Flying with a tablett : feed backs welcomed

[Enzo-34]

Hi guys !

My corporate operator is looking for tabletts to use as electronic flight bag, for our old King Airs and Citation II (551 type). We already use Jeppesen's Flite Star on our operations PC desk top for planning (as well as on 2 lap-tops), and are thinking about Jepp View (to get rid of the 35kg bag, if authority agrees...) associated to Jeppesen's Flite Deck.

Here are my questions :

- are those programms useable either on iPads, Android and Win Rt tabletts ?
- what kind of tablett would be the best one (in regard with cost, memory, gps positionning, easyness of use, etc) ?
- does any of you use (in flight, of course) any of those, and can give me a feed back ?

Thanks for your answers and feed-backs

EnZo

[Empty Cruise]

We use iPad 2's for the Jepp FD, and it works a treat. You won't need the GPS positioning, TBH, although it has some nice features, such as automatic switch to the 10-9-charts below target GS. But it eats into your battery life, which you will need to be conservative with.

We fly with 2 units, each of which must be charged to, e.g. 50% for a 5hr leg. Minimum is 30% for dispatch, no matter how short the leg. This approved by a W European CAA, your experience may vary.

As for "yeah, we'll just charge it during flight" - well, I'd have a chat with my ops inspector first. Li-ion and firefighting may come up during the conversation.

Otherwise, no drawbacks. Have had to reload the app a couple of times when the thing won't update manuals or charts, but that does sort the problem.

[First.officer]

Look up the latest version of the AMC 20-25 draft is a good starting point for what is required in implementing an EFB solution - 470 pages, although the last 55 pages are where you really need to be looking.
I have noticed that in the UK at least, they (CAA) still seem to refer to JAA TGL 36 - who knows why, as that dates back to October 2004!.
The hardware solution depends on various factors, and if it's a C.O.T.S. system your looking to use, with say a 3-5 year life span, then given that most Apps are generally iOS authored, the iPad is a good bet.....it's not by any means a quick and easy job if your AOC operations, and I'd consult your FOI right from the outset to discuss what they will need to see and hear for your Trial Evaluation Period - will save time and money right from the beginning IMHO.

F/o

[Pace]

Enzo

Mini I pads are even better as you can slip them into almost anything.
I believe one big airline refused I pads because of overheating problems they had.

Pace

[SU-GCM]

Can someone shed the light about the process for testing IPADs for interference and rapid decompression testing ?

Also for AOC operators who have an EFB program can someone be kind of enough to PM or discuss their EFB program and if they have a manual or SOP or procedures for the EFB ?

Many Thanks !
SU-GCM

[UAV3]

We use Ipads with JeppView and flight deck.

[Propellerpilot]

For hassle-free GPS tracking on Ipads I can recommend the "Bad Elf" App and Hardware equipment (link: Bad Elf (http://bad-elf.com/) )- charges your Ipad and gives excellent GPS coverage simultaneously and syncronizes with the JeppView App like a dream - no unreliable bluetooth gadgets necessary.

The only thing now missing from PC Jeppview is "Ownship" on the approach-chart and a few other useful tools - but we will get there in the long run I suppose...

[First.officer]

SU-GCM,

For decompression testing etc., a lot of the relevant paperwork is held by companies such as Jeppesen....might be worth a chat, and see what you can glean from them....I know that Stork Garwood labs. (USA) have done the decompression testing for various models of iPad that have come on to the market, and their testing is almost an industry standard it seems. Apple (in the case of the iPad) have various Li-ion standards the conform to with the iPad battery, and again, a hunt round their website will reveal the conformity standards they/the iPad meets.
For HMI and EMI considerations, depending on what process your looking to use to implement EFB, you will need to come up with an initial risk analysis covering these areas (amongst others), and there should be some advice/help available from the aircraft manufacturer, software developer (if specifically developed for aviation) etc. - actual testing as part of a Trial Evaluation Period will also help with feedback to prove various areas, but the whole process is dependent on many areas to be covered.....as mentioned earlier, in EASA land, the AMC 20-25 draft that was published as part of CRD 2012-02 should help clarify certain areas to be dealt with.....link below;

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/2012/CRD%202012-02.pdf

regarding manuals, well they could be part of your OMA/OMB (SOP's)/OMD, or a separate set of manuals depending on your approach.....

