CFIs: how do you "teach" with EFBs?

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...

He also doesn't know many aircraft require a cooling fan for the avionics.
 
citizen5000 said:


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
Click to expand...

Three unmanned, and one pipe dream in a twin. It's easy to build a prototype that will fly in ideal conditions.

How well does it handle engine failures at takeoff? Obstacles on takeoff/landing? Snowy/icy runways? Blown tires? Emergency descents to off-airport landings? Icing? Diversions for an ill passenger? Gear-up landings when the gear won't come down. Hell, can the automation glide an Airbus into a river intact after a dual engine failure at low altitude?

Nowhere even close to commercial passenger carrying. And not a chance in hell it would be certified to do so in five years.

Takes longer than that to certify an IFR GPS.

And that thing would need to have an integrated system that understands weather. Nothing exists to allow that level of automation of weather flying yet.

As you said, "reality check time". There's been articles about pilotless passenger aircraft for five decades now. They've made very little progress on emergencies or weather in half a century of automation/autopilots.
 
Clip4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing about using an EFB requires that they not be able to get by without it...same with GPS, VOR, and most of the other equipment in the airplane.

An instructor who knowingly avoids teaching what the students will be using when they're done training is doing the students a disservice.
 
I just started a new inst student today. I would have loved for him to use an EFB for this training. He is on a budget and just purchased ANR headsets, which to me a a more prudent purchase than an EFB. For training, he has opted for paper. The reason is the expense of buying a tablet he does not own. We will have no issues completing his training with paper in the cockpit.

Now I suppose some of techno geeks on here would have told him to come back where he can afford a tablet. Sometimes techno geeks fail to realize for some people buying a tablet is an expense the student does not wish or need to spend.
 
It's the 21st century. The student need to understand the paper methods of flight planning, but unless it's specified in the ACS, they may not have to demonstrate the conventional methods for check-ride. Ultimately, they should get comfortable using what they will be using before they get their ticket. It's incumbent on CFI's to facilitate the training. It's good for both the students and the instructors to work together, while emphasizing the need for redundancy.
 
Clip4 said:
Now I suppose some of techno geeks on here would have told him to come back where he can afford a tablet. Sometimes techno geeks fail to realize for some people buying a tablet is an expense the student does not wish or need to spend.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what a techno geek might say, but as an instructor I'd say we shouldn't make excuses for not teaching something we know they walk in the door with and we know they'll use eventually.
 
Rykymus said:
I dare someone to justify still teaching the fracking whiz wheel. Dumbest thing ever. Use a tool to get a close answer instead of an app to get the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I have no clue how to use the whiz wheel. When I started in engineering school (back in the dark ages) my dad bought me this great K&R slide rule. I still have it. When teaching at the university, I use it for show & tell. But I do have an electric whiz wheel, and most calcs, I can do in my head or with a bit of paper.

As a data point-Jepp's 8 week Dispatchers course includes the ASA electronic whiz wheel as part of the materials. And the students are required to create the flight plans in excruciating detail. Almost identical to the PPL logs but a more complex routes.
 
dmspilot said:
Using paper teaches higher order thinking skills (HOTS), one of the latest emphasis areas at the FAA. Using a computer replaces higher-order thinking skills.
Click to expand...
You mean the FAA has finally realized what we've been teaching in math since grade school?
 
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...
Have you verified, by hand calculation, that the EFB generates the correct result? Like Makg, I too, work in software, and trust nothing at the consumer level. Before I believed the software W&B, I ran the numbers by hand then checked FF, WingX and Garmin. Trust but verify.
 
The student does not need to understand the "paper method" of flight planning, weight and balance, or anything else. They need to understand the "process" as well as the need. They need to understand the reasons for making a flight plan and completing an accurate weight and balance, and the errors that can occur in whatever method they choose to utilize, and how to mitigate the risks inherent with that method. One method isn't better than the other, as both have pros and cons. Yes, digital can fail, but you can protect yourself from failure with very little effort. Paper may not "fail" in the same sense, but if your plans change drastically in the air, you may not have every piece of "paper" you need. Failing to teach a student how to safely and reliably utilize the (legal) method that they will be using (during their check ride and once licensed) is just that...a failure. Any instructor worth a damn would realize this.

Paper is not the only way to teach, nor is it the only way to learn. EFB instruction SHOULD be emphasized, with paper as an alternate.

Of course, this is all moot, as eventually paper will be gone from the cockpit, and EFBs will be required. Maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually. It's a shame that some instructors can only teach the way they were taught. But I blame the FAA for that, not the instructors.
 
And some will still not be able to plan a flight on their own and need to ask for basic help from other weekend warriors. Those are the ones advocating not understanding the basics. Pathetic and one reason GA's safety record is so poor.
 
