FltPlan Go app on the iPad

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
So, I've only ever used FltPlan and the newer FltPlan Go apps on my iPad as my EFB primarily because it was free and at the time I was using an Android tablet.

For a while there were some serious draw-backs compared to Foreflight and Garmin Pilot (I haven't really looked into WingX). But now we have:

Geo-Referenced plates and taxi diagrams
Hi-Res VFR and IFR charts
GPS driven 6 Pack flight instruments
In-flight rubber-banding
ADS-B and XM weather
Now we get the ability to overlay plates on our charts:
http://imageserver.fltplan.com/FltB...2016_Issue2/FltBrief_February2016-Issue2.html

We still don't have the plan-view that you get in Foreflight as well as a couple other really slick features.

I've at times found the interface to be a little clunky compared to the slick presentation from its competitors but once you learn it there's no issue. So at this point, is it worth it to consider a service provided by Foreflight or Garmin?

Seems to me, FltPlan Go is the way to go.... Thoughts?
 
Competition is a good thing.
 
I still haven't gotten into the habit of using a tablet in flight but I use FltPlanGo to find the locations of FBOs. I find that it takes forever to download the charts compared to the Jepp program so I gave up on that after a few cycles. I use the flight planning feature on the ground, both on the tablet and the computer.

I have never tried Foreflight so I can't compare.
 
I still have issues with the stability, reliability and usability of FltPlan Go! as a primary EFB option. I might think about re-considering it as an in-flight backup at some point but I would want to do a couple of flight tests before I did.

BTW, I love the FltPlan website and have been using it for years, so my hesitation is not about the source.

Comparisons don't matter that much. Even the fully pay-for EFBs vary a lot on their UI - the way the pilot accesses functions. That's what I think ultimately drives a lot of pilots' choice.

That's what drove mine 4-5 years ago when I chose ForeFlight (there were only two viable options at the time). And that interface has become familiar and incredibly easy to navigate so, while I consider myself to be proficient with a number of different EFB apps, both iOS and Android, ForeFlight is the one I stay with.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I still have issues with the stability, reliability and usability of FltPlan Go! as a primary EFB option. I might think about re-considering it as an in-flight backup at some point but I would want to do a couple of flight tests before I did.

BTW, I love the FltPlan website and have been using it for years, so my hesitation is not about the source.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never had it crash on me but there have been times when it hung up for a few seconds.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've had it crash every time I've used it for a significant period of time, but the last time I tried a flight test was at least 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

Was that the old FltPlan app or was that FltPlan Go? I think FltPlan Go is less than 2 years old.
 
I am starting to like FltPlan Go more and more, they have been doing some great work, adding nice features, they really put a lot of effort into it (IMHO).

But I have beef with their incorrect (and maybe illegal?) use of K in front of any 3-letter airport ID.
Take for example the famous airport in Fredericksburg, TX with ID T82. That is the official airport identifier, AirNav, VFRMap and SkyVector honor it but the FltPlan webpage and app do not, they prepend K to turn it into an incorrect ID KT82 (which does not exist).

I sent them an email politely requesting a fix because this is INCORRECT and they simply replied that make all IDs into 4 letters for ease of programming. *sigh*

If any of you think it is unacceptable, please email their support to let them know and ask for a fix. The more smart people tell them it is wrong, the more likely they are to listen and eventually fix it.
 
MAKG hoots about that Fltplan is the bees knees. I have it, because its free, and I think for someone on a tight budget it is a great and very capable program.
Garmin Pilot is a little bit behind Foreflight in my opinion, but it works extremely well and almost identical to the GTN's. That alone makes the Garmin one worthy.
Foreflight works with the GTN's now too. It is really nice for loading atc flight plans, or own flight plan, directly into the box.

MAKG has pointed out to me before that fltplan has the ability to create detailed climb rates per 1000' while Garmin Pilot and foreflight only allow 1 climb number.

None of them have Vertical guidance. However, Foreflight's nav constantly updates the time to each waypoint. Making the calculation in your head from that number isn't too hard. But it is still a missing feature.

If you like fltplan and it does everything you want, don't even bother paying for something. If you find there is something you would rather have or try someone else's and like how intuitive it is, use it. No matter what you use, it will be better than paper
 
BigBadLou said:
I am starting to like FltPlan Go more and more, they have been doing some great work, adding nice features, they really put a lot of effort into it (IMHO).

But I have beef with their incorrect (and maybe illegal?) use of K in front of any 3-letter airport ID.
Take for example the famous airport in Fredericksburg, TX with ID T82. That is the official airport identifier, AirNav, VFRMap and SkyVector honor it but the FltPlan webpage and app do not, they prepend K to turn it into an incorrect ID KT82 (which does not exist).

I sent them an email politely requesting a fix because this is INCORRECT and they simply replied that make all IDs into 4 letters for ease of programming. *sigh*

If any of you think it is unacceptable, please email their support to let them know and ask for a fix. The more smart people tell them it is wrong, the more likely they are to listen and eventually fix it.
Click to expand...

