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  An outdated table,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.

[JeffDG]

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

Irrelevant.  I just know this isn't.

So, how can we fly without an approved form/tool, without using something of our own?

[Eclipse]

So, how can we fly without an approved form/tool, without using something of our own?

I didn't say there wasn't one, I said this one wasn't, we both know that to be true.  Whatever is the approved or standard tool, be it
stone tablets, hand math, paper form, or other, is irrelevant to whether this is.

All I asked is whether this had been vetted and approved by NHQ.  A simple and direct question.  You wanted to
engage the discussion of whether it needs to be, etc.

This developer has ORM worksheets for iOS as well.  The regs are clear there that you have to use the one in the AIF.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, and maybe his math is pristine, but I don't think it's too much to ask if the very
forms used by a pilot to judge the risk of the sortie and whether the plane is safe to fly for W&B have been vetted and
approved by NHQ, because certainly the second question after a lawn dart will be where are the forms and what was your source?

[JeffDG]

So, how can we fly without an approved form/tool, without using something of our own?

I didn't say there wasn't one, I said this one wasn't, we both know that to be true.  Whatever is the approved or standard tool, be it
stone tablets, hand math, paper form, or other, is irrelevant to whether this is.

All I asked is whether this had been vetted and approved by NHQ.  A simple and direct question.  You wanted to
engage the discussion of whether it needs to be, etc.

This developer has ORM worksheets for iOS as well.  The regs are clear there that you have to use the one in the AIF.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, and maybe his math is pristine, but I don't think it's too much to ask if the very
forms used by a pilot to judge the risk of the sortie and whether the plane is safe to fly for W&B have been vetted and
approved by NHQ, because certainly the second question after a lawn dart will be where are the forms and what was your source?

Please cite the reg that requires a specific ORM worksheet, and please cite an aircraft AIF that contains an ORM worksheet.

There is no "approved" form/tool for W&B.  That's the point I'm making.  So, by insisting "you can't use something not approved" means you're saying you can't do W&B calculations, which means, no flying whatsoever.  I'm simply extending your logic to its inevitable conclusion.

You spoke of a bad Excel file in your wing.  Once it was corrected, by your standard, it still can't be used, unless and until it is approved by NHQ.

[Eclipse]

Please make your own argument and not debate things I didn't say.

The only approved ORM form for aircrew is the CAP - AIF ORM form
which is found in the...AIF with each airplane.  Copies are authorized, but this is the only form allowed.  The various forms
which wings and other groups created are no longer allowed.

[bigfootpilot]

As far as I can tell, in practice, each wing has their own Weight/Balance process with various worksheets, spreadsheets, and web applications available for the task.  I can't find any mention in a CAP regulation regarding Weight and Balance.  The standard AIF reserves Tab 5 for "Aircraft-Specific Weight & Balance Data where information specific to the actual current airframe W&B is to be placed. Data is to come from current, A&P generated W&B form."  I suppose technically, this and the POH is what should be used for all W&B calculations - and I think it should be used and compared to any other method to ensure the other method is indeed accurate before trusting it.  If there is any doubt, always go back to the POH.  At the end of the day, the PIC is the one to comply with 14 CFR 91.9, requiring the PIC to comply with the operating limits prescribed by the manufacturer and you need to know the W&B in order to do that.

The motivation behind writing the app was to increase the speed at which preflight paperwork can be completed to get in the air quickly.  From personal experience, completing the ORM and Weight/Balance using the traditional method takes a good 15 minutes and that is just too long.  My hope is the forms are found to be accurate, safe, and acceptable for pilots and FROs to meet preflight requirements so the mission can progress as quickly as possible.

This app is not affiliated or approved by Civil Air Patrol.  If someone would like to help get it through the process, I would be willing, but I have no idea how to do that or even if there is such a process.

