Why would I want to buy an iFly tablet? And what about WAAS?

[computerdoc]

I own a 740b and an 8th generation iPad that I run iFly on. The 740 is my primary navigation device... the iPad-iFly my backup/supplement.
Although I do understand some of the factors that lead to AP's decision to no further develop (and I guess eventually less support) the 740 that is disappointing to me and others. If only because am convinced that a dedicated piece of hardware for single task has to be superior to a general purpose software operating environment and general purpose device (generic tablet) can be as reliable.
For the time being I expect by 740/iPad combo to be fine for some time.
But accept the inevitable that someday I may have to give up the 740 and have to decide what to recommend to others for a device when I praise iFly... and what to get for myself when the day comes to replace either my 740 or my iPad-8

So that brings up several questions and concerns:

One weak point of iFly on the iPad is the iPad's GPS is not WAAS enabled.
The lateral accuracy of GPS without WAAS is inferior.... though not dramatically or disturbingly less.
However, without WASS the altitude accuracy IS dramatically worse.
I have been able to trust the 740 to give me accurate altitude above terrain ... more accurate than the altimeter set by barometer
No so with iFly on the iPad.... surely 'cause of the lack of WAAS.
A secondary effect of the weak altitude accuracy of iFly on the iPad is it is inaccurate, sometime wildly inaccurate, on reporting rate of climb/descent. (That's not as troublesome as it being untrustworthy regarding altitude above terrain because my steam gauge is reliable for rate of climb.) But, still, no fun to see it report something like a 7000 feet per minute descent rate. )

So that brings up the question does the AP iFly tablet GPS have WAAS?

So, if not, and in any case anyway even, I ask why would I or anyone want to buy AP's tablet for their iFly usable tablet when for the same price or actually sometimes considerably less they can purchase a newest model (10th generation) iPad?
That is, if it has WAAS I could at least have one specific reason to chose it over an iPad.
(Among other things that might steer me, personally, away from AP's tablet is that it's Android.
Nothing wrong with Android, but I have a decade of indepth experience with iPad's iOS.
So all things being equal make sense for me not to switch to an Android device.)

Thought?
Info?

Alex

 

[Cobra]

If only because am convinced that a dedicated piece of hardware for single task has to be superior to a general purpose software operating environment and general purpose device (generic tablet) can be as reliable.

The original iFly 7xx devices were actually general-purpose WinCE devices from a commercial vendor. They just had a very small number of apps installed on top of that general-purpose platform.

 

[Cobra]

So, if not, and in any case anyway even, I ask why would I or anyone want to buy AP's tablet for their iFly usable tablet when for the same price or actually sometimes considerably less they can purchase a newest model (10th generation) iPad?

There are dozens of threads on here that you can go read through. But in a nutshell:

- Primary reason is for those who use a dedicated iFly device to drive an autopilot. This capability is not yet present in the new iFly device, but it was a major reason why AP selected that specific hardware device.
- It has a higher heat tolerance than many other consumer tablets
- It can be installed in a frame/chassis that lends itself to panel mounting

If you don't have a specific need for those features, just keep using your iPad.

 

[computerdoc]

There are dozens of threads on here that you can go read through. But in a nutshell:

- Primary reason is for those who use a dedicated iFly device to drive an autopilot. This capability is not yet present in the new iFly device, but it was a major reason why AP selected that specific hardware device.
- It has a higher heat tolerance than many other consumer tablets
- It can be installed in a frame/chassis that lends itself to panel mounting

If you don't have a specific need for those features, just keep using your iPad.

Thanks Cobra…
The nutshell take is useful.

higher tolerance is important, but for my situation, not a deal maker.
(if I didn’t already have a tablet and we’re starting from scratch on a purchase that could chip the balance.)

I take it that AP does expect to eventually implement the interface to autopilot?

And canI take it from what has not been said, at least, in this thread, that the AP tablets does not have WAAS?

Alex

 

[Don Norris]

Do any of the bluetooth connected GPS receivers have WAAS?
Answered my own question, at least the Garmin Glo 2 does have WAAS. It should fix your issues with your current iPad. I've never been comfortable with the built-in GPS receivers in tablets.

 

[Cobra]

I take it that AP does expect to eventually implement the interface to autopilot?

Yes, of course. It's essentially the whole reason they're offering their "own device".

And canI take it from what has not been said, at least, in this thread, that the AP tablets does not have WAAS?

No you can't, because I have no idea if the iFly device has WAAS built-in or not.

But...honestly, what difference does WAAS make in a tablet?? The only reason WAAS is important to me is that my certified panel-mounted GPS navigator requires it to provide glideslope guidance during RNAV approaches.

But I don't fly instrument approaches with my tablet, so I don't care if it has WAAS. A few dozen feet of difference in the altitude my tablet thinks it's at is not going to be the difference between me flying into an obstacle or staying clear. The altitude accuracy of standard GPS is plenty good enough to let me know if I'm getting within 500' of flying into the ground or something on the ground.

