Ozrunways and Ipads

[poonpossum]

I was wondering, now that Ozrunways is a CASA approved source for DAPs, maps, AIP and ERSA...

Excluding any opinions as to the reliability or safety of such an option, is an Ipad with ozrunways on it now an acceptable means of having flight maps in the cockpit? Or is paper still needed until CASA approves an Ipad as an EFB?

If someone was to rock up to an IFR test and present an Ipad when asked to demonstrate that they have up to date documentation, would that 'legally' suffice?

[dubbleyew eight]

I dont know the answer on that question.

I bought an iPad and ozrunways and sitting in my aircraft discovered It wouldnt fit in the cockpit ergonomics.

I just have to use maps and a dash mounted gps to get the bloody info to fit in the space.

[Sunfish]

The advice I received from our Chief Pilot after a meeting with CASA Six weeks ago was that paper still had to be carried as a backup - and within reach, not buried in the back of the aircraft.

The Ipad itself can now be used for primary navigation BUT it must be either fastened to you via a kneeboard arrangement or meet the requirements of FAA AC 120 - 76B for attachment to the aircraft, and you will need an EO or STC for that if its a certified aircraft and get a LAME to do and sign off the work.

Then there is the little question of fixing, and recording, you position every half hour as required by VFR regs... I think every FOI is going to come up with their own definition of how to satisfy that requirement in the era of the EFB.

My current preferred workable solution is to mark up my paper chart with an iPad assisted fix at appropriate intervals, have an ERSA within reach, and switch between paper chart and iPad as required.

Besides, it gives my white knuckled passenger something to do and hold on to.

And personally, I find Ozrunways is simply superb. Mad not to have one.

I figure that with Two iPads and paper, there is nothing for a FOI to fault.

[Shagpile]

Read CAAP233, CAR233(1)(h) and CAO 82.0 Appendix9

[kellykelpie]

This is from the people at OzRunways:

"OzRunways is approved by CASA as a data provider under CAR 233(1)(h), which states:

The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions, published in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are applicable to the route to be flown and to any alternative route that may be flown on that flight are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the flight crew.

OzRunways is a person approved in writing, our instrument of approval is CASA instrument 44/13."

[Lasiorhinus]

Then there is the little question of fixing, and recording, you position every half hour as required by VFR regs...

What regs require you to record your position every half an hour?

Do you mean
ENR 1.1 19.2.1
b)When navigating by visual reference to the ground or water, the pilot in command must positively fix the aircraft's position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes.

Fix your position, yes. No one says you have to pick up a pen and write it down, do they?



Do you mean
CAR 78 Navigation logs
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft shall keep a log of such navigational data as is required to enable him or her to determine the geographical position of the aircraft at any time while the aircraft is in flight.

79 Form of logs
(1) A log kept under this Part shall be kept in accordance with such form, and in such manner, as CASA directs.



Yes, you need to keep a navigation log so you always know where you are. Nothing says this log must be written on paper.

[Creampuff]

You continue to be confused, Sunfish.

An iPad cannot be used “for primary navigation”. On certain kinds of flights the charts and other documents published by Ozrunways (which happen to be accessible through an iPad) can be used instead of paper.

You use the electronic documents to assist you to navigate, just like you use the paper ones.

[JSeward]

Hi everyone,

Purchased an iPad mini yesterday and got OzRunways which I used today on a flight YPMQ-YCFS-YPMQ and it was extremely impressive! I never thought an app and device could be so good!

However while browsing through the rules for EFB's (before I bought one), it stated clearly that for commercial ops you need a backup for the EFB (either paper or another EFB) however it was unclear the requirement for private ops.

Do we LEGALLY need a back up? (I probably would not consider flying without a back up).

[Waghi Warrior]

PNG and NZ maps now available.

This is fabulous, thanks very very much.....

[morno]

Errrr, he was talking about private ops

[Lasiorhinus]

it stated clearly that for commercial ops you need a backup for the EFB

That answers your own question, does it not?

You're flying privately.

[JSeward]

But it doesn't specifically say you don't need a backup, it's a rather grey area.

[Shagpile]

This is a copy and paste direct from correspondence with CASA:

There is no specific requirement for private ops to carry a backup. The onus is on the pilot to demonstrate, when ramp checked by CASA, that they have ready access to the latest maps etc. This is no different to carrying paper charts etc.

[JSeward]

Who did you email?

[Sunfish]

Shags, I am an avid user of Ozrunways, I love it.

The current "Melbourne Interpretation" as transmitted verbally to me from the Chief Pilot, is that a kneeboard must be used and backup paper is required to be carried, period. He was not interested in the Two iPad argument either.

All I am pointing out is the well understood phenomenon that CASA officers all over the country will have different interpretations of what the Law and regulations actually mean.

CASA rules are always written with "wriggle room" to support these different interpretations and as far as I can tell the rules relating to the use of Ozrunways on an iPad are no different.

Yes, Ozrunways is now a source of approved data. I take that to mean that the data on it is regarded by CASA as physically identical to all other sources of approved data and can legally be used as a reference source.

