Electronic Charts V's Good Old Paper

[wotan]

Coming from an operation where we use paper jeppesen charts I would like to [B]start the debate on wheather electronic charts really are a better solution.


Cost issue, does the expense of purchasing the hardware such as a tablet PC as well as the subscription to jepview and worldwide area updates justify itself.

Ease of use, do you find that the tablet pc or other electronic shart solutions are easy to use in the cockpit. eg if you get a late change of runway/approach are they that simple to use, is it easy to pull the relavent charts in a hurry.

Is the hardware robust enough???

Having never used any electronic version I ask for your opinions. I'm open to any suggestions comments etc.

What are the best standalone options out there in the market today.

You can rely on a physical piece of paper. Can you 100% rely on the electronic options around.

cheers:ok:

[FlyMD]

Hi,

I've been working on and off with electronic flight bags for the last few years. I have also operated a bizjet with a full worldwide paper edition, as well as "gone halfway" and printed the appropriate charts for each trip from a laptop and a portable printer before each leg.

In a nutshell, and for my taste, 2 EFB's of good quality in the cockpit is the way to go. Right now, on a G5, I use 2 Toshiba sub-notebooks reconfigured by a firm called ADR and called FG 7000T, or something similar. They cost about 3'500 USD per unit, with a 2-year warranty including display breakage.

The displays are just large enough to work on, even at an age where the arms are generally getting too short for perfect vision... For a flexible use in daily ops, some training with the software is required, especially for a late change of runway or quick access to another ground chart.

What is required is an electrical outlet in or near the cockpit, because those units do not have more than 2 hours battery autonomy after a few month of use.

The obvious advantage of the all-electronic solution are 1) once the EFB's are updated you will always work with a current chart 2) each pilot has his/her own display, allowing a certain redundancy 3) you do not need to waste cargo space on binders. The Worldwide area charts and enroute charts can be place in as little as 4 binders.

If the electronic gizmo is not to your liking, and I understand quite a few colleagues still have their reservations, then a very acceptable solution in my opinion is to have Jeppview installed on the aircraft laptop only, and print the relevant destination and alternate charts before a trip. This will cost a little time before each trip, and a pretty penny in ink cartridges for the portable printer, but you can work with the good old paper charts, and even decorate them with magic marker pen if that is your fancy.

For this solution, however, 2 things required: a) have the discipline to throw away the printed charts shortly after your flight, or check all the dates against the latest revision if you plan to re-use them. Nothing more stupid and embarassing than to have the latest Jeppview disk but use an outdated chart and b) keep the laptop with the Jeppview program handy in the cockpit, in case of change of destination or if you need and unexpected enroute alternate.

The full paper solution for a worldwide operation is just not practical anymore, unless your co-pilot loves doing revisions for 2 hours per week, and you have all the stowage space you will ever wish for..

EFB's have been reliable for me, and I have used at least 4 different brands up to date. New Hardware is coming out all the time (Paceblade comes to mind) and it will keep getting better.

OR.... you just tell the boss to buy you a G550 or another plane with integrated chart display, which is the sexiest solution of all...

[G-SPOTs Lost]

We operate epic with the charting option and find it very good, we do however brief and fly on paper, we subscribe to Jeppview and have the latest charts up to date.

We use the geographically referenced charts with position overlay for taxying at big airports - it is a great safety help and cheaper that RAAS.

Cockpit space is also a consideration for EFB's

Until somebody invents a touchscreen EFB that is in total A5 size that is light and unobstructive enough to bolt to the column without getting in the way then its paper for me, ideally it would also have a independent source for the P2 side

Recently due to a problem we had cause to consider an enroute divert we simply put all the candidates as waypoints at the end of the flightplan within the FMS, EPIC recognised them and immediately put them in the quicklist for available charts, by examining the charts on the MFD we quickly came up with a plan D E & F within 3 minutes, god knows how long it would have taken wih just paper. Viewable MFD charts repaid their $80,000 purchase price and $4000 subscription that night thats for sure

The writing is on the wall for paper charts, the technology has to mature in much the same way that GPS did - remember the trimble 2101? - maybe in 5 years for new a/c paper will be gone.