[SunDog]

Hi guys, W&B ain't rocket science. PIC is responsible for his 'rithmetic. His / her bidness how it's done. Real world, CG location is more important than gross weight. A lot more, actually, since even a fairly good hunk over gross only affects stall, etc., a wee bit. Better to be 50 pounds over gross than have the CG too far aft.

Before anyone faints or lurches to the keyboard in righteous indignation, we all DO know we should never be over gross. And always brush your teeth, too.

Nice of this person to gen up a tool, and a little experience with it should tell us if it's accurate. Both CG and GW are approximations; do the smell test on the results, based on past history. If you're shoving two lard butts in the back, a siginificant error in CG  or GW will (should!) be obvious.

For ORM, many folks I know have a few canned versions, to suit the situation du jour. They just change the dates. I don't know if many or few are actually uploading them to WMIRS anyway. I haven't done so, and no one has asked.  I don't know anyone who has routinely made a go/ no go based on the ORM score, though I could see it influencing a decision when things are close to personal limits. 

But it's nice someone went to the trouble to streamline the creation of the form, and if some Wings are loading them to WMIRS religiously, saving time is good - reduce the bureacratic SAS and have a few minutes more for useful stuff, like one more weather check, or another glance at the Garmin book, whatever.

[PHall]

Eclipse, is there a NHQ approved way to do weight and balance calculations?

I believe all that they're concerned about is that the result is accurate. Which is what the FAA requires too.

[FlyerJosh]

Can somebody please tell me where I can find a listing of NHQ approved calculation devices? I'm not sure that the calculator app on my iPhone is approved for completing weight and balance calculations. Alternatively, can I use my Casio Solar powered unit? I'm fearful that if I'm required to utilize long division/mental math, I'll screw something up...

Can you also please identify if I need to utilize an approved writing utensil when filling out said weight and balance?

Finally, I've been using the Weight and Balance page from the Aircraft POH. I'm not sure if copies are approved (60-1 does not specifically address this issue), so I've been erasing the information after each flight. The problem now is that this particular page has worn completely down and now has holes and missing print. Does any body know where an replacement page for a 1983 Cessna 172P can be obtained? It needs to be an approved (FAA & NHQ) source of course.

This arguement is a bit absurd. As the PIC it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that YOUR weight and balance, performance, charts, and other preflight information is correctly completed. Within CAP there is an expectation that you complete the approved ORM form (which can be duplicated). If it's duplicated on a copy machine, electronically, or by hand, as long as the numbers, criteria, and format match the most recently approved form, you're good to go. And yes, I have hand duplicated an ORM form during an actual mission when power was not available and we ran out of forms... Nobody had an issue with it post mission, because the ORM process was completed (to standard) and documented correctly.

[Eclipse]

This arguement is a bit absurd. As the PIC it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that YOUR weight and balance, performance, charts, and other preflight information is correctly completed. Within CAP there is an expectation that you complete the approved ORM form (which can be duplicated). If it's duplicated on a copy machine, electronically, or by hand, as long as the numbers, criteria, and format match the most recently approved form, you're good to go. And yes, I have hand duplicated an ORM form during an actual mission when power was not available and we ran out of forms... Nobody had an issue with it post mission, because the ORM process was completed (to standard) and documented correctly.

Missed the point almost completely.

Yes, you can duplicate CAP forms electronically, in fact, it's encouraged, but when the forms start doing math, they need to be vetted.
For the record, the PIC on my flight the other night used it and said he had no issues.  Awesome, but that doesn't change the
macro conversation.

Now as to the app in question, does it contain the baseline W&B numbers or does the PIC enter those from wing, NHQ, or manufacturer's approved tables?

[FlyerJosh]

This arguement is a bit absurd. As the PIC it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that YOUR weight and balance, performance, charts, and other preflight information is correctly completed. Within CAP there is an expectation that you complete the approved ORM form (which can be duplicated). If it's duplicated on a copy machine, electronically, or by hand, as long as the numbers, criteria, and format match the most recently approved form, you're good to go. And yes, I have hand duplicated an ORM form during an actual mission when power was not available and we ran out of forms... Nobody had an issue with it post mission, because the ORM process was completed (to standard) and documented correctly.

