Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
United Airlines Deploying 11,000 iPads to Pilots as Electronic Flight Bags
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wrong. Commercial airliners often fly VFR approaches and landings, when conditions allow. If they didn't, air traffic would be stacked up at most major airports. Busy airports like Denver and Dulles rely heavily on VFR to keep the traffic flowing. IFR would dramatically increase the intervals for landings.
The level of hate, ignorance and pettiness in this forum has been nothing short of amazing to me.
This decision by UAL is a very wise one, and will save them a lot of money in the long run. It will also be better for the environment.
Something else to think about: As someone who has worked in litigation for decades, I can tell you that the average cost to get a box of documents copied the approximate size of the paper flight bags is about $400-$500. Multiply that by 11,000 about 3-4 times a year.
First officer: Captain, I think we just lost both engines.
Captain: Check the emergency landing checklist on that iPad thingy.
First Officer: Where's iTunes?
Captain: What do you mean "where's iTunes?', get me the damn checklist. We are losing altitude.
First Officer: But it says "Connect to iTunes"!
Captain: Check the emergency landing checklist on that iPad thingy.
First Officer: Where's iTunes?
Captain: What do you mean "where's iTunes?', get me the damn checklist. We are losing altitude.
First Officer: But it says "Connect to iTunes"!
"The green benefits of moving to EFBs are two-fold--it significantly reduces paper use and printing, and, in turn, reduces fuel consumption."
Why is mastery of the English language so difficult for "journalists"?
The above use of "in turn" does not properly convey the writer's intent. In this context, "in turn" is synonymous with "as a result", yet the second benefit ("reduced fuel consumption") does not directly follow from "reduced paper use and printing," but from the reduced weight involved in TRANSPORTING the paper once it has been produced.
Now, if they had said "in turn, reduces space required in land fills for discarded paper" or something like that, the usage would be correct.
What the writer should have written is "in addition", which would signify that the reduced fuel consumption is a benefit separate and distinct from the usage of paper.
Sorry to nitpick, but it is so jarring to read such poorly-formed sentences.
----------
WRONG. U.S. - based air carriers prohibit their crews from flying VFR when carrying passengers. You are confusing a Visual Approach with VFR. A visual approach is flown in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) while flying on an IFR flight plan. The level of services required from ATC is significantly different for VFR and IFR aircraft, and air carriers will NOT give up the protections of flying IFR. While a visual approach allows traffic to flow more efficiently (with pilots responsible for their own spacing from the preceding aircraft), it is NOT the same as flying VFR. (I am an ATC btw)
Why is mastery of the English language so difficult for "journalists"?
The above use of "in turn" does not properly convey the writer's intent. In this context, "in turn" is synonymous with "as a result", yet the second benefit ("reduced fuel consumption") does not directly follow from "reduced paper use and printing," but from the reduced weight involved in TRANSPORTING the paper once it has been produced.
Now, if they had said "in turn, reduces space required in land fills for discarded paper" or something like that, the usage would be correct.
What the writer should have written is "in addition", which would signify that the reduced fuel consumption is a benefit separate and distinct from the usage of paper.
Sorry to nitpick, but it is so jarring to read such poorly-formed sentences.
----------
WRONG. U.S. - based air carriers prohibit their crews from flying VFR when carrying passengers. You are confusing a Visual Approach with VFR. A visual approach is flown in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) while flying on an IFR flight plan. The level of services required from ATC is significantly different for VFR and IFR aircraft, and air carriers will NOT give up the protections of flying IFR. While a visual approach allows traffic to flow more efficiently (with pilots responsible for their own spacing from the preceding aircraft), it is NOT the same as flying VFR. (I am an ATC btw)
I love it. A "find my airplane" app. It would come back and say, ARE YOU STUPID, you're sitting in it. Don't you even know where you are?
I read this and had to create an account to offer up a pilot's perspective and address some of the misconceptions.
First off, yes it will save fuel, and it's pretty easy to see how it works. The most basic concept of flight is that lift must oppose weight. In order to climb, lift must exceed weight. The greater the lift, or the lesser the weight, the faster the climb happens. Makes sense, right? Lift is produced primarily by speed, that is air flowing over the wings. I could spend all day digging into the details of this, but suffice it to say lift is a function of the square of airspeed. Where does speed come from? In an airliner it comes from burning lots of jet fuel. So there is a clear connection between weight and fuel used.
saving weight isn't going to make the engines any more efficient, power settings are the same, so fuel burn will be the same. But given a constant thrust and a constant speed (for this example we'll call it constant. it's actually going to be slightly lower as weight decreases, but with these kinds of weight changes it's not even worth worrying about) there will be a constant lift force. As weight decreases, the climb rate can increase. That's where the real savings are as its high power settings and low altitudes, that means high fuel consumption.
