FCOMs in EFBs - What format do you prefer?

[FirmamentFX]

As flight crew, what format do you prefer FCOMs to be in as part of an EFB - PDF (in "page" format so it looks like a printed version) or as organised HTML files (which lack page headers etc, but allow scrolling without the "pages" getting in the way).

Or don't you care what format as long as you can read it?

As far as I can tell, the only real benefit to the page format is that you can see sequences and revisions in the page header easily. On the other hand, id you can be sure the thing is up to date anyway, does it matter to you what revision date is being used?

Cheers,

Martin

[vapilot2004]

PDFs are now industry standard as they can be revision controlled, digitally signed and encrypted for integrity.

The only manufacturer in the past I know of that published manuals in HTML was Airbus. This system worked well and had less overhead (ran better on a PC of limited means) than the PDF version, and could be revised, but was not secure.

In my opinion, paper is hard to beat for initial learning, while electronic versions are great for review.

Missing in most PDF manuals are the old colour coding schemes for revisions, differences and bulletins. Really made the changes stand out.

[alexban]

PDF with bookmarks, i thinks works just fine..

[cribble]

Agree pdf with bookmarks.

A the rider though: the bookmarks should be accurately targetted.

In my jet, the EFB will allow you to bookmark (say) a passage you want to come back to and brief from, but when you hit the bookmark, it takes you to the start of the section. Bloody annoying.

[FirmamentFX]

Thanks for the replies. Interesting - I would have though that HTML would be a preferred format. I understand the logic behind people's choice of PDF though

Incidentally, am I correct in thinking that Boeing FCOMs do not follow ATA standards for chapter numbering?

Cheers,

Martin