Missed the point almost completely.

Yes, you can duplicate CAP forms electronically, in fact, it's encouraged, but when the forms start doing math, they need to be vetted.
For the record, the PIC on my flight the other night used it and said he had no issues.  Awesome, but that doesn't change the
macro conversation.

Now as to the app in question, does it contain the baseline W&B numbers or does the PIC enter those from wing, NHQ, or manufacturer's approved tables?

Like I said, it's the PIC's requirement to ensure that whatever means they use to calculate W&B is accurate. Be it an iPhone, abacus, iPad app, whatever. NHQ need not "approve" a method. All they care is that however the PIC determines their preflight calculations, in the end, said calculations are correct, safe, and legal in the eyes of the FAA.

Just like any other application, job aid, tool, etc:  caveat emptor.  Trust, but verify.

I haven't used these apps, but before I do, I plan on running my own calculations side by side to verify the output. Once I verify that the forumlas/programming is correct (to my own level of comfort), I see no reason why not to use them.

But hey, we apparently disagree... so nobody is forcing you to use them.

[JeffDG]

For the record, the PIC on my flight the other night used it and said he had no issues.  Awesome, but that doesn't change the
macro conversation.

Wait, so you flew on a plane where the PIC used an unapproved app to calculate W&B?

Shouldn't you be 2B'd for that?  I mean it's everyone's responsibility to point out this obvious and flagrant safety violation.

He should have used the NHQ approved form, or not flown.  Now, since there is no NHQ approved form, you shouldn't have flown.

[NIN]

What is the NHQ approved grade of paper that W&B should be calculated on?  pencil or pen?

Guys, this is silly.  What next, checking for the Pentium bug? (Yes, I am that old)

People use locally devised things ALL THE TIME for stuff like W&B.  A work sheet or an excel document.  When was the last time someone barked at you about the calculations on the Finance Report? (OK, yes, I know.. wing banker now!)  Sure, nobody is going to die if a particular account doesn't get updated correctly in a column on the finance report (except the finance officer, of course!)

A solid developer would test his product out pretty thoroughly and be sure that in all reasonably imaginable use cases it will deliver the expected results.  The "reasonable person" principle applies: "Given an experienced pilot and a set of weight and balance calculations, would a reasonable person expect that the numbers derived from the iPad app are within range of the expected W&B?"

I haven't done a 365-4F in a LONG time, but when I did actually have to do them, it was pretty obvious when I'd carried a wrong number or done some other bonehead calculation error. "Wait, the aft CG is 165 inches aft of the centerline of the aft vertical shaft?  OK, I screwed something up here."

I can't imagine an even remotely qualified CAP pilot coming up with a bogus W&B number out of a locally devised app and thinking "OK, yah, I can put two 300lb guys in the back seat and my CG only moves 2" aft..  Sure.."

You'd be like "hmmm, wait a sec. thats not what I expected at ALL.."  You should be stupid checking anything, including your chicken scratch.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Skipping all of the approval Crap <naughty Eclipse>, I have a kudos to bigfootpilot...

Some of us used this at NESA to great effect.  Thank you bogfootpilot, great job!!!   :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

May I suggest adding the Form 71, that can be a PITA to complete?

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]

Skipping all of the approval Crap <naughty Eclipse>, I have a kudos to bigfootpilot...

Some of us used this at NESA to great effect.  Thank you bogfootpilot, great job!!!   :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

May I suggest adding the Form 71, that can be a PITA to complete?

Great minds think alike - asked for the CAPF 71 too! 

[Mustang]

Bob, seriously: [Filter Subversion]. 

Bigfootpilot has done an absolutely phenomenal job on this app! Well done.

If I could make one small nitpicky request, it would be to add some sort of visual marking to each selected ORM item in the PDF export so it is apparent why the score for each line is what it is--particularly for lines with a score of 0 there needs to be an indiction that this is correct and that the line was not simply skipped.