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

Have operated with integrated charts in the past. Very good when they work, especially the ground charts, when it's foggy or at night. Helps in orientation no end. Did have some problems when we had " chart not found" messages, etc. I believe that most of the bugs have been ironed out now.

Am at the moment working on the relative costs of tablet v integrated for present owner. Various tablets available at prices between £1000 and £3000.
I spoke to Jeppesen Tech Dept and they pointed out a potential problem, in that ordinary HD's can fail above 10,000 feet. For that reason, they reccommend that a solid state HD is used. These cost in the region of £600-£700 extra. The other option is a flash card, but the capacity is much smaller.

I would prefer the integrated option, but I'm not paying!

[Gulfstreamaviator]

This is a perfect summation.

I do try to print the scheduled dep and arr airports.

I frelalnce operate on (JAA and FAA) G5 and G550, so have the benefit of the G550 fantastic displays, however the current G5, has very bad taxi way displays, low contrast, I suspect, hence the prints.

There are 5 or perhaps 6 binders for all the other pieces of paper.
Dont usually carry the USA regs, etc.

My lap top has Jep View on so a third back up, and a 50$ HP printer in back, ensures total reliability. And I hope legality.

The new Gulfstream EFB is very nice, as it has all the manuals on as PDF, files.

Most of the basic EFB, can be loaded with the PDFs as well.


glf

[Hyph]

thedeadseawasonlysick: I spoke to Jeppesen Tech Dept and they pointed out a potential problem, in that ordinary HD's can fail above 10,000 feet. For that reason, they reccommend that a solid state HD is used. These cost in the region of £600-£700 extra. The other option is a flash card, but the capacity is much smaller.

As long as your cabin altitude is below 10,000 feet you don't have too much to worry about regarding hard drive failures - and even if you did operate at a cabin alt of 10,000 feet or higher I would be surprised to see HD failures due to high alt operation.

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

Hyph,

Merely passing on what the Jepp technician said. He wasn't trying to sell me anything, so I have no reason to disbelieve him.

[nzav8tor]

On arrival into Schipol today for the first time in a CJ2+ with intergrated Jeppview on MFD the usefulness of this feature was obvious.

We were given four runway changes until finally making a visual approach for 04 after breaking off the ILS 36R approach.

With the paper charts this would have resulted in a real nightmare of paper shuffling and head down time tyring to rebrief and redo the nav setup.

With two or three FMS key presses and three jeppview key presses and a quick scroll the runway changes were effortless.

We have paper charts in the daily trip kit as a backup but for ease of accesiblity, use and flexiblility, I would recommend integrated charts for any operation.

The aircraft symbol overlay on the approach and ground charts is also a great feature.

Perhaps this is standard on bigger jets but for a little jet, combined with Proline 21 you couldn't ask for much more in the way of avionics, efficiency and ultimately, safety.

[Hyph]

Hi thedeadseawasonlysick,

Not doubting you at all... and what the Jepp tech told you about solid state was correct - a solid state unit would never have a problem with operating at high altitude.

Having said that, the the statement about standard hard disks failing sounds very much like a myth, possibly interpreted from disk drive tech specs or, worse... the Internet.

I work for a disk drive manufacturer. These days, hard disks end up everywhere. We just don't see this kind of failure.

Specialist drives are available which are tested to higher altitude operating conditions than regular drives. In most cases, the only difference is the testing process, not the manufacturing line.

If you were operating an unpressurized aircraft at high altitude, you would be well advised to go for a specialist solution to ensure that the equipment would operate for prolonged periods.

You can always build in redundancy (for example, two laptops, each with different manufacturer/model drives) if you are solely relying on electronic charts.

[Paradise Lost]

'unless your co-pilot loves doing revisions for 2 hours per week'
He'd have to be both verykeen and adept to amend worldwide Jepp cover in only 2 hours.....!
We have 2 integrated Universal UCDs which are early technology EFBs but all who use them think they are excellent once they get used to the rascals. As they are not 100% reliable we also have the current Jeppview on a laptop as back-up.
The one big advantage not previously mentioned is that both pilots have their own plates, enabling both to monitor a/c position rather than sharing one paper plate. Secondly as one's eyesight begins to fail in the twilight (of our careers too), it is great to be able to magnify the relevant plate to about 4 times the size of a Jepp paper version!
Soar with the eagles.....