That is not the same as CASA saying that Ozrunways can be your sole source of navigation data, that is merly implied. Furthermore, the software itself is not TSO'd and there is that pesky navigation log requirement to be complied with.

To put that another way, once Fifty or more Ozrunways users have gone around Australia with not an extra shred of navigational paper or ERSA on board and every FOI they meet says they are sweet with this then I will breathe easier.

Alternatively, we could ask for a statement from CASA as to exactly what are the minimum VFR navigation tools required to be carried, the actions to be taken with them and how Ozrunways complies, but your chance of getting that are zero considering that CASA refuse even to publish a minimum requirements list for a single engine VFR aircraft to pass a ramp check. I know someone who asked for this and was told by CASA that it was "too complicated" to generate.

So meanwhile for me its paper charts and Ozrunways until someone tellls our CP that the "Melbourne Interpretation" is superseded.

And a PS, I have been told, and I think the CAAP confirms, that CASA requires weight and balance checks to be on paper and refer to the POH or CASA chart data unless the aircraft manufacturer has approved the electronic device for the calculation.

[VH-XXX]

Many of us don't have a "chief pilot" or "CFI" so we just do what the regs say. It seems to work well and removes the human element of misinterpretation !

[Bevan666]

And a PS, I have been told, and I think the CAAP confirms, that CASA requires weight and balance checks to be on paper and refer to the POH or CASA chart data unless the aircraft manufacturer has approved the electronic device for the calculation.

If you, or someone, could find a reference in black and white to back up that assertion it would be useful.

For commercial ops, use the system of loading in your ops manual whatever that may be. Pretty simple really.

For private ops you are only required to have done a loading check. You are not required to have that with you in the aircraft. Refer to CAR 139 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s139.html) - documents required to be carried.

Also refer to CAR 235 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s235.html) - takeoff and landing of aircraft. (5) and (6) specifically;

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to take off if its gross weight exceeds, by more than the weight of fuel that would normally be used in flying to its next landing place or planned alternative aerodrome, its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing at that place or aerodrome, that lesser weight.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(6) The pilot in command of an aircraft, must not land the aircraft if its gross weight exceeds its maximum landing weight or, if a lesser weight determined in accordance with a direction under subregulation (2) is applicable to the landing, that lesser weight.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Nowhere there does it say anything about how to make the determination. That is left to your discretion.

That is the law, the rest is opinion.

Thanks,

Bevan..

[Sunfish]

Bevan, weight and balance - page 6 of CAAP 233 - the software/data/algorithm must be validated.

Functionality Level 2

6.10 In addition to the Functionality Level 1 capabilities, the EFB has one or more applications that utilise algorithms within a software application that require manual input to satisfy operational requirements. These include, but are not limited to, the weight and balance and/or performance calculations as required by the aircraft’s approved flight manual for use by the aircrew. The software applications must be validated to ensure the outputs from the application comply with the limitations detailed in the aircraft’s approve flight manual, for example any weight control shall be validated by an authorised weight control officer in accordance with Civil Aviation Order 100.7.


Being a wrong headed, stupid indvidual who is all thumbs, I will do my workings on Ozrunways but I always cross check with paper and pencil and that provides a written record to satisfy any FOI who asks.

[ZAZ]

Bevan, weight and balance - page 6 of CAAP 233 - the software/data/algorithm must be validated.



Being a wrong headed, stupid indvidual who is all thumbs, I will do my workings on Ozrunways but I always cross check with paper and pencil and that provides a written record to satisfy any FOI who asks.

One of the interesting limits of Ozrunways has emerged now some 3 years on and it's this.
On line you see all the Ozrunways users sharing their aircraft and in some cases their flight plans.
All well and good but when you compare this with Flight radar and Flight aware tracks something is missing!
All or most of the traffic on Ozrunways.
Now this may not be such a big deal for one u can't use the traffic information to avoid collisions legally lol, and for two the guys using Ozrunways showed me all this traffic recently and it seemed to be a great heads up. Trouble is when as I did you set up ADSB IN in the aircraft to display traffic, you get the IFR and VFR with ADSB out.
But there is no Ozrunways to be seen because ADSB in is in house, like the Stratux system where you use a 1090 antenna and a gps sub dongle on a raspberry Pi box , you log in with your IPad in OZrunways and see all the ADSB squatters flying by. On some occasions you do see the VFR aircraft who have upgraded to ADSB. EArly days as I said but flawed. Trouble is when you use one IPAD online when flying and one on ADSB IM the traffic information is worlds apart, and it's the guys VFR you don't see that will be the traffic issue not the IFR known traffic.

[djpil]

Exactly sunfish! I normally use an Excel spreadsheet for W&B as I use it only as a calculator.
(Things will be different when Part 91 comes out wrt carrying evidence of stuff.)

One item ignored by the EFBs is the manuscript amendments to WACs - I don't knowwhy they are not added by the providers.

[DaVeAU]

This may be an interesting read on having an EFB, I think it covers almost all the questions raised in this topic:
https://blog.ozrunways.com/2016/06/16/replacing-paper-sources-of-aeronautical-information-and-primary-means-of-navigation-what-are-the-rules/