KA550 said:
And some will still not be able to plan a flight on their own and need to ask for basic help from other weekend warriors. Those are the ones advocating not understanding the basics. Pathetic and one reason GA's safety record is so poor.
Click to expand...

Impossible to be trained by a competent CFI and not be able to enter two waypoints in Foreflight or Garmin Pilot or Skyvector and get a complete and accurate flight log. These tools automatically generate (based on current weather or TAFs) wind direction & correction, Heading/Course , TAS, GS, ETE and fuel burn. And will graphically show the route overlayed on current sectionals.

GA safety record has nothing to do with whether someone can make a flight plan by hand. Notice most crashes are often pilots with thousands of hours.
 
KA550 said:
And some will still not be able to plan a flight on their own and need to ask for basic help from other weekend warriors. Those are the ones advocating not understanding the basics. Pathetic and one reason GA's safety record is so poor.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about not understanding the basics? You're assuming that the only way one can understand how to plan a flight or calculate W&B is to use a pencil and paper. You're also assuming that a pencil and paper is the only way that one can PROVE that they understand the basics. An odd assumption considering that the FAA no longer requires paper during testing.

If the weekend warrior was never very good at paper FP and W&B, or has just gotten rusty due to lack of use, then I hope to God that he uses an EFB to keep him safe.
 
True child of the magenta.
 
Rykymus said:
Who said anything about not understanding the basics? You're assuming that the only way one can understand how to plan a flight or calculate W&B is to use a pencil and paper. You're also assuming that a pencil and paper is the only way that one can PROVE that they understand the basics. An odd assumption considering that the FAA no longer requires paper during testing.

If the weekend warrior was never very good at paper FP and W&B, or has just gotten rusty due to lack of use, then I hope to God that he uses an EFB to keep him safe.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate a climb at Vy and descent at Vno from sea level to 8000. It's in your POH, which the "old" method actually uses.

Foreflight gets really wrong answers for that, for a naturally aspirated light trainer. It's really bad for Warriors and 152s.

You don't have any idea, do you? I have some ideas about what mistake they made. That's why you have to know how to do it on paper.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate a climb at Vy and descent at Vno from sea level to 8000.
Click to expand...

Disclosure: I use Garmin Pilot and have not found errors in the product.

Foreflight staffs world experts in the fields of Meterology, Aeronautics, and every aspect of Aviation. Their coders are pilots. Their hotline staffed by pilots. If you have configured the product correctly for your aircraft and think you are seeing an error you really should contact Foreflight and talk to them. If you havn't done that then you can't be sure what you are seeing is the product's problem, or yours.
 
citizen5000 said:
Impossible to be trained by a competent CFI and not be able to enter two waypoints in Foreflight or Garmin Pilot or Skyvector and get a complete and accurate flight log. These tools automatically generate (based on current weather or TAFs) wind direction & correction, Heading/Course , TAS, GS, ETE and fuel burn. And will graphically show the route overlayed on current sectionals.

GA safety record has nothing to do with whether someone can make a flight plan by hand. Notice most crashes are often pilots with thousands of hours.
Click to expand...
Not necessarity. Plan a PPL flight from Centennial (KAPA) to Grand Junction (KGJT) in a Cessna 172 using only those 2 waypoints and the known limits of the C172.

I'll be in the CAP C182 to come find the wreckage.
 
Rykymus said:
Who said anything about not understanding the basics? You're assuming that the only way one can understand how to plan a flight or calculate W&B is to use a pencil and paper. You're also assuming that a pencil and paper is the only way that one can PROVE that they understand the basics. An odd assumption considering that the FAA no longer requires paper during testing.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "FAA no longer requires paper during testing"? Is it that the cartoons are now online instead of printed? Doesn't matter - they're still the same poor quality images.
If the weekend warrior was never very good at paper FP and W&B, or has just gotten rusty due to lack of use, then I hope to God that he uses an EFB to keep him safe.
Click to expand...
 
Which version of
MAKG1 said:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate a climb at Vy and descent at Vno from sea level to 8000. It's in your POH, which the "old" method actually uses.

Foreflight gets really wrong answers for that, for a naturally aspirated light trainer. It's really bad for Warriors and 152s.

You don't have any idea, do you? I have some ideas about what mistake they made. That's why you have to know how to do it on paper.
Click to expand...
FF does the climb/descent part? Or did I miss that in the docs? Hm...gotta go back and read the manual.
 
Here's a fun anecdote that I almost forgot about. About 6 years ago when I got my first smartphone, I downloaded an E6B app. Imagine to my surprise that, even after I double and triple and quadruple checked, it turned out the answers it gave for a garden variety wind correction angle/groundspeed problem were completely wrong.
 
murphey said:
Which version of

FF does the climb/descent part? Or did I miss that in the docs? Hm...gotta go back and read the manual.
Click to expand...
Not correctly, they don't. They never disclose their TOC and TOD points, but they imply they exist from their settings.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
Disclosure: I use Garmin Pilot and have not found errors in the product.