If WAAS really is that important to you, then simply tie your tablet to an ADSB receiver that includes WAAS, which is pretty much any of them (even my $150 DIY Stratux devices support WAAS). The value of WAAS is miniscule compared to the value of ADSB traffic and weather.

 

[computerdoc]

Yes, of course. It's essentially the whole reason they're offering their "own device".


No you can't, because I have no idea if the iFly device has WAAS built-in or not.

But...honestly, what difference does WAAS make in a tablet?? The only reason WAAS is important to me is that my certified panel-mounted GPS navigator requires it to provide glideslope guidance during RNAV approaches.

But I don't fly instrument approaches with my tablet, so I don't care if it has WAAS. A few dozen feet of difference in the altitude my tablet thinks it's at is not going to be the difference between me flying into an obstacle or staying clear. The altitude accuracy of standard GPS is plenty good enough to let me know if I'm getting within 500' of flying into the ground or something on the ground.

If WAAS really is that important to you, then simply tie your tablet to an ADSB receiver that includes WAAS, which is pretty much any of them (even my $150 DIY Stratux devices support WAAS). The value of WAAS is miniscule compared to the value of ADSB traffic and weather.

Hi again, and thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

No, few dozen feet laterally doesn't make any difference on any sane or even probably use of a tablet's GPS in the plane.
But the altitude accuracy error as best I can find documented and from personal experience of a non-WAAS GPS is quite a bit more than a few dozen feet. It can be off _+/- 400 feet even when it has good satellite connections. Worse when less than optimal satellite's signals are tracked. That's enough to be worrisome when I'm near terrain or when landing under marginal visibility and would at least want assurance I can be confident when it says I'm descending through 450 that I've got plenty of slack ... not just 5 feet...before ground.

Yes... minuscule value ....until the day its role of backup-navigation-device switches to unplanned primary device.
And on my plane I have no ADSB traffic or weather... Working on that. Thanks for the reminder of Stratux.

 

[Cobra]

But the altitude accuracy error as best I can find documented and from personal experience of a non-WAAS GPS is quite a bit more than a few dozen feet. It can be off _+/- 400 feet even when it has good satellite connections.

Where's the documentation that says that? And +/-400' with respect to what? WAAS vs. non-WAAS? Non-WAAS GPS vs Indicated Altitude? Something else?

The original spec for GPS altitude accuracy was 500', but for the last 24 years GPS altitude accuracy in practice has been about 15'. But that's with respect to the GPS's definition of "true altitude", which is different from what your pressure altimeter measures, so you shouldn't expect your GPS and your (perfectly accurate) altimeter to agree within 15'.

WAAS tightens that GPS accuracy to under 5' (again, with respect to GPS' "true altitude", so it will still be off from your altimeter reading...by about 10' more or less than the non-WAAS GPS).

Worse when less than optimal satellite's signals are tracked.

This argument holds no water, because if satellite reception is the cause of your inaccuracy, then WAAS isn't going to save you. WAAS is a small adjustment to the GPS solution--if the GPS solution is way off, then WAAS is just making a small adjustment to a way-off position.

That's enough to be worrisome when I'm near terrain or when landing under marginal visibility and would at least want assurance I can be confident when it says I'm descending through 450 that I've got plenty of slack ... not just 5 feet...before ground.

Your primary source of altitude information is your pressure altimeter. This is what the aviation world uses to talk about altitude. Even my panel-mounted IFR-certified navigator's WAAS GPS altitude doesn't matter when I'm talking to ATC--they are talking to me in terms of indicated altitude. And if my pressure altimeter fails, I'm going to report that to ATC, and they're going to help me out. Sure, I'll use my panel-mounted navigator and my tablet for additional resources, but it's not ever just going to be me and my tablet skimming right above the rocks.

Yes... minuscule value ....until the day its role of backup-navigation-device switches to unplanned primary device.

Why would you ever be in a situation where your tablet is the only thing keeping you from flying into a tower or a rock, such that a few feet of accuracy in its altitude is all that's keeping you alive?

If your altimeter fails, look out the window and use your charts. Steer clear of the rocks and obstacles. Climb higher than you think is necessary to give yourself margin. If you can't climb higher, then steer wider than you think is necessary to avoid tall obstacles. Talk to ATC and have them help you.

If you can't climb higher or steer wider, then you were already in trouble long before you lost your altimeter.

You should never be in a situation where 10s (or even 100s) of feet of altitude accuracy in your tablet's GPS is the only thing keeping you alive. And thus, WAAS is just not that big a deal in a tablet.

 

[computerdoc]

Where's the documentation that says that? And +/-400' with respect to what? WAAS vs. non-WAAS? Non-WAAS GPS vs Indicated Altitude? Something else?.....

....Your primary source of altitude information is your pressure altimeter. This is what the aviation world uses to talk about altitude. Even my panel-mounted IFR-certified navigator's WAAS GPS altitude doesn't matter when I'm talking to ATC--they are talking to me in terms of indicated altitude. And if my pressure altimeter fails, I'm going to report that to ATC, and they're going to help me out. Sure, I'll use my panel-mounted navigator and my tablet for additional resources, but it's not ever just going to be me and my tablet skimming right above the rocks....