Hope some of that is of help, and is my personal spin on things ;-)

F/o

[Doodlebug]

We do use them, Mr Enzo. Now that the 'flip-through' function (as in swipe to the next plate with your fingers) disappeared a few updates back, the biggest advantage over the old EFB's, namely being able to very quickly access a new plate when ATC pulls a last-minute funny on you, has gone away. That, coupled with the fact that the damn things are always floating around somewhere (no really good spot to attach them on our ships), means that I tend to revert back to the EFB. :hmm:

[Flyingstig]

The Jepp FD on the iPad is great, once tried you never want to go back to paper.
Two issues the regulators will raise, in addition to those mentioned, is 'mounting' and classification.

Mounting an iPad has been a thorny issue for a number of years. Velcro works a treat! However it should be located in a 'viewable' position and not impeded egress. Try fixing it to a chart clipboard already installed by the manufacturer. It works a treat on the bigger ships. On smaller aircraft the iPad mini might fit better.

Classification is tricky because PEDs (iPads) are normally class 1 EFBs, which means they can't be used below 10,000ft.......not much use for an approach or taxi chart! You can get round this by seeing if the Authority would class it as a 2!
However, expect to be required to deactivate 'own ship' position and any GPS function. A small price to pay to get rid of paper Jepps!

GURU on a tablet PC for Perf / Mass and Balance is fine cos its used on the ground pre flight and therefore does not constitute part of the 'EFB'.

The above worked with a non AOC operation.

[what next]

Mini I pads are even better as you can slip them into almost anything.

But I would require to use reading glasses for the Jeppesen plates on the iPad mini ... Luckily the same applies to our operations manager and therefore we got large enough ones for us over-50-year-olds :) Absolutely no problem to find a space for them, they are thin enough to fit in the side pockets together with the checklist.

The electromagnetic interference testing must be done by an approved maintenance organisation (avionics). In our case, they sent a technician who did the testing in our hangar. Takes between 30 and 45 minutes per aeroplane.

[First.officer]

Classification is tricky because PEDs (iPads) are normally class 1 EFBs, which means they can't be used below 10,000ft.......not much use for an approach or taxi chart! You can get round this by seeing if the Authority would class it as a 2!
However, expect to be required to deactivate 'own ship' position and any GPS function. A small price to pay to get rid of paper Jepps!

GURU on a tablet PC for Perf / Mass and Balance is fine cos its used on the ground pre flight and therefore does not constitute part of the 'EFB'.


Ah, that terminology is now redundant in EASA land, it's all now either "Portable" or "Installed" EFB's, with either Type 'A' or Type 'B' Software...... and it's also now 'T-PED' and 'C-PED' lol....you can now in theory use 'own ship' position (now known as AMMD, or 'Airport Moving Map Display') but that would be subject to getting your CAA to sign off,and the new AMC 20-25 draft has an Appendix to allow you to see what is and isn't possible....As for GURU, Flygprestanda as I understand it are working on an iPad GURU App., and should be along sometime soon (I hope!). I'd be pretty certain that GURU would be classed as a Type 'B' Application on an iPad (or any other tablet for that matter), and therefore subject to the same criteria as other Applications, used as was under the old criteria, yes you may well have had it approved and used as a purely stand alone piece of software, but now, and combined with other Applications on the same hardware device, you have to prove that one Application doesn't affect another, ways of mitigating errors, etc., etc. - you can separate Applications by hard drive partion, but that won't work (as far as i'm aware) on an iOS based system.....

