Edited March 15Mar 15 by MrLamb

Man, this looks awesome. For me, it’s the nail in the coffin for PMDG when comparing the two. I know they’re different planes, but iFlys’ EFB was its only detractor but with this update, I think it’s pretty easy to see which is the more polished product.

This is looking great, a big improvement on the previous efb.

Everything you could possibly want.  It reaches the level of functionality and convenience of the PMDG EFB, and far exceeds it.

7 hours ago, JYW said:

Everything you could possibly want.  It reaches the level of functionality and convenience of the PMDG EFB, and far exceeds it.

Indeed, this EFB is practically a model for all aircraft that need one (cough cough 😜).

It's difficult to look at anything with ASCII 'charm' after this excellent 'FlyPad for iPad'.

54 minutes ago, MrLamb said:

Indeed, this EFB is practically a model for all aircraft that need one (cough cough 😜).

It's difficult to look at anything with ASCII 'charm' after this excellent 'FlyPad for iPad'.

Do you guys plan for t.o. calculations, intersections, ASDA, Toda, Tora, etc.? That would complement this excellent development of the 737 nicely. Waiting for news on the 747.

25 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Do you guys plan for t.o. calculations, intersections, ASDA, Toda, Tora, etc.? That would complement this excellent development of the 737 nicely. Waiting for news on the 747.

We don't; well, other than needing data for full length or the correct intersection.  But otherwise, ASDA, TODA, TORA etc is kind of irrelevant when you're teaching a standardized takeoff profile.  As long as a calculation returns a valid solution with a thrust setting, V Speeds and an EFAH, the standard profile works and so that's all we have crews worry about.  Keep it simple.

Now, for an occasional special case of trying to get a charter or a freighter out of a small strip with a given load, we do have a couple performance engineers on call that can build a special-case profile to make it work, but we still keep the solution that we provide to the crew as standardized and simple as possible.

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

We don't; well, other than needing data for full length or the correct intersection.  But otherwise, ASDA, TODA, TORA etc is kind of irrelevant when you're teaching a standardized takeoff profile.  As long as a calculation returns a valid solution with a thrust setting, V Speeds and an EFAH, the standard profile works and so that's all we have crews worry about.  Keep it simple.

Now, for an occasional special case of trying to get a charter or a freighter out of a small strip with a given load, we do have a couple performance engineers on call that can build a special-case profile to make it work, but we still keep the solution that we provide to the crew as standardized and simple as possible.

 

Thanks, I understand the developer's decision for "keep it simple." 

 

However, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with the statement that, when teaching even a standardized takeoff profile, ASDA, TODA, TORA, intersection departures, performance calculations, etc., are "kind of irrelevant."  

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

 

Thanks, I understand the developer's decision for "keep it simple." 

 

However, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with the statement that, when teaching even a standardized takeoff profile, ASDA, TODA, TORA, intersection departures, performance calculations, etc., are "kind of irrelevant."  

I'm curious; how do you find them relevant? 

You know what you'll abort for in the low speed and high speed regimes and be able to stop, and you know you can go flying with half your thrust after V1.  All those other parameters enter into making these determinations, but if that's done by a performance calculator (or an engineer), how can these values help the pilots?  They aren't going to change any actions, right?

37 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I'm curious; how do you find them relevant? 

You know what you'll abort for in the low speed and high speed regimes and be able to stop, and you know you can go flying with half your thrust after V1.  All those other parameters enter into making these determinations, but if that's done by a performance calculator (or an engineer), how can these values help the pilots?  They aren't going to change any actions, right?

I'm confused by the question. I don't know what kind of SOPs you guys have and would not speculate. I understand each airline is different. I'm not looking for a confrontation, but questioning how these values help pilots is new to me. I will share the following information: many airlines give pilots the option to "change" or take action, regardless of whether the PIC finds the ASDA buffer is marginal. And many will use a lower assumed temperature or a higher rating. Also, please see the kind of improvement I was looking for: an almost identical presentation to the one many airlines use. 

8 hours ago, LRBS said:

I'm confused by the question. I don't know what kind of SOPs you guys have and would not speculate. I understand each airline is different. I'm not looking for a confrontation, but questioning how these values help pilots is new to me. I will share the following information: many airlines give pilots the option to "change" or take action, regardless of whether the PIC finds the ASDA buffer is marginal. And many will use a lower assumed temperature or a higher rating. Also, please see the kind of improvement I was looking for: an almost identical presentation to the one many airlines use. 