[Eclipse]

A situation came to light this week that highlighted my points about vetting this and where the baseline data comes from.

We have 172Ps in the fleet with upgraded engines that make them 172SP  that's 180HP vs 160HP and also
raises the takeoff weight from ~2400 to ~2500.   These upgrades are not noted in the FAA database, so even pulling
the tails from there would not provide that important information.  On the low side, that's ~16 gallons of fuel, a cadet,
or your crew's skivvie bags difference worth of weight.

The only way to be aware of this is to use the wing's approved W&B forms.

From a safety perspective, this is "good", since if you load the plane to the "max" by a standard P's rating, you've got plenty
of slop you're unaware of, but by the same token it somewhat defeats the upgrade in the first place since you can't take advantage of weight you don't know you can use.

Can this app allow for user changes to the baseline specs on a per-tail number basis?

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Loving this app!!  Last night I passed my abbreviated Instrument Form 5 in the G1000 and used this to calc W&B and ORM, took a snapshot on the mini, uploaded it to my WMIRS Sortie, and was done!!!

May I suggest a disclaimer on the W&B component to the effect "The pilot in command is solely responsible for assuring correct data and proper loading of your aircraft prior to flight"

[PHall]

May I suggest a disclaimer on the W&B component to the effect "The pilot in command is solely responsible for assuring correct data and proper loading of your aircraft prior to flight"

That's a given, but including that blurb would probably keep the lawyer types happy.

[JeffDG]

The only way to be aware of this is to use the wing's approved W&B forms.

No...the only way to be aware of this is if you look in the approved flight manual that is required to be carried in the aircraft.  That is the legal and official source of record.  Any other paperwork that you may have or distribute is caveat emptor.

There's no such thing as a "wing approved W&B form"

[SunDog]

The only way to be aware of this is to use the wing's approved W&B forms.

No...the only way to be aware of this is if you look in the approved flight manual that is required to be carried in the aircraft.  That is the legal and official source of record.  Any other paperwork that you may have or distribute is caveat emptor.

There's no such thing as a "wing approved W&B form"

I'm pretty sure Jeff is correct - the STC  from Great Plains for the 180HP upgrade is in the aicraft maintenance book and POH addendum, with the changes to performance, limits, etc. spelled out.

I think CAP's role is the same as any owner, to have the documentation in place. Wing/National haven't got a role in computing W&B. They could be helpful, have something available on-line, but it wouldn't be authoritative. Good for a SWAG for mission planning, until getting to the airplane and confirming the numbers there.

[Eclipse]

There's no such thing as a "wing approved W&B form"

That would be incorrect.

[PHall]

There's no such thing as a "wing approved W&B form"

That would be incorrect.

Cite please.

[Eclipse]

My wing has tail-number specific W&B forms for several aircraft, and has for years.

[JeffDG]

My wing has tail-number specific W&B forms for several aircraft, and has for years.

Has it met your standard of being approved by NHQ?  Otherwise, I guess, it's just another custom thing that is illegal to use.

[Eclipse]

My wing has tail-number specific W&B forms for several aircraft, and has for years.

Has it met your standard of being approved by NHQ?  Otherwise, I guess, it's just another custom thing that is illegal to use.

No idea, and not my lane.  Simply indicating they exist.

[JeffDG]

My wing has tail-number specific W&B forms for several aircraft, and has for years.

Has it met your standard of being approved by NHQ?  Otherwise, I guess, it's just another custom thing that is illegal to use.

No idea, and not my lane.  Simply indicating they exist.

But your claim is that if they're not approved by NHQ, then they're not valid.

I don't see any approved supplement to 60-1 specifying such a form, so I would contend it's not an "official" wing form.

[Eclipse]

No idea, and not my lane.  Simply indicating they exist.
But your claim is that if they're not approved by NHQ, then they're not valid.

I don't see any approved supplement to 60-1 specifying such a form, so I would contend it's not an "official" wing form.

