Thanks for your reply!
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
The “File” button should change into an “Amend” and “Cancel” Button and also list that the flight plan has been filed to indicate the status and this will sync between devices as long as there is a network connection
Devices definitely had a connection (It also knew that a plan had been filed, but was still showing file vs amend). I wonder if it is because I was very close to departure – I had the same issue in the US, where the “Amend” button disappears close to the flight plan time.
A couple of tips for getting information quickly on the map for the scenarios you mentioned. You can always single tap on the airport on the map to get information about that airport, but another way to get information is by using the Edit view of the FPL drawer. If you tap on the Airport in your route string, you will get a drop-down with more options. To see Airport information in the fullscreen view, tap “Show Fullscreen”. To see a list of all available Departure/Arrival/Approach procedures + any other Airport Diagrams or text docs, tap “Show Plate”. Those that are geo-referenced will show on the map immediately, otherwise, it will show in a fullscreen view. There are several other quick options in this view to explore as well and they differ depending on the type of route element (airport, navaid, waypoint, procedure, and more).
As a software designer, it seems really strange to me that the Departure / Arrival / Alternate airports are just treated as any other airport.
If I had written it, I would at least put on the airport view a button (just as the one for recent / starred, and the one to star) for the:
– current airport (maybe add a plane on the ground, and the identifier)
– departure airport (in case current airport is N/A, e.g. because I’m on the taxi finalising my planning) – airplane taking off + identifier
– arrival airport (airplane landing + identifier)
– any other airport on the flight plan
Maybe a “next airport” would be useful (if you have an active plan, show the departure airport until you leave the departure airport, then the next airport on the plan)
At a bare minimum, I would put all airports on the map view / active flight plans into the “Recent airports list”. I actually don’t normally care about recents, but about <— these airports. The “recent” is just an OK-ish proxy (but sometimes it doesn’t work, e.g. if one hasn’t previously checked the airport on FF). Having the “Next airport” in a prominent position (without going into submenus and potential scrolling) would be great.
All good points! I’ll pass this on to the team as we consider the future development of the airport view.
Josh
Have been trying Foreflight for the last month.
I still finding that for those who alternate between flying IFR/VFR to the Continent there are certain glitches still.
It can produces routes from Rochester EGTO fairly quickly; but when I come to file I often get ‘invalid’.
It doesn’t produce GENDEC or email for destination or GAR for return.
It’s financial policy for good IFR seems to require an upgrade and/or purchase of Jeppesen. This makes it an expensive product for private flyers who, if prepared, to take their time in pre-planning can obtain most facilities for free or less cost.
The lack of GAR management is definitely a reason for me to be more likely to use AR than FF for flight plan filing in the future.
There are varying requirement for GAR management among pilots.
I know a bizjet pilot who flies with probably a few dozen regular clients and he wants them preconfigured and just wants to drag/drop them onto a form, fill in the flight details, and send it off. I vaguely recall OnlineGAR does that. But I don’t think he wants his client details stored at any 3rd party site. He wants them only on his Ipad. They are too valuable, from the POV of confidentiality of who his clients are, and the chernobyl-sized catastrophe if the site (which stores passport details) ever got hacked. And nowadays, with half the world looking for back doors on servers, nobody can say with certainty a site will never get hacked.
His requirement would be fully met with a standalone app.
The actual form can nowadays be simply emailed; that’s what the AR does. OnlineGAR uses some sort of govt gateway to file theirs and you get an official receipt.
I have the same requirement as the bizjet guy but obviously fly far less often. Since emailing became permitted for all GAR destinations, I have almost never used any 3rd party GAR filing site. OTOH I would not be able to file a GAR without at least a laptop.
I’ve been using FF for more than a year mainly for IFR and while there a few bugs here and there (regularly fixed), one thing I find quite annoying. When I get STAR and approach assigned, there’s no way to switch between them quickly i.e. to see them in kind of “parallel” mode. I put the plates in “Binder” but if you want to switch between them, you have to close actual plate and to open required one. So you can imagine it’s not easy to switch correctly if you have 6-7 plates in “Binder”, plus it’s not super-quick operation within software itself (rendering, geo referencing and showing the plate).
I really don’t understand these moderate tones even by you seasoned IFR pilots. There are so many, so essential shortcomings in FF for real flying in Europe, it beggars belief. One of these is the inability of switchting between SWM and RFI status. That has become so vital nowadays for avoiding panic and undue delays with these dreaded slots. This is a current topic on PuF.
One of these is the inability of switchting between SWM and RFI status
Can you expand on this, in detail? What is SWM and RFI? I’ve been flying IFR since 2005 and have never heard of this.
Some old stuff is here.
I really don’t understand these moderate tones
EuroGA is a polite forum – unlike most others, and especially some 
Peter wrote:
I’ve been flying IFR since 2005 and have never heard of this.
I can’t understand why. Maybe because you fly little in Germany and Switzerland. Or maybe because you just accept the hassles brought about with slots, not knowing that the negative effects can be minimized quite nicely.
When you get a CTOT (80% chance these days, in the above places), then it often means a significant delay. By default, every flightplan is in RFI (ready for improvement) status, which means you will later likely receive earlier CTOTs. But you can’t count on it. So it becomes a gamble: stay home longer and risk missing your slot if it improves my too much? Or go to the airport early and sit around (in the aircraft!!!) and wait for your slot? It’s madness.
For that reason, you can switch to SWM (slot improvement proposal wanted message) status, in which case you merely get PROPOSALS for slot improvements, which you are free to dismiss. Essentially, this “freezes” your current slot, so you can just accept it as a fact of life and stay home longer and relax.
All this is nicely implemented in AR using the FREEZE and UNFREEZE commands.
boscomantico wrote:
I can’t understand why. Maybe because you fly little in Germany and Switzerland. Or maybe because you just accept the hassles brought about with slots, not knowing that the negative effects can be minimized quite nicely.
Strongly agree, dealing with CTOTs is very important. It is a great nuisance and I have been getting them for various flights in the UK as well recently.
I don’t currently treat Jeppesen MFD IFR and VFR as flight operations tools (as they are obviously not). As FF definitely isn’t there yet in terms of (a) replacement for the VFR basemap (covered in detail further up in the thread and also in many forums) and (b) autorouting/flight operations capabilities, I don’t place FF in the same category as AR for flight planning and operations and therefore see it as a peer of Jeppesen MFD IFR with a few added bells and whistles.
As we need to pay for the added bells and whistles which don’t really fully work the way I need them (I found myself falling back to AR and EuroFPL in 90% of the cases although I tried hard not to during the 30-day trial phase), I have decided to stick with Jeppesen MFD IFR and VFR for the time being. There is nothing that forces a switch away from Jeppesen MFD IFR and Jeppesen MFD VFR is at least still around until Q1 2020, upon which I will take a hard look again at FF and any competitors as replacement for the electronic VFR chart. I will be doing that primarily from the perspective of an electronic VFR charting solution rather than a flight operations tool.
In my opinion FF is trying to cover up its charting weaknesses by investing in bells and whistles to compensate, e.g. automatic track log. Why would I want an automatic track log, 3D view, spoken checklists if I can’t make use of the map properly in the first place? I think that is where FF’s time and money investment is focused on the wrong features and improvements – get the basics right first!
