Talk:Electronic flight bag

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Computing: Software / Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Request Examples and Pictures of EFB's

It might also be nice to have a list of devices that are NOT EFB's. Is a Garmin 496 and 696 an EFB? What is required for its use in Part 135 operations? Here's some interesting discussion: http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=588 . Guerrid (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Own Ship Position Display Prohibited for Class 1 and Class 2 EFB?

I believe it is factual to say that many operators are actively seeking to eliminate this prohibition. Can we also add a factual statement about who desires to keep the prohibition and their position as to why? Guerrid (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over simplified

This EFB article is short on facts and long on marketing hype. It requires a major and insightful rewrite, not just copy from other websites.

Much Improved

It looks like much of the "hype" has been removed since the last time I read it.

I also hate it when others edit my discussion posts.

Can of Worms

Now it's a can of worms. Who started this thing anyway? 1. EFB history goes further back a ways. 2. EFB Installation/Classification nuances between General, Business, and Transport Aviation required. 3. Benefits - There are specifc examples for specifc airlines, but not enough to make broad claims (strengths and weaknesses, implmentation hurdles maybe). 4. Better definition/links to other terms/acronyms. And that's just a start.

This Wiki stuff is hard

REAL PAPER SUBSTITUTE

The author writes the following sentence:

Regulations According to the FAA, Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 EFB may act as a substitute for the paper manuals that pilots are otherwise required to carry with them.

Once you become EFB approved, you can erase all the paper manuals yo carry on board. It is necessary to deal with your Civil Air authorities for how long you are required to provide the crews with both systems (paper + EFB) during the approval process (Leaflet 36 says that at least you are required to fly with both systems during 6 months). But then you are allowed to fly only with electronic documentation and no paper back up on board.

Find attached below the JAR Leaflet requirement:

7.7 Operational Evaluation Test The object of the Operational Evaluation Test will be to verify that the above elements have been satisfied before final approval of the EFB in place of paper documentation.

7.7.1 Initial Retention of Paper Back Up Where paper is initially retained as back up, the operational evaluation test will typically be conducted in two stages. The first stage should run in parallel with the equivalent paper format to verify the correctness and reliability of the system. This will normally be for a six-month period but may be varied at the discretion on the National Authority. The evaluation should include audits of the procedures used as well as checks on the accuracy of any computed data. On completion of the first stage a report should be sent to the National Authority who will then issue an approval for the use of the system in place of the paper format. As a precaution, the paper documentation must be retained during a second stage for use in the event of the EFB system not being available or any fault being detected with the system. When the National Authority is satisfied that the back-up procedures are sufficiently robust, approval may be given to allow removal of the paper documentation.

7.7.2 Commencement of Operations without Paper Back Up Where the applicant / operator seeks credit to start of operations without paper back up the operational evaluation test will consist of the following elements: • A detailed review of the operational risk analysis • A simulator LOFT session to verify the use of the EFB under operational conditions including normal, abnormal and emergency conditions. Items such as a late runway change and diversion to an alternate should also be included. This should be conducted before any actual line flights, as the outcome may need a change to the flight crew training and/or administrative procedures. • Observation by the authority of the initial line flights. The authority must also be satisfied that operator will be able to continue to maintain the EFB to the required standard through the actions of the administrator and quality assurance system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.135.163 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit deleting links to products & manufacturers in product section

As a pilot and aircraft owner looking to inform myself, I consider it vandalism to have deleted all of the links to the existing products. Request editors restore and re-format that section into a list.208.69.210.64 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic flight bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808162111/http://asginc.net/products.htm to http://www.asginc.net/products.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added citation to reliable sources (such as CASA) to ensure greater verification and there was excessive amounts of information so it was requested that some be relocated in which I located this and removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoooo1234 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]