CAP Preflight - Complete ORM and Weight & Balance from iPad

[bigfootpilot]

Two new apps were just added to the Apple AppStore built specifically for CAP Aircrews. 

CAP Preflight helps complete required documentation before each sortie. It incorporates the ORM Worksheet and a Weight & Balance module that creates PDFs to be uploaded into WMIRS.  The initial release supports the following aircraft:
Cessna 182T, R, and Q
Cessna 172P, N
Cessna 206G
Maule MT-7-235

If your aircraft type is not currently listed, visit www.goflycap.com for information on how to supply the weight/balance information of your aircraft type and it will be added in the next version.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cap-preflight/id670817782?ls=1&mt=8

Additionally, the ORM Worksheet app was released for iPhone - so you can complete ORM Worksheets and create a PDF right from your phone.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cap-aviation-orm-worksheet/id673642615?ls=1&mt=8

[Bayareaflyer 44]

Love it!  Telling all our squadron's aircrew about it.  Great job!!  :clap:

[mwpowell]

Awesome...sharing this with my squadron !

[bigfootpilot]

Besides filling out the 104 and interfacing with WMIRS (not sure I can help with that), what else do you wish you could do from your iPad? Looking for the next project...

[IAV8]

This is great! :clap:  I'm going to let the the pilots and D.O. for Washington know about this.

[jeders]

Besides filling out the 104 and interfacing with WMIRS (not sure I can help with that), what else do you wish you could do from your iPad? Looking for the next project...

How about being able to do this from and Android platform?

[JeffDG]

Haven't had a chance to download this yet (so, sorry if I mention something that's already in there), but one nice feature would be the ability to download a database of CAP tail numbers with their Empty Weight/CG in there.  Of course, that's tail-number specific, but it's not something that changes frequently.

[Eclipse]

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

[JeffDG]

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

Why?

It's a useful tool that uses basic principles of mathematics to solve a well known equation. 

Do we have a regulation that requires NHQ approval for using math?

[Eclipse]

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

Why?

It's a useful tool that uses basic principles of mathematics to solve a well known equation.

Didn't say it wasn't, however, like any software, that "basic math" is dependent on the developer.  An outdated table,
incorrect assumption, or misplaced decimal means a lot. 

We fairly recently had an unvetted W&B Excel spreadsheet floating around with a typo in it that pretty radically changed the curves.
That tool, plus an inattentive or more risk tolerant pilot, could equaled bent gear (or worse).

Do we have a regulation that requires NHQ approval for using math?

I didn't say it had to be, but that vetting would certainly increase the awareness and quiet the naysayers.
There are all sorts of excellent electronic aviation tools which are used everyday by pilots and crew
from GA to commercial.  Some are from major developers and some are written by "some guy".   This one is "some guy".
That doesn't make it bad, however it does add to the risk when using it.

[JeffDG]

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

Why?

It's a useful tool that uses basic principles of mathematics to solve a well known equation.

Didn't say it wasn't, however, like any software, that "basic math" is dependent on the developer.  An outdated table,
incorrect assumption, or misplaced decimal means a lot. 

We fairly recently had an unvetted W&B Excel spreadsheet floating around with a typo in it that pretty radically changed the curves.
That tool, plus an inattentive or more risk tolerant pilot, could equaled bent gear (or worse).

Do we have a regulation that requires NHQ approval for using math?

I didn't say it had to be, but that vetting would certainly increase the awareness and quiet the naysayers.
There are all sorts of excellent electronic aviation tools which are used everyday by pilots and crew
from GA to commercial.  Some are from major developers and some are written by "some guy".   This one is "some guy".
That doesn't make it bad, however it does add to the risk when using it.

NHQ would get around to vetting this someday, probably shortly after they publish their promised interface from IMU to WMIRS (promised last August to be published last September), and it's unlikely that NHQ will have to correct empty weight/moment data anyway, as that would be contained in documents kept in the aircraft themselves.

Getting it vetted by NHQ simply means (a) Never getting it done, and (b) Giving it a false imprimatur of reliability.

[Eclipse]

Getting it vetted by NHQ simply means (a) Never getting it done, and (b) Giving it a false imprimatur of reliability.

B = "approval for use", anything else is your own risk.

[JeffDG]

Getting it vetted by NHQ simply means (a) Never getting it done, and (b) Giving it a false imprimatur of reliability.

B = "approval for use", anything else is your own risk.

OK, why do I need NHQ to say it's at my own risk?

Do I need their approval for Foreflight or any other app that does W&B?

Seriously, someone bundles together some useful stuff, there's precisely zero reason for NHQ to get involved. 

