Electronic Flight Bags, legality of electronic charts.

[Jack Tyler]

I thought some of Dave's comments deserved emphasizing:
-- a dedicated GPS usually provides more functionality *in the cockpit, when flying* than a tablet/phone/whatever running an app. E.g. I arranged a 'show & tell' on the subject of 'cockpit devices at this month's local EAA chapter here in Jax and, without exception, those who carried a 296/396/496 all swore they'd never abandon them despite their small screens for just this reason. So this 'more powerful tablet vs. dedicated gps' issue remains a common dilemma we all face because, as Dave also mentions briefly...
-- a tablet-type device can be married with other apps that make it useful for an amazing number of uses *outside* the cockpit. On the 'take a computer along' index, Patricia & I have migrated from a laptop (bulky and heavy by comparison) to a netbook (not all that objectionable) to bringing along nothing else since putting a few apps on the iPad. So...we get broader functionality overall and excellent + portable flight planning functionality but not quite the in-flight support a dedicated aviation gps provides. Which is why I still value the 496 on the glareshield.
-- of course, this puzzle is easily solved with money which is what Dave chose to do. He has the best of both worlds...but at a cost. The 795 + GDL 39 represents a cost of ~$3300 and that's *after* he bought and carries the iPad.
-- Subscription costs are about the same WRT Dave's choices and relatively small. That's a fairly remarkable turnaround from even two years ago. But of course, NOAA's other shoe has yet to drop...

[FrankR]

Since there is zero legal requirement to have charts in a light airplane, there is nothing that would make having a chart in a digital form legal or not.

Is there a difference in the §91.103 requirements between a Part 23 A/C and a "light airplane?" The requirments seem to apply equally to both.

§91.103 is a bit vague and doesn't specify exactly what "all available information" is. But there is a way to very clearly comply with this regulation. Whether or not you have an EFB, having a current paper chart and a current A/FD. No ambiguity.

I've learned alot about "risk management" and "liability exposure" since becoming a pilot. This seems like a no-brainer since it would allow an insurance claim adjuster to very easily check off a potentially contentious box, for about $15.

Hunk of metal at the end of the runway. The EFB is there but is damaged beyond repair. CTAF frequency at the airport recently changed. How can the adjuster determine if the charts are current in an EFB that won't operate. Don't we want to make his job easy?

Because we can fly without current charts, should we? Do we really want to give him an easy way to impovrish my widow?

Insurance seems to run the world.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Is there a difference in the §91.103 requirements between a Part 23 A/C and a "light airplane?" The requirments seem to apply equally to both.

§91.103 is a bit vague and doesn't specify exactly what "all available information" is. But there is a way to very clearly comply with this regulation. Whether or not you have an EFB, having a current paper chart and a current A/FD. No ambiguity.

I've learned alot about "risk management" and "liability exposure" since becoming a pilot. This seems like a no-brainer since it would allow an insurance claim adjuster to very easily check off a potentially contentious box, for about $15.

Hunk of metal at the end of the runway. The EFB is there but is damaged beyond repair. CTAF frequency at the airport recently changed. How can the adjuster determine if the charts are current in an EFB that won't operate. Don't we want to make his job easy?

Because we can fly without current charts, should we? Do we really want to give him an easy way to impovrish my widow?

Insurance seems to run the world.

Does 91.103 specifically require charts? No. There is a mention of requirements in part 91 Subpart F for charts, but that only applies to large and turbine powered aircraft.

I'm not saying its smart, just that its legal. If you're biggest worry is if the insurance company is going to pay out or not, surrender your license and don't touch an airplane ever again.

[jnmeade]

My sense is the insurance company would not explore this angle at all unless your behavior was particularly egregious. I wouldn't worry about that aspect.