I wouldn't argue with you.  I merely pointed out they exist.

Am I advocating their use?  Is this my call or my lane?

No.

However as a point of the discussion, why would a supplement be necessary?

[JeffDG]

No idea, and not my lane.  Simply indicating they exist.
But your claim is that if they're not approved by NHQ, then they're not valid.

I don't see any approved supplement to 60-1 specifying such a form, so I would contend it's not an "official" wing form.

I wouldn't argue with you.  I merely pointed out they exist.

Am I advocating their use?  Is this my call or my lane?

No.

However as a point of the discussion, why would a supplement be necessary?

youve said that if its not approved by NHQ it shoulnt be used...are you backing off from that?

[Eclipse]

That's not actually what I said, and not in the context of "everything", nor is this a comparison.

The application we're discussing is a "because I felt like it" job by a member.  It could beat sliced bread for awesomeness, or maybe not.
Many here like it.  However it hasn't been vetted by anyone.   My points were based more on the validity of the data then the
regulatory issue of "allowing" it's use.  I pointed out where we've already found an issue, and there are likely more. 

W&B which is lower then actual isn't a safety issue, the reverse is.  Since the app doesn't likely  know about the former, I'd say there's
at least a strong possibility there are some CAP planes where the latter is true.

My wings W&B forms >have< been vetted, on a regular basis, and approved by several corporate officers over a period of years.
I don't see much in 60-1 about W&B, except that the POH is supposed to always win, so I don't see, necessarily, where custom forms
that address actual W&B because of airframe mods or included equipment would need a supp.  You may well have a point that the wing
can't mandate a form that supersedes the "POH always wins" universal rule.

As a point of personal consistency, I've already raised the issue as to the how and why here, and its possible we won't have them shortly.

It's also not my lane or my call, so at the point they are still mandated, they can be added to the list of stuff which is not my lane or call
but still "is".  (It's a pretty big pile.)

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Many here like it.  However it hasn't been vetted by anyone. 

Bullsh*t, I vetted it for the two planes I fly.

You know you two can be such pains in the backside.   

Here is a CAP member providing his free time to provide an app for the benefit of the membership and all you two can do is pontificate about who is right about some Fracking W&B form.  Who gives a sh*t!!!  Start your own thread about approved W&B forms.

[Eclipse]

Bullsh*t, I vetted it for the two planes I fly.

548 to go.

[CaPilot04]

Make that 546, I vetted for the two aircraft I fly as well.  Works perfect.  Nice Work!!!

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Still think it's a good idea to add something like this:

"The pilot in command is solely responsible for assuring correct data and proper loading of your aircraft prior to flight"

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

BTW, I wrote this up for the developer this morning as a good method to upload the W&B and ORM to WMIRS as a photo capture using an iPad with CAP Preflight and no special software:

I use the e104 Upload Process to upload the W&B and ORM. Here is the process and screenshots are attached:

1. Take screenshots (photos) of the CAP Preflight ORM and W&B by simultaneously pressing the power button and main button on your iPad.
2. Log into WMIRS
3. Select your mission number
4. Select the 104 Data button to the right of your sortie
5. This is where you can enter your electronic e104.  Scroll to the bottom of the page
6. Select Upload Files and an upload file area will be displayed
7. To upload the ORM, select the Choose File button below the text AIF ORM Matrix.
8. You will be prompted to Take Photo or Video or Choose Existing.  Select the Choose Existing button
9. A photos selection box will be displayed.  Choose the ORM screenshot photo you took in step 1
10. A small representation of a photo and the words 1 Photo will be displayed beside the Choose Existing button
11. To upload the W&B, you will need to choose the Other section and enter W&B in the Description text box
12. Repeat steps 8. to 10. to upload your ORM
13. Choose the Upload Files button to upload your photos
14. The uploaded photos will be displayed as imageXXX.jpg below the Description text box
15. Select the Return to e104 button to complete the process

[SunDog]

Manuvering speed(Va) is affected by actual aircraft weight. A little esoteric, most of the time, but as weight drops, so does Va. The less you weigh, the lower the max speed for "abrupt" control inputs. Best to know what the max gross really is, and how much your airplane really weighs today.