Foreflight staffs world experts in the fields of Meterology, Aeronautics, and every aspect of Aviation. Their coders are pilots. Their hotline staffed by pilots. If you have configured the product correctly for your aircraft and think you are seeing an error you really should contact Foreflight and talk to them. If you havn't done that then you can't be sure what you are seeing is the product's problem, or yours.
Click to expand...
Translation: I don't know the answer, so I'll make up a false and irrelevant appeal to authority by proxy.

Make the plan, and report the results, along with whether you believe it.

We can make some pretty good guesses about algorithms from the available settings, and they are incorrect for long climbs, especially near aircraft performance limits.

It's been a few years since I used GP, but its limitations were similar at the time.

If you're so unquestioning about the gadgets you use as to claim bug free products, it's an exceptionally risky venture for you to bet your life on them. There is no such thing as nontrivial bug free software.
 
I hesitate to post something on this subject as I see how badly some of the posts have been misconstrued.

I have no desire to argue about my post as I have never won an argument and don’t find joy in it.

EFBs are something I am concerned about as a flight instructor.

I don’t know how to use any of the EFBs well enough to teach how to use them and do not feel it is my place.

I am giving one on one flight and ground instruction and I am expensive.

Some of my students like what their EFB does. If they want to use their EFB there are places to get instruction that is cheaper and better than anything I could hope to offer.

I show them how to plan a flight on paper. If they can come up with similar answers with their EFB that is fine with me. I am interested in the answers, not the process used to obtain them.

I often ask them to teach me to use their EFB because I learn a lot when teaching and suspect they do too.

I am teaching people how to fly a gyroplane. It is not unusual to fly a thousand feet above the ground and follow roads so we don’t have far to walk if we need to make an unplanned landing.

I have had students get focused on their IPad and completely lose situational awareness. They forget to look outside and follow the road.

In my opinion this has always been a challenge. Tell a student that they need to be plus or minus ten knots, plus or minus a hundred feet and plus or minus ten degrees and they tend to focus on the instruments to the detriment of their flying.

In my opinion EFBs are a similar challenge. I feel that what is outside and where we are in relation to it is more important that what is says on the screen.

I teach people to look outside and feel what the aircraft is trying to tell them.

I feel preflight, weight and balance and flight planning are aviation foreplay and enjoy the time I spend at it. I feel recreational aviation should never be hurried.

I have my clients call Fight Service for a standard VFR weather briefing before every flight so they can talk to someone who can interpret the weather data. Not every briefer is good but some are golden.

We also go out and look at the wind socks to see what the wind is actually doing before we make a decision to fly.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not correctly, they don't. They never disclose their TOC and TOD points, but they imply they exist from their settings.
Click to expand...

Since you have not said you verified the error with Foreflight then we assume you are kidding. Foreflight is in the hands of thousands of pilots. If you have found an actual bug (doubtful) then the responsible thing to do is contact them and have them fix it so all can benefit.
 
citizen5000 said:
Since you have not said you verified the error with Foreflight then we assume you are kidding. Foreflight is in the hands of thousands of pilots. If you have found an actual bug (doubtful) then the responsible thing to do is contact them and have them fix it so all can benefit.
Click to expand...
Ok. Here is an example. Direction is chosen to zero headwind.
IMG_0390.PNG

Note it says I can climb and descend in 40 minutes. This is in a 172SP. It really takes 15 minutes just to climb, compared to 3 minutes to 2500, at 73 knots instead of 105.

The effect is much worse at 12000.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Not correctly, they don't. They never disclose their TOC and TOD points, but they imply they exist from their settings.
Click to expand...

A fellow club member is a developer at Foreflight. I asked about TOC and TOD. "Coming....pretty soon".
 
MAKG1 said:
Ok. Here is an example. Direction is chosen to zero headwind.
Click to expand...

Don't show us. Show Foreflight. We have no way to know your setup and how you configured the product. When you talk to Foreflight about it get back to us with their response. If you found a bug, great. Showing them will get it fixed. If you did not find a bug you will be told how the product works and how to get what you want out of it.
 
citizen5000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

He said the DPE will fail the EFB. You may remember that means turn it off and see how the candidate navigates, selects frequencies, etc without it. If your're relying it and cannot switch to paper you can expect a bust.

Your other statement would be laughable if I didn't think you meant it.
 
citizen5000 said:
Don't show us. Show Foreflight. We have no way to know your setup and how you configured the product. When you talk to Foreflight about it get back to us with their response. If you found a bug, great. Showing them will get it fixed. If you did not find a bug you will be told how the product works and how to get what you want out of it.
Click to expand...
What I want is not something they can deliver.