[mrgreen]

Taking into account the type of operations such as coverage, type of aircraft, single pilot or multi-pilot ops, and the following items, one may find a different 'business justification' for each case:

1- Type of equipment required
- paper: binders weight, space
- electronic: weight of laptop, printer, additional equipment (power supplies etc), lifetime

2- Dependencies for each type:
- paper: binder revision updating (load and scope based on coverage)
- electronic: a regular revision uploading will do

3- Usability of the solution:
- paper: It is good to have the paper in-hand, however searching for new alternatives can be a significant drawback while flying (head down, binders search, only one chart available...)
- electronic: light, fast and easy once we get used-to-it

4- Reliability (especially in case of emergency or abnormals):
- paper -is- always here
- electronic: as long as it works, everything is fine. Excluding embedded electronic displays which feature quality and stress testings, I would doubt the standard electronic equipment being as reliable as the avionics? (especially if the solution include laptops coming from the retail market)

5- Emergency procedures
- paper: need to sort out the paperwork ahead of time, not easy to cope with immediate emergency (such as last minute RWY change)
- electronic: good knowledge will increase efficiency in sorting/preparing the charts/alternates and reduce the flight time (as described above). However, one often printout the charts out of the electronic equipment, coming back to the 'paper' version processing...

(and there may be other aspects to take into consideration)

This said, I would say that costs should come into 2nd position when thinking about paper vs electronics. The first criteria to consider would be usability based on type of operation (Europe, Worldwide?) and ease of management, considering the resources available in the cockpit (incl. back-office).

Choosing electronic would require investing in top-quality equipment incl. spares, ink, extra-battery or power supplies to minimize the risk of downtime. Otherwise I would suggest to stick to paper and deal with the necessary paperwork in order not to jeopardize the cockpit operations.

When dealing with emergency, electronic downtime will not be a stress-reducing factor, whereas a good up-to-date paper version coming out of a binder (or printed from electronic?) will be.

Then again, it depends on who pays and who flies, and who has the final word...

my .02 chf

mr. green

[wotan]

thanks for the reply's guys,


conclusion i can draw sofar is integrated chart solutions G550/Epic etc.. are the best.


paper - (if you have the man power to update your binders) will always win out over EFB options.

[IO540]

Hard drives do fail at altitude. I have been flying with a Motion LS800 tablet running Jeppview 3 / Flitedeck and the hard drive would crash quite reliably around FL140. Eventually I fitted a 32GB flash replacement; luckily Samsung did an exact flash replacement for this particular HD model.

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

The LS800 was one of the tablets I was looking at. However, a better bet seems to be the Xpert 310. 10 inch screen, slightly lighter and touch screen. You can also get it with a solid state HD.

[IO540]

Tried googling on "Xpert 310" and it turns up nothing.

A 10" tablet 1024x768 would display a Jeppview 3 plate whole, very nicely. But it needs to be light and thin - most tablets in that size range are heavy.

I've seen some jet EFBs and they are thin and light - achieved by having the computer and most of the innards elsewhere, attached via a cable.

Tablets are still being built with old technology. The LS800 gets very hot; in fact it overheats with any sunlight on it, especially at altitude.

[emmad]

The ADR unit mentioned is actually a Fujitsu P1620. Been using 2 in the cockpit for quite a while now and they are extremely reliable (actually, 100% reliable so far). You can buy them direct from Fujitsu on their web site for about $1,800 usd, including the 5-hr hi-cap battery. We have no paper terminal charts and never print. Bluetooth GPS shows position at all times and Bluetooth XM-Weather shows all the storms (at least if you are in the USA).

The savings from Jepp for North America coverage is over $2,000 usd per year. Not quite that much discount from Frankfurt but still cheaper than paper. Only 2 Jepp binders required for the enroutes, etc., for North and South America, Atlantic and Europe/Med. Biggest problem with the binders is the enroute charts sticking in the holders because you just don't get them out very often.

[ssg]

At my last job, Citation V Ultra, single pilot I was constantly looking for ways to set the mark higher....as I managed the corporate aircraft, I chose what charting options I wanted.

