Using an IPad on SAR Flights.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Can you use the IPad as an additional tool on SAR Missions?  Yes! 

Actually For those of you out there that are familiar with the King KLN 89B and 94 series GPS's, the same methodology used to create search patterns  in these GPS's can be used with Foreflight.   

By using Excel, create your data file in a table with lat/long of each point, then save the file as either a csv or kml file which can be uploaded to Foreflight through the iTunes sync function. 

Specific guidance can be found in this link. 

http://www.foreflight.com/waypoints

[JeffDG]

Provided, of course, you comply with 14 CFR 91.21 (b)(5).
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/5d4aefd672582d15852566cf006135dc!OpenDocument

[Cliff_Chambliss]

And your problem is???

1.  The Federal Aviation Administration is moving with the times, it would seem, as it has just granted the first approval for the use of iPads instead of paper charts for informing airline pilots while on duty. There are already a number of EFB (electronic flight bag) devices in use, however the iPad is by far the cheapest and most portable one that's been validated yet. Executive Jet Management, a charter flight operator, went through three months of testing with the iPad, wherein it was used by 55 pilots on 250 flights, in order to obtain its FAA license to rely exclusively on the Apple tablet for its in-flight mapping data.

2.  ...the company that produces most of the paper and electronic "Jepp charts" used by pilots for preflight planning and inflight navigation, announced late last week that jet charter operator Executive Jet Management has received authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to use the Jeppesen Mobile TC App for iPad as an alternative to paper charts.

3.  The configuration that was authorized by the FAA is a Class 1 portable kneeboard electronic flight bag solution, meaning that the iPad needs to be secured and viewable during critical flight phases. The iPad tests even included a rapid decompression test to 51,000 feet in altitude and successful non-interference testing on the evaluation aircraft.

Sec. 91.21
Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

[JeffDG]

Not a problem, trying to pre-empt the inevitable comment about portable electronic devices needing to be "approved".

That said, even though it's a low bar, the PIC does need to satisfy himself that there is no interference.

[Tom Ireland]

See this thread for search patterns in Foreflight:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16641.0

[Bayareaflyer 44]

I think utilizing a tablet during the mission is a huge plus.  Used Wingx on an iPad in a search last week in some very rough terrain.  Gave us amazing situational awareness and was the perfect compliment to using the GX-55.  It is also very useful in the debrief, since the user can quickly create waypoints of items of interest (like the GX-55) and bring the tablet to the debrief (unlike the GX-55).
Overall, I'm a big fan of using a tablet during a SAR activity (and more specifically to using WingX, hats off to Hilton) and intend to keep my iPad a part of my regular flight bag.

[Buzz]

Not a problem, trying to pre-empt the inevitable comment about portable electronic devices needing to be "approved".

I heartily approve of my use of portable electronic devices.

A few years back, flying commercial, I had my Bose ANR headset to use in the cabin.  The guy next to me got bent all out of shape when I didn't turn them off, and got REALLY bent out of shape when the cabin attendant told him "Those are the same kind that the Captain is using, so I'm pretty sure they won't interfere with the airplane systems."

[a2capt]

Use nicely cut pieces of electric tape to hide LEDs .. and pocket the battery box.

[rframe]

A few years back, flying commercial, I had my Bose ANR headset to use in the cabin.  The guy next to me got bent all out of shape when I didn't turn them off, and got REALLY bent out of shape when the cabin attendant told him "Those are the same kind that the Captain is using, so I'm pretty sure they won't interfere with the airplane systems."

Were you using a Bose aviation headset or the QC15?  I know quite a few airline pilots like to use the QC15 with the addition of the UFlyMike adapter, turning them into an aviation ANR headset.  I've been considering it myself as my next possible headset purchase.

[rframe]

What's funny about the portable devices thing is the FCC has actually told the FAA to stop telling people to turn off their tablets, as there's no technical basis for it.  The FCC was also going to do the same regarding cell phones but they are uncertain about the cell phone switching infrastructure, the concern is not about interference with aircraft systems.

[Buzz]

A few years back, flying commercial, I had my Bose ANR headset to use in the cabin.  The guy next to me got bent all out of shape when I didn't turn them off, and got REALLY bent out of shape when the cabin attendant told him "Those are the same kind that the Captain is using, so I'm pretty sure they won't interfere with the airplane systems."

Were you using a Bose aviation headset or the QC15?  I know quite a few airline pilots like to use the QC15 with the addition of the UFlyMike adapter, turning them into an aviation ANR headset.  I've been considering it myself as my next possible headset purchase.

This was back in the mid-1990s, when there was only one model of Bose ANR headset.  Big, black, clunky-looking things that worked miracles. 

I currently use (and like) a one-gen-back Lightspeed ANR headset, and there are other brands out there.

Whatever the brand, going from passive to ANR will be more difference than going from a WWII-surplus rubber and leather headset to the classic David Clark "mouse ears."  If ANR had been around when I was a kid, I wouldn't have this permanent ringing in my ears!

For the price of them, ANR headsets should be a REQUIREMENT for CAP aircrews.  Skip a few pizzas and save your hearing.  I'm even converting my HGU-55 to ANR headphones for flying open cockpits.

[Buzz]

What's funny about the portable devices thing is the FCC has actually told the FAA to stop telling people to turn off their tablets, as there's no technical basis for it.  The FCC was also going to do the same regarding cell phones but they are uncertain about the cell phone switching infrastructure, the concern is not about interference with aircraft systems.

Cell phones work by having the switching computer tell the phone which site to use.  That's why the phones are always sending, and why newer phones have GPS -- it's not for OUR use, it's for the computers to keep track of site performance.

The original concept for cell phones was cells about 1/4 of a mile in radius, and you see a lot of these in cities.  Now some number tens of miles in radius in rural areas.  The original analog switching systems expected phone signals to be so low-powered that the would only have to differentiate between 3 or 4 sites, keeping the "hot" site running and cutting power the to "colder" sites.  This worked fine until cell phones became popular with people other than executives and dope dealers (in 1989, it was estimated that over 75% of cell phones were used by the illicit dope trade), and this accelerated the release of digital phones (which use time-splitting to let many phones use the same frequency in the same cell signal footprint).

The issue today with airborne cell use is that a low-powered smartphone at 7500 AGL can illuminate sites up to 100 miles away, requiring the computers to tell all of those other sites to ignore the signal.  Each control "frame" uses bandwidth in the control links, and that bandwidth already has a job so this adds to the load.  The worry is that servicing thousands of airborne cell phones, tablets, etc will overwhelm the system and degrade or even kill service to terrestrial customers.

This isn't a real problem most of the places where we fly SAR, especially when we're down amongst the rocks and the trees, but imagine 800 passengers on an A380 all yakking away on their phones and streaming video on their tablets as they fly over Pittsburgh.  For just that one plane, the cell control backbone will have to juggle 1600 signals on each of over 45 THOUSAND cell sites in a dozen states and DC.

YHEEEH!  I like a challenge as much as the next guy, but . . !