I want physical performance the airplane is actually capable of. That comes from the POH, and engine performance as a function of density and temperature is not calculable generally. It needs to be measured. Same deal with drag. It's a lot more than just TAS vs altitude. But they don't bother with that either. They just ask me for a TAS and assume it's the same at all altitudes. Either the Foreflight engineers know that already, or they aren't capable of doing it. Most likely, they just haven't bothered yet. But a responsible pilot must.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate a climb at Vy and descent at Vno from sea level to 8000. It's in your POH, which the "old" method actually uses.

Foreflight gets really wrong answers for that, for a naturally aspirated light trainer. It's really bad for Warriors and 152s.

You don't have any idea, do you? I have some ideas about what mistake they made. That's why you have to know how to do it on paper.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, which was that doing things on "paper" does not equal "proficiency" or "understanding".

In regards to your statement about what algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate something, I don't care, because I use a different app for that, and I back it up with a scanned copy of my POH. But in this case, you are also making my point. If a CFI refuses to teach EFBs, then students get their license and start using an EFB without the knowledge that it might not be correct. Don't you think we'd all be better off if CFIs are teaching that? Or should we have them keep sticking their heads in the sand?
 
Rykymus said:
You're missing the point, which was that doing things on "paper" does not equal "proficiency" or "understanding".

In regards to your statement about what algorithm Foreflight uses to calculate something, I don't care, because I use a different app for that, and I back it up with a scanned copy of my POH. But in this case, you are also making my point. If a CFI refuses to teach EFBs, then students get their license and start using an EFB without the knowledge that it might not be correct. Don't you think we'd all be better off if CFIs are teaching that? Or should we have them keep sticking their heads in the sand?
Click to expand...
And you've completely ignored the point that typing a number in a box and pushing "go" interferes with that understanding, in a way that a closer calculation doesn't.

Yes, you can be stupid with paper, too. But a magic app to the exclusion of paper makes it impossible to be anything else.

If you believe Foreflight's numbers uncritically, you will routinely underestimate time and fuel. That should concern you, but it apparently doesn't.

You understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient, right?
 
murphey said:
What do you mean "FAA no longer requires paper during testing"? Is it that the cartoons are now online instead of printed? Doesn't matter - they're still the same poor quality images.
Click to expand...

I meant that the FAA does not require you to use paper charts for your checkride. Not that hard to understand.
 
MAKG1 said:
And you've completely ignored the point that typing a number in a box and pushing "go" interferes with that understanding, in a way that a closer calculation doesn't.

Yes, you can be stupid with paper, too. But a magic app to the exclusion of paper makes it impossible to be anything else.

If you believe Foreflight's numbers uncritically, you will routinely underestimate time and fuel. That should concern you, but it apparently doesn't.

You understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient, right?
Click to expand...

First, typing in a number and pushing "go" doesn't interfere with my understanding, as long as I understood it to begin with. The argument since the beginning of this thread has been about should we, and if so, how should we incorporate EFBs into pilot training. I could care less how the CFI prefers to teach. Paper? Fine. EFB? Fine. As long as the student understands the principals, and can get reliable information with his chosen methodology in the end. To do so, with any method, requires understanding. Teaching with paper does not guarantee that understanding any more than teaching with an EFB.

Look at it another way. I had to learn how to read an HSI, despite the fact that I may never see one. A new pilot is far more likely to see an EFB early in their flying than an HSI. (At least based on all the trainers I've been exposed to.) And, not being aware of the additional risks and problems associated with that EFB puts the new pilot at increased risk. How can you justify teaching the HSI and not the EFB?

Another thing: We're splitting hairs here on the accuracy of leading EFBs. Numbers in your POH are no more gospel than the weather forecasts. I think we all agree that flying involves an appreciable amount of "wiggle room" in all our planning and calculations.

It's about including EFBs in training because they are highly likely to be used, and present additional risks if one is not aware of their limitations and affect on SA, both positive AND negative.

BTW: MAKG1, I have got to fly over to KPAO and buy you lunch sometime. I've actually learned a lot from you.
 
MAKG1 said:
They never did. But they have always -- and still do -- held that your EFB can "fail.'
Click to expand...

Yup. On my IR checkride:

DPE: "Your iPad just failed. What are you going to do?"
Me: "I have a spare right here." (Pulled spare out from behind seat.)
DPE: "That one failed too. Now what?"
Me: "I have FF on my iPhone as well."
DPE: "And if that fails?"
Me: "Call my wife and tell her I love her, because God obviously plans on taking me today."
DPE: (laughs) "Continue."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top