You get them involved, they'll get a serious case of "Not Invented Here" and we'll have a regulation saying "Thou shalt not use unapproved software for anything" and the only way to comply will be to use a paper W&B form for everything.

[Eclipse]

Do I need their approval for Foreflight or any other app that does W&B?

I dunno - maybe you should.  But  ForeFlight LLC, is "some guy" either.

You get them involved, they'll get a serious case of "Not Invented Here" and we'll have a regulation saying "Thou shalt not use unapproved software for anything" and the only way to comply will be to use a paper W&B form for everything.

Cool - their airplanes, their call.

This is one case where it is better to get permission then ask forgiveness.

[JeffDG]

Do I need their approval for Foreflight or any other app that does W&B?

I dunno - maybe you should.  But  ForeFlight LLC, is "some guy" either.

You get them involved, they'll get a serious case of "Not Invented Here" and we'll have a regulation saying "Thou shalt not use unapproved software for anything" and the only way to comply will be to use a paper W&B form for everything.

Cool - their airplanes, their call.

This is one case where it is better to get permission then ask forgiveness.

So, what exactly would NHQ approving this provide in terms of value?

Especially since it provides no imprimatur of reliability?

B = "approval for use", anything else is your own risk.

So, it's my own risk using something that NHQ hasn't approved, and it's my own risk using something NHQ has approved.  The difference is, I didn't have to wait years for NHQ to determine whether or not they support my own risk.

[Eclipse]

The ops team would vet the base airframe assumption numbers, the math itself, presumably run it through a ton of iterations, etc., etc.

It may be your own risk from a pilot perspective, but it's not your own risk for the rest of the crew, who might not be excited
that "some guy" determined if the plane was safe for them to fly (or they might not care, since the pilot could do pencil math bad as well).

There are places to do your own thing, and places to use the approved forms and tools, I would assert this is a place to stick to the
approved route.

Heck, considering our typical crews, the "top vs. tab" issue on fill-up causes all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth as it is, etc., etc.

[JeffDG]

The ops team would vet the base airframe assumption numbers, the math itself, presumably run it through a ton of iterations, etc., etc.

It may be your own risk from a pilot perspective, but it's not your own risk for the rest of the crew, who might not be excited
that "some guy" determined if the plane was safe for them to fly (or they might not care, since the pilot could do pencil math bad as well).

There are places to do your own thing, and places to use the approved forms and tools, I would assert this is a place to stick to the
approved route.

Heck, considering our typical crews, the "top vs. tab" issue on fill-up causes all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth as it is, etc., etc.

Good lord...

"Check the math" is basic operations, multiplication, division, addition and subtraction.  It's not even a very complicated formula, no sines, cosines, cotangets, cube roots or natural logarithms required at all.

The "base airframe assumptions" are not assumptions.  They're actual numbers that you can get from the book in the plane, a book that is required to be in the plane in order to fly it.  The "ops team" has no better information that they can check against.

OK, let's take your concept to completion.

I have to do it on paper.  If I use a calculator, then the "Ops Team" has to check that calculator with "a ton of iterations" to validate that the calculator can do basic math correctly.  I also have to get a piece of paper from NHQ telling me what the "base airframe assumption numbers" are, and if they don't agree with the ones in the book in the plane, what then?  Which ones do I use?  (Hint, it's not the ones your got from NHQ).  Oh, and you have to get that on paper, because there is a possibility, unless NHQ has examined the source code for everu e-mail system and the spreadsheet application with the numbers that they could have been corrupted in transport.

Yes, there are places to do your own thing, and places to use approved forms and tools.  Where is the "approved form and tool" for this?  By your logic, we should not fly, because there is no "approved form and tool" to do weight and balance, and "doing your own thing" is just not a good idea, right?

[Eclipse]

You're pushing oftly hard on this, and wandering into internet argument territory instead of sticking to the discussion at hand.

[JeffDG]

You're pushing oftly hard on this, and wandering into internet argument territory instead of sticking to the discussion at hand.

Just answer one question then:

What is the "approved form/tool" for weight and balance?

Since you've made clear that doing our own thing is bad, without that approved form/tool (citation to regulation approving same required) we don't fly.

And the reason I push hard on this is that there's is an attitude prevelant with some that "If NHQ hasn't blessed it, it's bad.  If it's not standardized, it's evil" that I disagree with wholeheartedly.  We have someone here who has taken their own time, and created a fantastically useful tool.  You want to send it to NHQ, who by the time they "approve" it, iOS will no longer exist and they will need to start with whatever succeeds it.

[Eclipse]

What is the "approved form/tool" for weight and balance?

Irrelevant.  I just know this isn't.