F/o

[Son of a Beech]

We fly with two iPad2 class 1 EFB and i cant think abour going back to paper.
Jeppview and Arinc iPad APP for totaly paperless ops https://direct.arinc.net/static_documents/marketing/index-services-ipad-app.html

@Enzo-34. JAA-TO has an EFB course in the netherlands. Boring as hell but they give you a big book with it that has sample applications for en EFB project. Also the FOCA (swiss CAA) has on their website a application for that can be used as a guidline that works really good http://www.bazl.admin.ch/experten/flugverkehr/03445/03446/03470/03471/03582/index.html?lang=de&download=NHzLpZeg7t,lnJ6IzdeIp96km56VlWtrl5VOqdayYLGH4crdzYa m3aiFfm2qsGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKOn6A--&.pdf

@ Flyingstig

A class on EFB can be used if attached to the pilot with a kneeboard (draft AMC 2-25) we have gotten an accept for this by our local EASA CAA (the give an accept since the dont give approvals to private operators, no matter how big your Gulfstream is. but it comes down to the same thing)

@Propellerpilot

The latest version of JeppFD (v 2.1.0 ) has ship possition on it:D. Of course our local CAA has us swiched of position information:ugh:, cause this would classify it as a Class 3 EFB. But if you swich that of again before landing.

[Booglebox]

you have to prove that one Application doesn't affect another, ways of mitigating errors, etc., etc. - you can separate Applications by hard drive partion, but that won't work (as far as i'm aware) on an iOS based system.....
You seem to have done your homework old bean! I too have been reading that AMC, but doing so feels like wading through treacle, and has led to unplanned naps.
I'm not an expert but AFAIK iOS apps are sandboxed, so the app can have problems and crash (to the user it closes suddenly) but the system remains fine. :cool: Windows (win32 desktop stuff) is not so easy.
My company is getting EFBs certified at the moment, and we have come up with a cool solution that uses quite sturdy duplicate suction mounts on the inside of the flight deck windscreen. They work very well indeed - we did some informal testing in the office and just one of them can easily support my bodily mass (no mean feat; must lay off the strudel :rolleyes:). As the outside of our building is mostly glass, I suppose I could climb it Mission Impossible style. :}
We are using some excellent software for OFP / w&b / manuals etc. and have made some custom journey logs etc. that work with it. Flight plans get pushed to it automatically as well. It's really awesome stuff and light years better than what most people do now i.e. iPhone camera picture of techlog to Ops :hmm:
If anyone wants to know more, feel free to PM me.

[First.officer]

Ah Booglebox, in the throes of implementing EFB also....the AMC draft is a little like wading through thick tar....but it has a lot of detail, so guess thats a step in the right direction ;-)

And yes, Apps. can (and do!) crash, but as long as you have ways of mitigating this, and solutions provided within your manuals and SOP's, should allow you to use said Applications AFAIK (notwithstanding other criteria).

Also developed various forms that you can 'push' along to crew, and receive back - but will have to see how that develops in it's entirety.....

F/o

[Flyingstig]

SOB.

A bit bigger than a Gulfstream! ( think Stick not column)
Yes the kneeboard is an option, but its a bit of a 'last resort'.

The arrangement I described ( iPad back shell case velcroed to window clipboard) was approved as a Class 2 EFB by the Authority for a private operation.

[FerrypilotDK]

Empty Cruise said-
We fly with 2 units, each of which must be charged to, e.g. 50% for a 5hr leg. Minimum is 30% for dispatch, no matter how short the leg. This approved by a W European CAA, your experience may vary.

We have a 80% minimum charge at start of duty day regardless of leg length. I have never come close to running out of battery. Before we used these "officially," we had the iPads and made tests of battery % at start, % at landing etc...in order to have something to show CAA that we had been testing while on paper and had real-world results.

On one aircraft, we have outlets in the cockpit and have never experienced a "heat" problem. In fact, we have never had any problems at all... Jepp and ARINC apps work great. Would hate to have to go back to paper!

I have a friend that swears by iPad mini in Twin Otter ops.

[Enzo-34]

Thank you very much for all those most welcomed feed-backs !
And many thanks for the usefull links to 'how to certify an EFB'. Looks like a long way to go :ugh:

A few more question : you are only talking about iPads. From what I found on the net, it appears that the iPad 2 (seems to be the cheapest...) has no GPS localization, except for the 3G version. Is that right ? What kind of iPad do you use ?

Do any of you use or heard about using an Android powered tablett (such as the samsung Galaxy Tab) ? If yes, are the Jeppesen apps (Jepp View, Flight Deck) compatible ?