I thought the K was an ICAO identifier for any US airport? :dunno:

T82 is the FAA Airport Identifier
KT82 is the ICAO

At least that's my understanding...
 
labbadabba said:
I thought the K was an ICAO identifier for any US airport? :dunno:

T82 is the FAA Airport Identifier
KT82 is the ICAO

At least that's my understanding...
Click to expand...
There's more to it than that. I don't know the details but there are supposedly standards to the use of the international K designator. I read somewhere it requires some level of eithe ATC, weather reporting, or IAP capability but I am not sure about that. Practically speaking it is used with airports having 3-letter (as opposed to 3-character) identifiers, although implementation is not consistent.

Try KT82 in Foreflight or a panel mount GPS and I don't think you'll find it. FltPlan wants the K for everything. WingX will recognize either for search purposes but will use it without the K.
 
I've been a fltplan user for a long time, great company and great tool which I use daily.

That said fltplan is no where near a replacement for foreflight IMHO.

When it comes to all things planning and figuring fuel burns and times, FltPlan, it's vastly better than foreflight for these things, now for the GPS and electronic plates display etc foreflight wins by a mile.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There's more to it than that. I don't know the details but there are supposedly standards to the use of the international K designator. I read somewhere it requires some level of eithe ATC, weather reporting, or IAP capability but I am not sure about that. Practically speaking it is used with airports having 3-letter (as opposed to 3-character) identifiers, although implementation is not consistent.

Try KT82 in Foreflight or a panel mount GPS and I don't think you'll find it. FltPlan wants the K for everything. WingX will recognize either for search purposes but will use it without the K.
Click to expand...

I told FltPlan support this:
Per FAA 7350.8, section 1-2-7, only certain airports are awarded a 4-letter ID starting with K.
The criteria are simple:
they receive a K if they have
(1) manned ATC
(2) a navaid on the field
(3) scheduled air carrier or military airlift service
(4) customs
(5) certain weather reporting stations
Click to expand...

They quickly dismissed it and shot it down with explanation that they simply add a K if the airport ID is missing one.
That's why I asked for help here where hopefully more pilots putting pressure on the company might accomplish something.
 
If you can't afford the pittance that firelight charges for a subscription you really can't afford to fly. And I have been very impressed with the software.
 
While FltplanGo lists Gillespie as KT82, you can search for it without the "K" and the program finds it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0811.jpg
    IMG_0811.jpg
    399.2 KB · Views: 11
midlifeflyer said:
There's more to it than that. I don't know the details but there are supposedly standards to the use of the international K designator. I read somewhere it requires some level of eithe ATC, weather reporting, or IAP capability but I am not sure about that. Practically speaking it is used with airports having 3-letter (as opposed to 3-character) identifiers, although implementation is not consistent.

Try KT82 in Foreflight or a panel mount GPS and I don't think you'll find it. FltPlan wants the K for everything. WingX will recognize either for search purposes but will use it without the K.
Click to expand...

I found at least one example of an ICAO identifier with no tower and no instrument approaches: KCPM (Compton).
 
Everskyward said:
While FltplanGo lists Gillespie as KT82, you can search for it without the "K" and the program finds it.
Click to expand...

Try typing it into the route. You get an annoying error popup that it is not a valid ID. So while typing in your route, you always have to be aware of the required useless K.
 
steingar said:
If you can't afford the pittance that firelight charges for a subscription you really can't afford to fly. And I have been very impressed with the software.
Click to expand...

Yep. I can't afford to fly but I do it anyway...
 
BigBadLou said:
Try typing it into the route. You get an annoying error popup that it is not a valid ID. So while typing in your route, you always have to be aware of the required useless K.
Click to expand...
You can type in T82 as the destination and FltplanGo will accept it. You are correct that it won't accept T82 as part of a route, but I don't know why someone would use an airport in the middle of a route so I don't think that's an issue.
 
MAKG1 said:
I found at least one example of an ICAO identifier with no tower and no instrument approaches: KCPM (Compton).
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be at all surprised. I'm sure there are more than one. There's an airport in my area that's working on getting a K code with no ATC or IAP.
 
Everskyward said:
You can type in T82 as the destination and FltplanGo will accept it. You are correct that it won't accept T82 as part of a route, but I don't know why someone would use an airport in the middle of a route so I don't think that's an issue.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. I usually just open the routing page and type in my whole route which is faster (for me) than any other way. Well, not in FltPlan Go. :)
 
MAKG1 said:
I found at least one example of an ICAO identifier with no tower and no instrument approaches: KCPM (Compton).
Click to expand...

I thought he was saying you Ned at least *one* of those attributes... Not ALL of them?

In any case, US Customs does the same stupid thing... Requires K in front of everything. What airport did you depart from when leaving the US? They won't accept T82... Gotta have a K.

Paul
 
steingar said:
If you can't afford the pittance that firelight charges for a subscription you really can't afford to fly. And I have been very impressed with the software.
Click to expand...

Yea, why have variety or options or competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top