But no big deal - that'll all be in the POH with the STC. Data stored elsewhere is convenient, and advisory. If Wing has some available online, that's handy, but not official, and not mandated. Probably good to have for planning, just not valid for actual W&B. . .though some guys probably do use it for real, when they know they'll be within limits anyway.

Being REAL close to max goss is OK. That's real real, real close. CG range is a lot less forgiving. Stall speed increases very little when REAL close to max gross. If you gotta fly "fat", make sure the CG isn't pushing the limit, which in our airplanes is usually the aft limit.

If you feel "fat", cull the junk in the back. Remove the extra case of oil, the extra first aid kit, the 10 half-full bittles of water, etc.  Some of our airplanes have a steel tie-down kit that would secure a tug -boat, and that kit is HEAVY. 

I don't think the rules allow you to remove the survival kit. I never bothered to check, because if it was THAT close, I wasn't taking the extra crew member anyway. Ditto with the PFDs.

A few pounds aft has a pretty big moment arm. I worry more about being close to CG  limits than gross weight limits; you're more or less guess-timating weight, anyway, unless the airplane was weighed yesterday and your crew is telling the truth about their weights.

Tough to be out of limits in a C172 with two guys on board, CG  or gross weight. Not so tough with a third person on board. C182s are another story, as they vary so much in fuel load, empty weight, useful load, and equipment. The glass are often two-seaters for practical purposes - not much available load at all, and very heavy. The C182Rs have more leeway.

[JeffDG]

My wings W&B forms >have< been vetted, on a regular basis, and approved by several corporate officers over a period of years.

And what you don't get is that that "vetting" that has been done by "several corporate officers" is both completely irrelevant, and is in no way required by FAA or CAP regulations.

W&B is 100% the responsibility of the Pilot-in-Command.  I don't care if a form has been "vetted" by God Almighty Himself, I, as the PIC, am still responsible for vetting the calculation myself.

You're the one that said:

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

There is neither a requirement for such vetting, nor is there any process for such vetting.

[Eclipse]

My wings W&B forms >have< been vetted, on a regular basis, and approved by several corporate officers over a period of years.

And what you don't get is that that "vetting" that has been done by "several corporate officers" is both completely irrelevant, and is in no way required by FAA or CAP regulations.

Don't think I ever said it was, though I have already pointed out why it should be.

You're the one that said:

Has this been vetted and approved by NHQ?

There is neither a requirement for such vetting, nor is there any process for such vetting.

Well, if it's not required, and there's no process, then the numbers must automatically be correct.  Carry on.

[a2capt]

It's ultimately the pilots problem if the data is not calculated correctly. The needed information is in each aircraft, specific to that aircraft. It's required to be there.

If you want to use a sheet of paper and draw the grid, do the math each time, or you want to use a spreadsheet that's on your phone, tablet, etc. Whatever. 

It's the pilots responsibility. When you get ramp checked, they might ask, "show me your weight and balance".. now if your tablet croaked, that's your problem. If your paper blew away..

"My battery died", the modern day "the dog ate it."

[JeffDG]

It's ultimately the pilots problem if the data is not calculated correctly. The needed information is in each aircraft, specific to that aircraft. It's required to be there.

If you want to use a sheet of paper and draw the grid, do the math each time, or you want to use a spreadsheet that's on your phone, tablet, etc. Whatever. 

It's the pilots responsibility. When you get ramp checked, they might ask, "show me your weight and balance".. now if your tablet croaked, that's your problem. If your paper blew away..

"My battery died", the modern day "the dog ate it."

