Urging students to not utilize everything available to them, under the mistaken idea that as students, they are unable to comprehend anything other than a piece of paper, is poor teaching, and crappy CRM...Plain and simple. And part of an instructor's job SHOULD be to see that the student will be as safe as possible, both during training and after. To do so, you have to provide the training that student feels they need, not just what YOU think the student needs. That is one of the biggest problems with the way we are taught to fly. We are taught to fly to pass a test, rather than how we will actually fly once we are turned loose in the skies.

BTW: It gets damned hot in the central valley as well. (Triple digits most of the summer) I've never had an iPad overheat on me, but maybe that's because I'm smart enough to use them in a manner that doesn't lead to overheating. (And yes, I charge them in flight, while in use.)
 
JimNtexas said:
Tablets and EFBs do not overheat in a cockpit anymore than they overheat on your desk at home

iPads will indeed overheat. The upper temperature limit for an iPad is 95F. Do you charge your iPad in flight? That makes it hotter.

Come down here to Texas this August, it's easy to demo an overheat.
Click to expand...

The ambient operating temperature range for an iPad is 32f to 95f (advise against operating an aircraft in a freezing cockpit or one nearing 100f and/or take kids or passenger in one). iPads can be stored -20º and 45º C (-4º to 113º F). https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201678
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Huh. I heard this in the 80s and 90s and it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Remote-controlled passenger flights 5 years away, CEO says http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/travel/remote-controlled-passenger-airplane/

Navy Sixth Gen Unmanned Fighter (Carrier Based)
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...evelop-sixth-generation-unmanned-fighter.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout

Pilotless planes take to skies over England https://www.ft.com/content/8c8325d6-b89e-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top