iPad Mini

[KS170A]

A great example of where ForeFlight FAILS MISERABLY: Bring up any weather overlay on the screen. You have no indication in the software if the data loaded, is loading or failed to load. Worse yet, they present data as 'no news is good news'. If the airport you are flying to is Gusting winds to 90mph and ripped off the windmeter, ForeFlight will show that airport as WINDS CALM instead of NO DATA (or Sky Clear instead of NO DATA when it's socked in at 200ft). I've brought this to their attention several times. Their answer is to pull up the full METAR and see for yourself...so much for convenient weather overlays.

I'm glad you posted this as I immediately brought out my iPad and explored this. The conclusions I have are that any time I have a weather product selected on the map, there is a white time stamp in the upper left corner. If it's not current, it changes color. If it's not available, there's not a time stamp. Another clue the data is not available is the absence of the requested product on the map.

If the airport you are flying to is Gusting winds to 90mph and ripped off the windmeter, ForeFlight will show that airport as WINDS CALM instead of NO DATA (or Sky Clear instead of NO DATA when it's socked in at 200ft).

Long before weather datalink was available in small airplanes, I flew into an airport in west Texas that, for about 30 minutes as I approached it, the AWOS broadcast indicated "clear" skies. Apparently that AWOS thought that 400 ft OVC was clear. I haven't confirmed it, but my suspicion is that Foreflight obtains its metar and TAF data from the same source XM, DUATs, and FSS gets theirs. Garbage in, garbage out. Good for reference...most of the time.

I like the iPad and really like ForeFlight but I wouldn't use it as my sole source of decision making information and I'd never get myself into a position where I had to rely on it with my life.

Agreed 100%! However, ForeFlight, Garmin, XWing, or any other single source of information should never, EVER, be the sole source of information. With all that there is available, including ATC, FSS, other pilots, your own eyeballs and gut instinct, putting your eggs in that one basket (whether XM, FF, or whatever) is asking for trouble.

At the end of the day, whatever product you use, you absolutely have to know what you're looking at, its limitations, and pitfalls. I'd never use XM or ADS-B data alone to navigate a line of weather without having on-board radar (as my work airplane has) and the ability to see & avoid the major buildups. But I can use datalink weather for planning, then the active radar for execution. I also know that if I'm in my play airplane (the 170), I know I wouldn't go anywhere near the same stuff because I'm not equipped to safely navigate it. Nothing replaces sound aeronautical decision making!

[sfarringer]

Bringing up weather is an interesting topic with even more opinions.

For me: I am a day time VFR pilot that thinks 2,000 foot ceilings and 5 mile visibility is a bad day to be in the air. So, I can tell if I want to go flying by watching the weather channel and looking outside if I wanted............ Once I'm in the air tho, I tell the weather by looking out the window.

IF I was the type of pilot that few in the type of weather that required me to have in flight weather updates, I would not take the iPad seriously at all. The device itself was not designed nor built to be life critical. People use it for that but it has no redundant or fail safe features and neither does ForeFlight nor any other software app............

Just another opinion.

Well, certainly you can get in trouble if you trust any source too far. But put me on the side of being glad to have the additional situational awareness that is provided by having Nexrad, Metars, Area Forecasts, Winds Aloft, Notams, TFR's, etc in the cockpit with me when traveling in an airplane such as the 170, even if the data is often 20 minutes or so old. Sure, looking out the windshield for 5 miles is important, but I am very glad to have information of what is more that ~2-1/2 minutes ahead. It is easy to travel 600 to 900 miles in a 170 in one day, with fuel stops 3 to 4 hours apart. It is easier to avoid conditions that you don't want to confront if you can keep up with a picture of how the weather is developing thru the day.

Whatever your source of information, it is important to understand what it's capabilities are, and also it's limitations.

I have had weather information from ADS-B for about a year now, and I am glad to have it.

Just another opinion.

[bagarre]

My comment on Sky Clear vs No Data wasn't due to a bad metar. The metar showed that the data was currently not available (No Data) but ForeFlight has no way to represent that on the map so they don't show an icon at all, the same as they do for Sky Clear or Winds Calm. In my case the metar correctly showed the data was missing but FFlight represented it as good weather. It's not a data input problem, it's a data representation problem.

There are reliable in flight weather sources, the iPad is not one of them. Cell coverage is not everywhere and there is no consideration for pilots using it in flight. The towers are designed for horizontal coverage, not where we fly. I know for sure that a LOT of central PA has zero coverage at 5000 feet. So, when you need the data there is no promise it will be there.
I dont care what a computer tells me. If I don't like what I see out the windscreen, I'm either landing, turning around or calling someone on the radio.


Cheers
David

[GAHorn]

...Long before weather datalink was available in small airplanes, I flew into an airport in west Texas that, for about 30 minutes as I approached it, the AWOS broadcast indicated "clear" skies. Apparently that AWOS thought that 400 ft OVC was clear. I haven't confirmed it, but my suspicion is that Foreflight obtains its metar and TAF data from the same source XM, DUATs, and FSS gets theirs. Garbage in, garbage out. Good for reference...most of the time. ...

Apologies (especially to bluEldr) for the previous diversion about the teletype...but it actually relates....

A similar experience occured as I countinually checked wx for 45 mins while approaching Alice, TX, with FSS radio contact telling me the sky was clear. (I was presently over an undercast and needed to make a decision as to whether to "file" for an approach...or could count on descending VFR when I arrived.

As I came into-range with Alice Radio "in person"....I talked directly to the wx observer on the ground at the airport..... who informed me the wx was still "clear". Five minutes later I was directly over the airport and still on top of a solid undercast while cruising at 8,000.