Confrontation?  Certainly not, I'm honestly curious. 

If you're teaching a standard profile, then knowing these values doesn't change anything the pilots will do.  In the low speed regime you'll reject for most anything.  In the high speed regime you'll reject for given items.  After V1 you'll continue.  If you've got a standard profile, those items never change.  You know you can stop when that's relevant, and you know you can go when that's relevant. 

The distances and margins enter into the performance calculations being done, but the pilots typically aren't the ones performing the calculations.  If I request data for 22R at W in EWR and I get valid data returned, I know all of those parameters have been calculated and they all work with the standard profile.  Knowing them wouldn't change anything I'm going to do, right?  

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Confrontation?  Certainly not, I'm honestly curious. 

If you're teaching a standard profile, then knowing these values doesn't change anything the pilots will do.  In the low speed regime you'll reject for most anything.  In the high speed regime you'll reject for given items.  After V1 you'll continue.  If you've got a standard profile, those items never change.  You know you can stop when that's relevant, and you know you can go when that's relevant. 

The distances and margins enter into the performance calculations being done, but the pilots typically aren't the ones performing the calculations.  If I request data for 22R at W in EWR and I get valid data returned, I know all of those parameters have been calculated and they all work with the standard profile.  Knowing them wouldn't change anything I'm going to do, right?  

This started with just a simple question about a possible implementation on that tablet.

 

But for some reason, you didn't like my reasonable question. It sounds like PMDG, can't say anything outside the script because we get protective of the product. Anyhow, that's the impression I got, and now we're talking about V1, profiles, etc. Not part of my inquiry.

The main point of disagreement is that many airlines teach verifying calculations after they are made, whereas you or your company believes the performance presented is sufficient without verification.

Most airlines don't. Every time we review performance, we verify accuracy against each item and allow pilot discretion based on the data available from dispatch or from the agency authorised to make any changes deemed by the PIC. As you know, many incidents and accidents have resulted from incorrect or insufficient calculations. I will stop here; it's getting tiring. 

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

The distances and margins enter into the performance calculations being done, but the pilots typically aren't the ones performing the calculations.  If I request data for 22R at W in EWR and I get valid data returned, I know all of those parameters have been calculated and they all work with the standard profile.  Knowing them wouldn't change anything I'm going to do, right?  

I'm sorry, but no. This may be the case for your airline, but the pilots I know of from other airlines do the calculations themselves in the EFB and only revert to dispatch doing it for them, should they have a problem that prevents them from doing it themselves.

 

Case in point of the Toliss A340-600 that was used as an example, this is what the real world actve Lufthansa pilot and former A340-600 driver had to say about the capability to have the calculation done by dispatch in the add on when he tested it on stream. It's a fallback for them and not standard.

 

So as far as I can tell your company is the odd one out, not the other way round.

Edited March 16Mar 16 by Farlis

21 hours ago, MrLamb said:

FlyPad for iPad

It's technically an "iFly Pad" 🤣.   

You can also move it to a real iPad (or tablet, 2nd monitor, etc) if you'd like. 

In addition, there is a clickspot on a screw of the FMS to move it above the FMS while you're inputting data, so you don't have to swivel your view back and forth....and a click spot to hide it (and the FO's) altogether, to get them out of the way, and to reduce the GPU's workload (although I have not noticed any impact of having them displayed). 

And....pure "quality of life"-type things....

The icons in the upper right (the "sun" and "headphone") are clickable, the "sun" pulls up the brightness settings.

And yep, there is a "Night Mode" too. (and the icon changes to a moon...too cute!)😉

And as you can see I pulled out the charging cable...and the iFly Pad is discharging (showing 96% on the screen above the FMC, and 93% a bit later when I moved it back to the window).

The Headphone icon turns on "headset mode"...so it gets quieter.  No menus to dive into...just right there, very intuitive.  

This is a very welcome, free addition to the plane.

20 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

It's technically an "iFly Pad" 🤣.   

Will it be available in RaspberryRed® also?

And how long will we get iFLYOS updates? 😁

Edited March 17Mar 17 by MrLamb