A little history: In my previous chief pilot corp. position, I tried, 15 years ago to go to NOAA/FAA charts. I learned that trying fly single pilot, holding a binder, non lose leaf, smaller pic, darker paper, no terrain, less info, was just a pain in the butt...and honestly, I wasn't up for it...so I stayed with nice, big bright, Jepps...and kept doing the revisions....

Flash forward to my Ultra job, came into to fix a broken flight dept, my specialty, I went out and bought 10+ leather binders, Canada, Alaska, Mexico and US, and got the Q service, and found my self doing charts at the hanger. Time consuming and also, not safe, as more then one pilot has missed that chart, and found himself looking for the approach that isn't there, that he thought he updated..and no one goes through the checklist, although they should...I thought,, there has to be a better way...

Within months of my new jet job, I got sick of revisions and ordered up NOAA charts, and with my Jepps as back up, I transistioned to FAA charts. Took some practice, since I flew hard IFR, single pilot, I took some time with this...

It wasn't long that I realized that Jepps were a total waste of time, and that I could fit the US, Canada and Mexico behind the copilot seat, and revisions was simply dumping all old charts every 56 days in the recycle bin and putting the new ones behind the seat. No mistakes, no missing charts. My life got easier, and I just couldn't imagine going back to Jepps.

Then about two years ago, I decide to try out Jepp view, on my laptop. What a P.O.S. Not only was the interface slow, but if the tower gave me a runway change, SID or STAR change, I had to sit there at 440kts navigating through menus, that through time and practice got easier, simply wasn't as fast as pulling out a binder and just going right to the chart needed.

Then NOAA came out with thier electronic charting service. Practicaly unknown but came out about two years ago, this was the bomb. First of all it was like $100 a year for the US, easy to navigate, so along with the paper charts I used this on my laptop on my lap, or the right seat, manytimes right on down to minimums. It was great. The lap top was on a DC power source, so power was not an issue, and the laptop proved brighter then most EFBs and reliable enough to use, keeping in mind I still have paper charts behind the seats.

During this time I ran into the Flight Options pilots who used thier EFBs and go a chance to use thier TOLD programs and Jepp view,....dim screen, again menus that didn't seem intuitive or quick enough, but it gave the copilot something do. I didn't have that luxury.

So since I dead headed alot, I would have fun with approaches down to minimums with a lap top on my lap, having fun, and the only advantage that I could see, was that night I could have the screen backlight much brighter the picture of the chart bigger then the paper plates. Very nice.

But after trying this and that....I came to this conclusion.

Talk to any EFB operator...they will 99.9% of the time either by law or simply because they don't trust the unit, have real paper approach plates behind some seat somewhere.

By adding in the electronic charting option, you definately add in a whole host screen, hardrive, power failures, ect that can happen that in the case of paper charts just wouldn't happen.

So in a dedicated plane, flying single pilot, I will just order up the FAA charts, because I played with the new technology, big deal, it was fun, again, big deal...it's actualy easier and faster to reach over, grab the CA. charts, put them on my lap, shoot the approach.

The only reason, at this point that I see that makes a serious case for the EFBs is for the real, no bs, international charter guys. One day they go to London, the next to Singapore...the whole world's charts can be put on a few disks. That makes sense to me. Print out a few charts for your destination just incase the lights go out, and your good. Also being a corporate contract pilot, electronic is easier then lugging around charts, or hoping that the plane charts are up to date, by the idiot that just go fired.

I have yet to meet an EFB operator that didn't either print some charts out before hand, or have paper charts stuffed in a corner somewhere...because they just don't trust the technology....

An EFB never made the plane safer, nor did the plane fly faster, but it has a cool factor, and once your past that...you will probably end up with NOAA/FAA charts, once your comfortable using them.

[1xxxxx1]

The future is not paper, the future are integrated systems with a file server and approach charts and enroute maps on an aircraft display.
Connected to the FMS they give the departure, destination and alternate airport charts pre-selected by FMS flight plan.
With FMS approach selection the corresponding approach charts are pre-selected as well.

Finally the charts are less used as the frequencies are auto tuned; the inbound course is auto set. The ATIS is pre-selected by FMS. And the restricting altitudes/speeds are listed in the FMS and on screens (if chosen to show up)
This includes holdings and missed approaches.
And on some systems all is displayed as a 3D graphic with underlying terrain information from a database.
If aviation would not be extremely conservative the charts as we know them would be obsolete by now. We need the data and information but not the chart (regardless if paper or on display) But until then we use it in the traditional form.

