Of course a supplied EFB is certified. If that is what your ops manual says about Ipads great.... Honestly though I do not believe that ipads have been tested iaw https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...C%2021-16G.pdf or the European equivalent.

They are certified, most US carriers and corporate operators are using them as primary EFBs.

I think there is a huge difference between primary EFB (we don't have any paper back-up) and primary navigation. There is a placard by our iPad holders reminding us that the inbuilt navigation elements if our EFB's may not be used for primary navigation. But is plotting primary or secondary navigation? I would have thought the latter.

I agree on using a paper plotting chart. Haven't carried paper terminal charts in years since the FAA approved iPad as EFB.

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/su...t-planning.pdf

"The iPad mini’s compact footprint will enable exciting new options for space-constrained cockpit use. Its size is ideal for kneeboard use. The small mass should enable lighter-weight mounting systems that more easily meet retention requirements, including applicable RTCA DO-160 testing. For some, the iPad mini also may serve as a great backup source of EFB information for airplanes with full-size iPad EFB or traditional Class 2 and 3 EFBs. The form factor may also be ideal for other aviation users such as flight attendants and technicians.

Regulatory Authorization
Due in large part to the factors and observations noted here, we do not anticipate any issues for operators to gain regulatory authorization of Jeppesen Mobile apps on iPad mini according to the FAA AC 120-76B standard, or the EASA draft AMC 20-25 standard. In support of our customers, on November 6, 2012, Jeppesen successfully completed Rapid Decompression testing of a representative iPad mini, to 51,000 feet."

"We do not anticipate "
 

"we do not anticipate any issues for operators to gain regulatory authorization of Jeppesen Mobile apps on iPad mini according to the FAA AC 120-76B standard, or the EASA draft AMC 20-25 standard."

=

Not currently approved.

When it is I will have no problem using it.......until it is I will stick to our SOPs.

Yes. A young student asked me recently: "wot's a sextant ? "

One could weep.

Question ? If you only have 2 FMC's, and they disagree, how do you know which one is inaccurate ?

"In My Day" we had 3 INS's - and a standby Artificial Horizon as well.

( but then we also had a Radio Officer, a Navigator, and a Flight Engineer - Ahh! - as well. Just sayin' )

Flying into Moscow we had to convert our "Imperial" altimeter by way of a graph table to arrive at the various correct "metric" altitudes that we were given by ATC on approach, or departure. We asked Management if we could have a metric altimeter fitted, just to make life a bit easier. No, was the answer, we'd have to fit two to cater for redundancy, and then we would have to fit a third to cater for the anomaly between two differing altimeters. Can't afford it.

I guess it is all different today ?

Once again showing EASA is a blockade to aviation. iPads and other tablets have been standard in the US for years, still a "draft" in Europe.

Keeps your chips on the fold-out table of the magnificent Airbus.

I'll admit to being a bit confused by some of the above comments, FWIW iPads have been the prime/only source of documention for us on our UK CAA / EASA regulated operator for several years now.

Likewise confused. So...

Galaxy -EASA fully on board with EFBs.

Speedbird - still 3x inertials and sby instruments, but with a couple of GPS as well.

RMC - I'm assuming your beef is not with airlines using certified/approved EFBs and having appropriate EFB administration, but with individuals using private tablets and software. Like Wiggy, I stick to SOPs which includes the use of company provided ipads and software as EFB.

Plotting on paper across the ocean? One day it'll go the way of the sextant and almanac, but until then if the regulator wants it and my SOPs tell me to then I'll do it.

Likewise, flying and training for multiple operators in various EASA countries, I can't remember the last time I used paper charts.

Not correct. The point is that the approval belongs to the operator, so all Jeppesen can do is provide you with all the evidence of testing that you require. If your company can't get the bits of paper together to get the approval issued then maybe there's a good reason they aren't approved!

Correct ....certified EFBs are great. Wish our aircraft had them.....it is private IPads (non SOP )I am referring to.