Thank you once again. And sorry for the questionning :bored:

[compressor stall]

The iPad has actually been proved by Airbus Military for the A400m which exceeds any depressurization regime that a civvy certificated aircraft could expect.

Airbus have the documents outlining the full EM testing on each model of iPad. Give your rep a call. They'll want to charge you for it though!

[what next]

From what I found on the net, it appears that the iPad 2 (seems to be the cheapest...) has no GPS localization, except for the 3G version. Is that right ? Yes, but this is true for all iPads. You need to purchase the 3G version if you want GPS. But you don't need GPS for the Jeppesen plates if you want to save money.

What kind of iPad do you use ?Myself, I use an iPad 2 (3G), at my company we have the latest models (lost count about the number). There is no significant difference, the "retina display" makes the charts a bit prettier to look at, but the iPad 2 is good enough to produce a readable display.

Do any of you use or heard about using an Android powered tablett (such as the samsung Galaxy Tab) ? If yes, are the Jeppesen apps (Jepp View, Flight Deck) compatible ?

AFAIK there are is no Jepp View for Android tablets yet.

[His dudeness]

Those of you wth an EFB in EASA land, are you commercial or non comm ?

The LBA won´t give us (non comm guys) the right to use an EFB / Ipad, they says there is no legit path they could do it. (this statement is ca. 6month old)

[Booglebox]

Your dudosity: Commercial. but we are dealing with a slightly more "friendly" authority than LBA ;) :oh:

[flydive1]

AFAIK there are is no Jepp View for Android tablets yet.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jeppesen.android.tc

[dirk85]

EASA land, commercial ops, german speaking authority, EFB (iPad) approved for many months now.

[Enzo-34]

Once again, thank you guys for all those informations.

@ Flydive 1, from what I read, this is not JeppView, but it looks quite similar to it. Haven't found anything about that Jeppesen Mobile TC on the Jepp' official site (which is not that easy to navigate...).
The one limitation I can figure out is that, according to the vid in your link, the own ship position is only for platform diagramm... Not much use to enhance your SA during an arrival or depart procedure !

Seems also that Jepp FlightDeck is not yet available on Android platforms ... Asked the Jeppesen commecial support, waiting for their answer.

Wondering whether we could use that as an aid without actually switching to an official EFB ...

[Denti]

iPad approved without paper backup? Really interesting if the LBA approved that. Although our company issues iPad 5s to all crews we cannot certify and use it as an EFB, have to use a windows tablet in the flightdeck which is kinda stupid.

[what next]

Those of you wth an EFB in EASA land, are you commercial or non comm ?

Commercial. One more month to go and the trial period is over, which requires us to use paper and iPad in parallel. (Send me an Email, I might be able to help as I was involved in the EFB introduction within our operation).

[First.officer]

what next - as a matter of interest, what framework did your company use to start the Trial Evaluation Period? did you use the TGL 36 doc., or the AMC 20-25 draft? or another method? be interesting to know what people are using at this current time, and see what is really happening out there at the coal face so-to-speak (In EASA Land, AOC Ops).

Cheers,

F/o

[what next]

Hello!

...did you use the TGL 36 doc.

We did start based on this one about two years ago. Using "real" EFBs on one aircraft that is large enough for them. After completing the trial period successfully and gaining approval, we derived our own procedures for the iPad from it and got them approved as well. Pending completion of the trial period, but this has been completely uneventful so far. Today, I think the detour via the TGL 36 should no longer be necessary. There are already so many approvals for iPad based electronic charts that the authorities can hardly refuse them any longer.

[First.officer]

Ah, many thanks for the reply......the framework that we are currently using is based on the AMC20-25 Draft (which I believe is the latest step in EFB implementation in EASA Land).....I take it your using your EFB for items other than charting? (FCOM's/Perf etc.?) - with regard to EMI and HMI considerations, did you get an outside agency for EMI tests? or rely on existing documentation from suppliers like Jeppesen? HMI I take it was proved by actual operational feedback, as well as initial ORA?