Now when selecting electronic charts the own ship position is given.
This greatly simplifies taxi, avoids runway incursions and increases situational awareness on the ground and in the air. Paper can never offer this.

For a single file server backup can be via a portable device, EFB, Laptop or Tablet PC. All of them can run on aircraft power and have a battery for stand by.

If you are flying an older aircraft without this integrated solution one can invest in an EFB II or better EFB III system that offers nearly the same in a semi portable or fixed arrangement.
Check out FAA AC 120 (something) it gives all the requirements.

Hardware cost are 10000$-20000$ . This will include ship power supply and standby batt, 2 screens (one for each pilot) displaying the charts (cross loading possible)
It will add WX weather, one can have an internet connection, it offers a standby PFD based on an additional AHRS and offers synthetic vision (ok none certified) and many more options.

To make the cockpit paperless the POH, SOP’s and MX manuals are availed in digital format as well. And one can run aircraft performance software.


Did I miss something?
Maybe the MS flight sim for the PNF.


And to answer the questions:

Coming from an operation where we use paper jeppesen charts I would like to [b]start the debate on wheather electronic charts really are a better solution.

Cost issue, does the expense of purchasing the hardware such as a tablet PC as well as the subscription to jepview and worldwide area updates justify itself.
Price is very similar for both as Jeppesen is not charging what it cost but what they can get. If you include the cost of time for paper revision electronic wins.


Ease of use, do you find that the tablet pc or other electronic shart solutions are easy to use in the cockpit. eg if you get a late change of runway/approach are they that simple to use, is it easy to pull the relavent charts in a hurry.
Using a fully integrated chart viewer with FMS support a runway change is done in no time, nothing is faster. (if you know how to push the buttons)

The Jepp software is not great but can be learned and charts can be pre-selected.
No advantage for ether. (but the computer has to be learned in a same way as one learned how to get charts out of a binder and stack them up. )

Is the hardware robust enough???
Use two systems both with ship power and own battery constantly charged . Only a EMP will make look paper great.

Having never used any electronic version I ask for your opinions. I'm open to any suggestions comments etc.

What are the best standalone options out there in the market today.

You can rely on a physical piece of paper. Can you 100% rely on the electronic options around.
Nothing is 100% sure ! drop 500 charts when the binder opens and good luck to find the right one for the coming approach.

[SNS3Guppy]

EFB charts and charting systems (software) offer some wonderful advantages. However, I've had two EFB's both fail during an approach or just prior to arrival in the terminal area, leaving me with no options.

I've never had a paper chart do that.

[SnowPilot]

I currently operate a king air single pilot that has two efb's. Fujitsu's with the spin around keyboard and jeppview on them. We were operating on one and using paper as the backup. Now we operate two because the cost of the paper paid for the laptops in just over a year. We couple the EFB i'm using with xm radio which is bluetooth connected from a server in the back of the plane (this is for domestic usa and canada only)

We also use a small gps about the size of a pack of cigaretts and it is also connected via bluetooth to the efb. The position and situational awareness it gives us is unreal. It shows the plane on the taxiway diagram and also on the approach chart. A real plus.

Since we visit the same airports I do have a 3 ring binder with all the charts needed behind the pilot seat. This is my last line of defense if both efb's fail. I've never used it but it is nice to have for some reason.

I'd highly recomend getting one with bluetooth and linking it up to the GPS on the dash.

[formulaben]

http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/eb15b0c685650a0486257321006b3b8c/$FILE/AC%2091_78.pdf

http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b5de2a1cac2e1f7b86256ced00786888/$FILE/AC%20120-76A.pdf

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

You're quite right, Googling Xpert 310 brings up nothing. The company that makes it is Motion Computing and they also do not have it on their web site! For some reason, they have chosen to sell it through Pen Mobile Solutions Ltd. They do not have it on their web site either! It's a very well kept secret. One would almost think that they don't want to sell any.
However, if you contact Tony Keogan at Pen Mobile ([email protected]), he will send you the full specs and price list. He was very helpful.
The short list of specs is: weight 2.05lbs, dimensions 8.3" X 10.3" X 0.8". Various Flash Cards available, together with a HDD or a solid state HD, but the latter adds a fair amount to the price.

