Peter,
if he had an EFD1000, he might have had virtual terrain. On the other hand, if he had, we probably would not discuss this here now. But the EFD is capable of it, actually I will upgrade mine when I get around to it.
What-next
For what it’s worth, I am one of the dinosaurs in VFR who uses printed charts both for enroute and the airports I go to, but I supplement my navigation with a Garmin 695 which has a pretty good terrain map. Of course it is not certified, but it has a visually better map than the 430W (which will also launch terrain warnings) and both use the same database. I’ve never yet seen a difference between the two, neither has the 695 ever lost GPS lock.
However, in today’s reality, tablets with Sky Demon or Easy VFR are WIDELY used even by flight schools and I’ve seen them used even during PPL exams. Hardly anyone I know has their approach charts in paper binders still, everyone uses either Jeppesen or a similar software also on board. I print out the charts for my operational airports and carry a Samsung Tablett for the rest. FWIW the Samsung has never yet shut down.
Almost all airlines I know have their charts on Ipads. If their failure rate was so extreme as some of you hint, I can’t see any competent authority legalizing this.
VFR navigation by electronic moving maps is a fact which is not going to go away. In the end, I think the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages. But of course, as long as there is no rulework in place to regulate and state clearly what pre-conditions must be set for someone to use these apps in flight, the discussion will go on.
I even recall a discussion between two inspectors at the time whether the use of the paper bottlang manual was legal, one said that it was not as Bottlang was not approved by the LBA, the other said it was. Everyone used them, but nobody could point the finger onto the line which sais you can. How about Jeppesen VFR charts vs the “official” ones?
How about non-certified avionic in airplanes allowed to fly with those? All the Dynon stuff for instance? I know several airplanes used for PPL training in Switzerland which are fully equipped with a Skyview system as primary instruments. What difference is that to a navigation tablett?
I would be really surprised if it was found that it was the use of such a product which doomed this flight.
Peter wrote:
I can guarantee that you will lose GPS reception on an Ipad2 and I can guarantee that it will shut down in a warm cockpit with sunlight.
I can confirm both statements as probably other TB20 pilots can.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I even recall a discussion between two inspectors at the time whether the use of the paper bottlang manual was legal, one said that it was not as Bottlang was not approved by the LBA, the other said it was. Everyone used them, but nobody could point the finger onto the line which sais you can. How about Jeppesen VFR charts vs the “official” ones?
For commercial operators this is very simple: Your authority approved operating manual OM-A states, which sources of charts, weather, NOTAM, …. are approved for your operation and what procedures and training is required in order to use them. EFBs require an entire chapter and a separate approval and mandatory training. So if it is in your OM you can use it, if it is not, you can’t. A private pilot has many more liberties here.
But anyway, moving map systems and terrain displays – both panel mounted and on portable devices – have been on board of many aircraft that ended in CFIT accidents and obviously did not prevent the accident. In some cases their improper use caused the accident in the first place. Flying VFR in the mountains safely requires VFR conditions. That simple.
Noe wrote:
With the iPad Air, I can even get fairly steady signal from the inside of an airliner, if sitting at a window seat
This works perfectly well with my five year old iPad 2 as well. But the TB20 may really be different in that respect.
I’m reluctant to say too much on tablet navigation software, as it appears the the pilot never used such, and therefore it wasn’t a factor in this accident (other than the fact that he wasn’t using it).
But I feel that I must say something, in case someone should think from some of the comment here, that it’s ok to trust your life to one of these devices.
I’ve been flying with PocketFMS (which subsequently became EasyVFR) since shortly after I got my PPL. I started off with PocketPCs then Car Sat Navs and since EasyVFR came along, with an iPad 3 (and various phones for testing). PocketFMS was the original and first such software, with many more years of development than the compeditors. PocketFMS was providing portable navigation software long before Sky Demon, RunywayHD or Foreflight were even thought about. Since 2004 or 2005 (can’t quite remember) I’ve been part of the PocketFMS testing team.
So I know this system inside and out. I have more hours using the system than any other pilot is likely to have (testing not flying). I believe in the software, have total confidence in it and know how it works. I’m a VFR only pilot, so won’t fly in IMC.
