CAP Preflight - Complete ORM and Weight & Balance from iPad

[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.