[galaxy flyer]

Current plane has ProLine 21 with IFIS and it is the cat's whiskers. The 10x12 screens with aircraft displayed on it is just a wonder. Especially an improvement taxying at night, IFR on unfamilar airports, huge safety improvement.

GF

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

An addition to my earlier post. The American company that actually makes the 310 is DT Research and the tablets name is the WebDT 310. The web site for them is www.dtresearch.com.

[Rightbase]

I wouldn't be surprised to see failures at altitude. The heads 'fly' over the disc surface, at a height of next-to-nothing, using the aerodynamic 'ground effect' to control their height.

The speed and geometry are fixed, so a certain air density is needed to keep the heads flying. That's why there is a spec.

You should be OK as long as you shut the computer down just before the presurisation fails.

[ssg]

I think the argument was put to rest when you stated that it cost so much money in paper etc, etc. What a waste of time...updating charts and spending the night before printing out plates...which is futile.

You see if half way into your flight you have a battery overheat for example...you can't fix it...so in most planes that means going to emergency power, battery of some sort. There goes your EFBs so you're hand flying now. In the decent you need your charts for Grand Juction, Colo. Blowing snow storm.you're a dark aircraft and I know that you didn't print out all the approach charts from LA to NY.

You're hosed unless you brought paper charts which you did because no one trusts the EFBs with thier lives. So EFBs are nice, fun, a new toy. Looks cool but.....

The point is if you're using paper with the EFB why not just use the paper to begin with? Jepps, NOS etc.

Flying back home yesterday, triple EFIS, dual FMS, dual RMU's at FL420
I remarked "Gee we should get a HUD, Synthetic Vision". We both chuckled. When did pilots get to the point where they needed all this stuff to get from point a to b?

Needless to say if you're bitching about pay and your boss just dropped a milllion bucks into this type of avionics..........

Another thought is my right seater had all the Jepps out loose leaf for the approaches so he's fumbling for the Ziggy 4 and the ILS, handing them back and forth. Of course I just said "Why don't you use NOS charts?".

Maybe the only real argument for EFBs is to have the whole world on disk. I probably would for international flying and have the FO update the 'world' at the hangar. The other argument for it is in a crew, if both have EFBs, that might eliminate this silliness where crews with one set of charts are briefing each other, screwing up of course.

That's ok. I'm patient.

[SNS3Guppy]

I've used straight EFB's, integrated, and of course all paper, with different paper formats. Presently we use one set of jepps with a printer and jeppview onboard, and will be integrating EFB's in the near future.

Over the years I've had a number of occasions in which the EFB's failed or locked up. With dual EFB's on board, I've had them both failed, and no charts available.

This has never occured for me with paper charts. In fact, the darn things just keep working every time. Imagine that.

Paper works.

[FlyMD]

EFBs don't "just fail" or freeze up because some mean goblins don't like the day you're having!!!

When you install and use EFBs, there are some rules and procedures to be followed (imagine that, procedures when operating an airplane!), like keeping the EFB batteries charged, and changed regularly, like avoiding an internet connection with any EFB, like keeping your operating system simple and uncluttered, or putting your EFBs in the shade when leaving them in the airplane...

Then of course, there is the way you learn to use them: familiarize yourself with the soft and hard reset features, learn all the features of Jeppesen Flitedeck, know your configuration, and most of all avoid the wild "pecking at the thing" with the stylus that I sometimes observe.

In other words, be computer-savvy, and treat the EFB like any other piece of equipment critical to the operation of the plane.

If you think computers are the spawn of the devil, then good news: your retirement is just around the corner. :ugh:

[SNS3Guppy]

If you think computers are the spawn of the devil, then good news: your retirement is just around the corner.


Actually, no. I fly a 40 year old airplane right now. Two years ago I flew brand new airplanes and a few years before that the aircraft was 65 years old. New, old, computers, no computers...not retiring soon.

EFBs don't "just fail" or freeze up because some mean goblins don't like the day you're having!!!