You should never be in a situation where the altitude accuracy of your tablet's GPS is the only thing keeping you alive. And thus, WAAS is just not that big a deal in a tablet.

Barometric set altitude is indeed what I if at all possible use in talking to ATC and reference and talk to other aircraft because as you allude for now (and foreseeable future AFAIK) that's what they're using. (I hope the day will come when we all talk GPS altitude via ADS-B, etc.) When I'm out over mountains I trust GPS altitude with reference to terrain more. Even if for no other reason that there are locations I fly where no barometric report is available.


I agree I SHOULD never be in a situation where a tablet GPS is the only thing keeping me alive. That said IMO there's not such thing as "too many backups" as I've learned from years on the computer support front lines. ;-)

This is one of the sources re GPS altitude accuracy... or should I say "inaccuracy":
https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-faq/what-is-the-most-accurate-way-to-measure-elevation/
"... GPS elevation measurements calibrated by signals from satellites are generally accurate to within +/-400 feet at any given point, assuming a strong GPS signal. However, it’s important to note that elevation accuracy can be influenced by factors such as signal interference, weather conditions, and the quality of the GPS receiver used."

There are other sources that differ a bit on those numbers.... but all suggest quite a bit of slop on altitude without WAAS.

 

[Tom]

I too have been a 740b user and have been trying to get feedback on the new tablet. My argument for the iFly tablet over an iPad would be daylight readability in the cockpit and heat tolerance. One of the 740b's main benefits was its bright screen and the fact that it didn't overheat and shutdown. My biggest question about the new tablet is cockpit integration. It is bulkier than the 740b and if you add the optional docking station it is even bulkier still. As I understand it, you also need to mount it to a rigid surface as even the tablet alone is too heavy for a RAM suction mount. As near as I can tell, the docking station can't be mounted directly to the panel, it also uses a RAM arm mount. I understand the docking station will be required for autopilot integration.

 

[Don Norris]

Yes, you can mount the docking station directly to the panel. I'm doing that now for a new panel in the open cockpit Woody's Pusher that I'm rebuilding. I don't like the thickness of the docking station, though it is quite robust. I set mine into the panel 3/4" which will help with this tiny cockpit. I'm having to run the wires down and under the panel front lip to get to power, etc.
The docking station comes with several mounting options besides the RAM mount. However, it came with no instructions, drawings, etc. Perhaps if you order it with the tablet as a package you'll get some instructions. I'm not ordering the tablet until I'm closer to completion of the aircraft.
FYI - I went with the iFly tablet for the front cockpit because it's a bit smaller than the Tripltek, which I'll move between the Cessna and the Pusher as needed.

 

[Tom]

Yes, you can mount the docking station directly to the panel. I'm doing that now for a new panel in the open cockpit Woody's Pusher that I'm rebuilding. I don't like the thickness of the docking station, though it is quite robust. I set mine into the panel 3/4" which will help with this tiny cockpit. I'm having to run the wires down and under the panel front lip to get to power, etc.
The docking station comes with several mounting options besides the RAM mount. However, it came with no instructions, drawings, etc. Perhaps if you order it with the tablet as a package you'll get some instructions. I'm not ordering the tablet until I'm closer to completion of the aircraft.
FYI - I went with the iFly tablet for the front cockpit because it's a bit smaller than the Tripltek, which I'll move between the Cessna and the Pusher as needed.

I assume you cut a hole in the panel to make it work. Would you mind sharing a pic of how that looks on your panel?

 

[Don Norris]

OK - I needed to take photos for the building log anyway. Remember this is a new panel in a completely new front section of the fuselage. The tablet will be mounted horizontally.

 

[Tom]

Thank you. That answers a lot of questions I have about what it would take to mount it in my plane.

 

[Gatormyk]

OK - I needed to take photos for the building log anyway. Remember this is a new panel in a completely new front section of the fuselage. The tablet will be mounted horizontally.

[photos removed for my reply]

So you purchased both the TripleTek and the iFlyEFB tablets. Do you still have both?

 

[Don Norris]

I bought the Tripltek last year for the C182A. I'm going to be able to mount the iFly tablet in the front cockpit of the Woody's Pusher and the Tripltek in the rear cockpit. I only have the mount for the iFly tablet so far - it's half an inch shorter (long axis) than the Tripltek, and every little bit matters on that small panel.
I'll write up a pirep when I've flown with both - might be a year away though, I'm moving slower these days.

 

[lndwarrior]

Wow, that mount is one in-elegant solution....

The more I see of this new tablet, the more I need to look for an alternate solution now that my 740B is starting to show problems. It's a shame because I have been and IFly customer for more than 10 years.

 

[smoke]

I TEND TO AGREE... I HAVE THREE 740 UNITS, JUST IN CASE. BUT, EVENTUALLY THEY WILL FAIL. THE TABLET IS NOT VERY PLEASING TO THE EYE WITHOUT AN AIRGIZMOS PANEL DOCK THAT CAN BE MADE TO LOOK SOMEWHAT PROFESSIONAL