Yet there is no way that I would fly, where if something went wrong with my iPad, that I would die. Things happen. I’ve had my iPad shut down twice due to temperature. Once on the ground when I left it on top of the panel in sunshine (stupid mistake) and once in Peter’s TB20 at high altitude (I suspect the altitude contributed). I’ve had numerious temporary GPS reception losses when using the internal GPS. Wether this is due to cabin shading the view of the sky, interference from radio equipment in the aircraft, GPS sat positions, or just back luck, I’ve no idea. But I’ve seen it often enough to know that it happens. It might come back in a 2-3 seconds or it make take 30 seconds of holding the iPad up to the window (to improve the sight of the sky). An external GPS helps, but they do still occassionally happen. I can imagine flying in a valley results in additional shading of the view of the GPS sats.
Batteries run down too, especially if you left brightness on auto so it’s full brightness in the cockpit.
I’ve learnt to make sure that if navigation is critical (due to airspace for example) then I have to independent devices running the software, both with a GPS fix, before take off. Very rarely have I ever needed to make reference to a second device, but I won’t fly in such situations without it.
An airspace bust is bad, but loss of such navigation when flying in a valley or around terrain is much worse. Loss of a GPS signal for 30 seconds could make a big difference when flying in a valley. For that reason, if I were flying in a valley where a wrong turn could put me in a situation where I can’t turn around and can’t climb out of, and I wansn’t already very familar with the various valleys, then I would also want a paper printout showing the terrain and with my route marked out, as well as the two devices with GPS fix.
If I, given all my experience with such software of so many years, won’t trust my life to it, then noone else should either.
I appreciate that Sky Demon don’t officially post here, but I’d be surprised if they’d say anything different. Some of their testing team do post here, and I’m sure they’d agreed.
Never trust your life 100% on software of any kind; aviation or otherwise.
Never trust your life 100% on software of any kind; aviation or otherwise
One can’t be quite as absolute as that 
otherwise GPS approaches would not be possible.
What matters are safeguards. A proper rooftop antenna would be the starting point.
The reasons why Ipads are OK in airline use include:
so most of the holes in the cheese are eliminated before you even started. The application is very different to GA navigation. One may as well say an Ipad works great as a remote control for your TV.
I wouldn’t trust my life to avionics of any kind to do very risky things in an ad hoc unsafe procedure. For instance cancelling an IFR approach to continue in MVFR at low altitude over mountainous terrain, possibly with an imprecise altimeter setting, and with poor charts, strikes me as too adventurous for my taste regardless of avionics.
OTOH using an iPad for VFR navigation in clear weather, maybe with a phone running the same route as a backup (I used mine once), backed up by accurate paper charts seems pretty safe to me. There’s a tendency to compare apples and oranges…
I have started a new thread on SV specifics and other tablet discussion here
There is really not a lot of point discussing SV systems which the accident aircraft obviously didn’t have. There are also many previous threads on Ipads shutting down frequently / not shutting down ever / everything in between.
Let’s keep this thread reasonably on topic.
I have this from a friend of Stefan, and I am authorised to post it here:
So, this confirms what seems clear from the crash taking place on the east side of the mountain. It indicates that perhaps a radio call was made, reporting the intention to divert.
However it does suggest the flight was in IMC or mostly IMC at the time the turnaround was commenced, because if you were flying in reasonable VMC you would not turn around into a place where you just flew past a mountain. And at 6500ft there were peaks everywhere around.
The police said “the SOS button was not pressed” which is of course silly, since there is no such thing.
Peter wrote:
The police said “the SOS button was not pressed” which is of course silly, since there is no such thing.They probably meant the ELT.
The mountain instructor waiting for him at Albertville confirmed that the mountain tops were in the clouds. There is no good radio coverage in that area as it is obstructed by the mountains. You have to be closer to Chambery and even a little higher for them to be able to hear you on the radio. Flying through the same valley on my way from Chambery to Courchevel via overhead of Albertville, a large portion of this flight I am not able to talk to Chambery and would be on the mountain frequency.