Biz jet - my issue is around certification of the hardware (not the jep software) IAW RTCA/DO-160....it mentions in the iPad mini text an iPad being subjected to a decompression test at 51,000' this is one of many environmental tests required before an item can be classed as certified. If someone can show me any proof of certification of an iPad as aircraft equipment great ( Even if it is only referred to in the MEL) otherwise my info is that this is not certified aircraft hardware ( kind of like an exploding Samsung isn't).

The ipad is approved. Approved by the FAA for use by many airlines. Operators have already gained regulatory authorization of Jeppesen mobile apps on iPads in accordance with FAA AC 120-76B.

The only part of DO-160 that is required for Class 1 hardware that is not connected to the aircraft systems in any way is the decompression test. Initially NAAs required a practical non-interference demonstration, but now they have accepted that so many iPads have been used on every type of aircraft that it is taken as read. All the rest of the requirements are for units that interface with the aircraft systems in some way.

Part of the operator approval is to show that there are adequate procedures to minimise the risk of a battery fire, and deal with one if it happens. Those procedures are already there to deal with the several hundred iPads already on board!

As several people have already said on here, iPads are the main EFB for many EASA airlines, including such small fly-by-night operators as BA, so I am not sure why you are insisting that they are not approved!

Because he wants to continue using paper plotting charts forever when it is not necessary.

And most airline pilots ARE no longer using the paper plotting charts. Seems to me to still be a big thing in the bizjets based on the responses I have seen in this and other threads.

Possibly because many bizjet pilot's don't generally cross the pond that often? Belt and braces possibly - although, granted, it could all be done on an ipad.

Every single bizjet international procedures recurrent I've done at FSI for example, the instructor emphasizes the use of a paper plotting chart, ten minute plots etc. to avoid GNE's. In reality this could all be done on the ipad.

In my current type, everything is on the ipads (which were given by Gulfstream with the new aircraft, are 'sterile' and not used personally) so I don't see electronic plotting charts to be an issue either - although, my last crossing (last month) was plotted on paper.

From the latest North Atlantic ops and Airspace Manual (chapter 8)

Don't see a requirement for paper in there.

I can assure you that Airbus (and presumably Boeing) test iPads in a number of areas from decompression to cold temperatures and also for RF interference. It is in a document for each iPad model and is available for purchase and used to show the NAA that the iPad is approved model. I can't send you ours as it cost my company money.... It can be argued that it is part of the aircraft equipment when it is a no go item on an MEL. In the US with at least one operator, that day is here.

As an observation, there are a few people here going to be rather surprised when they find their Airbus QRH on the iPad before the year is out.

I'm not arguing either for or against plotting charts; but I do admit to being more a pencil & rubber guy than smart pone & iPad for visual presentations. I do like white board briefing in the sim rather than PPT's.
However, a plotting chart saved my bacon, once. A few days after a trans-Atlantic, W-E, I was called by CP to say that Canadian ATC were investigating a non-compliance with a climb instruction. We had entered NAT airspace, on HF, and ATC claimed we had been given a climb NOW from FL330 - FL350. But they said we did not comply. They included the time & Lat/Long of that ATC instruction.
I pulled my flight envelope and plotting chart. I found we, indeed, crossed the next Longitude at FL350, but the claim was we did not execute the climb immediately. First thought was, if they could see us on radar to notice we were still FL330 why could they not try & reach us on 121.5 or NAT chat frequency, or even SELCAL HF. I checked our plotting chart for position reports. This gave time, levels, ETA's. I could calculate our ground speed. My conclusion was that at the time of the alleged ATC instruction we were 20mins & 180nm east of the position they gave in their report. Thus it wasn't me M'Lud. Case closed, well for me anyway.
Can you store the 'plotting chart' in an iPad? Is it printed out on landing? What does go in the flight envelope? However, a piece of paper made my day.