If you're ramp checked in Part 91, all you need to show is that you have the aircraft's W&B information in the aircraft, not that you've calculated a specific W&B for a specific flight...that's the FAA regulations, not CAP.   The pilot is only required to be aware that the A/C is within W&B limits for the flight.  If you fly the same A/C within known limits frequently, there is no legal requirement that you do a W&B for each flight, simply knowing that "If the front passenger is under 400 pounds, and I'm under MGW and within limits." is sufficient for FAA regulations.

Part 135 and Part 121 have to do a specific W&B calc for each flight, but we don't operate under either of those regulations.

[Eclipse]

The only way to be aware of this is to use the wing's approved W&B forms.

No...the only way to be aware of this is if you look in the approved flight manual that is required to be carried in the aircraft.  That is the legal and official source of record.  Any other paperwork that you may have or distribute is caveat emptor.

There's no such thing as a "wing approved W&B form"

Just to circle back on this conversation - my wing, in fact, does have "wing approved" W&B forms which are tail-number specific, however they
are not mandated, and the onus remains on the pilot to ultimately insure the number are correct.

So we both get to be right.  I will stipulate to the hug having already occurred.

[SunDog]

Concur/confirm A2 & Jeff's remarks.  Wing, NHQ, have no role or responsibility in computing W&B; they're probably too smart to mandate use of a source for W&B that is other than the authoritative data in the airplane. They nearly gave birth when the FAA didn't like the squawk sheets in the airplanes - can't imagine they'd remain concious and up-right if FAA called and asked why they were dictating use of something other than the FAR's called for.

So, there is nothing official or approved about the data in Wing (or other folks) spreadsheets or web sites. It's kinda surprising they have the W&B spreadheets posted on the web sites - I think that's a good thing, and kinda gutty, actually.  Much as I grump, I do appreciate the effort.  I think it's a net gain for safety, and the avaition side of the house knows the data in the airplane is all that counts.

Again, great for planning, and swagging for a mission, but useless for doing a W&B you might have to defend to the FAA, or rely on for getting out of a hot, short runway.

Most of the time, there isn't an issue if you're going out with one or two guys in a C172 or C182 - unless the field is very short, high, and/or it's very hot. You know you're within limits, and performance available. I get a third person, I start doing W&B for real.

[JeffDG]

So we both get to be right.  I will stipulate to the hug having already occurred.

http://youtu.be/gollGYob57M?t=51s

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

And after the JeffDG and Eclipse commercial break, we're back 

Anyone have any more app comments 

[bigfootpilot]

I'm looking for a few folks to help beta test the next generation of iOS apps targeted for CAP members.

What I'm looking for:

• An avid pilot or aircrew member familiar with CAP procedures and regulations.
• Must have an iPad 2 or later running iOS 6 or later software.  I'm looking for a mix of iOS 6 and 7 testers.
• A medium level of technical knowledge.  Installing beta software requires special procedures and may not always be straightforward.
• A willingness to devote time to using the app and providing feedback as to what you like/don't like and any bugs you find along the way.

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, please send me a message and I will provide further instructions individually.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Very excited to see the new features!

[SarDragon]

I'm looking for a few folks to help beta test the next generation of iOS apps targeted for CAP members.

What I'm looking for:

   
• An avid pilot or aircrew member familiar with CAP procedures and regulations.
• Must have an iPad 2 or later running iOS 6 or later software.  I'm looking for a mix of iOS 6 and 7 testers.
• A medium level of technical knowledge.  Installing beta software requires special procedures and may not always be straightforward.
• A willingness to devote time to using the app and providing feedback as to what you like/don't like and any bugs you find along the way.

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, please send me a message and I will provide further instructions individually.

Thanks for your consideration.

I've passed this on to some local folks who aren't on this forum.

[bigfootpilot]

Thanks for all the volunteers - I have enough people for the beta test.  Look for a new product later this month.

[Storm Chaser]

If you end up needing additional Beta testers, I'm a professional Software Test Engineer. I specialize in military flight planning and squadron operations software.

I have an iPad mini with iOS 7.