Noone but you said anything about "goblins." However, yes, they do "just fail" and they do indeed freeze up because they're electronic and they're computers. And many of them are windows based. And I've seen it many times, in paperless and integrated cockpits. Completely locked. Unable to reset, and in some cases, unable to reboot even after removing the batteries and starting over...because they couldn't be shut down any other way. I played with a batch of about two hundred over the space of a couple of years at one point, and found that new or old, freshest updates or abused and in need or service...they behaved similiarly...they could go along just fine for hundreds of hours, or they could lock up in a heartbeat. With redundant availability, I've still had access to no charts because of EFB failures.

No goblins necessary.

Paper just doesn't do that.

[FlyMD]

SNS3Guppy: Re-reading my post from yesterday, I realize it's full of unnecessary sarcasm and lowers the tone of the discussion: I apologize. Also, I certainly did not mean to take aim at You personally, or imply anything about the time of your retirement. Again, please accept my apology.

My point was this: after dealing with computers of all make and ilk for 25 years, I have yet to see one fail for no reason at all.. There is always something to be done, software or hardware wise, to prevent freezes or crashes.

Now I realize that the pen-tablets offered on the market for use as EFB are far from perfect. They have not been designed for airborne use, they are slow, and their operating system often limps years behind current releases. Proper care and operation, however, goes a long way towards reliability and ease of use.

My current EFB has quite a fast processor, enough memory, and uses Windows 98, devoid of any ancillary programs or gimmicks to slow it down. Cooling can be an issue, and we take extra care about placement in the cockpit and sufficient ventilation. Batteries are kept fully charged, and will not be allowed to get older than 2 years. Updates are made via CD, never the internet. While a double failure of EFBs is still possible, I just don't see it happening, and am very comfortable operating without paper.

That being said, we still keep a printer handy, for the benefit of freelance colleagues less enthused about the EFBs, and even I have been known to print out the Amsterdam ground chart, for example, because taxi instructions there can be enough of a b*tch without having to zoom around while reading back 17 different taxiway and gate designators..

[SNS3Guppy]

I believe these utilized windows XP, and the most common failure point was a lockup when in map mode. They would slow down and quit. Occasionally just quit...dark screen and all. We had about two hundred of them, tracked by serial number...Fujitsu's. Overall, I wasn't impressed.

[ssg]

We all know that everything is going electronic and paperless. Inevitable.

It's just that for those that do this for a living in hard IFR weather on an almost daily basis printing out charts everyday would be a real time sucker and you don't want to run out of printer ink at 9pm the night before the flight.

The fact that everyone has a spare set of Jepps behind a seat and/or printing out some charts beforehand shows that paper is the ultimate backup and the most reliable form of approach chart depiction.

I am not anti-technology, far from it, but too many people I know go out and grab all this stuff, spend gobs of money and then whine when they have to maintain it, get it fixed, installed, updated, etc. Technology for the sake of technology is just someone trying to get a new toy for someone to play with.

That said let's leave the toys for the kids because like I said before if we asked the passengers what they think, safety being thier first concern, what would they prefer the pilot to use? Paper or electronic charting?

Something I have noticed, and you don't see this often, is a flight dept where they use NOS charts. It's usualy with an old timer that came to realize that less time at the hangar updating charts is more time doing what he wants. The trade off is NOS charts are smaller, duller looking, a little tougher to hold in your lap but you can put half the US behind a seat, the other half up in the nose.

At the end of the day NOS charts simply give you the same info that all the other charting options do. An approach is an approach.

:)

[vanHorck]

Woul the 310 tablet pc also run flitestar reasonably fast alongsite the plates (not at the same time)? I have flitestar IFR Europe and have to make a decision on how i start dealing with plates

Thx

Bert

[7AC]

I've changed to Jeppview and it is a pain in the tail,
as bad as the paper is it is still the better option,
No batteries, no lockups, no ink, no spending much longer preparing for the flight printing charts. Just reach for the book and you are in business.

[thedeadseawasonlysick]

Van Horck.

If you contact Tony Keogan at the address mentioned on the 18th Feb, he should be able to tell you.

[globallocal]

We are in the market for 2 EFB's.
Is any one using the Ultra compact computers for their EFB's like the Fujitsu "lifebook U1010". Tablet with a 5.9 in screen. just wondering how the screen holds up with charts as all the other tablets seem bulky.