Sorry for all the questions.......;-)

F/o

[His dudeness]

Email sent, Max.

Is anyone out there having the ipad mini approved ? That would be much nicer to handle in the small Sovereign cockpit me thinks...

Somehow I dread to wade through all that sh.., how could I fly with one paper Jepp without crashing ? Now I have 2 Ipads and the Jeppview cards installed in the airplane through the Honeywell EPIC and still have to use paper... to top it off I have my laptop with me as well, so I do have 4 independent sources and that needs to be approved but flying with a single paper jepp is acceptable ?

[First.officer]

Not had any experience wrt the iPad Mini, am guessing that depressuriation testing, EMI stuff etc. is mainly done on full-size iPads - the chassis is slightly smaller (weaker?) and therefore may necessitate separate testing?.

And yes, wading through it all is tiresome....but ultimately necessary for commercial ops....something so simple to use, made complicated ;-)

F/o

[suhoi27]

I would also appreciate some more detailed review of "how to" get those iPads certified? What applications do you use on iPad and what is still on paper-I prefer to have a checklist on paper....an so on..My intend is to use iPad mini with some kneeboards....Lear60 ....

[what next]

Hello!

I take it your using your EFB for items other than charting? (FCOM's/Perf etc.?) -

Charting, company documents (Operating manuals and suchlikes), briefing packages (fully paperless apart from the flight log and w&b). Airplane documents, checklists, performance not yet because no certified (at least not by our authority) versions are available.

...with regard to EMI and HMI considerations, did you get an outside agency for EMI tests?

EMI was actually measured inside the aircraft by a certified avionics maintenance company. No test flight was necessary, it could be done on the ground.

[Son of a Beech]

EASA private operator, but with Ops manual etc. Have gotten an accept for paperless ops based on AMC 20-25 draft with a remark that if AMC 20-25 draft is changed we have to change our procedures.

Global nav source has of the shelf mini iPads with FAA rapid decompression tested, but the test was accepted for the iPad 2 by the local (EASA) CAA.

[First.officer]

Thanks for the reply What Next.....interesting stuff....

Good thread this......can't see the AMC 20-25 Draft changing at all really, think it's pretty much cut and dried from the sounds of things, but will have to wait and see I guess...

F/o

[Son of a Beech]

First officer:

I sadly tend to disagree about AMC 20-25 not changing that much (wish for our sakes it wouldnt change).

The EASA CRD (comment response document) that was published after the release of AMC 20-25 (or NPA 2012-02 as it is called for the EASA law change) is 470 pages long and has a whopping 921 comments/objections from EASA memberstates. It makes for some interesting friday night reading. http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/2012/CRD%202012-02.pdf

[First.officer]

Ah, thanks for the link....posted it I think earlier on this thread.....long read I know only too well lol ;-)

F/o

[Son of a Beech]

:ok:First officer:)

:D:rolleyes: now that's funny. Me quoting you on something you published before:ok:

So much for me reading carefully:ugh:. I thought you previously posted just AMC 20-25. Sorry!

But in all seriousness, don't you think that all these comments will change AMC 20-25? If only for the 3 classes, testing criteria and that most of the authorities don't want approach charts on class 1 (I think the new term is mobile) devices.

I hope you're right, cause than we skip the whole hassle of applying all over again, but I'm afraid we will see some changes.

SOAB.

[First.officer]

Ah, I was under the impression that the AMC 20-25 Draft (as part of CRD 2012-02) is actually the document that takes into account the 913 comments from 45 commentators, as was originally a response to NPA 2012-02, so given that the Draft is due to be enshrined into legislation by the end of the year, and that the CRD 2012-02 (containing AMC 20-25 Draft) came out at end of July this year, this relatively short period (legislatively speaking) would limit pretty much all changes I would have thought.....and to be fair, any major changes would require re-canvassing of opinion once again.....sound sensible?

And yes, classes as I now understand are either "Portable" or "Installed" and with either Type A or B Applications....and charting function would most definitely be a Type B Application - i.e. it's malfunction, or misuse is are limited to a minor failure condition - and charting I believe is also listed in the Appendices as an example of Type B Applications.

F/o

F/o