To look at an hypothetical example say we can cut the time to climb by an average of 10 seconds, that's not much at all and it's very possible to achieve. If united makes 1,500 flights per day (mainline united, not counting any united express flights which aren't actually United) that's just over 4 hours of climb time eliminated per day, 1,521 hours saved per year. That doesn't translate directly to a reduction in flight time, but it does allow them to get to altitude quicker where they can pull the power back and burn less fuel. If the difference between cruise and climb fuel flow is 1,500 pounds per hour (its generic guess, across the board covering all types of airplanes) that is 225 gallons per hour, or 342,225 gallons per year. Those are real savings.
Look closer at the weight. You're not only saving 80 pounds for the two pilots. There are typically a few deadheading pilots sitting in the back with their flight bags too. I don't fly for an airline, but I'd imagine United keeps a spare set of performance manuals and maybe even a set of charts in the airplane. You're probably looking at a realistic reduction of around 200 pounds per flight. sure, that's easily offset by one passenger but when you're looking at long term averages it works out.
Next problem, power. Its a non-issue. Every airplane I have ever flown in from single engine piston airplanes to corporate jets have all had either a cigarette lighter or a 110V outlet. Either of which can provide power to an iPad. I seriously doubt United overlooked the issue of how they might power such a device. To take redundancy one step further, I wouldn't doubt that they have put one of those battery powered "charge your iphone on the go" power packs in every airplane. If they have said it will work, and the FAA has agreed, the issues have been addressed.
What I think is the really cool thing is the trickle down effect this is already having. Just a few years ago if you wanted Jeppessen charts, you had to fork out around $2,000 per year, and then spend about 2 hours every 14 days updating the charts. Jeppview (an electronic chart program) been around for a long time now, but used to be around $1200 and wasn't really useful unless you wanted to fly with a laptop. Now you can buy a full set of electronic Jepp charts for $700 a year. My company just went to ipads about a year ago and has saved a ton of money on subscription costs alone. The best news is for private pilots; for around $150 I can buy the charts I need for my personal flying, that's on par with what it would cost to keep up with FAA paper charts, and at the end of the day you have a better product.
I really see this as a win-win for everyone involved except the paper suppliers.
----------
They may fly visual approaches, but they are still on an IFR flight plan. It may be splitting hairs, but it isn't the same as flying VFR.
First off, yes it will save fuel, and it's pretty easy to see how it works. The most basic concept of flight is that lift must oppose weight. In order to climb, lift must exceed weight. The greater the lift, or the lesser the weight, the faster the climb happens. Makes sense, right? Lift is produced primarily by speed, that is air flowing over the wings. I could spend all day digging into the details of this, but suffice it to say lift is a function of the square of airspeed. Where does speed come from? In an airliner it comes from burning lots of jet fuel. So there is a clear connection between weight and fuel used.
saving weight isn't going to make the engines any more efficient, power settings are the same, so fuel burn will be the same. But given a constant thrust and a constant speed (for this example we'll call it constant. it's actually going to be slightly lower as weight decreases, but with these kinds of weight changes it's not even worth worrying about) there will be a constant lift force. As weight decreases, the climb rate can increase. That's where the real savings are as its high power settings and low altitudes, that means high fuel consumption.
To look at an hypothetical example say we can cut the time to climb by an average of 10 seconds, that's not much at all and it's very possible to achieve. If united makes 1,500 flights per day (mainline united, not counting any united express flights which aren't actually United) that's just over 4 hours of climb time eliminated per day, 1,521 hours saved per year. That doesn't translate directly to a reduction in flight time, but it does allow them to get to altitude quicker where they can pull the power back and burn less fuel. If the difference between cruise and climb fuel flow is 1,500 pounds per hour (its generic guess, across the board covering all types of airplanes) that is 225 gallons per hour, or 342,225 gallons per year. Those are real savings.
Look closer at the weight. You're not only saving 80 pounds for the two pilots. There are typically a few deadheading pilots sitting in the back with their flight bags too. I don't fly for an airline, but I'd imagine United keeps a spare set of performance manuals and maybe even a set of charts in the airplane. You're probably looking at a realistic reduction of around 200 pounds per flight. sure, that's easily offset by one passenger but when you're looking at long term averages it works out.
Next problem, power. Its a non-issue. Every airplane I have ever flown in from single engine piston airplanes to corporate jets have all had either a cigarette lighter or a 110V outlet. Either of which can provide power to an iPad. I seriously doubt United overlooked the issue of how they might power such a device. To take redundancy one step further, I wouldn't doubt that they have put one of those battery powered "charge your iphone on the go" power packs in every airplane. If they have said it will work, and the FAA has agreed, the issues have been addressed.
