Tablets as IFR platform

[PedroB801]

With the advancements of tablets and mobile WAAS receivers, what's keeping a tablet from being a legal IFR platform, besides the government. Assuming all databases are kept up to date. I realize the redundancy may not be there, but a dual WAAS receiver, dual tablet with backup battery would be a relatively inexpensive setup, and much easier to upgrade than a panel.

 

[poadeleted20]

The government's objection is based on the lack of certainty of reliable operation when the unit and/or antenna are not permanently mounted and tested in their locations. They are not satisfied that the potential movement of a component will not adversely affect accuracy, and as I've seen handheld units lose data and/or accuracy when moved around in the airplane, I would have to say their concerns are justified. Personally, I think that's a pretty good reason not to try doing real IFR with an uninstalled unit.

 

[Van Johnston]

RAIM?

 

[poadeleted20]

RAIM?

You could put RAIM in a handheld. But it wouldn't help navigate if the unit loses signal when it's moved to the "wrong" spot in the cockpit, and that's the big issue. If someone can build a handheld which works reliably no matter where it's located in the plane, I'm sure the FAA would consider it, but my gut feel is that there are insurmountable technical and practical problems getting that to work.

 

[MAKG1]

Because tablets are crap as safety devices. Only a fool would bet his life on one.

They are designed to play games. Measurements are haphazard and incomplete. And GPS reception is a very strong function of the installer's capabilities. By putting the antenna inside an aluminum tube, you're already throwing away almost all the signal.

There is a huge difference in how consumer barely-works technology is tested (or not) and how certified safety devices are tested. Market forces for cheap technology push real hard into the looks-good-but-may-or-may-not-work corner. No one is really going to spend 90+% of their development budget on testing (and yes, it DOES take that) when almost all the target audience will accept complete crap that looks nice. Example: IoS 8. A safety device never has an OS release with bugs like that. A competent safety developer does not release when reliability is unacceptable.

 

[Everskyward]

Neither the tablets nor the vendor programs are tested for accuracy. No way I would bet my life on navigating in IMC solely with my iPad except in an emergency.

 

[docmirror]

a tablet as hardware might be doable but the firmware/bios, OS and embedded nav apps would all have to be custom made. I can't see the FAA ever accepting a commercial OS like Windows, Lindows, Android, OSXn, etc as a base for anything in the NAS to rely on.

Can't say I blame them - BSOD.

 

[EminiTrader]

My ipad air has froze up on me twice. Once in imc. No worries as they are only backups. Long way before i could trust it by itslef

 

[RotorDude]

FAA aside, I can imagine that the tablet hardware/software vendor(s), when informed that people are using it for "mission critical" applications, would balk, due to liability in case of a crash. Insurance companies would also likely refuse to accept risk for an uncertified piece of hardware/software, which anybody and his brother (literally) can mess with at any time (and who tests the latest OS software "drop" for conflicts and bugs?).

 

[olasek]

, dual tablet with backup battery would be a relatively inexpensive setup, and much easier to upgrade than a panel.

But where would you install such tablet?
To make it a viable IFR platform it would have to be right in front of me and stable (so yoke mounting is out of question). You would basically have to put it where the current panel is otherwise ergonomics would not be very attractive.

 

[James331]

Comparing the amount of crashes I've seen on iPhones and iPads (especially post update), to the number of 430/530/etc failures I've seen..

The tablets are great, I fly with one for work, but its far from a panel mounted unit in terms of long term durability and realibilty.

 

[Cruiser]

certified equipment fails just like the non certified stuff. The hardware is mostly the same. The GPS receiver is probably the same chip in all the equipment, same with the electronic components.
The certified software is tested more thoroughly but once the bugs are identified and worked out on the non certified stuff, they are just as accurate.

It all comes down to risk. What are you willing to accept. With modern technology/electronics that risk is becoming less and less in portable equipment.
Most of the objections cited here can easily be eliminated. With those noted and acknowledged, the actual performance is just as good as the certified equipment.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It all comes down to risk. What are you willing to accept. With modern technology/electronics that risk is becoming less and less in portable equipment.

At least with respect to IFR, it's not about what you or I are willing to accept. It's about the possible risk to the system and the effect on other traffic when using equipment without FAA certification, installation, testing and recurrent checking.

I try to keep in mind the effect on IFR traffic when a pilot lands at a non-towered airport and does something as simple as failing to call to close an IFR flight plan.

Yes, the FAA could go (and has at times gone) overboard, but I'm not convinced it has in requiring certified equipment for primary navigation in the IFR system.

 

[airdale]

... It's about the possible risk to the system and the effect on other traffic when using equipment without FAA certification, installation, testing and recurrent checking. ...

This.

 

[Cruiser]

"Pilot lands plane using IPAD after inflight navigation system fails
The navigation system on Raymond Cody's single-engine plane failed not long after take-off on Tuesday morning
He was able to use his cellphone to speak to a TSA agent at the airport and an app on his iPad to track his flight path
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-inflight-navigation-fails.html#ixzz3MTmT3QJv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

There is no more risk to the system than there was before we had non-certified equipment in the cockpit.

 

[dans2992]

Are MFDs certified to a less stringent standard than panel-mount GPSes?

I have a GNS480 and a GMX200. The GMX200 crashes _more_ than my iPad. The 480 is rock solid (well, until the antenna started intermittently failing)