I had to "file" , obtain a clearance, shoot the VOR approach and then explain to pax why it took almost 25 minutes to land from a point directly over the field, and why it was not apparent to me 50 miles earlier I'd need an "approach" in order to land.

After the pax left the airport, I entered the FSS "shack" and spoke directly to the wx observer who had given me the "clear" wx report when the airport was ANYTHING but clear! His response?..... he had issued what is termed "current wx report", which is (was) taken every hour, "10 mins before-the-hour" and then posted on the teletype for publication on the teletype-circuit. When I'd radioed for the "current weather at Alice"....that's exactly what he gave me....despite the fact that the observation was over 40 minutes old. The next observation was not due out yet.
When I pointed out to him that 1,000 OVERCAST is a "significant" difference/change from "clear".... and when I expressed exasperation that he didn't simply "look out the window 3 feet from his microphone" and broadcast the current conditions...he replied that my request did not meet the official definition of "current" (defn: the regular hourly observation, until a new observation is taken), nor did the appearance of a marine-layer meet the FAA-FSS requirement/definition of a "significant change" requiring a "special observation" and new "sequence report" {what used to be termed a "SA" on the teletype because each station would place their hourly report "in sequence" for propagation along the teletype-cable-circuit to the next observation-point, ultimately ending up at FSS's for broadcast as "current reports".}

In other words, HE was broadcasting OFFICIAL REPORTS....but I was expecting actual and useful wx information.

The bureacrat I was facing informed me that in order to issue a "special observation" the actual conditons would have to meet the official definition, which included precipitation, thunderstorm, directional wind-shift or changed-velocity of more than 10 degrees or 10 knots, or a tornado....and that he was restricted from "merely looking out the window to offer a "personal opinion" to a caller on the radio who was making a specific request for "current weather conditions".

NOW.... that is an explanation of how "things" can be different than what one might expect, and yet still meet all the "rules and regulations" necessitated by technology REGARDLESS of whatever actual conditions might exist which a pilot MIGHT think he is entitled to and MIGHT consider valid info. Technology advances such as AWOS stations have obsoleted the old limitations of sequence reports and give us more timely "current observations",...but the dissemination of that data still has limitations of which all pilots should be forewarned and aware....regardless of which device is used. They ALL have faults, each it's own.

NO ELECTRONIC DEVICE run by ANY PERSON is omniscient or foolproof. ADS-B does and will have limitations. ForeFlight does and will have limitations. Published Navigation Charts do and will have limitations. (Jeppesen still shows the highest obstacle at the same location on southern Manhattan Island as 1906' msl, 1806 msl, or 900' msl...depending on whether you are reading the GPS approach, the VOR approach, or the ILS approach to a Runway 4 at KJFK! I hope nobody actually runs into anything there. Perhaps it's a deliberate attempt to confuse pottential terrorists in-control of airliners,....but I doubt it...It's likely a failure of the rules/regulations to meet the needs of users, similar to wx observation rules.)

WX reports and observations can only be HISTORY. Even FORECASTS are actually HISTORICAL EVENTS! Think about that.
Having on-board access to the latest information is the intent of most users of these new technologies, and ForeFlight is only one of several great resources.
As soon as I can afford the latest IPad and/or ADS-B device I plan to get them. Meanwhile, I will continue to gather as much information as possible from SEVERAL sources prior to flight. The only thing certain is thngs WILL CHANGE. Just as soon as I plunk down my money, the gadget will be out-of-date.

[170C]

I was discussing the iPad Mini with another pilot the other day. He has the full size iPad and is quite satisfied with it, but indicated if the Mini had been available when he purchased his that he would have chosen the mini due to its size being much better for his aircraft (C-172). He did mention one thing, which I failed to remember, but said the Mini did not have "something" that the full size one has, but anticipated an updated version will soon include the feature (no doubt for more $$). Just wondering if anyone knows what feature he might have been referring to?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

It would depend on what full size IPad you were comparing the Mini to. The only thing the Mini doesn't have that the IPad 3 has is the IPad 3 has the Retina display and the latest A6 chip set.

The Mini is exactly the same as a IPad 2 with the exception that the Mini's cameras are the same as the IPad 3.

The Retina display is nice if your looking at pictures. It is not necessary for looking at ForeFlight or your choice of navigation program. The Retina display is not a flat anti glare screen. No IPad full size or Mini has an anti glare screen. If it did I believe it would be an improvement but I've yet to have serious trouble seeing the glossy screen.

So I can think of no feature that any full size IPad has that the Mini does not.

[docfoley]

I have an iPad 3 with foreflight and Stratus and am quite happy with how it works. I would have bought the mini if it had been available because it fits in the cockpit better BUT the larger screen is much easier to work with.

I'm a VFR pilot but have flown a lot of IFR with my father. He currently flys a V33 with a garmin panel mounted system which is tied to his instruments and the auto pilot. I still like the way foreflight functions and we both have the same weather information the advent of ADS-B weather at a reasonable cost in the cockpit has been both good and bad.

No one should be making real time critical weather decisions with this type of weather information. Unfortunately many are and there have been some bad outcomes. We recently came back from Elmira from the vintage soaring regatta and the weather on the garmin showed plenty of clear sky along the route but we were looking at huge thunderstorms and getting vectored around them by ATC.

This kind of weather information should be a guide. Real time weather decisions should really be made only if you you have a stormscope or equivalent. Btw the lightening strike monitor was going nuts be there was none so not even that is very trustworthy.

Just my 2 cents.

[GAHorn]

...We recently came back from Elmira from the vintage soaring regatta and the weather on the garmin showed plenty of clear sky along the route but we were looking at huge thunderstorms and getting vectored around them by ATC. ......

By the way, ...a quick look in our Pilot Lounge under the post "CurrentNational Radar" would help overcome the Garmin Glitch.