What I think is the really cool thing is the trickle down effect this is already having. Just a few years ago if you wanted Jeppessen charts, you had to fork out around $2,000 per year, and then spend about 2 hours every 14 days updating the charts. Jeppview (an electronic chart program) been around for a long time now, but used to be around $1200 and wasn't really useful unless you wanted to fly with a laptop. Now you can buy a full set of electronic Jepp charts for $700 a year. My company just went to ipads about a year ago and has saved a ton of money on subscription costs alone. The best news is for private pilots; for around $150 I can buy the charts I need for my personal flying, that's on par with what it would cost to keep up with FAA paper charts, and at the end of the day you have a better product.
I really see this as a win-win for everyone involved except the paper suppliers.
----------
They may fly visual approaches, but they are still on an IFR flight plan. It may be splitting hairs, but it isn't the same as flying VFR.
Last edited:
Splitting hairs a little, wouldn't you agree? I understand that commercial planes fly their overall routes using IFR. But I was referring to approaches and landings, as my post said. Additionally, the original poster to whom I was responding was referring to landings, as well. You guys do an amazing job, btw. I really enjoy listening to you work when I fly on UA flights.
Well, I'll give a United Airline pilot's perspective. There are no pilots at United that currently carry a flight bag. United went to shipsets several years ago. So there is a bag on the Captain's side and one on the First Officer's side. Those bags stay with the airplane. There are no extra flight bags in the cockpit and none in the back belonging to any deadheading pilot, either.
Power... Most airliners already have 120VAC jacks in the cockpit. It is most often back behind the pilots near one of the CB panels. I can't imagine why they would put a power pack in the plane as that just adds weight and generally defeats the purpose of a weight saving device. It should be easy enough to integrate into the existing systems.
As for how they are going to implement the iPads, the rank and file members have not been given any information regarding their use. We don't know what will be on it, how it will be used, how it is to be powered, and software updated. I fully expect that the information will be forthcoming but this news was a surprise to everyone including the pilots. They've been promising us an Electronic Flight Bag for over 15 years. I guess they just had to wait for the right one to be invented!
Most importantly, however... Privacy.
This is company issued equipment. If we enter our own personal info, check our email, browse the internet, etc., when we are on a layover, the company has the right to access our passwords and our accounts and read everything about everything. Plus the rumor is that the GPS in the iPad will be used to track the devices, hence the pilot.
So this United pilot plans on sticking only to company apps for the stated job. And no more. I'm also NOT going to be plugging this device into my personal laptop or iTunes to update the company apps. They will have to provide something at the airport for the syncing. As much as I love Angry Birds, it's not worth losing my job over. I just hate to see all that nice power and potential be limited to this narrow focus.
Power... Most airliners already have 120VAC jacks in the cockpit. It is most often back behind the pilots near one of the CB panels. I can't imagine why they would put a power pack in the plane as that just adds weight and generally defeats the purpose of a weight saving device. It should be easy enough to integrate into the existing systems.
As for how they are going to implement the iPads, the rank and file members have not been given any information regarding their use. We don't know what will be on it, how it will be used, how it is to be powered, and software updated. I fully expect that the information will be forthcoming but this news was a surprise to everyone including the pilots. They've been promising us an Electronic Flight Bag for over 15 years. I guess they just had to wait for the right one to be invented!
Most importantly, however... Privacy.
This is company issued equipment. If we enter our own personal info, check our email, browse the internet, etc., when we are on a layover, the company has the right to access our passwords and our accounts and read everything about everything. Plus the rumor is that the GPS in the iPad will be used to track the devices, hence the pilot.
So this United pilot plans on sticking only to company apps for the stated job. And no more. I'm also NOT going to be plugging this device into my personal laptop or iTunes to update the company apps. They will have to provide something at the airport for the syncing. As much as I love Angry Birds, it's not worth losing my job over. I just hate to see all that nice power and potential be limited to this narrow focus.
Haha, that's dumb.
iOS has too many bugs in order to use for something like this. Sometimes Apps fail to open. What are pilots going to do when they can't access their approach information because of buggy iOS
You know with which Airline I won't be flying.
iOS has too many bugs in order to use for something like this. Sometimes Apps fail to open. What are pilots going to do when they can't access their approach information because of buggy iOS
You know with which Airline I won't be flying.
That might be true for United, but isn't true for all commercial airlines.
On YouTube there are a cockpit videos of commercial jet VFR flights. I'll try and find one and post a link later.
There are commercial airports that do not have instrument approaches.
For example Barra EGPR only has an NDB. Barra has scheduled commercial service from UK carrier Flybe.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/publi...ontent&task=blogcategory&id=15&Itemid=70.html
Last edited:
From what I've read, the AF447 crew did not perform the unreliable airspeed procedure.
I wonder If the crew had an iPad if it would have helped them work the problem. Of course since they didn't use the printed manual, they may not have consulted an iPad either.
Attachments
This thread has been very entertaining, seems everyone has an opinion on the pros and cons of iPads in the cockpit.
This has not been some overnight decision making leading to a business case of 'wouldn't it be cool to put iPads in the cockpit?'. They are a valid business device for this purpose, the form factor and capabilities are almost perfect for the use case.
I am leading this deployment effort from an IT perspective at United and can shed some light on some of the topics discussed.
1. With Jet fuel at $126 per barrel every pound of weight removed from the aircraft saves some money. Its not a great amount per flight but multiply that by 2000 flights a day/365 days a year and it all adds up
2. Theres a 14 day revision cycle for these docs and its a huge expense to manually go through every document removing expired pages and inserting new ones. As the merger between United and Continental progresses the documents will merge into one and will be delivered consistently and electronically across the system regardless of whether you were a Continental or a United pilot.
3. The iPads are going out out as a class 1 EFB, which means its not part of the minimum equipment list and will not ground an aircraft in the event of the pilots and co-pilots devices being inoperative. It also means it is not for use below 10000 feet or in critical stages of flight. Spares will be kept at pilot domiciles across the country and can be swapped out fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag
4. The device will be fully managed via MDM and will be in a locked down state so no angry birds, no ibooks, no iMovie, no music, no movies. Its a single purpose device.
5. Glare has been flight tested with and without screen filters and deemed to be not a problem. Rapid decompression testing has been performed and the device passed. EMI testing has also been completed with no issues.
6. All United data on the device will be managed and controlled, each device is password protected and through the MDM solution we can remotely wipe any device reported lost or stolen. Preference would be to 'brick' the device but Apple don't share those API's.
7. The devices being a class 1 EFB will not be attached or mounted to the aircraft and nor will they access the data or power busses.
Hope that cleared up some of the wild and whacky misconceptions out there.
I'm hoping more people see the post from the person working directly on the United iPad project. I think it's great that he took the time to respond with constructive information and alleviate some of the valid concerns, and wacky misconceptions.
A few other notes about the selection of the device;
I would encourage everyone to do a quick search for "iPad and FAA" and note that the iPad is the tablet that received approval to serve as Class 1 EFB devices. There is a lot of analysis and testing that went into that approval. Example link
Also note that as the UAL poster mentioned, Mobile Device Management is key to the deployment of the iPads. All of the many concerns that have been expressed in this thread around user behavior and security are perfectly valid. I imagine the company has also had many of those same concerns, and wants these devices to work well, and in an expected manner. That's where MDM comes into play. As much as there has been a perception that Apple does not cater to the business enterprise, they have the most advanced capabilities for controlling the security and behavior of the device as compared to competitors. Even better, there is some great competition in the area of MDM, leading to some great business innovation, and more importantly, customization to the priorities of different businesses.
Another very seemingly small point that I've never seen mentioned on any of the discussions on this issue is the prevalence of back injury for pilots who must twist in the cockpit to lift a 30+ lb bag from behind them. Personally speaking, while I know the company has focused on environmental and cost impact, as someone who has back problems, this topic makes me happiest.
Haha, that's dumb.
iOS has too many bugs in order to use for something like this. Sometimes Apps fail to open. What are pilots going to do when they can't access their approach information because of buggy iOS
You know with which Airline I won't be flying.
The iPad has proven itself to be plenty reliable for this kind of use. I personally have never had one instance of a freeze or other failure in thousands of hours of flight time with the iPad.
----------
For the last time, there's a difference between VFR APPROACHES and VFR FLIGHTS. All airline flights are on IFR flight plans - they can, however, fly VFR approaches in visual meteorological conditions, and this is done quite regularly.
The amount of people who are just too lazy to go back and read threads before posting never ceases to amaze me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have found the exact same bugs on my iPhone and on iPad 2 in the Apple store that still hasn't been fixed, so it's definitely an issue with iOS. Am I holding the iPad 2 or iPhone wrong for these problems to happen?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty sure that the iPads are not completely "replacing" the Jeppesen charts, at least for now. I think the FAA still mandates that you still have to carry the chart bag and paper charts as a backup for now. If I understood tfa correctly, United was claiming fuel savings via lower paper production because of reduced replacement of paper charts since pilots won't be wearing them out by using them and writing notes on them.